Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 21, 2016.

Maricar Nepomuceno[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there is no reason to make a redirect for otherwise nonnotable member of a team. They can still be found be searching. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete professional volleyball team members aren't notable unless they're competing at the highest level like the Olympics WP:SPORTCRIT or have other secondary source data that makes them notable. WP:ATHLETE Recommend removing redlinks on that team. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Cunt With The Bell[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Was kept per a discussion 3 years ago, but since WP:Consensus can change I'm putting this back. Yes the site isn't censored, but this is not only derogatory search engine (to be fair) hardly turns up the subject in question. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added Tcwtb to the nomination. --BDD (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no mention of it in the article. Yes, he uses a bell, but that nickname isn't displayed in the article and does not have newspaper coverage that focuses on that moniker as with The Naked Guy. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not sure how it was kept last time around given the !voting and comments, strange decision by the closer... GiantSnowman 19:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    he got a lot of coverage in the media, search engine results gave the nickname the staying power. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per the above, not sure how it was kept last time, I don't see evidence for that in the previous discussion. Fenix down (talk) 09:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AngusWOOF.  — Scott • talk 14:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kesha Sebert v. Lukasz Gottwald[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. -- Tavix (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep my rationale simple: No reliable source has referred to the case as this name. editorEهեইдအ😎 17:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Firstly, this is a standard {{R from move}} - the article was at this title from creation in February until less than 5 minutes before this nomination - we keep redirects from moves to avoid breaking links (including ones from outside Wikipedia), bookmarks, search terms, etc. Secondly, this appears to be the official name of the case so it is and will remain a useful search term independently of this being the article's former location. Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's so, than why was there a citation needed tag for nearly three months in order for a source to be added that this was the official name of the case? and why do no reliable sources specifically refer to this case as "Kesha Sebert v. Lukasz Gottwald"? The point here is, if there is NO RELIABLE SOURCE that refers to the case as this specific name, it's definitely not the official name of the case and the article should NOT BE NAMED THIS AND NO REDIRECT NAMED THIS SHOULD EXIST, it's common sense. editorEهեইдအ😎 00:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it was common sense then people would not be recommending keeping the redirect (and there is never a need to shout). What name is used in reliable sources matters for the article title, but it is irrelevant to a redirect - what matters is whether this is a plausible search term (and per google results and per BDD below it clearly is). It is also where someone following a link or bookmark to the article, or finding it in a search engine or mirror that has not updated (some never do) following the extremely recent page move will be taken - deleting the redirect is therefore harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Please find the official name of the court case for it to be reconsidered. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Justia lists the previous case as Gottwald v. Sebert, 2016 NY Slip Op 30198(U), Feb. 2, 2016. The article says Kesha appealed, so that appeal would presumably be Sebert v. Gottwald.
(According to the 2015 calendar on the courts website, the full style of the earlier case was Lukasz Gottwald, presently known as Dr. Luke, Kasz Money, Inc. and Prescription Songs, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellants, against Kesha Rose Sebert, presently known as Kesha, Pebe Sebert, Vector Management, LLC, and Jack Rovner, Defendants-Respondents, M-1809, Index No. 653118/14.) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Richard de Souza[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete, G7. The creator of this redirect requested deletion one minute later. Please let me know if I've misread the situation. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong target - this should be for cricketer SFB 16:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which cricketer? If you want to write an article you can just overwrite the redirect without needing to delete it. If you want to delete this to encourage someone else to write an article, you need to say so as you currently appear to be suggesting a retarget to an unspecified article. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:ROPE[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Any requests to deprecate the target should be done at WP:MFD. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previously the worse WP:HANG was deleted, but this remains, which can still imply suicide if taken at face value (I read someone saying "apply WP:ROPE" - which would make sense in any other context, but it's still a violent metaphor)... 3 would presumably apply here... let's just leave LASTCHANCE as a redirect since it makes more sense directly, even if five letters longer... -- Mentifisto 11:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Isn't the rope metaphor integral to the way the essay is structured? And violent it is indeed, I really wish people would just use WP:STRIPES instead. Uanfala (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You think people are ready for another MFD? (First was somehow speedy keep...) -- Mentifisto 20:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to say, but it's definitely possible. Last time the nominator really just wanted a name change, and it was rejected. It was also before WP:STRIPES was written, so there wasn't an alternative essay to take its place. -- Tavix (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very widely referenced shortcut that gets 5-6 hits/day on average (sometimes up to nearly 40 a day, e.g. 38 on 29 May and 37 the day after) that is directly related to the essay title. If the essay is deleted then the shortcut can be renominated here if desired, but whatever the merits of that action deleting the redirect is not the way to achieve it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would get hits since it makes little sense before actually reading the article, but aren't shortcuts supposed to be pithy yet logical? How many misinterpretations could there have been? -- Mentifisto 01:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the name of the page is "Give 'em enough rope" I'd say that "WP:ROPE" was both pithy and logical (which are requirements I've not seen anywhere). Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Uanfala, this is pretty essential to that page. It sounds like you want to take the target page to MfD. As long as it stands, there are no problems with this redirect. For better or worse, any suicide or violent imagery is inherent in the page; that's not form the redirect. --BDD (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a pretty natural and logical redirect to the page based on its content. Your issue seems to be with the page itself, and you should bring it to MFD if you believe it that bad. Pinguinn 🐧 16:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its a widely used re-direct. It is pretty essential in that page. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Terrorism in Europe[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was moved. This solution seems to satisfy the most people who participated in this discussion. Some keeps were either purely procedural or were simply an argument why the redirect shouldn't be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Europe is a continent and the European Union is a union which not all members of Europe are a part of. Not to mention than many nations statuses in the union change, and some are no longer members while some now are, complicating things. Solution: Either delete Terrorism in Europe or change the title of Terrorism in the European Union to Terrorism in Europe. Beejsterb (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree As creator of the redirect under discussion, I agree with Beejsterb about changing ".. the title of 'Terrorism in the European Union' to 'Terrorism in Europe'." Nb. page was originally at 'List of terrorist incidents in Europe' [1]. – 220 of Borg 11:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep @Beejsterb: There are three problems with this RfD nomination. First, it was malformed. (which I fixed). Second, you didn't notify the creator, 220 of Borg (which I did). Third, move requests are out of scope of RfD. Please take your concerns to WP:RM. Pppery (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The nom mentioned a deletion of the redirect being a possible solution to their concern, so it's fine here. -- Tavix (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Malforming happens to me, too. I overlooked the temp when nominating a page but I corrected it. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pppery, I'm not certain how, but I certainly was aware of this discussion before you left the note on my talk page. 220 of Borg 09:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a shorter term for the long one. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Europe" is not a shorter term of "European Union" as they are two different things.Beejsterb (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search term per above, or overwrite with an article about the broader topic. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I apologize for any errors that I made, as this was the first time I have done this (someone suggested for me to do it).Beejsterb (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move article over the redirect per nom. I see no reason to exclude terrorism in non-EU European countries. --BDD (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn this redirect into an article, which would include terrorism in European countries which are not in the EU. Jim Michael (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move article over redirect per BDD. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_21&oldid=1088110170"