Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 5, 2019.

夏バテ[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) 22:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFOREIGN, this term does not have affinity for Japanese, nor is the term mentioned at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 21:08, 5 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.

Afsheen[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 Procedural Close. Closing this as a likely case of block evasion per WP:DENY. This is a soft close and is w/o prejudice to a renomination by an editor in good standing. - Ad Orientem (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Afsheen is nothing more than a one-song collaborator of the target article's subject. Anyone looking for the title may not want to land on Quintino (DJ). 185.78.220.182 (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before anybody comments here, please know that there is a high suspicion that this IP user is Flooded with them hundreds block evading using a proxy. This user had multiple conflicts with me, and was known for creating redirects in a similar way, and had dozens of them deleted before and after their block. I have requested a CheckUser look into it and have asked that they delete this nomination if so. Ss112 20:40, 5 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.

Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Rule XLIII[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 Keep. No clear deletion rational. Solid consensus that this is a misguided nomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

remove self-redirect Mdewman6 (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. These nominations make no sense. What else should a reader searching for the nominated link expect to reach? bd2412 T 19:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The nomination doesn't make any sense. A self-redirect would be if FOObar redirected to FOObar; these have a cromulent target. -- Tavix (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Tavix. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 03:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/speedy keep - as above. Neutralitytalk 19:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mdewman6: can you explain the deletion rationale here? Geolodus (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep@Geolodus: This started because the above redirect pages (one for each rule) were all in a list as blue internal links on the page they redirect to (self-redirects). I have since removed internal links to the redirect pages on the target page and replaced them with piped links to related pages where appropriate. My rationale for requesting deletion was, per discussion on the target page, the individual rules do not have sufficient notability and thus will never become their own pages, and anyone searching for a specific rule should easily locate the main page anyway. That said, pursuant to the idea that redirects are cheap, I now support the consensus reached here, as the original problems have been dealt with in their own right.
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.

Interfaces in computing (disambiguation)[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) 01:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect does target a disambiguation page, but it is the same target as Interfaces in computing and is not required. It's an orphan (no incoming links). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep per the RCAT tag: "This redirect is intended for use in links from other articles that need to refer to the disambiguation page, rather than be disambiguated". See {{R to disambiguation}} for further documentation on why we keep these. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above. Narky Blert (talk) 11:23, 13 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.

Returning citizens[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. An article or set index can be created in the future if suitable topics are found. Deryck C. 11:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per principle of least astonishment. This term has many more uses than referring to special category under Israeli tax law. Zerach (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I find that this term is used in several reliable sources to refer to people recently released from prison back into society, and this usage dominates the first few pages of Google search results. I'm not sure if an article on this exists or is the primary topic, so possibly retarget if it exists, or delete per WP:REDLINK if not. ComplexRational (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect might cause confusion, and using Search is better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:09, 5 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.

DOAB[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. This is now mentioned in the article in natural way, so the nominator's initial concern has been addressed. --BDD (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's appropriate to redirect from an acronym to an article that does not use said acronym and only mentions the referent of the acronym in the external links section, particularly when Doab is an existing article. I would lean toward deletion for this redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 21:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You could push for that but it should be noted that there are such articles in other Wikipedias, e.g., namely: ca:DOAB which represent Directory of Open Access Books (Q21750281). I created the redirect because is a common abbreviation for a well-known organization (I created Directory of Open Access Books at the same time). I do not think the redirect hurts anything and someday someone might actually write the pertinent article (which you are welcome to do instead of lobbying for the removal of harmless content). It should also be noted we have DOAB publisher ID (P5062), a Wikidata property related to this topic and a Google search for DOAB has Directory of Open Access Books as the first hit and then Doab (that you mentioned above; if that is any measure of notability). Uzume (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The general consensus (as codified in WP:R#DELETE #10) is that if there's little-to-no information about that subject at the target, it's better to delete it to encourage the creation of an article. signed, Rosguill talk 01:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly this is a discussion for a different time and place, however, I fail to see how deleting a redirect encourages anyone to write an article (and it seems like it would discourage anonymous IP users that cannot create items in article space anyway) whether the redirect target contains much material on the subject or not. In fact, when I want to know more about something and I find an article entry that is a redirect and it seems to point at something that contains a brief comment or small section about the item, that makes me want to create the article and flesh out the topic so your logic (and apparently some consensus logic) seems inverted by my way of thinking (of course it is possible there is some rampant way of thinking going around that I am not privy to). I find it hard to search for something that does not exist. If I find a redirect, I know someone else knows about the topic but has not created a complete article on the topic for some reason. I find it easier to consider the merits of creating a complete article when I know what other information in our other articles already exists on the topic (perhaps it lacks notability or reliable references are difficult to research, etc.; hopefully it is just a sign that there have not been enough interested editors about). In any event, I am not sure how your comments apply to an abbreviation (and acronym) to a prospective article (unless you think people would be more inclined to write DOAB over Directory of Open Access Books for some reason—I would tend to think the opposite despite the existence of ca:DOAB). Uzume (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Uzume: I wrote User:Wugapodes/Better as a redlink to explain why redlinks are important, and it might give you more context on why WP:RDELETE 10 exists. You raise really good points and it can be a balancing act between when a red link or redirect is better. I agree with you that in this case a redirect is better than a red link, but there isn't a one-size-fits all answer. Wug·a·po·des​ 23:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the feedback and I am aware of the value of redlinks. I agree this is better as a redirect (or I would not have made it in the first place). I believe in this case the consensus of WP:R#KEEP #4, #5, #6 & #7 apply (at least as I read them). I like to think I know something about redirects being a WP:PMR for a few years (but review and feedback is always welcome). Uzume (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are going to consider this, you should also consider OAPEN which is similarly represented (both acronyms to something that is redirected to Open-access monograph and thus also redirected to the same target to avoid double redirection). Also Open Book Publishers currently uses DOAB and if deleted would return to a redlink. Uzume (talk) 19:02, 11 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.

A Boy Is a Gun*[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) 01:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An improbable spelling/typo. There is a redirect at A Boy Is a Gun Richhoncho (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not improbable nor a typo. The title is stylised with an asterisk at the end; see the official upload of the track here, and was reported in media with the asterisk intact as well [1]. Ss112 16:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not a misspelling, but a stylization. I have now added a mention of this at the target article. Geolodus (talk) 18:11, 5 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.

Sonic Racing[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 keep per WP:RENOM. - Eureka Lott 14:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The game is not mentioned in the target. --51.252.179.247 (talk) 12:48, 5 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.

Jacobite Orthodox Church[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 16#Jacobite Orthodox Church

H:IPA-AEC[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. The fact that this redirect is new, and the target has already been merged into a wider help page, biases this discussion towards deletion. Deryck C. 11:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace shortcut. Targets Help:IPA/Saidi Arabic which has been merged into Help:IPA. Retargeting to Help:IPA is not worth the costs of a cross-namespace redirect since there are no incoming internal links to this redirect. Suggest deletion. Wug·a·po·des​ 07:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Help:IPA (to fix the double redirect). This still has use as a former shortcut, though admittedly not much; incoming links aren't the only things that decide a redirect's utility. It does not count as a cross-namespace redirect (except technically) because H: is a well-established pseudo-namespace. By the nominator's logic, everything in Special:PrefixIndex/H: and Special:PrefixIndex/CAT: may be deleted as a CNR. Geolodus (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Geolodus: that's not what I'm saying at all. This redirect has existed for barely a month and is completely unused. That pseudonamespace are technically cross-namespace redirects is obvious; if it wasn't a crossnamespace redirect I wouldn't have called it a cross-namespace redirect. Because this is technically in main namespace it can show up when a reader clicks "random article" dropping them into project space which is WP:ASTONISHing, and it will show up in article search results which makes finding actual articles harder for readers (see WP:RDEL 1 AND 2). What you dismiss as a technicality is the entire reason I'm arguing this redirect is harmful for readers. We tolerate this for pseudonamespace redirects that are useful or historic. This is neither. Thus the harms of keeping it outweigh the benefits which even the creator of the redirect has agreed with. You've given no reason why this is useful except that it exists and starts with an "H:". Wug·a·po·des​ 18:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The help was created a little less than a month ago without prior discussion and was referenced from no articles except Saʽidi Arabic, the one about the dialect itself. So it has most likely never been used and we might as well delete it; we can recreate it anytime should we decide to revive the help. Nardog (talk) 17:41, 5 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.

Spider-Man: Homecoming 2[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) 06:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not the film's title. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 5 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_5&oldid=921654903"