Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 22

January 22

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 22, 2019.

Neutral Bay ferry services

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) 03:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Bay ferry services → Inner Harbour ferry services (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect was created when the Neutral Bay services were merged into a broader arrangement, which has now been abolished. It now redirects to an article on a defunct system, and needs to be deleted as it is blocking an AfC submission on the actual current subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in order to permit draft to be promoted to article space in place of redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:26, 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.

Famous unsolved codes

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) 12:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Famous unsolved codes → Category:Uncracked codes and ciphers (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Rather than trying to avoid a non-automated double redirect by retargeting to Category:Undeciphered historical codes and ciphers, bearing in mind that cross-namespace redirects to category space are strongly discouraged, I suggest delete (especially since "famous" is subjective, and the category is nowhere-near even a patrially-complete list). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CNRs to categories are strongly discouraged only from titles where a reader would plausibly expect a list and there is scope for a list, based on my reading of the relevant discussion no other situations were discussed and so there is no consensus either way. Whether that one case applies to this specific discussion I don't know, but please don't broaden the consensus beyond what it actually is. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: To be clear, then, cross-namespace redirects of lists to category space are strongly discouraged, and I think a user searching for "Famous unsolved codes" is probably looking for a list of famous unsolved codes. Now, what do you think about deleting this particular redirect... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Too subjective and vague to be worth salvaging. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 30 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.

Parturient

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 1#Parturient

GuildWiki

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 04:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 7 § GuildWiki → Guild Wars – Keep

GuildWiki → Guild Wars (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target article. The redirect was formerly an article that was subject to an AfD in 2006 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GuildWiki), and a RfD In 2007 (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 7#GuildWiki → Guild Wars). Steel1943 (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/WP:NOTWIKIA. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 30 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.

Magha Puja in Thailand

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 04:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magha Puja in Thailand → Māgha Pūjā (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not required, there is no separate section about Thailand in Māgha Pūjā, and Magha Puja in Thailand is an unlikely search term. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The redirect exists to carry the category Category:Observances set by the Thai lunar calendar. This is in line with Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, as Magha Puja itself wouldn't be an appropriate member of the category. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides the above reasons, the article indeed discusses the holiday in Thailand in some depth, so there's no problem with a lack of a dedicated section. It's also conceivable that we could one day have enough to say about Māgha Pūjā that we'd want to start separating by section or even separate articles (see, for example, Christmas in the United States). --BDD (talk) 17:27, 30 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.

Go Town.

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) 03:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go Town. → St James' Park (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not a plausible search term for the target article. Certes (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: speedy deletion previously contested: see talk. Certes (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, especially with the full stop. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:47, 22 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.

Westminster paedophile ring

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 1#Westminster paedophile ring

March of ze penguins

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) 03:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March of ze penguins → March of the Penguins (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unlikely misspelling. Broop (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A quick google search on "March of ze penguins" seems to correct it to "March of the Penguins" with no sources stating the former. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:48, 22 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.

ForeFlight (disambiguation)

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) 03:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ForeFlight (disambiguation) → Fireflight (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unclear intention. No incoming links. MB 01:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Makes no sense. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the page history makes it clear that it was intended as a disambiguation page for articles titled "Fireflight", so the choice to redirect it here was logical, but it is implausible as a redirect. It's worth noting that CSD criterion A10 explicitly does not apply to disambiguation pages. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 22 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.

PewDieBait

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) 03:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PewDieBait → Let's Play#History (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I propose deletion of this, not mentioned in article. Beasting123 (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not found in article, I don't see this redirect as being useful. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:17, 22 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.

List of shell providers

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) 03:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of shell providers → Shell account (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirect that has no purpose at all. The title indicates a list, but the targeted article does not have a list or anything similiar to the context of the redirect itself. The word "shell providers" appears there. But this is not Shell providers, which is a plausible one to use instead. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since no such list exists at the target. (Also, Shell provider exists as a redirect to Shell account.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:38, 22 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.