Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 9, 2020.

Sonny Bono Memorial Freeway[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 Sonny Bono#Legacy. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • AFAICT, the Sonny Bono Memorial is a freeway interchange not a freeway (link). There's also this, which refers to the Sonny Bono Memorial Freeway; but the status of rhino.com as a WP:RS is IMO distinctly questionable (I had to keep fighting off the adverts). Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sonny Bono#Legacy where mentioned. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree retargeting to the Legacy section of Sony Bono's main page is appropriate. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (was Keep) but add {{R from alternative name}} rcat per this, which states that a section of this interstate was officially designated as the Sonny Bono Memorial Freeway. I don't think Sonny Bono is an appropriate target. Pinging @OvertAnalyzer, Narky Blert, AngusWOOF, and Rosguill: as previous participants. Doug Mehus T·C 21:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Noting SMcCandlish's comments in a related RfD for Interstate 13 in California that closed as keep, the policy for verifiability regarding redirects is that we need only suspect we can verify the facts. We don't have to prove it yet. So, while we couldn't necessarily write an article on the Sonny Bono Memorial Freeway, there's nothing policy-wise stopping us from retaining said redirect(s). Even still, I should note that for the purposes of reliable sources for citing in articles, we're not limited by those sources explicitly mentioned at WP:RSP. We can use common sense as to the applicability of sources. If in a dispute, that's where the talk pages come in. Doug Mehus T·C 21:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    More precisely, the article should still mention this name, but it can be added to the article if it's verifiable and the claim isn't controversial or likely to be. In a case like this, it takes little more effort to add a source than to check that it's verifiable in one (which should be done since it's not in there already). There are multiple sources [2], for anyone who cares to work on road articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sonny Bono#Legacy, absent a properly-sourced explication of this subtopic in the highway article. This specific case seems to have a factuality controversy latent in it (whether there really is a freeway by this name or just an interchange), so it needs to be verified.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have updated both the Sonny Bono#Legacy and the Interstate 10 in California#Riverside County articles with a source for the naming of the Sonny Bono Memorial Freeway. Since the Sonny Bono Freeway is only a 40 mile section of Interstate 10, I will change the redirect page to go to Sonny Bono's legacy page. That page in turn will reference Interstate 10. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget for now as above, following the redirect creator's concurrence, without prejudice to retargeting back to Interstate 10 in California#Riverside County target boldly if, at some point, there's a larger discussion on the freeway section. Doug Mehus T·C 19:23, 15 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.

Autolysosome[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 Autophagosome. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, or at Lysosome for that matter. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have retargeted to autophagosome, where the subject is explained. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...And I've reverted that since retargeting a redirect during an active discussion causes more issues than resolutions. With that being said though... Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Autophagosome per Þjarkur. (I say "weak retarget" since this title may have WP:REDLINK potential.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget @ Autophagosome (not "weak", because {{R with possibilities}} exists for a reason, and it's better to get readers to an explanation if we have one than try to arm-twist them into writing one).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:15, 12 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.

Π meridian[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​ 22:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, not clear that this is an alternative name for the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:49, 9 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.

Template:Essay-project-note[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 06:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Confusing gibberish, and now unused. I bypassed all the remaining redirects, to just directly go to Template:WikiProject notability advice. This redirect really makes no kind of sense. It has nothing to do with notes about WP:WikiProject Essays; nor with essays about any project devoted to notes; nor about essays that are notes about projects. To the extent anyone would make sense of "note" as a reference to notability (it has been used in a few shortcuts, but people tend not to use them, again because it's confusing), the overall structure of the redir just doesn't parse in English, and we don't have other templates named things like "essay-project-foo" or "essay-user-foo" or "policy-wikipedia-foo", or whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not transcluded anywhere, and rather tenuous connection between the redirect and the target. Hog Farm (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Hog Farm. No transclusions. No history. It's simply not used. --Doug Mehus T·C 03:33, 10 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.

List of MTV2 broadcast afilliates[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 06:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled redirect, nothing links here. Was the result of a page move, but even the correct title is no longer an article. Reyk YO! 07:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There isn't even a list for regular MTV ones. There's CBS Television Stations for Viacom in general though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; implausible search time, low utility, and there's no history to preserve. --Doug Mehus T·C 03:32, 10 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.

Treegarth[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 17#Treegarth

Your Dad[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 18#Your Dad

User:Imaginary Boob[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 06:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent reason for this redirect. Appears to have been created as a joke in 2009. Hog Farm (talk) 04:32, 9 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.

Gourmet tea[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 06:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though the section Tea#Economics mentions the word "gourmets", the target article is unclear what the subject of this redirect is since the phrase (as mentioned in this redirect) is not in the target article. (Note: This redirect was an article that was redirected in 2009 as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gourmet tea; this redirect is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's a brand name used by several, e.g. this. IMO, it's not distinctive enough to be registered as a trademark without extensive evidence of use. Narky Blert (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep It's both a plausible search term. There are a number of rcats to add, including to {{R to article without mention}}. It's hard to tell at first blush what percentage of the old diff is currently in the existing Tea article, but nevertheless, that existing Gourmet tea article verbiage, even if refactored and later removed, contributed to Tea in an important way. Thus, we have no other option but to keep, strongly, per WP:ATT. Just ask SmokeyJoe or S Marshall. Doug Mehus T·C 18:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it is not a subtopic of the article, or even mentioned there. If there's content that was merged in, WP:HISTMERGE. It is not true that we have to keep forever every redirect just because it was edited substantively once upon a time. Nor is it true that every string of characters used in advertising is "a brand name" much less an encyclopedic topic or subtopic (WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE). It is not WP's job to regurgitate advertising blather (WP:NOT#PROMO, WP:NPOV). If there are reliable independent sources on specialty/fancy/high-end teas and purveyors thereof and they frequently and without fiduciary or other obvious bias call it "gourmet tea", then someone can work up a section in the article about this, with that term in it, so that the redir has somewhere appropriate to go. In the interim (WP:NODEADLINE), redlinking encourages content work to make the red go blue. And if this can't be dealt with neutrally with good sources, then it should stay red anyway, and objectively meaningless emotive wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague and not a specific type of tea as with herbal. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 'Gourmet' in this context is so vague that deletion seems absolutely to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:25, 12 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.

Naeem Ul Hassan[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 no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 21:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created because this person has already been identified as lacking notability. He was a politician, redirect points to the place he is from. See Talk:Cheetham, Manchester#Merge from Naeem Ul Hassan. Senator2029 “Talk” 09:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not mentioned in the article. No prejudice against recreation if he is added to the article with a WP:RS proving a connection. Narky Blert (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – He is mentioned in a table at Cheetham, Manchester#Councillors. The question is: given his lack of notability, is this redirect warranted, especially in light of the others who's articles were deleted without redirects created? Senator2029 “Talk” 11:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine target to Cheetham, Manchester#Councillors. I expected to call this a weak vote, assuming he just served one term or something, but the article indicates he's both a current councillor and has been one for over 15 years. That certainly warrants a redirect, even if he never reaches notability for a standalone article. Note, however, that his official page gives his name simply as Naeem Hassan. On that basis, I'm going to change the form used on the Cheetham article and establish a redirect from that name. (If there's consensus to delete here, the closing admin can feel free to delete it as well, or I'll do so myself.) --BDD (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly Weak-ishly, BDD makes a solid case for keeping here, but due to related redirects for Canadian municipal councillors who have ran for senior levels of elected office unsuccessfully, we've generally deleted them. I guess it comes down to usage here. ~100 pageviews, that's what I'd call meh. On balance, I'd say delete for WP:REDLINK/WP:RFD#DELETE criterion #10. Doug Mehus T·C 15:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When they run for higher office, though, there's an WP:XY problem. Do you redirect to the office held or the election(s) where they sought a new one? There's no other possible target here. --BDD (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BDD. That's helpful. If they don't have an article about them, then yes, to where do we target? Doug Mehus T·C 13:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is this his name as listed in the position? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was "Naeem-Ul Hassan" in the Cheetham article until I updated it on COMMONNAME grounds. His page on the city council website, linked above, just has "Naeem Hassan", though his Twitter uses the unhyphenated "Naeem Ul Hassan", just like this redirect. Whether he merits a redirect is still an open question, but I don't think there's any doubt that this is a valid form of his name. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 12 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.

Roads in Pune[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 and restore the article at Sus Road, Pune signed, Rosguill talk 06:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted. Redundant or ambiguous redirects. Chande Road, Pune should be retained. Sus road is a part of longer Chande road. Baner–Pashan Link Road should be retained. Shankarsheth Road, Pune should be retained. Jangali Maharaj Road, Pune should be retained. Dehu Road–Katraj bypass should be retained Vatsmaxed (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please group all above requests in single section for better readability. I was unable to do same. Vatsmaxed (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I had to tweak or add things to your rationale since each is not identical, but the meaning remains the same. -- Tavix (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redundancy is not a reason to delete redirects, and I don't see evidence of ambiguity. Most of these are mentioned at the target, so someone searching these will be able to find information about these respective roads. However, Sus Road is an exception. Restore this diff and rename back to its former title. In my maps app, I'm showing the name of the road that connects from Nande to Pashan ESE as "Sus Road", and the nominator has failed to cite the claim otherwise. -- Tavix (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Regarding ambiguity, these 2 roads are named after persons. Such similar named roads are found across many cities in the country. Just created 2 of them Shankarsheth Road, Mumbai and Jangali Maharaj Road, Mumbai (also see these entries on last in List of eponymous roads in Mumbai). As of now, redirects, but will convert them to article in coming days. So should delete the ambiguos names. Regarding Sus roads and Chande road, the road starts from Pashan to Sus to Nande to Chande. The road is called Sus road till Sus, Nande road till Nande and Chande road till Chande.[1][2] The straight road is however from Pashan to Chande, so Pashan–Chande road or Chande road simply is more correct name. Atleast, Sus Road (Pune) can be deleted and Sus Road, Pune and Chande Road, Pune can be retained. Also accepted that redundancy not a reason to delete redirects, so those redirects can be retained. Vatsmaxed (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we treat "Sus Road (Pune)" and "Sus Road, Pune" differently? --BDD (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (was Delete) per nomination and nom's subsequent comments. While not necessarily a deletion rationale, Wikipedia is notionally not a bureaucracy. If these redirects are showing little use, the case can be made they were created as a result of typos in the original articles' creation. Thus, little use and that in and of itself coupled with all attribution history being at the target pages means there's no strong reason to keep. So, call this a combination WP:IAR (for the redundancy), implausibly-created typo, and WP:COSTLY delete. Doug Mehus T·C 18:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ https://punemirror.indiatimes.com/pune/civic/at-last-work-starts-on-the-road-to-lavale/articleshow/66000142.cms
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly valid subtopic redirects overall. From the article, it's not clear how valid the name "Sus Road" is (though note my above comment about inconsistent treatment of the two redirects for it). It's presumably not the only road in Sus. I wouldn't be opposed to deleting those two. --BDD (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Restore the diff Tavix identified. I'm not clear, though, on how we want the redirects handled when the diff is restored. Recommend closing admin discuss sort that out with Tavix. Delete whatever redirects are not needed for history purposes and which are ambiguous, not plausible, and all of that. Doug Mehus T·C 19:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are confused with my recommendation, then it is your responsibility (if you wish) to get clarification about it. It is not appropriate to ask the closer to do that work for you, especially because I don't think the closer would need such clarification—you seem to be the only one confused about this. Besides, I'm not sure how that would work because the discussion would be closed by then anyway. I'm not sure what clarity is needed; all Sus Road-related redirects should target the article about Sus Road once restored. -- Tavix (talk) 22:38, 15 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_9&oldid=941494836"