Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 1, 2017.

The Irregular Drivers[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) 01:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this is an alternative title. —Farix (t | c) 20:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete obscure term not discussed in article, which it itself is a somewhat non-notable anime title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and AngusWOOF. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:11, 4 September 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.

The Irregular Machinists[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) 01:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this is an alternative title. —Farix (t | c) 20:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete obscure term not discussed in article, which it itself is a somewhat non-notable anime title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and AngusWOOF. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:12, 4 September 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.

Space Kraken[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 Kraken in popular culture. (non-admin closure) feminist 11:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target - implausible search term PRehse (talk) 20:06, 1 September 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.

AMG Sebastiani Basket Rieti[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 AMG Sebastiani Basket. (non-admin closure) feminist 11:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AMG Sebastiani Basket (which operated from 1946 to 1997) is a different basketball team from Nuova AMG Sebastiani Basket (which operated from 1998 to 2009). They were both Rieti's main basketball team, and the latter was founded when the first one went bankrupt, but they are definitely different teams (see the Italian Wikipedia where they have different pages). The only thing they share is the name (and only in the latter's last years, since the team was initially called Virtus Rieti). So the redirect page should be deleted until someone writes an article about the AMG Sebastiani Basket team. I already tried to report this last year (see), but it took a month to tell me I was in the wrong place. Today a different user blanked the page but was reverted. I hope we'll finally sort this out. Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 16:26, 1 September 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.

Jewish flag[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. There is consensus that this term is used to refer to the flag of Israel and that there is no better target for the redirect to point to. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect I believe is not neutral and is also incorrect and should be deleted. Jewish and Israeli are not synonyms, 18% of Israeli citizens are Muslims 2% are Christians and 2% are Dreuze. Domdeparis (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as books and education materials refer to this flag as the Jewish flag. [4] like this one that describes an incident in 1918 [5] It attracted attention recently when someone made an LGBTQ version of it for pride week as 'Jewish pride flag" [6] . Flag of Israel article covers the early origins of the flag prior to 1948. Here's an entry from The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia for Jewish Flag [7] which could be used in case someone wanted to research Jewish flags in general and develop a stand-alone article, although most of the history is covered by the Flag of Israel article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Angus, my findings are that this is a common alternative or incorrect name for the Flag of Israel. As an aside, I appreciate the nominator providing information on Hinduism in Israel in the nomination. -- Tavix (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tavix there is no need for such WP:POINTY comments, but you will note the nomination doesn't provide information about Hinduism as it is not mentioned and the other groups do not add up to 100% so no reliable inference can be drawn. Thryduulf (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hopefully you're starting to catch on how ridiculous your argument is. Of course there isn't information about Hinduism provided, that would be, well, ridiculous. By the way, we're not allowed to make inferences when we edit, so it's illogical to force our readers to do likewise. -- Tavix (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepper the above, also note that there was no valid reason for deletion provided by the nominator. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no such thing as a recognised "Jewish flag", and certainly no reliable identification with the flag of Israel. Most of the refs cited above do not make such an identification; indeed, the encyclopaedia article cited explicitly does not make such an identification, and states that the state of Israel did not adopt any previous Jewish flag. The only cited source to make such an identification seems to be a high-school worksheet, which is hardly a reliable source. This is a controversial redirect, and would require much stronger sources before it could be acceptable. RolandR (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on further research I find that in the past there has been an officially recognised "Jewish flag". RolandR (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The identification of "the Israeli flag" as "the Jewish flag" and/or "the flag of Judah" is something that's indeed under political dispute now, and it's part of a historical debate that's gone on for decades upon decades not just among Jews but among all kinds of commentators (this piece titled "To Fly or Not To Fly" gets into the tense, mixed emotions). At the same time, redirects are allowed to be non-neutral, and they may even not be strictly accurate. In this case, I'm seeing plenty of reliable source reporting on the link and describing it as a direct thing. Besides what's referred to above, there are encyclopedia references such as this and articles from higher educational institutions such as this (note Netanyahu in the background). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RolandR. While the links provided above clearly show that the Israeli flag is in some sense a Jewish flag, and has been or is considered to be a Jewish flag, and is based on or inspired by earlier Jewish flags, they also point to a degree of complexity in those relationships that is occluded by this redirect, which makes it potentially confusing or misleading for the reader. I would support keeping the redirect if there were any discussion in the target article of the Israeli flag's status as a Jewish flag, but at present the term "Jewish flag" appears nowhere in the article. In my view a redirect from one term to an article on a related but distinct term, when that article contains no information on the relation between the two terms, ought to be deleted per WP:RDEL#2 and WP:ASTONISH. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Other editors in this discussion have shown that reliable sources refer to the Israeli flag as the Jewish flag; indeed, the Israeli flag is seen as a symbol of Jewish peoplehood around the world. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That source explicitly does not state that the Israeli flag is the "Jewish flag"; rather, it notes that the six-pointed star has historically been a Jewish symbol. In fact, the source seems to argue why the Israeli flag should be displayed alongside the US flag, even though neither is a Jewish symbol. RolandR (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I cited that source to show that Jewish communities use the Israeli flag as a symbol of their shared culture and heritage. In any event, if you are looking for sources that explicitly describe the Israeli flag as the "Jewish flag," see this (cited by CoffeeWithMarkets above), this, this at p. 7, this, and this. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, the first of these sources does not identify the flag of Israel as "the Jewish flag". All four of the others are making an explicitly political argument in an attempt to identify "the state of Israel" with "the Jewish people". These are thus polemical assertions, not historical fact, and they cannot be used as reliable sources for such a contentious and challenged claim. RolandR (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from non-neutral name}}. Best target for the search term "Jewish flag". feminist 11:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not care if it is commonly used or not. It is WRONG. I know we have mispellings, etc as redirects, but I mean this is WRONG and having a redirect appears to show WP endorsing the idea of Israel's flag being the flag of the Jews. Israel IS a Jewish state but it does not represent all Jews. Muslim flag does not redirect to the Flag of Turkey, even though it has a crescent moon on it. This is objectively wrong and I can't understand any support for this. Yikes. Consensus or not, please let common sense prevail here, closing admin. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:46, 11 September 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.

Upcoming Bangsamoro creation plebiscite[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) 01:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No longer upcoming (2014). Jc86035 (talk) 14:31, 1 September 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.

Upcoming Slayer studio album[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) 01:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Album is no longer upcoming (released 2015). Target could keep changing similar to Opinion polling for the next German federal election, but it doesn't really make any sense to do that since unannounced albums usually don't have articles. Jc86035 (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This would obviously be confusing seeing as I'm sure it'll be another three years minimum, probably longer before another Slayer album comes along. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:23, 9 September 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.

Upcoming Sum 41 sixth studio album[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No longer upcoming, so it doesn't make any sense. There are no links to this page. Jc86035 (talk) 14:28, 1 September 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.

Upcoming The Narrative second studio album[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No longer upcoming, so it doesn't make any sense. There are no links to this page. Jc86035 (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Thanks for rounding these up. I wonder if it would be worth proposing an article title guideline warning against these sort of titles, which inevitably become incorrect and often end up at RfD, and perhaps suggesting instead that titles take the form Tavix suggests below. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any article that's been out for three months should probably have this deleted. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hammer completed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:18, 9 September 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.

Upcoming Kendrick Lamar fourth studio album[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No longer upcoming, so it doesn't make any sense. There are no links to this page. Jc86035 (talk) 14:26, 1 September 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.

Interdisciplinary Design for the Built Environment (IDBE)[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 11:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary disambiguation – anyone searching for it will anyway find Interdisciplinary Design for the Built Environment first Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:25, 1 September 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.

America/Indiana/Knox[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 Time in Indiana. (non-admin closure) feminist 11:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 16#Europe/Luxembourg to delete similarly-named pages probably applies. Article titles could plausibly refer to the cities themselves. Jc86035 (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I agree that the naming convention is a little confusing, but the current target explains the meaning and context of these titles. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Notecardforfree: If we are to keep them I would prefer retargeting them to either the actual places or Time in Indiana. Aside from the complicated time zone history they're not that different from the ones which were deleted previously, and we wouldn't create redirects for entries in other arbitrary databases like Q2013 → Wikidata. Jc86035 (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Jc86035, that's a good point. To be honest, I don't have particularly strong feelings about these and I wouldn't lose any sleep if they were deleted. That said, I do think that Time in Indiana is probably the best target for these, as it gives readers the most information about these time zone designations. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Time in Indiana, which has some information on each of these. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all per Arms & Hearts. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 5 September 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.

Upcoming LCD Soundsystem fourth studio album[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 both. Consensus is to delete both pages, including the Draft-space one. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The album has been released, and so is no longer "upcoming" anymore. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree it's no longer upcoming, but the title was valid in the past. Keep if only to avoid breaking old links. —Guanaco 02:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Upcoming LCD Soundsystem fourth studio album per nom; Keep Draft:Upcoming LCD Soundsystem fourth studio album per WP:RDRAFT. Steel1943 (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom as it's no longer upcoming. For future reference, when creating an unnamed future album article, first read WP:HAMMER. If there's enough sources to proceed, there's no need to include the word "upcoming". LCD Soundsystem's fourth studio album is descriptive enough, is unambiguous, and won't go out of date when the album is released. -- Tavix (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. My understanding of WP:RDRAFT, and the RfC on which it's based, is that it says we shouldn't delete redirects from the Draft namespace solely because they're from the Draft namespace (because there's no good reason to do so and because WP:CHEAP). The information page is not as clear as it could be, but the consensus at the RfC isn't for a blanket prohibition on deleting redirects from the Draft namespace, but rather would allow them to be deleted when there are other good reasons to do so, as there is in this case. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both Improbable redirect. Unclear why anyone would type that into the search bar. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hammer completed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:18, 9 September 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_September_1&oldid=1136448022"