Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 27, 2019.

Human-readable interpretation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 8#Human-readable interpretation

Pulpit robe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#Pulpit robe

Westminster paedophile ring[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 Westminster paedophile dossier. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect created in 2015 when it was generally accepted that the claims were discredited, but some continued to dispute (possibly here on Wikipedia at that time) that it wasn't a 'complete hoax' ... that was before the main accuser 'Nick' was exposed as a fantasist and named as Carl Beech and charged for Perverting the Course of Justice, in 2018. Now, it is just incontrovertible Libel. [1] 194.207.146.167 (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Retarget to Westminster paedophile dossier. The elm guest house article deals with false claims, this isn't an appropriate redirect.LM2000 (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig. The claims were and are notable (that they were later discredited is not relevant, as has been repeatedly noted in the AfD), and this is a very likely search term for at least the allegations and the 1984 dossier, possibly other articles too. (note that Carl Beech is about a different person). 22:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)
  • The veracity of the claims doesn't really matter in assessing whether this is an appropriate search term. {{R from non-neutral name}} should be applied regardless. Without previous familiarity with any of these topics, Westminster paedophile dossier seems like the most appropriate place to target this. It does link to the Elm Guest House article at one point. I'd be very cautious of disambiguation here, because that gets much more closer to us reproducing the claims. WP:XY deletion may well be more appropriate than that. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia doesn't have an article about a Westminster paedophile ring. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does have information about notable allegations of a couple though. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not convinced any of the proposed targets contain a concept that can be classified as a "paedophile ring". Deryck C. 14:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Westminster paedophile dossier, which discusses an alleged paedophile ring at Westminster. -- Tavix (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. I wasn't familiar with this at all, but a few things stick out to me. The current target doesn't mention Westminster, but more importantly from reading some of the sources, they seem to report on it at "a Westminster..." not "The Westminster..." The suggested target would seem to be most helpful for anyone searching for this term. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: this is a WP:INVOLVED relisting to close the 15 February log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Do A Barrel Roll[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 8#Do A Barrel Roll

Pokémon Prism[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Targeted section removed from article. –eggofreasontalk 20:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Medical Veritas[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) 19:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viera Scheibner is only one of the many antivaxxers that sat/sits on the editorial board of this publication. It's possibly a notable-enough quack publication worthy of its own article (doubtful, since it was AFD'd before), but a re-targeting to something (history of antivaxx?) might be better than a standalone article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No particular opinion on where the target should go, but I don't think it meets WP:GNG. Feel free to retarget if you find a better place. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started this discussion to find a better target. I don't have suggestions myself, at least not at the moment. It's possible some other article needs expansion, but something suitable may exist as well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirecting to just a more-or-less randomly chosen editorial board member seems wrong. If no better target can be found, this should be deleted. --Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Founding EIC or equivalent would be fine, if someone can find them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently that's Leonard Horowitz. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this is leaning toward delete, but given the previous AfD, WP:REDLINK seems less strong of an argument, so worth a relist to get a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia appears not have an article containing information about this topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Greatest Generation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#The Greatest Generation

DesCartes[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) B dash (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

useless redirect that contains different capitalization but is otherwise the same as Descartes. PDSMP (alternate account of startTerminal) 18:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible CamelCase. Des cartes already combines. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with over 3,400 page views last year it is clear that this is actually a very plausible miscapitalisation. Indeed I strongly suspect that there are incomming links from somewhere external. Thryduulf (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible error, given that "des" is an article in French and it is omitted in the adjectival form "Cartesian". -- Tavix (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible error, and with historical precedent—for a long while, Des Cartes was the most common English spelling, though Descartes eventually surpassed it in the 19th century. The Jade Knight (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

'in[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This lemma as such is not included within the given target article. Hildeoc (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Scarsdale Media[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

W'pedia[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence this contraction is used anywhere, or useful. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Litterature et engagement: Mongo Beti, un ecrivain conscient de son devoir envers son peuple?[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evident connection between redirect and its target. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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/2019_February_27&oldid=886867621"