Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 17, 2019.

Comptine[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) 16:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a case of WP:FORRED. Comptine is the French term for nursery rhyme, but it's not clear that this is a term used in any variety of English. signed, Rosguill talk 23:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There's nothing inherently French about nursery rhymes so it's not reasonable to have an alt language link. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:47, 21 October 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.

Hindudesh[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 26#Hindudesh

Nabi Tajima (Q17686907)[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 Already deleted I nominated it for WP:G7 (non-admin closure)— IVORK Talk 23:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always a bit uncertain with these wikidata redirects, but I'm pretty sure I see them being consistently deleted whenever they're brought here. signed, Rosguill talk 23:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's quite improbable that one would search a Wikidata identifier outside Wikidata, or that the average reader searching here (on Wikipedia) is familiar with Wikidata. No particular affinity for this subject either. ComplexRational (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Straightfoward implausible redirect; should be speedyable as R3. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as implausible. (See also #8 at Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting.) Geolodus (talk) 05:36, 18 October 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.
  • @IVORK: You didn't create this page, Less Unless did. You simply moved it, which is an exception of WP:G7. I won't object to Fastily's deletion because it's obvious this would have been deleted in due time, but please make note of this for future reference. -- Tavix (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brazier, Joseph[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 Already deleted (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 00:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect for a sorting name assumes the article is about an individual. It is not - it is about a gunmaking firm. The individual the firm was named for is not covered in the article. Toddst1 (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleted as created in error. bd2412 T 23:32, 17 October 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.

Smallville characters[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) 20:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article Gonnym (talk) 20:05, 17 October 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.

Exile(Smallville episode)[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) 16:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with typo - no space between name and brackets. Exile (Smallville) exists as a redirect. Gonnym (talk) 19:30, 17 October 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.

Draft:Battle For Dream Island[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. MER-C 09:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is to the article for the series, but is holding up the move of the draft for the eponymous first season. I am hesitant to use a G6 for this purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Holding up a move for which draft? PC78 (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close if it's a move request to draft, Delete if considering if series/season draft, as currently stands, is notable for mainspace If you're asking for it to replace the redirect, then it should be handled at WP:RM/TR. The draft over at LittleAwesomeApple's sandbox is unsourced so if it were to be submitted, it would be declined for no sources. If you're asking whether Battle for Dream Island is notable? Battle for Dream Island (mainspace article) was CSD A7 multiple times and deleted/page protected in mainspace back in 2013. Nothing's really improved in sourcing for Draft:Battle for Dream Island (series) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom if I'm understanding correctly—that is, that the userspace draft is in better shape than the current target. I'm skeptical that the topic is going to meet WP:GNG, but it makes sense to consolidate draft work at the base title (within draft space). --BDD (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, no. We'd really want the draft to be at Draft:Battle for Dream Island, but that's been salted after MfD. Pinging closing admin / salter User:MER-C. Maybe we're better off without any of this. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. I handed out a bunch of G4 speedy deletions (MFD 1 MFD 2). MER-C 09:01, 26 October 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.

Kate Ashley[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. Barring an article at the Kate name, the points made by the keeps are convincing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #3 uses the spelling, but that is a self-published site. The question is whether Kate → Kat is an "implausible" typo (WP:R#DELETE #8). I lean towards yes but am generally not competent on the topic of English given names and diminutives.

(Came here via Wikipedia:Help_desk#I_need_this_corrected_! where a living Kate Ashley asks for deletion, but for a non-policy reason.) TigraanClick here to contact me 14:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yes, definitely it is. Kate is a far commoner diminutive of Katherine than Kat is. I think it's very plausible that someone might type that by mistake. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is it used anywhere else besides the one site? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sympathetic to the actress who requested deletion, especially given the reception she received here, but this does seem like either a plausible error or alternative name for the Elizabethan figure. And anyway, I don't think it's a career-killer for an actress to have the same name as a Tudor-era woman! --BDD (talk) 20:12, 25 October 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.

Kanisa[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 List of Christian terms in Arabic#K. I'm generally pretty sympathetic to FORRED concerns, but we've got a listing, so might as well make use of it, even if it does point to wiktionary. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a generic Arabic (and Swahili and probably several other languages') word for "church" pointing to one specific church. I suggest delete per WP:FORRED. Not suitable for disambiguation as every page containing this term is just a WP:PTM. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:10, 17 October 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.

Bill Weasel[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 destinations suggested by AngusWOOF. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure Looney Tunes characters, none of whom are mentioned at the target article so the redirects are of no help to the reader. None of these are former articles, hence none have any substantive history. PC78 (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 13:34, 17 October 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.

Emergency Unit (Hong Kong)[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. Killiondude (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to a larger topic - Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF), and that article does not conclude that subtitle. It should be rewritten or translated (zh:衝鋒隊 (香港)) rather than just redirect to a wrong page with no introduction. だ＊ぜ (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Redirects for discussion is not a place to request article creation. One lined mention is easy to do in the Hong Kong Police Force's article to fix this redirect to related topic. Matthew hk (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The target article only has a single passing mention of the Emergency Unit (in the Vehicles section), so this is of negligible help to readers. It does communicate that the Emergency Unit belongs to the Police Force, but that's not much. Better to be upfront about this gap in the encyclopedia. --BDD (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 13:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Exactly what BDD said. This isn't helpful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:25, 26 October 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.

Coalition Application[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 Common Application#Competition. Seems we're all in agreement! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested action: Delete unless someone intends to expand it into an article.

  1. The section this redirect refers to (now called "Technical Difficulties") makes no mention of the Coalition Application (though it did, briefly, at one point).
  2. The entire article barely mentions the Coalition Application.
  3. The Common Application is a competitor/alternative to the Coalition Application—redirecting there not only seems inappropriate, but would be highly confusing to readers.

Essentially, reason 10. I can see reason 7 as being a reason to avoid deleting it, but the redirect should not exist in its current state. Thtatithticth (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alternatively, the redirect link could be changed to the competition section, but I still don't think that it should link to that page at all. Thtatithticth (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose delete, open to changing target. I changed the redirect to point to the "Competition" section. The term is clearly bolded there so people following an incoming redirect can easily find it. Given the social impact and national news coverage, the Coalition Application is something people do search for, and they should arrive at a page with relevant information to the term. The reason I created the redirect is that there was very little material on the Coalition Application, so it didn't seem justified to create a whole article about it. If people object to the appearance of describing something on the "turf" of a competitor, either this application could be spun out into its own article (and hopefully expanded as has happened to Universal College Application, but if it lives as a stub for a while so be it) or the list of competitors (and the redirect target) could be moved to "neutral ground" such as College application. -- Beland (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concede; users should find something about their search query if it exists. For the same reason, I think it's better to keep the redirect pointed at the competition section rather than College application, as the former contains at least a short description of the Coalition Application while the latter doesn't even mention it. As for spinning it into an article, I failed to find reliable sources to start a stub, and can only suggest leaving it as a redirect in the hopes that somebody else eventually picks it up. Thtatithticth (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine to Competition section. I'd agree that generally, redirecting something to one of its competitors is not ideal, but this seems like the best we can do in this case. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 25 October 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.

Primitive Korean peninsula language[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 25#Primitive Korean peninsula language

E Warren[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) 19:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth is not the only or even most prominent "E. Warren". A WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is not possible due to the prominence of Chief Justice Earl Warren. I'm not sure how plausible of a search term this is due to the formatting, but this should either be deleted or retargeted to Warren (name). -- Tavix (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Retarget to Warren (name)#Surname (and do the same with E. Warren) I'm not even American and before even reading Tavix's second sentence my mind immediately jumped to Earl Warren. Arguably within a 2019 US political context Elizabeth Warren is the most prominent, but unless she is elected POTUS (and perhaps not even then) that's not going to be true in the long term, and almost certainly is not true now outside of the United States. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too vague, many possible E. Warrens. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 12:28, 17 October 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.

Draft:A-Force (film)[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) feminist (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I'm wrong (am I?) but redirects are normally intended to assist in navigation, and redirecting a title beginning "Draft:" with a hypothetical future title for the incomplete article that is currently still in the draft space doesn't seem helpful. Nothing in the current draft article actually implies that the future film will be titled A-Force, and even if it were this redirect would not serve any real purpose in either the long or the short run, since the title would ultimately be A-Force (film) anyway. Theoretically the draft title could be anything, even something that violates V, NOR, and CRYSTAL, and so the current redirect could just be made the draft page pending an actual title announcement, but I don't see any point having a draft article in the draft space with a separate redirect also in the draft space. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point is to help editors who might wish to work on the draft, find it. But if this is an incorrect use of a redirect, then by all means delete it. It’s only meant to be temporary anyway.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The film itself is hypothetical at this stage and the title A-Force is used in news sources: [1]. Perhaps this would be a better title for the draft, but I don't see any reason to delete. PC78 (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PC78. Real potential to be helpful here. Say I hear about A-Force and want to start making a draft. Do you think I'll look for "Untitled Marvel female team-up film"? This will help avoid parallel drafts and the wasted effort that would entail. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 25 October 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_October_17&oldid=923222836"