Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 23, 2017.

Notability (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 delete. SQLQuery me! 19:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target article does not discuss notability in the context of law, so this redirect may be seen as confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Could definitely be seen as confusing as the redirect currently redirects to an unrelated topic (with same name). If not delete, then I would have to say to retarget the redirect to somewhere more appropriate. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 'Public figure' is about whether or not somebody is notable in a legal context, although said page needs a lot of work. Possible retarget option? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At first, I thought we may want to retarget this to List of Latin phrases (B)#bona notabilia, but I after thinking about this further I think that could potentially cause further confusion. I also think there is potential for people to enter this term when looking for information about Judicial notice, so its probably best to not create red herrings. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:37, 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.

Luchthaven JFK[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. SQLQuery me! 19:46, 30 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.

YMCA (diving organization)[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) 19:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems misleading to label YMCA as a "diving organization". If disambiguation is desired, YMCA (organization) would be sufficient. -- Tavix (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete so it has diving programs, doesn't mean the organization is based on diving. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete YMCA is not a diving based organization (per the above) and, therefore, this redirect does not make much sense. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:40, 24 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.

Young Men's and[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. SQLQuery me! 19:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and what? The name of the organization is "Young Men's Christian Association" so I'm not sure what the "and" would refer to. -- Tavix (talk) 19:04, 23 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.

Brexit redirects[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 split decision. Despite Nyttend's comment, it's not that hard to sort out where consensus lies for these:
Keep: Brixit, BRIXIT, BrExit. Multiple people have specifically called these out as good redirects for various reasons.
No consensus: Bregsit. It's been singled out to keep as phonetically equivalent, although not as much as others.
Retarget Brecession to Economic effects of Brexit
Delete the rest.
Finally, I'll leave you with this blog post, which has a humourous take on most of these redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have to admit, a lot of these redirects are very amusing indeed. But most if not all are not encyclopaedic, and should be deleted. --Nevé–selbert 20:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no specific need for a redirect to be encyclopaedic, I can't see any that particularly breaks the RfD guidelines. --Topperfalkon (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was understating matters. Frankly, these redirects are absurd and totally unprintworthy.--Nevé–selbert 02:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Brixit as WP:TNT, and add back only ones that are either mentioned in the article or are feasible from WP:RTYPO. This isn't a "What does IBM stand for" catchall for possible names of the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC) updated 20:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Brixit spelling is used regularly in news articles [1] [2] [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. They are individually and collectively notable enough for redirects Deku-shrub (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Brixit, BRIXIT and BrExit as old, harmless redirects that have been used and remain (no pun intended) at least somewhat plausible search terms. Retarget Brecession (which has been used off-wiki) to Economic effects of Brexit. No opinion on Bregsit, Brexitite or Brexitites. Delete the rest because 1) as search terms, they range from implausible to very implausible (Bremoaner is getting page views, but that's about it; and even Bremoaner is not explained in the target article) and 2) per the article Deku-shrub cited, they weren't even created to make the encyclopedia better, and treating mainspace as a plaything should always be discouraged. At best it's mass creation of cheap redirects, which should also be discouraged; the thing about cheap redirects is that they're costly but deleting them is also costly. Sideways713 (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Brixit, BRIXIT, BrExit, and Bregsit as all being maybe plausible mistakes (after all, a lot of non-English speakers use this website, and every single one of them phonetically matches to "Brexit"). I agree that Brecession should go to Economic effects of Brexit. I'd delete the rest. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Brixit, as it is a plausible typographical error. Delete the rest. There is no need to capitalize “Brixit” (BRIXIT), “Bregsit” seems like a very unlikely typo, and I don’t see why anyone would just capitalize the “e” in “Brexit” (BrExit). ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 22:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep all. As most of the votes up above are split between keeping some and deleting some, I think a batch nomination was unwise. No complaint about the nominator, who probably didn't expect that everyone would split votes in different directions; that's just how things work sometimes. Please immediately renominate any redirect that you still wish to see deleted. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 26 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.

Cake Day[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. The rough consensus is that readers are best served by revealing search results in this case. Disambiguation was considered but most participating editors did not find it a satisfactory solution. Deryck C. 11:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology is not unique to Reddit. It is occasionally used for standard birthdays as well as other websites such as Imgur. Reference — IVORK Discuss 15:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget Cake day to List of food days which has a listing of a bunch of cake days including National Cake Day. Delete cakeday. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC) updated 20:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these national food days are referred to as “Cake Day” alone. They are referred to as “National Pancake Day,” “National Chocolate Cake Day,” etc. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 17:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be better to retarget to Cake#Special-purpose_cakes to cover multiple occasions. There are events when companies have a cake day for employees who celebrate a birthday in a month. [4] [5] or birthdays in general [6] [7] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC) updated 20:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no mention of "cake day" at Imgur at present, so that is not a valid disambiguation page entry. Second, please don't remove the rfd notice while discussion is in process. older ≠ wiser 20:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per my reference listed above in the main reasoning for RfD, that shows Imgur officially recognizes the term, however I didn't think it important enough to include in the article. — IVORK Discuss 07:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the search were for "Reddit Cake Day" or "Imgur Cake Day" or "Corporate cake day", then it could go to the specific sections, but the general one should go to a general listing, so perhaps a dab page would be helpful as all of those versions seem to be PTM's now. Problem is that the particular Cake Day redirects would have to be created. I put in a starting dab list in the meantime. But without a primary topic, I don't know if it will be that helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC) updated 20:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that cake day is not listed in the online Wiktionary or Merriam-Webster. [8] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to reveal search results. This is too vague to be disambiguated, and the search results are pretty relevant to most usage (besides Reddit or Imgur since there's no mention of "cake day" at either article). -- Tavix (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. In addition to the generic meaning discussed above, "cake day" can also refer to Hogmanay [9]. There appear to be various specific cake days, like the Moon Cake Day in China, or the Chocolate Cake Day in Germany and these could be included in the "see also" of the dab page. I'd be fine with deletion too, as the search engine does a relatively decent job of throwing up the relevant results. – Uanfala 11:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Tavix - Nabla (talk) 14:13, 1 July 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.

Menv[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 4#Menv

Wikipedia:System bias[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 Wikipedia:Systemic bias. --BDD (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:43, 23 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_23&oldid=1140159338"