Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 21

March 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 21, 2017.

Guy Who Almost Got Run Over by Tank in Tiananmen Square

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) 13:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Who Almost Got Run Over by Tank in Tiananmen Square → Tank Man (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Seriously? The very embodiment of "implausible search term"; the only reason I haven't speedied it on sight is that it's somehow survived nine years so can't be considered "recently created". ‑ Iridescent 17:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see what is implausible about this, as the redirect took the 157 people who used it last year (including 45 on one day in July) to the exact article they were looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to sentence case. Guy who almost got run over by a tank in Tiananmen Square. This is not the title of the photo. The caption is here [1]. Delete the version as well as Guy Who Almost Got Run Over by a Tank in Tiananmen Square. The sentence-case version will still be able to attract searches. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. It's a bit of an odd search term, but evidently one that gets used (and isn't incorrect). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems better than Tank Man, which is quite vague. Per WP:NEO, "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." Andrew D. (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that it is used indicates it is a plausible search term and should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others, but it does need moving to sentence case per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Irish bailout of banks

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irish bailout of banks → Post-2008 Irish banking crisis (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It is not good to connext something such general, as"Irish bailout of banks", with a specific bank crisis. better not to have this redirect at all Kostas20142 (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland's only had one. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect should exist. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ireland has only bailed out the banks once afaiia and so this redirect is not ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the redirect is a misnomer—it was actually other countries bailing out the Irish banks—"Irish bailout" is a fairly common term for it, and since it's only happened once there's no ambiguity. ‑ Iridescent 17:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mukti (Newspaper)

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 no consensus. At least there's not consensus yet. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mukti (Newspaper) → Mukti (newspaper) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This disambiguator has no more affinity for being capitalized than any other. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 12:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an {{R from move}} and the content was at this title from creation in September 2012 for over four years until being moved in December last year. Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dab with the capital N not needed. Has not attracted a pile of links. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now but delete after a couple of years, when the likelihood of incoming external links has diminished. Is there a way to set a time delay to delete actions? – Uanfala (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not automatically that I know of. The closest I can think of is {{update after}} but that will only put it into a large maintenance category and a human will need to review why it was marked as needing update and determine the best course of action at that point. Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it's an R from move and there may be a chance (slim) of unforeseen consequences of a delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:COSTLY. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rough sex

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 28#Rough sex