Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 4, 2020.

TRAINSTATION[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. signed, Rosguill talk 03:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Useless and potentially confusing, as it points to a movie instead of the obvious primary topic Train station. Nothing links to this redirect, so there is nothing to lose. The search engine will take care of redirecting readers typing "trainstation" without a space. There may be a case to create a redirect from the Trainstation misspelling to the Train station main article. — JFG talk 23:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not mentioned in, and no particular affinity with, the current target. The film title was capitalised in the poster (well, duh), but as two words.
The fact that WP has lived so long without Trainstation suggests that there's no crying demand. It would be harmless, though.
Train station (disambiguation) created (I found a third full-title match). Narky Blert (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the stylization as one word all-caps is not used for the film. this isn't PlayStation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RCAPS. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also as a non-plausible typo; this depends on two errors at once, "I don't know how to space words" and "I don't know what the caps lock key is", and we have no reason to try to double compensate in such a manner (e.g. we would not keep a redir of "Teh Treminator" or "Unitd kingdom"; two errors per string is too many).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcC...I concur with every word. It's a double error in that there'd have to be a broken CAPS LOCK key and a broken spacebar. Doug Mehus T·C 19:17, 6 February 2020 (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.

2011 Asian Men's Hockey Champions Trophy 2011[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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant title that makes for an unlikely search term + no incoming links = this redirect should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 22:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to delete it because it's redundantly redundant. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On the unchecked assumption that that this 2011 competition was held in 2011. Narky Blert (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:RfD#KEEP#4; implausible enough to normally delete but there are probably links from the page move given the pageviews. J947 (c), at 04:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because it's redundant and nothing links there. Justwagen (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure it's redundant, but the pageviews indicate that something would link there from outside Wikipedia, thus it should be kept per WP:RfD#KEEP#4. J947 (c), at 22:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Or someone mis-linked it internally. Actually, these numbers are low enough it could just be manual typos by people not paying attention to what they're typing; I double a word in a sentence at least as often as this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:19, 6 February 2020 (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.

Typhoon Vernon(1993)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly written typhoon related redirects with a spacing error before the disambiguator. CycloneYoris talk! 20:15, 4 February 2020 (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.

Hwa Mui[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. withdrawing discussion per the provided justification. signed, Rosguill talk 00:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target or in its lone source. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her dissertation is under the name Hwa Mui. I guess it's her native name.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know it's the same person? Glades12 (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"May Sim received her Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University. Her dissertation, Aristotle’s Understanding of Form and Universals[..."] (cited in the article)
Aristotle's Understanding of Form and Universals | Hwa Mui | Dissertation, Vanderbilt University (1989)]. Not proof, but very strong evidence. Narky Blert (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. I added her name to the infobox. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. J947 (c), at 23:12, 5 February 2020 (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.

Interstate 13 in California[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. Consensus was very clear that this redirect is useful. I will add some possible rcats post-close, which can be adjusted boldly as needed. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 20:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Interstate 13 was only mentioned on the cahighways website, which is not a reliable source. If this is deleted, the mention of I-13 should be removed from the Interstate 605 article, as well. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hog_Farm. See also WP:V (read it closely): facts need to be verifiable; they don't need to be verified yet unless potentially controversial, and this isn't likely to be controversial to anyone (especially given the level of obsessive geekery brought to bear by the wikiproject devoted to US highways).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No evidence source is even unreliable. Plus what everyone else says. Smartyllama (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2020 (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.

Abu Ivanka Al Amriki[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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This originally pointed to Donald Trump, which does not mention the nickname at all. I tried pointing it to List of nicknames of presidents of the United States#Donald Trump and providing citations, but was informed on the talk page that it doesn't appear to meet the standard for inclusion there. I would thus suggest deletion, unless someone can find enough usage in RS to justify inclusion at that target. signed, Rosguill talk 21:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There's no doubt (e.g. here) that he has been called this—in a non-derogatory way. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shhhnotsoloud I agree, but it seems that the local consensus at that page is demanding a higher bar of usage before inclusion (which is understandable given the subject matter). signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A similar redirect has been discussed twice before, most recently in 2018. Even then, I didn't think the nickname would stick on that list... -- Tavix (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While this moniker has been discussed online, and didn't arise out of nowhere, deletion still makes sense to me. There's nothing particularly notable here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2020 (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.

Ilmarin[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 Vala (Middle-earth)#Manwë. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 20:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target page. Is mentioned briefly as the name of an unrelated character in a video game plot summary, and briefly at Vala (Middle-earth) in the sentence "He lived atop Mount Taniquetil, the highest mountain of the world, in the halls of Ilmarin." Neither of those references would be particularly useful to the reader, so delete. Hog Farm (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2020 (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.

Fakhri 'Abd al-Hadi[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. Per WP:G7 per the redirect creator's participation here. signed, Rosguill talk 19:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Based on a Scholar search, it seems that Fakhri was a relative of Awni's and was likely notable. But, if they're not mentioned at the target, I don't think this redirect is helping anyone and would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete You are right, the two are not the same person. I found similarities between them when I created the redirect, and there is not a lot of information about Fakhri available on the Internet, but according to this article (in Arabic), Fakhri died in the year 1943, while Awni's article states he died in 1970. Thus they are not the same person. Cilidus (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2020 (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.

Tiger Global Management[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 Chase Coleman III. signed, Rosguill talk 22:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend deletion as Tiger Management was founded in 1980 by Julian Robertson and Tiger Global Management is a separate entity founded in 2001 by Chase Coleman. Please note I work for Rubenstein and am addressing this issue on behalf of Tiger Global Management.

A recent Bloomberg article notes, "Coleman is one of at least 10 money managers who went on to run billions of dollars after cutting their teeth at Robertson’s Tiger Management, and at least eight managers have emerged from Coleman’s Tiger Global... Robertson’s Tiger, which was founded in 1980..."[1]

A recent Wall Street Journal article notes, "Charles "Chase" Coleman started Tiger Global in 2001 when he was still working for hedge-fund pioneer Julian Robertson at Tiger Management."[2] NinaSpezz (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (was Weak-ish keep) It's a mention in the "References" section, though I'm not sure if that counts as a "mention." Nevertheless, it's got the pageviews to support it. Tiger Global Management LLC appears to be a non-notable subsidiary, so I wondered if there was an rcat for {{R from subsidiary}} (created by SMcCandlish, interestingly, as a redirect to {{R from subtopic}}, which I feel is too broad, so I'm going to approach him outside of this RfD about potentially creating a new rcat template as I can see this being widely used; we have lots of non-notable subsidiaries and this is perfect) would work. Nevertheless, it's regrettably, a redirect for {{R from subtopic}}; however, I recommend using {{R from subsidiary}}, as can be used, in the event that rcat is created. Doug Mehus T·C 16:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tiger Global Management is not and never has been a subsidiary of Tiger Management. What supporting evidence is there to imply it is? NinaSpezz (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete [changed to retarget, below]. These are not related companies, other than having had an employee in common and a similar name. This should redlink to encourage article creation if notable, and just not exist otherwise (or maybe exist as a redir to someone notable). The current target is misleading.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: for SMcC or the nom, what's the reference #2 at Tiger Management to "Tiger Global Management LLC"? If the two companies are unrelated, then that reference is incorrect, and should be removed from the article. If that's the case, then yes, I will change my !vote. Doug Mehus T·C 00:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Citation 2 refers to the LLC not the Corp. This article is about the latter. That reference and the number of employees it supports must go. I couldn't find anything about the number of people Corp employs. Narky Blert (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Narky Blert, if the reference is about the LLC, then that reference should still be deleted, no? Doug Mehus T·C 16:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Narky Blert (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and  Done. Doug Mehus T·C 17:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Everyhing I've found tells me that Corp (Robertson, 1980) and LLC (Coleman, 2001) are completely distinct entities.
I compliment nom on making full disclosure. It doesn't half make life easy! Narky Blert (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget and hatnote per AngusWOOF (changing !vote). Narky Blert (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Chase Coleman III and add redirects here note. According to Coleman's aricle, it was related to Tiger Management back then, but has since split off from there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak-ish retarget to Chase Coleman III per AngusWOOF only because it's got some quasi-decent usage; otherwise, I'd strongly favour deletion here per WP:RFD#DELETE criterion # 10. Doug Mehus T·C 17:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to retarget (not weak) as long as Coleman's article mentions it. All we need is a reasonable target that does so. Redirects of non-notable legal entities to notable founders are common.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:26, 6 February 2020 (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.

Little dick[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 Small penis. signed, Rosguill talk 22:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention about this term in target article Colgatepony234 (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Small penis, which is a dab page, and will get users to the content they are seeking. Narky Blert, which rcats should we use...{{R from synonym}}, any others? --Doug Mehus T·C 16:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and categorise per Dmehus. Narky Blert (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I can't easily find anyone with the nickname (perhaps unsurprisingly), so no {{redirect}} hatnote seems needed. Narky Blert (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I don't think we need a hatnote here. It's a dab page, so any penis size-related topics can just be added to the dab page. (Sidebar: Would we ever add a hatnote from the dab page? If linking to another dab page, we'd just add a see also reference, I think, right?) Doug Mehus T·C 17:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus: In my experience, most hatnotes on DAB pages are of the "possible misspelling" type and belong in see-also; unless they're very common misspellings, e.g. Columbia for Colombia. That sort of hatnote is distracting. Hatnotes to other namespaces are good, though; as a topical example, see RFD. Narky Blert (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget either to Dmehus' suggestion or to Human penis size. Narky - there is a musician who goes by the stage name "Lil Dicky", but I don't think that's close enough we'd have to hatnote for him. Hog Farm (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd found him, but it's at least a double spelling difference and IMO therefore remote. Narky Blert (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current target is inappropriate because there's nothing there about it, and so are the 2 proposed targets for the same reason. We don't need (or want) redirects for unencyclopedic slang. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, the top two items in the DAB list obviously are about little dicks, in just about any sense that's ever going to come up.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Small penis. I wouldn't go to Human penis size; this is this is already more specific than that, and 2/3 of the DAB page contents directly relate to it (and settle the semi-ambiguity in the phrase).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Concur with SMcC's comments in reply to Shhhnotsoloud here; I learned about micropenises from that dab page. Doug Mehus T·C 00:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Little dick" (sometimes "little Dick Fisher") is the term for rolling a four in craps,[1][2] the likely basis of the redirect. TJRC (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    TJRC That's a good find, and we could probably add a See also reference at the dab page and proposed new target to its usage in casino game craps, I suspect. Narky Blert? Doug Mehus T·C 17:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Add the info + refs to craps Glossary of craps terms, then a {{redirect}} hatnote on the DAB page. This is one occasion in which a redirect hatnote on a DAB page would be appropriate, to avoid the Easter Egg feeling for someone interested in dice. Narky Blert (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think an article on dice terminology would pass muster? In addition to "little dick" for 4, I think I saw while looking for this that "big dick" is an 8; and of course snake eyes is 2 (a pair of ones) while boxcars is 12 (a pair of sixes). I expect there are probably names for all eleven values; I just found yo-leven (for "eleven", to keep it from sounding too close to "seven") as I typed this note.
    Beyond just enumerating the various names for numbers the "hard way" refers to a particular number showing up in the form of equal-valued dice in a pair (e.g., a pair of 3s is "six the hard way", as distinguished, say, from a 2 and a 4).
    The terminology appears to be more dice-related than specifically craps-related. TJRC (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TJRC: It already exists: Glossary of craps terms, which mentions Little Joe but not Little or Big Dick. Narky Blert (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a reasonable addition if there's a good source, though I would still do it as a "See also" (probably too a redirect like Little Dick (dice), Little Dick (gambling), or Little Dick (craps), all of which are redirects that should probably exist to the glossary entry. A "little Dick" in a dicing context is an abbreviation of "little Dick Fisher". As a WP:NOTDICT matter, I would say that it's not WP's job to try to give equal weight to every slangishly truncated variant of a phrase, even if Wiktionary would (e.g. by given each its own entire page); we just need to make sure that the DAB page it goes to provides a line-item somewhere that leads to this meaning.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Green, Jonathon (2005). Cassell's Dictionary of Slang. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc. p. 886. ISBN 978-0-304-36636-1.
  2. ^ Staff, Dalzell Victor Eds; Partridge, Eric (2006). The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English: J-Z. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-25938-5.
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.

Afterborn[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. Nomination withdrawn, I've been convinced by the arguments for why this should be kept. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect could refer to the Tolkien name for men, a legal term, or a confusion of "afterbirth." Maybe better let the search function do its work here. Hog Farm (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. We have no reason to account for imaginable errors, only likely ones. That leaves WP:TWODAB, so the redir is not problematic. If the legal term is covered somewhere, we have hatnotes for a reason (particularly {{Redirect|Afterborn|the legal term|put something here like a glossary entry}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's mentioned in the article, even earlier ones such as the 2015 version [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:51, 5 February 2020 (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.

Fulfilment Logistics[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 per WP:XY. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect as a search term could lead the reader into believing they will arrive at some sort of field of study page, but then gets forwarded to a page about the structure. (Also worth noting, this redirect formerly targeted N Brown Group when it was created.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (was Disambiguate) Potential targets include references to Amazon's Fulfillment Services division, Warehouse, and pretty much any other notable fulfillment services company. --Doug Mehus T·C 22:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...None of these options even qualify to be on such a disambiguation page per MOS:DAB standards. The target has to be or include a subtopic or redirect that is a title/spelling match for the entry to be considered helpful. None of those options meet such criteria. With such examples, readers would better benefit from using Wikipedia's search function to determine what subject they are attempting to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Steel1943 Wikipedia's search function is not that great. Maybe, as titled, it may not be a good dab page, but I still think we could easily have a qualifying dab page titled something like Fulfillment services, Logistics, or something similar. Doug Mehus T·C 22:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Such a page would not be a disambiguation page. What you are referring to most likely would be an actual article with a subject that would identify what entities engage in the subject. Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      i.e., we could potentially retarget to Logistics (disambiguation) as a plausible related term, a term not exactly mentioned in the target, and similar. Doug Mehus T·C 22:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      That would cause the nominated redirect to have somewhat of an WP:XY issue then, considering that Fulfillment also exists and is also a disambiguation page. In addition, not all of the subjects at Logistics (disambiguation) are exclusive to the "fulfillment" adjective, causing confusion to whoever would look up the r omimated redirect and arrive at the aforementioned disambiguation page. (And wow, I didn't realize that the word "fulfillment" in the nominated redirect was misspelled until now: It's missing an "L".) Steel1943 (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Steel1943 I missed that, too. Agreed that the spelling error and the capitalization issue are two strikes against this redirect. I'm not sure I see the WP:XY point, though. That said, those two strikes are enough to make me lean towards deleting, possibly somewhat weekly, without prejudice to me re-creating a correctly capitalized and spelled dab page or redirect to a better target/dab page, should I find one. Hopefully you won't watchlist all possible variant spellings and capitalizations and speedy tag such creation(s) for deletion. :P Doug Mehus T·C 00:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) The thing is that there is no disambiguation page to be created. Except for possibly the former target of this redirect, there are no subjects on Wikipedia that are specifically known by this term. In lieu of retargeting this redirect back to its former target, the better option for our readers would be to delete this redirect so they can use the search function to figure out what subject they may be looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Steel1943 I see what you're saying, but what I'm getting at is "fulfillment logistics," properly spelled and capitalized, is a legitimate phrase on which someone might search, and it's reasonable to suggest that they might look to one of the pages at Logistics (disambiguation) or Fulfillment. The problem is, they're separate dab pages. I'm wondering if maybe the best solution is to combine and rename those dab pages, as say Fulfillment and logistics, with each of those separate concepts sub-arranged under separate headings. Following each, we'd provide the usual see also references, too. and preserve the redirects to those dab pages? It's a multi-stage close, but I think those two are such similar concepts, they could easily be combined into a renamed dab page. Doug Mehus T·C 00:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) ...Combine the disambiguation pages? The result would not be a disambiguation page at all; it would be a somewhat unclear mashup of terms with the end result most likely be to restore the previous status quo of having separate disambiguation pages for each term. Steel1943 (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      A page named "Fulfillment and logistics" would be one of the following: 1) an article with that concept (existing articles would have to be merged to create this, not disambiguation pages), 2) the proper name of an entity or organization that exists, or 3) a redirect that would get deleted due to its clear WP:XY nature. Steel1943 (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, we do not redirect general subjects to specific companies, per WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#PROMO, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per XY. I think that the above discussion demonstrates that there isn't a clear target for this redirect nor a clean way to create one. signed, Rosguill talk 23:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 00:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm fine with delete-ing this redirect, per the above discussion, but I still think we've got a strong case here for a future, and better titled, dab page to reverse logistics, order fulfillment, warehousing, and shipping-related targets. I'm not sure what that dab page should be titled. What do you think Rosguill? Doug Mehus T·C 16:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, I currently don't see a way out of this that isn't just XY. signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, and I agree it is a poorly titled redirect, thus I think deletion is best for this redirect. I was thinking, proactively, what are your thoughts on a future Fulfillment and logistics dab page, leaving this redirect deleted as implausible? Doug Mehus T·C 17:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. DAB pages are for ambiguous titles, not ambiguous topics. Narky Blert (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. An important nuance in terms clarifying the dab page's purpose. Doug Mehus T·C 17:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated above, the ambiguity makes deletion the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is too ambiguous for the target or any proposed ones, and as a potential subject it would have nothing to do with warehouses as buildings, but rather would be a piece about a field of logistics and commercial management.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. This is either (a) the name of something meaningful or (b) management-speak waffle. I vote for (b). (Compare WP:SOLUTION.) Narky Blert (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2020 (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/2020_February_4&oldid=940477730"