Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 14, 2017.

Husbandries[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 Animal husbandry. [Additional comments.] Lenticel (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Neelix. Merriam-Webster lists another definition of "husbandry", which is more similar to Conservation. — Mr. Guye (talk) (My aftermath) 20:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:54, 14 May 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.

Cease (law)[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 no consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Neelix redirect. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other uses of the word "cease" in law. Likely XY. Delete. — Mr. Guye (talk) (My aftermath) 20:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is Cease often used independently of "desist" in law? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Neelix aside. There may be uses in law other than with "and desist", but "Cease and desist" is likely the clear primary topic of "Cease" as used with respect to law. bd2412 T 03:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
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.

Marjorie Garman[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 Charles Hargens because I do not see consensus to delete. -- Tavix (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie does not appear to have been one of the Garman sisters. See https://findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=30098685 DuncanHill (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; she seems to be an American painter who married Charles Hargens Hugo999 (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:45, 14 May 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.

Syrians in in the United Arab Emirates[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) 19:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as implausible typo for re-direct title. Loopy30 (talk) 22:13, 14 May 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.

Coty Inc Class A[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 no consensus for all redirects where the classifications are mentioned. The only outstanding delete !votes for them are appeals to WP:NOT and that specific argument has been disputed to the point where I do not see consensus to delete at this time. However, I do find consensus to delete those where the stock classification is not mentioned at the target, along with Eaton Vance Com Non Voting Corp. -- Tavix (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No discussions of these stock classifications at the various targets. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be little demonstrable harm in these redirects, unlike the other two batches of similar nominations on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 20 where it has been demonstrated that those titles are not in fact correct long names of those companies' stocks. As UnitedStatesian argued that WP:NOT ought not to apply to redirects, I'm relisting this main batch only to invite wider participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just noting post-relist that my argument had nothing to do with WP:NOT. There is no information whatsoever at the targets for these stock products, thus the redirects are misleading and should be deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have an opinion about these specific redirects, but I do strongly agree with user:UnitedStatesian that at least most of WP:NOT is about article content polices and so not relevant to redirects. This certainly applies to WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTCATALOG. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added references to the classes of stock to the Coty, Inc., CBS Corporation, Under Armour and Dillard's articles, and will get to the rest. I can't imagine anyone being misled by any of these redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be okay to keep the abbreviated or contracted names if they are commonly used, but I don't believe Class A and Class C should be included in those kinds of redirects. What about preferred stock and stuff? It's just a mess. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of these stock classifications are now mentioned and referenced. As they were nominated due to a lack of discussion, does this change anything?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment - if the creator is going to (or has) added these stock symbols to the target articles then I am neutral. I'm not convinced these redirects are particularly useful considering there's no information on the stocks represented by these symbols other than what company they represent, and I don't think that we would have this information in our articles other than exceptional circumstances. But WP:RFD#K5 is in play, readers browse Wikipedia in different ways, and using redirection to create a sort of behind-the-scenes stock ticker directory isn't entirely unencyclopedic. The exception here is Eaton Vance Com Non Voting Corp which is one of the truncated redirects that were deleted in a different discussion, which I seem to have grouped incorrectly; it does not seem to refer to a particular stock, is an unwieldly search term, and should be deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:46, 17 May 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.

Bold Games[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. Bold Games is now sourced in the article as being related to Destineer, which nullifies all arguments that have been brought forward in favor of deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bold Games is unrelated to Destineer, and the redirect title is nowhere to be found in the target article. Lordtobi (✉) 15:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unrelated topics and isn't discussed in the target article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this was present in the article from the start until removed by the nominator (without an edit summary) shortly before nominating it here [1]. After a very quick search I was able to verify that Bold Games was a Destineer brand, so I've added that to the article with a citation. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 15 May 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.

Westlake Interactive[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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Westlake worked on some ports by MacSoft, but they are not related; and the redirect title is nowhere to be found in the target article. Lordtobi (✉) 15:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A brief search suggests that Westlake Interactive might be notable enough for an article (would need more searching to be certain though) so redirecting it to a page it isn't mentioned on and is related to only a part of the business is not useful. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 15 May 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.

Sueleyman Nazif[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. (non-admin closure) feminist 04:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another turkey bred by eubot for the turkish Si Trew (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can find no evidence that this transliteration is in relevant use. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sueleyman is a valid, if dated, transliteration for the first name. [2] ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting, hopefully. No new comments appeared after the last relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar Knight. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - A bit of searching seems to provide multiple examples of this transliteration (although I'm not sure to what extent any of this is notable or even relevant), and given the vagueness I'd rather that we leave this be. It doesn't appear to be harmful in any way. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:42, 16 May 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.

Ichirō Itano[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 restore Ichirō Itano and retarget Ichiro Itano there. The blank-and-redirect has been objected to, so the former article has been restored. This is without prejudice against an AfD if someone still feels Itano isn't notable. -- Tavix (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ichirō Itano has made many other anime that shouldn't have him be redirected to just one anime. He has been director for other works too such as Angel Cop. While I'm unsure if he's notable enough for his own work, being redirected to Macross doesn't seem to be the best solution. GamerPro64 16:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The director's article was changed to a redirect back in 2010 for not being notable. His Macross work is notable but he was at most an episode or animation director, although for multiple titles in that franchise and the article wouldn't be able to survive on that only. However, he created Angel Cop, and lead directed on Battle Royal High School and Megazone 23, these are OVAs. This also affects Ichiro Itano (no macrons). He also appeared in the US for an anime convention so if that's decent secondary source coverage, he could be made into an article if someone wants to put in that effort. The JA wikipedia article is more substantial ja:板野一郎. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:03, 14 May 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.

RISC-based computer design approach[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 no consensus. The phrase, though used in sources, appears too long and descriptive to be plausible as a search term. The matter then hinges on the actual amount of use, but data about this is not available at present. I suggest waiting at least a couple of months before renominating so that reliable pageview stats become available. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is a phrase that is nonsensical technobabble. It is almost entirely certain that nobody would type this phrase into the search bar because "RISC" would suffice. This redirect is used only once at ARM architecture (at the start of the lead's second paragraph, where it is redundant to the lead's first paragraph. This redirect was created by a user banned for creating large numbers of nonsensical redirects (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947#OVERLINKING and redirect problems). Most have been deleted, but it appears this one was missed.

Note: I was blocked for a while after I was mistaken for the user responsible for this redirect (User:50504F#Unblock request). 50504F (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC) 50504F (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - this redirect's 10-ish hits per day is probably related to the extant link, which could just be piped to the target article. I have done so, to see if the hits drop significantly as a result. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As a result of this redirect being unlinked from the target article, Pageviews Analysis reports that there have only been three hits on this redirect since 6 May, and there haven't been any hits since 8 May. I've also removed the phrase from the target article by clarifying the paragraph where the phrase was used, so this redirect is now useless. 50504F (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer This is continuing to get 1-2 hits most days, but it is impossible to tell whether these are coming from this RfD listing or from elsewhere. As the redirect is not harmful or misleading, it's probably best to close it without action for now and take another look at the stats in 2-3 months to see what the traffic is like without the internal link and without RfD's influence. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yeah, I kind of understand how this phrase can be formed by reading the article, but it does seem implausible. -- Tavix (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This exact phrase, or similar enough phrases do get used in books on the subject. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Redirects aren't for redirecting phrases that refer to a topic to an article about that topic. WP:Redirect#Purposes of redirects gives the appropriate uses for redirects. 50504F (talk) 08:23, 28 May 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.

Category:UK MPs 2015-2020[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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early end to the parliament and the move of all MPs to the 2015-17 category means there's no likelihood of this unused redirect being needed in the future. Cabayi (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - renamed and depopulated category. I think we may need a new speedy deletion criterion for these, WP:C1 technically doesn't apply because these are not actual categories. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:52, 17 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_14&oldid=1143743272"