Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 23, 2018.

IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDÆORVM[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. Per below, useful redirect ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, was deleted before [1] 344917661X (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is the Latin of which the English page title is a translation (WP:FORRED is thus easily passed), and the page view statistics show that this is being consistently used, so it's clearly useful (WP:RFD#K5). The previous RfD was a close call between delete and retarget to INRI (which these days is a redirect to this target), and I would have closed it as that had I seen it at the time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The page is getting barely any traffic[2] and the page only started getting traffic once I nominated it for deletion, sure it's the latin version of the page, but as I said before, nobody is using the direct and when nobody uses a direct, there's not point in having one. 344917661X (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And sure, redirects from foreign languages should be allowed, but no one speaks latin and I have never heard anyone refer to Jesus, King of the jews in that latin spelling, also barely anyone uses the AE symbol. 344917661X (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While Latin is not a commonly spoken language, it is a language that is very commonly used in inscriptions and for a topic like this the sources people could find this in go back centuries and it is entirely likely that someone could find this term in (or referring to) an old source and want to find encyclopaedic information about it. The stats show that 17 people visited this year (before this nomination) and 24 people used the redirect last year so deletion would inconvenience these users while benefiting nobdoy. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But how many of those page visitors got there solely because this was offered as a choice in the search window due to its existence? I suspect most if not all of them did. If this redirect didn't exist, they would almost certainly all have gotten to the correct page by clicking on a more likely capitalization without a ligature in the middle, probably without even noticing or caring about the capitalization. P Aculeius (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to know how many people used a particular redirect for any given reason, but we know that there are many ways of getting to the article they want, and not everybody uses any single one of them (including the internal search box) and not all of them offer search suggestions. Anyway, even in the extremely unlikely event that everybody using this redirect did get there via a search suggestion, what benefit would arise from deleting it? Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as a Latin phrase it's likely to be searched for; but why in all caps? I could see someone searching for it in title case, but not in all caps; and even if someone tried to search for it in all caps, the uncapitalized version would still offer itself as a search target. Is it necessary or desirable to have a separate redirect for every possible capitalization? P Aculeius (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether someone sees the search results straight away or has to go through several clicks in order to find them depends on how they search and browse, what client/device they are using, whether there was a page previously at that title, what editing rights they have, and other factors. In this case its relatively unlikely they are using the internal search bar (case insensitive, almost always displays search results) vs following a link (case sensitive, display of search results variable), copy and paste (variable), or other methods (variable, obviously) so there is a clear benefit to a redirect. It's not necessary to create redirects from every possible capitalisation but some are very clearly desirable (e.g. WHAM!, Paypal, NTbackup) while others are clearly not (e.g. HiGh ScHoOl MuSiCaL, MERCURY (PLANET), Queen elizabeth ii of the united kingdom) - each needs to be judged on its own merits, but if a capitalisation is plausible (and Latin inscriptions are very commonly rendered in all-caps, so this is), the redirect was created in good faith by a human (nothing to suggest otherwise in this case) and it is getting used (this is) then there is never going to be any benefit to deletion and at leas some benefit to keeping. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not the Latin, but the all-caps, ae-ligature, use of V for U (they are the same letter in Latin but this is still an idiosyncratic spelling in modern usage) that makes this an unlikely-to-be-used and therefore delete-worthy redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments he made suggesting the redirect be kept are invalid because nobody is visiting the page and for reasons I metioned under his keep comment. 344917661X (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per the links I've just provided above, 17 people have used the redirect so far this year and 24 people used it last year - that is an order of magnitude more than nobody. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's mentioned in the article in this format (twice). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After reading all the arguments opposing this deletion, I have had a change of heart and I don't want this page to be deleted, but it is far too late for me to withdraw, so I will let more people comment and see what happens. Thanks to Thryduulf for changing my mind. From the nominator. 344917661X (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2018 (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.

Watkins-Pitchford, D. J. (Denys James), 1905-1990[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond unlikely as a search term. Pichpich (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, this makes sense. I'm retracting the nomination. Pichpich (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2018 (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.

Star Wars and the theory of plagiarism[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. It's not a story enWiki would tell you... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The target article began as an attack page which accused George Lucas of plagiarism, and both of these titles are artifacts of previous page moves involving the attack content. However, the present article has not contained any accusations of plagiarism for over a decade, nor should it have such content in the future. Therefore, redirecting from the former non-neutral titles is inappropriate attack content. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. These redirects are neither non-neutral nor attacks, referring simply to the existence of a theory about plagiarism in relation to Star Wars, without specifying how it relates or how correct or otherwise it is. The first one could easily also be about how Star Wars is used to illustrate a theory about the general topic of plagiarism that makes no accusations that Star Wars was plagiarised. However, as we have no content about any such theory the redirects are not useful as people using them will not be educated about what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as "theory of plagiarism" or "plagiarism theory" are non-notable neologisms. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:31, 25 June 2018 (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.

Tian'anmen West Statioonn[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bunch of misspelled redirects - implausible and not necessary PRehse (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Created in a series of hapless moves earlier today. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The history at this title is complex and goes back a lot further than just today, such that I'm not comfortable speedy deleting it as G6, but it is not a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Typo redirect unlikely to be of any use. --DBigXray 14:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:RTYPO multiple typos at the end. Double o and n. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:32, 25 June 2018 (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.

Tian'anmen West Statioon[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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. Clearly created in error.Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bunch of misspelled redirects - implausible and not necessary PRehse (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Created in a series of hapless moves earlier today. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2018 (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.

AYY[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 disambiguate. Much obliged to 59.149, as usual ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix redirect) Propose retargeting to LOL or another related topic. The common usage for "ayy" is the expression, as in "ayy lmao". Note that Ayy is a red link, so the university is what readers would get by typing in "ayy". feminist (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2018 (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.

Carrie Alexander[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 2#Carrie Alexander

Failure of John the Baptist[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 John the Baptist#Unification Church. -- Tavix (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect specifically targets Unification Church#Beliefs. Currently that section makes no mention of John the Baptist, or failure. The section has two hatnotes but searching through them they don't seem to have anything significant on John the Baptist. What should be done?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's easy to find claims on the Internet that the Unification Church believes that John the Baptist was a failure, but all of the claims I can find are by critics of the church, not by disinterested parties. In any case, unless this aspect of their beliefs is discussed in the article, there is no point in the redirect. Adding it to the article would also require good sources, of course, and those may not exist. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Retarget as suggested below. The content on this topic at John the Baptist#Unification Church is sourced directly from Moon's writings, which overcomes my previous objection. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no media with this specific title. Anyone would fashion titles for "Failure of (person)/(concept)" but that doesn't make it notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to John the Baptist#Unification Church. This is old, and the history suggests content was merged, so I'm hesitant to delete. Still, the merged content isn't where the history says, so perhaps that's not an issue. At any rate, John the Baptist#Unification Church uses the word "failure" and covers the concept well enough. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to John the Baptist#Unification Church per Amorymeltzer. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2018 (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/2018_June_23&oldid=1138582388"