Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 29, 2019.

Keep on Going (oto nemesazde)[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. R3. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RDAB, artist's name is misspelled since it should be capitalized. CycloneYoris talk! 21:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There is no point in keeping it.BabbaQ (talk) 08:22, 30 March 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.

War looting[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section no longer exists, so this redirect is currently useless. Something should be done at this title, but I don't know what.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think this is perfectly functional as a section-less redirect, since the lede makes clear that looting can occur in war. Refine to #In armed conflict if desired. --BDD (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep problem easily solved. jnestorius(talk) 15:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The anchor that was just made is the way to deal with problems like this. DGG ( talk ) 11:47, 2 April 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.

High Inquisitor[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 6#High Inquisitor

St. Joseph High Road[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 6#St. Joseph High Road

Echinops (genus)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 6#Echinops (genus)

Female privilege[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. Redirects tend to go where the best content is, so while that may change in the future, this is a keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a misleading redirect to me. This is something that has been discussed before about three and a half years ago (see below), but it shouldn't be news to anyone that discussions in this area have only grown in scale since then.

I see this redirect as problematic because the article on "Men's rights movement" writes itself off almost immediately as anti-feminist, hateful, and violent. While I agree with that sentiment, it implies that female privilege should be written off in the same breath as men's rights movements. The section on "female privilege" in that article writes it off as incompatible with male privilege, however I don't believe this to be true. Males and female are each privileged in their own ways, and these privileges are not all mutually exclusive (in other words, it is irrelevant who is "more privileged"). Female privilege exists alongside male privilege, and is compatible with feminism. It is not a concept exclusive to men's rights movements.

Men's rights movement#Female privilege also argues that "female privilege" is a form of benevolent sexism, which while true in many cases, does not account for all aspects of perceived female privilege.

In summary: My issue is with the placement of where, and context in which, "Female privilege" currently exists on Wikipedia. It is currently just a subsection of Men's rights movement#Issues, where it doesn't seem to fit in with its surrounding subsections at all.

I propose that it redirect to a new section in Social privilege, Male privilege, or Ambivalent sexism which addresses female privilege (I assume there are not enough scholarly sources on "female privilege" to warrant its own article, though I may be wrong in which case a full article may want to be created), while Men's rights movement#Female privilege is renamed to something more fitting or is deleted entirely.

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
24.187.209.35 (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my first impression is that this nomination is backwards - you should be discussing at an appropriate talk page (article or wikiproject) about improving the coverage of this topic, either at this title or somewhere else and then discussing retargetting the redirect to wherever the improved coverage is. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Understood. I just wasn't sure of the proper channels to go through. I started a conversation on WikiProject Gender Studies. I think it would be best to table this discussion until a concensus is reached over there. 24.187.209.35 (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RPURPOSE ("Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article"). None of the suggested targets discuss the concept of "female privilege". The only place on Wikipedia that currently does so to any significant extent is the current target Men's rights movement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC) (edited 05:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. It's there similar to heterophobia being a redirect and section in the Homophobia article. In both cases, they are WP:Fringe topics that should simply be noted and redirected to the main related article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:54, 31 March 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.

Chris Collins(Politician)[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed DAB redirect. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep we don't usually delete redirects resulting from page moves, unless there's some particular reason why the redirect is inappropriate. Hut 8.5 22:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason redirects from page moves are kept is because we don't want to break external links to the page. So if you move something from James Poliot to James E. Poliot, deleting James Poliot is bad since links may have been made to James Poliot. This does not apply in the case of badly formed titles that existed for 6 minutes, and which no longer point to the page they used to point to. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At the very least, it appears it should be renamed/moved to include a space between the surname and the opening parenthesis. B.Rossow · talk 13:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Chris Collins (politician) → Chris Collins#Politics Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I was looking for it with "politician" capitalized as in the redirect in question. B.Rossow · talk 17:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; didn't exist for long enough to plausibly have incoming external links.  — Scott • talk 14:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Basically this redirect exists because somebody started a page at the wrong title back in 2007. Since this is an incomplete disambiguation anyway (its target changed from the Chris Collins of New Brunswick to the disambiguation page in 2012), I don't see much utility in keeping it. Deryck C. 10:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No use in keeping a malformed redirect, especially when the correctly titled Chris Collins (politician) already exists. PC78 (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No potential usefulness. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since properly formed redirect exists and is more useful --Lenticel (talk) 03:12, 30 March 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.

User:GregLowenthal11/Fuse (song)[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) 04:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be an old draft of a song from Linkin Park created by a user no longer editing the encyclopedia. Goveganplease (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't really see a reason to delete. If GregLowenthal11 returns, they'd likely want to know where their work is now located at. That said @Legacypac: is the one that redirected, so they might be able to shed some light here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Headbomb - there is no reason to delete. User subpage → main redirects do not cause any problems in >99% of cases and there is no evidence this is an exception. Thryduulf (talk) 09:49, 30 March 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.

Chainmail bikini[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 7#Chainmail bikini

5K Celebration[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) 23:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No such mention at the target. Such a celebration is not exclusive to one company. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:49, 29 March 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.

Harry Potter (TV series)[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) 23:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. No such TV series exists and is unlikely to exist. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:39, 29 March 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 Aurors[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 Ministry of Magic#Auror Office. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, yet it's mentioned at so many other Harry Potter-related articles that a suitable target seems ambiguous. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:38, 29 March 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 Games Community Board[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) 00:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. What is this even supposed to mean anyway? Jalen D. Folf (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this was created as an article which started "The Games Community Board or "The GCB" as called by it's members is one of the many boards on the IGN Boards.", which explains the connection to the target but there is no information about it in the target article so it isn't a useful redirect. Normally I wouldn't be advocating deletion of article content here - it was boldly converted to a redirect on the day of creation in 2006 by ESkog - but it was an unsourced sub-stub that would be speedily deleted today (A7) as it gives almost no information at all but does include what might be a BLP-violation. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 29 March 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_March_29&oldid=1072177202"