Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 18, 2019.

Ontari[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. MBisanz talk 01:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Ontari in the target article. This redirect was once itself an article, and the Kapu article listed Ontari as a "subcaste" up to Dec 2011 when removed by Sitush, but no sources were ever cited for any of this : Bhunacat10 (talk), 23:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In my experience it is not uncommon for an article not to mention a redirect subject. Unless there is doubt that Ontari is a subcaste of Kapu, I should think this would be a useful redirect. —teb728 t c 00:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources[1][2] ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: they do exist and there are at least passing mentions etc of them, perhaps more. The entire Kapu situation is rather confusing and, coincidentally, I came across this discussion after just starting a new section at Talk:Kapu (caste) in an attempt to resolve the issues. If we delete this redirect now, it is likely to make things more complicated in fixing those issues. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 27 January 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.

Financial crisis (2007–present)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 30#Financial crisis (2007–present)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mount Juliet, Tennessee/Banner[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. MBisanz talk 01:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The banner is no longer needed as the WikiProject is now on a subpage of User:Mrwoogi010. Mrwoogi010✉ 21:27, 18 January 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.

HMS Partridge (G30)[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. --BDD (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be better as a redlink, to encourage article creation. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A redirect is no barrier to article creation. We have a redirect to a class article that covers the technical details of the ship and a one-line history of it. It's already linked from a few articles where it's of some minor relevance. If anyone wants to write a full history for this ship, it's going to be because they've got a particular interest in it beyond that – and a redirect wouldn't deter that. In the meantime, removing the redirect would degrade articles we already have. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 19:55, 18 January 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.

Greninja[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. As far as I can tell, there's been no action on the draft for about two weeks, so I think we can close this. That's not to preclude the removal of the redirect at any time should the draft be accepted or deemed acceptable in mainspace — the usual avenues are fine — but this conversation seems to have run its course. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this redirect should be converted to an article. I'm making this request here to follow the WP:BRD guideline, as previous attempts by other users have been reverted (one for unrelated sockpuppetry, however). In addition to the games, the character is featured quite prominently in the anime (as a bit of a main character) and in other media (like the incredibly popular Super Smash Bros. series). Greninja is well-known, with sources backing this up (even being featured as the most popular Pokémon of a 700-character survey in Japan). Greninja is consistently featured in Pokémon-related (and other) media, and is more relevant of a character to the world at large than various other Pokémon species that have pages. Edit: See Draft:Greninja. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintspot (talk • contribs) 13:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since there is no guarantee that an article will be created and/or that will meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, and since this term will continue to be looked up on Wikipedia for the reason alone that this Pokémon is a playable Super Smash Bros. character. I'd recommend creating a draft at Draft:Greninja first (...wait, that exists and is a redirect ... may work to resolve this). Either way, deleting per WP:REDLINK is not really an option in this case due to the popularity of this title as a search term; readers need to go somewhere when looking up this term. Steel1943 (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Support. The article in the redirect's history looks to be in good shape and has plenty of sources. -- Tavix (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Just a follow-up, the aforementioned edit is now at Draft:Greninja. I just resolved some WP:CWW issues that resulted from a recent WP:CUTPASTE move, and the edit, as well as the former article, ended up there. Steel1943 (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect - Draft does not establish notability yet. Per WP:POKEMON and the WP:GNG, consensus is not to make an article for every single one of these fictional creatures, especially in cases like this, where it’s largely a list of in-game attributes and game appearances. Reception section is very weak, and at least one source (Gamerant) is not considered a reliable source. It’s a valid redirect, so I really don’t think this is the best avenue to discuss this. I’d recommend developing a better draft and then getting a consensus of support at WP:VG by starting a discussion there. Sergecross73 msg me 16:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just did that! Thanks. Hopefully it better establishes its notability further.
  • Keep as redirect - draft doesn't come close to establishing any real world notability. Onel5969 TT me 22:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its still not there. I think you need to do some research into notability and how to write encyclopedic articles. There’s an entire paragraph in the Reception section listing off how the subject is in trading card games and has its own amiibo (essentially an action figure). That fundamentally not “reception”, nor does it help the case for notability. Large unsourced paragraphs detailing his in-game attributes don’t help either. I dont say this to be mean, but as advice to benefit you - wait and learn how to do this correctly before you end up wasting more of your own time, because you’re not on the right track here... Sergecross73 msg me 02:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This feels like an AfD in reverse, and given the incremental discussion about the draft article, I think it'll be wise to keep the discussion open for a little longer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 19:50, 18 January 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.

Electric mouse[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 28#Electric mouse

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 28#Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)

Template:A[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 30#Template:A

List of positive integers and factors/bottom[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) 21:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate cross-namespace redirect — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:29, 18 January 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.

291.2mmR[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) 21:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Delete) The title is a random alphanumeric sequence that has nothing to do with the .22 Savage Hi-Power cartridge.--RAF910 (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only thing google finds for this exact string (excluding Wikipedia) is (as best I can make out) something derived from the caption of one photograph of sneakers, adding a space between the mm and R finds innumerable different things where one dimension or measurement abbreviated R (usually but not exclusively the radius) happens to be 291.2 millimetres. None of the first ten were a cartridge. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 18 January 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.

James Potter II[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) 21:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Potter II as a name does not exist except for Wikia pages. The proper name is James Sirius Potter, as it was discussed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Potter II. To no surprise the name is not mentioned in it's targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:54, 18 January 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.

2017–2019 Iranian protests[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 30#2017–2019 Iranian protests

Weakly symmetric matter[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) 21:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete - there is no "weakly symmetric matter". It is an expression invented by the first author. If it would be an article it would be a speedy deletion candidate but redirects don't seem to have an equivalent process for invented names. mfb (talk) 06:03, 18 January 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.

Goulburn, New South Wales, Australia[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. --BDD (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Country appended to place name. I don't see the point. No precedent, city-state-country is not the way we link. MB 01:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So we should create a few hundred thousand of these? MB 15:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. If a human finds any particular one useful then they should feel free to create them, and once created they shouldn't be deleted (assuming there are no other issues with them) but there is no need to create them systematically. Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I already changed the link from Goulburn, New South Wales, Australia to Goulburn, New South Wales, Australia, and wouldn't be surprised if someone else changes it to Goulburn, New South Wales, Australia. So there is no use of it and don't see how that even if someone did think it was useful, we shouldn't judge that it really isn't. MB 20:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, internal links are no the only reason redirects exist. There are links from old revisions of that page that could be reverted to or viewed, there could be links from external websites, bookmarks, etc. and it's a very plausible search term. Just because you do not find a redirect useful does not mean that someone else doesn't - see WP:RFD#KEEP point 5. Points 2 and 4 also apply. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless and marginally useful. feminist (talk) 11:20, 25 January 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_January_18&oldid=880965051"