Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 11, 2016.

May 2, 2011[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. Just Chilling (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a great deal of precedent on how to treat single-day redirects; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#August 9 1974. While bin Laden's death was probably the single most notable event of that day, it also marked the start of the 2011 Germany E. coli O104:H4 outbreak. After thinking a moment, I could've told you bin Laden died in May 2011, but not the date; I don't think it's ubiquitous in the way 9/11 or even 7/7 are. Retargeting to May 2 is an option if we take that earlier date as precedent, but we might also deem bin Laden's death a sort of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. BDD (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess single-date redirects have an WP:XY problem with Month Day vs. Month Year. In this case, there's more relevant content at May 2, but there's no guarantee that would be the case with other dates, or even that it always will be with this one. --BDD (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not need to spoon feed readers, mostly so when we do not even have a good clue of what they are looking for and we are sure they are perfectly capable of serching for it - Nabla (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 25 March 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.

Coffity[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 - Nabla (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This took some digging. Coffity is a restaurant in Abbottabad, but it's not mentioned at the target article, and probably never was (it wasn't there when the redirect was created). The redirect is tagged as of interest to WikiProject Uttar Pradesh (India); I have no idea why. BDD (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as potential article although we might need to get a local editor to help us with that. According to this source, it became an improvised newsroom for media people due to access to free WiFi and to the locals. --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:54, 18 March 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.

Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy[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. To address QuackGuru below (I can't tell if that was a question or a statement), a redirect can indeed be deleted here regardless of how much history it may have. Editors are free to argue that those with substantial history should actually be retargeted or whatever, but if someone turns an article into a redirect and that's not reversed through BRD, sure, it can end up here. I'd suggest, however, that it's bad form for the same user to redirect and then nominate here, which would give the appearance of an end-run around AfD. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:UNDUE. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not news. There are BLP concerns with the redirect. QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does discuss accusations, but the word "controversy" implies culpability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per requirements of WP:BLP regarding use of "assault" (as an accusation of a specific crime) where there is insufficient reliable sourcing to make any claim that this is past simple "mooning" and no civil nor criminal actions treating this incident as a "crime" are shown. Collect (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lizard (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Violates WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, and of course WP:POVFORK. Tracescoops (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. There is an article in the edit history. An admin can decide if it is appropriate to delete a redirect even if there is an article that was redirected without a merge or AFD discussion. To be clear, I reverted User:Graeme Bartlett and asked at the BLP noticeboard if the redirect can be nominated for deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. & all of the above.--JayJasper (talk) 18:51, 14 March 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.

Thoughtful conservatism[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 - Nabla (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that there is any discreet school of thought known as "thoughtful conservatism", nor that it would necessarily be synonymous with compassionate conservatism. It's not mentioned at the target article. BDD (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - You could put any positive adjective before an ideology and do this ("thoughtful socialism", "positive liberalism", "contemplative progressivism", etc). As pointed out above, there's not a school of thought that's really used this as a term. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. To use a Wiktionary standard, it's not an idiomatic phrase. Social conservatism means something; it's not just "conservatism" which is "social". By contrast, I don't think this means anything besides conservatism someone thinks is "thoughtful". --BDD (talk) 15:56, 18 March 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.

Progressive conservatism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 24#Progressive conservatism)

Talk:Ferdinand Ries Symphony No. 7[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 Blanked the page. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect. We don't redirect the talk page of an article to the article itself. Stefan2 (talk) 13:01, 11 March 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.

Progenitors[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 retarget to progenitor. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Progenitor as {{R from plural}}. Added a hatnote at each target which serves to disambiguate.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:13, 11 March 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.

Pi5[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 retarget to Phosphorus pentaiodide. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 16:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would Pi5 Orionis be a better target? sst✈ 05:40, 11 March 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.

Seongoo Kim[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) 18:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible misspelling. Seongoo Kim 김선구 versus Kim Seong-su 김성수. Sawol (talk) 05:39, 11 March 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.

Hari Georgeson[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. Treat this as a withdrawal as I now see how this redirect is useful. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 16:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a useful search term. sst✈ 05:27, 11 March 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.

Mexican grand family[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 withdrawn. Steel1943 (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Grand family" doesn't appear be a term used in anthropological kinship. Perhaps it is based on a literal translation. At the least, not a common synonym. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed that occurrence to "extended". I unified terminology to be consistent within the article when I merged the Mexico content there from a stub, I missed that one.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Godsy, did you delete the term because it was used improperly in the article? It seems like the term "grand family" is a term used fairly frequently in sociological literature to describe a specific family dynamic that exists in Mexico (see, e.g., the book listed in my previous post as well as this book, this book, and this book). If a reader wants to know more about the term, I think that we should direct them to an article that talks about familial dynamics in Mexico. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Notecardforfree: I removed it because, if I remember correctly, it was never defined. If you want to throw a couple of those sources in as references in and describe the term within the section, I'll go ahead and withdraw this nomination. Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Godsy: I added a paragraph to Extended family#Mexico that describes the concept of the "grand family." Let me know if you think I should include anything else. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn per the developments in the above discussion.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:29, 13 March 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.

Soul pond frogs[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) 18:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not spread error. (Neelix) sst✈ 01:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Agree with nominator that this is spreading error. Since the frog only exists in Korea this is not a likely typo or homonymic error, and in fact "soul frog" has a completely different meaning (cf. Google). Softlavender (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all agree these are not helpful at all. Legacypac (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check it out now, the funk soul pond frog... --BDD (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - not a French soul singer, and not a frog all on its own. Neelix seems to have a fetish for adding "pond" to generic frog names. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:29, 12 March 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_March_11&oldid=1146031008"