Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 29[edit]

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

Yestergay[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) 17:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently redirects to an unrelated topic. 117 pageviews since 2015, no incoming links. I suppose this could be retargetted to ex-gay or mixed-orientation marriage, but my !vote is for deletion as a little-used neologism. gnu57 22:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was going to second redirecting to Ex-gay, as there is some scholarly coverage of the use of this term as slang in LGBT circles to refer to people who were gay but now engage in heterosexual relationships, but Ex-gay redirects to Ex-gay movement, which would appear to be a distinct concept. signed, Rosguill talk 23:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or soft redirect to Wiktionary. I've not spotted the scholarly coverage Rosguill has done - everything I'm seeing is vocabulary/slang lists and fiction, contexts in which someone looking it up in Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia is possibly more likely, and I don't see anything to support more than a definition, especially as I do agree with Rosguill about Ex-gay and Post-gay is a redlink (that term gets a few uses, but nothing obvious as a target). Thryduulf (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect it's actually used in an episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season 8 episode 2. Dee: "I think I know what's going on here: this man has been realigned. He's a yestergay." Frank: "What's a yestergay?" comedic definition ensues. A lot of people are of the opinion to delete, and I'm not against that, but I think it's slightly better to point to wiktionary. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:20, 31 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.

The Beauty (Demi Lovato 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 retarget to List of songs recorded by Demi Lovato. Retargeted during the discussion, with subsequent agreement to keep the new target. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of a song using the word 'Beauty' at target page, no alternative target revealed by a WPSearch. Gsearch shows a lyric site that says the song is unreleased. Richhoncho (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it with the more relevant and specific {{R from song}}. -- Tavix (talk) 14:44, 30 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.

Module:WikidataCommonscat[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) 17:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect (yes, I know I blanked and redirected this in February; I should have TfDed it instead then, but now that it is a redirect, RfD is the proper venue). * Pppery * it has begun... 21:49, 29 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.

Wikipedia:AIVU[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 7#Wikipedia:AIVU

Wikipedia:UFA/BOT[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 7#Wikipedia:UFA/BOT

Wikipedia:AIVU/BOT[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 7#Wikipedia:AIVU/BOT

Maturana General[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 soft delete. The opinions aren't strongly stated, but both comments lean towards deletion. Deryck C. 11:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what the purpose of this redirect is. Marcos Segundo Maturana was a general, but it's not clear why "General" is placed at the end in the redirect. More problematically, Marcos Segundo's father, Marcos Maturana, was also a general, possibly leading to confusion. I would lean toward deletion unless a justification is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment looking for uses of this term is tricky as google is being "helpful" and showing results for "Maturana's general" even when I explicitly exclude that string. Even if the title of this redirect is widely used, "Maturana's general" is a collocation that is always going to be more common. Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 30 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.

Tongues[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 Tongue. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retargeting to Tongue as the plain meaning. There are a few links that use this already, so I figured I'd get some wider input before making the change. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:48, 29 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.

VANDALISM IN PROGRESS[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 7#VANDALISM IN PROGRESS

Querfront[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 6#Querfront

Psycho-analysis of walking[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) 17:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target doesn't contain anything about walking in relation to psychoanalysis, nor, as far as I can see, do any other articles. Wilderness therapy and nature therapy are distantly connected topics, but I think we're best off deleting this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:25, 29 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.

Badini[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 Kurmanji#Varieties. (N.b., this is more of a keep and refine target for the second and third listed redirects.) Uanfala's suggestion can still be pursued via regular editorial work. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Option A: redirect all to Kurmanji#Varieties
Option B: redirect all to Bahdinan
Option C: transform into dab page between a Baloch tribe and a Kurmanji language variant

History of these pages gives some insight, although I have no knowledge or element to be able to judge their notability:

  • Badini was created in 2007 for a Baloch tribe but redirected in 2015 as unsourced, and this tribe is not mentioned on target article. It is mentioned, however, on article Muneer Ahmed Badini, about a Pakistani Baloch politician.
  • Bahdini was created in 2006 and quickly redirected. It said: Bahdini or Badini is a local variation of the Kurmanji dialect of Kurdish language special to the Bahdinan (or Badinan) Region of Iraqi Kurdistan. [...] Bahdini is spoken by over a two million Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan.
  • Badini Kurdish language was created on 2 October 2019 as a redirect to Kurmanji § Dialect continuum because there is a link there from m:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Badini Kurdish. However, the target section was then heavily rewritten and renamed on 25 October with diff comment Dialect continuum / subdialects renewed because the cited source revised their earlier classification and merged 5 dialects into 3. The sentence "The most distinctive of these is Badînî" is deleted because is no no longer meaningful after the new classifications.
  • Spelling Badhini is also found on article Kurds in Germany (for the Kurdish language).

At first glance I would have a preference for Option A. Place Clichy (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who created the redirect Badini Kurdish language, I need this one, per Option A, to redirect to Kurmanji#Varieties. The important thing with respect to this redirect is that it needs to point directly to a page covering a language. It would not be appropriate for this one to point to either of the other proposed pages. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(I have no opinion on either of the others.) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Badini should be moved to Badini tribe, with the article restored and sent to AfD (I don't think it's notable, but it's been around for so long that it's not appropriate to delete it by RfD). Then Badini should be turned into a dab page listing at least the Kurdish variety and the various people with the surname. I have no opinion on the other nominated redirects. – Uanfala (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to option A The page should be a redirect of Kurmanji. And there's no 'Badini tribe', as the term encompasses all tribes living in Bahdinan. --Semsurî (talk) 22:07, 5 November 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.

Air Bud: Aussie Rules[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) 05:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure whether this "film" was a hoax or a genuine rumour, but either way it doesn't exist and the article was deleted at AfD a decade ago. There's no mention of it at the target article or at Air Bud (series) and no good sources that would allow it to be included, so this redirect isn't helping anyone. PC78 (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 76.126.49.152 (talk) 22:04, 31 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.

Count Blood Count[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) 05:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to a page that does not reference the subject. The article was turned into a redirect following an AfD which called for a merge. However the target page does not mention the subject and original article is so poorly sourced there is nothing to merge. Also the target article is just a list of stand alones dealing with cartoon characters. Unless sufficient RS coverage can be found to ring the WP:N bell and restore the original article, I am afraid it has to go. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, which is the outcome I was looking for at AfD. The target article is not suited to any kind of merge and it would not be appropriate to list non-notable entries on that iist, nor is there any value in merely redirecting to a list where the subject isn't even mentioned. If the article is not to be kept and there are no other suitable redirect targets, then deletion is the only viable option left. PC78 (talk) 10:55, 30 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.

U.S. Route 95 Business (Lovelock, Nevada)[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) 16:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing redirect. U.S. Route 95, U.S. Route 95 in Nevada, and U.S. Route 95 Business all exist. Is it wrong for me to assume that "U.S. Route 95 Business (Lovelock, Nevada)" is a confusing redirect, as it targets Nevada State Route 396? Even by itself, searching for the "lovelock nevada" specification could be considered unlikely, and it is unclear about which would be the target article for the typical searcher. This would require many changes for road redirects, but this caught my eye at AFC/R. Utopes (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This would be a very plausible search term if there is or was a US Route 95 Business in Lovelock, Nevada but the only current business loop on US Route 95 I can verify from sources that are not Wikipedia or mirrors is in Las Vegas. From what I've read it's certainly plausible that there used to be a route with this designation in Lovelock, but I have not found any sources confirming this. This isn't to say the road doesn't or didn't exist, just that I have been unable to verify it. The only things I have learned about it from Wikipedia that aren't evident from its title are that (i) it may or may not have some relationship with Nevada State Route 396, US Route 40 and/or Interstate 80 and (ii) it's in Pershing County. Given that neither is verifiable, (i) is not useful at all, and (ii) is trivially discoverable or already known anyway (all of Lovelock is in that county) this is not a useful redirect. I'll happily change my recommendation though if anyone is able to add some verifiable content about the road somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. I-80 Business exists in Lovelock (mostly along Nevada SR 396) and US 95 is concurrent with I-80 through Lovelock. I believe that led to one of two lines of thinking with this redirect, both flawed: (1) US 95 Business exists in Lovelock because I-80 Business exists (which is false, as such has never been approved), or (2) US 95 Business in Lovelock would be a plausible search term for I-80 Business in Lovelock (which would be a very specific search term to get to the desired result, thus implausible). A while ago, a user created a bunch of similar redirects (I think via AFC/R), and I don't believe we did away with them. -- LJ ↗ 14:36, 30 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_29&oldid=925028459"