Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 29, 2017.

World Richest Cricketers[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 20:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No such list exists at target. Steel1943 (talk) 23:49, 29 November 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.

Badminton 1000 bc[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) 04:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what the "1000 bc" is supposed to represent. Steel1943 (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm assuming BC means Badminton Club, but that club named Badminton 1000 BC isn't notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:53, 30 November 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.

Basebasll[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 20:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how this is a likely misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment striking both the intended key and the key next to it seems like a reasonable typo; "a" and "s" are adjacent on QWERTY keyboards. If it were created yesterday I'd say delete it, but it's been around for ten years. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For some reason, when I see this redirect, I want to cook something with basil. Steel1943 (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very low usage (14 in 2 years) since stats started tracking the use [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 7 people a year seems like plenty, it's not like keeping a redirect is using up any real resources Fitnr 15:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator, not likely. 7 clicks a year doesn't seem like plenty.  — Scott • talk 14:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an implausible typo redirect. Clearly, no one intentionally searches for it. ToThAc (talk) 23:01, 7 December 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.

Template:R to surname[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. I've just completed the orphaning and 59.149 is right on with their assessment. -- Tavix (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something has to change here. As distinct from a redirect from a surname, a redirect to one could be all sorts of things, not necessarily an alternative name for the topic. Could this be repurposed or should it be deleted? My first thought was the latter, but I thought I'd bring it up for discussion. (Paging Paine Ellsworth.) --BDD (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, a redirect to any one template won't really work here; it should either be "promoted" to its own template & category (for which I don't see a good case, but I could be convinced otherwise), or orphaned and then deleted outright. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 08:03, 1 December 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.

Juli Briskman[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. FWIW, she's been readded to the article, and it's been stable since late November. -- Tavix (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete recently-created redirect on the woman who flipped off Trump's motorcade. It redirects to the article on her former employer, the company where she had worked as a contractor, NANA Development Corporation, which quite properly does not discuss her, and is not likely to do so, since this incident is so tangential to the company. The redirect is unhelpful to Wikipedia readers, because they are redirected to an article with no information on Briskman. TJRC (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: No need to strike out "her former employer". Per this reference, Akima LLC (NANA's subsidiary) is her former employer. You may have gotten confused by the fact that Akima is a government contractor and thought that Briksman was a contractor to Akima (or NANA). Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nom; the redirect creator has good-faith re-added material about Briskman into the company's article after I notified him of this RFD; I have deleted it. It is tangential to the company, and is an example of WP:RECENTISM. None of this is edit-warring; the editors who initially added the clause, deleted it, re-added it, and re-deleted it, are four different editors. TJRC (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was deleted as "tabloid" sourcing, but it has been reported by Fortune magazine, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and is still in the news today even though she was fired on November 6, 2017. The Gofundme campaign is ongoing as well as a wrongful termination lawsuit. People should be able to see the entry during a deletion discussion, so they can decide for themselves. Whenever we have a controversy/criticism at a company that gets this much media attention we add it, see General Electric, New York Times, and Fox News for example. --RAN (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It should not be in the article on the company. In the context of the company, where she was not even an employee, it is pure trivia and a fleeting news item. I don't dispute that it's been in the news, but Wikipedia is not a news repository; WP:NOTNEWS. If the individual and incident is not sufficiently notable for an article, it should not be shoe-horned into a barely related article. WP:COATRACK. Also, per WP:BRD, it should remain out unless/until there is a consensus reached to include it, but I don't wish to edit-war and will not re-delete it. TJRC (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reference calls Akima LLC, a subsidiary of NANA Development Corporation "her employer" and says that she was "in charge of Akima's social media presence". Therefore, it is not clear how you came to the conclusion that she was not even an employee. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling something trivia or trivial, just means, you personally have no interest in it. All sports information is trivia to me. All television show information for shows that I have no interest in, is trivia to me. --RAN (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, it is trivia to the audience of people interested in learning about the company, and who therefore go to an article about the company to learn about it. While sports information is indeed trivial to me as well, it is not trivial to a person reading a sports-related article; that's a different audience. TJRC (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrectly holding it to the standard of having its own article, not a mention in the article of the company that she worked for. --RAN (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm holding it to a standard of whether it should have a section in the article. There are many wrongful termination lawsuits on corporations as well as class-action lawsuits, and I don't see a List of such kept around on Wikipedia until there's sizable sections like McDonald's#Treatment_of_employees and McDonald's#Legal_cases. WP:PROPORTION applies within WP:WEIGHT: "This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a lawsuit is now under consideration. Although it's true that not all lawsuits are notable, per Wikipedia's notability policy this lawsuit would be notable since the circumstances surrounding it have been covered by numerous sources independent of the parties involved. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Per new reference, litigation is on the horizon, and even if she chooses not to file a lawsuit, her firing attracted enough media attention to merit inclusion in the company's article. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's WP:CRYSTAL to say keep, because there's likely litigation and then she will be notable. If she becomes notable, produce an article. But regardless, redirecting to the company where she contracted, to shoehorn in the Brinkman content is wrong. If she's notable, create the article; if she's not notable, delete the redirect and keep the company article clean. TJRC (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Juli Brinkman's notability is not relevant to this discussion. Nobody has claimed that she is notable and an article should be written about her. The fact that her firing was covered by many newspapers means that it is appropriate to include her firing in the article about the company (in this case the parent company) that fired her. This is independent of whether she will file a wrongful termination lawsuit.
This discussion is about the redirect from Juli Brinkman to the company. The case that I am making is that since it is appropriate to mention her name in the company's article, it is legitimate to have a redirect for her name to the company. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify, then: the only reason to redirect Juli Briskman to NANA Development Corporation is to coatrack a non-notable person into the article on the company. TJRC (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you came up with this coatrack argument. The essay in a nutshell says "Articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing". Having a single paragraph about this issue does not shift the focus. The paragraph is not about Juli Briskman, but about the company firing her, because that's what made the news. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:56, 29 November 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.

νew Υork City[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) 04:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This uses special characters for no reason, and is not in English. It is partially Greek and partially Latin, so is highly unlikely. νew Υork City - "νew υork City" (NUew UPSILONork City) is not a proper redirect use. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 03:37, 29 November 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.

丁[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 11#丁

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_29&oldid=1088106205"