Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 16, 2015.

We dont negotiate with evil we defeat it[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. WP:INVOLVED close given the size of the backlog and clear consensus. --BDD (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this is something Dick Cheney said, but it's not an especially notable quotation (it's not on his Wikiquote page), and it isn't mentioned at the target article. The copy editor in me also recoils at the lack of punctuation. BDD (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I completely concur with the nomination. With time, it's possible that the Roger-Rabbit-hit-on-the-head-by-an-anvil strong level irony of Cheney's statement might give it a kind of resonance akin to Nixon's "I am not a crook" and Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". It's possible, but that's just a hypothetical and we have to look at notability in the present. I don't see notability here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sounds badass thuogh --Lenticel (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2015 (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.

House faggots[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) 18:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this redirect should even be here. It's a term that was used on twitter once to describe a very certain event. It did not get media attention. The original article, prior to becoming a redirect, described the term in relation to LGBT. It's not mentioned at all in the LGBT conservatism article. The Undead Never Die (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But is mere usage just the same thing as being given support through redirects? Popular culture connections are made often between slurs and prominent figures, but that doesn't mean that they get coverage in Wikipedia.
President Nigger and Nigger in the White House don't redirect to Barack Obama. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That source does not contain this phrase; it contains a thematically similar phrase that is not identical. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to Fagging, which like BDD was the first thing that came to my mind and it is far from unlikley that I'd be looking for that content using this search term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I plead American ignorance here, but is there any connection between fagging and the term "faggot"? I don't see one, judging by that article or the etymology given at Wiktionary. It could still be a likely search term based on such an assumption. Just wanted to clarify. --BDD (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any etymological connection, but I had assumed "fag" to be a corruption of "faggot". Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Fag" isn't exactly a "corruption" of "faggot"; more of a short-hand term. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a shortening per se means the same thing as a linguistic corruption. After all, "Won't" is a fine version of "Will not". — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeWithMarkets (talk • contribs) 22:47, 17 August 2015
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.

Azala[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 23#Azala

Brick Tambalin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 23#Brick Tambalin

Trump Rate[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) 18:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this isn't discussed at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an implausible redirect Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As notable as the target is, I would have thought this redirect would have referred to some sort of card game. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. --Rubbish computer 00:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It looks like when someone uses the term "Trump rate" it's generally to apply to hotel rates charged in facilities owned/managed by Donald Trump. And this redirect isn't helpful at all in this aspect. Nor should someone be coming to Wikipedia in the first place for that... this is not Hotels.com CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2015 (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 and Sessional Orders (Australia)[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. WP:INVOLVED close given the size of the backlog and clear consensus. --BDD (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an element of parliamentary procedure in Australia, not an Australian synonym for parliamentary procedure. Delete per WP:REDLINK if it's notable or simply because it isn't mentioned at the target article if not. n.b., Standing and Sessional Orders is already red. BDD (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2015 (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.

Legislative process[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 23#Legislative process

Homs Governorate offensive (July–August 2015)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 23#Homs Governorate offensive (July–August 2015)

2012 fuck-up[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) 18:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV violation. -- Tavix (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per neutrality concerns Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Do we have any significant reliable sources that use this term? I really doubt it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per a lack of reliable sources supporting this term: seems an unnecessary NPOV violation. Rubbish computer 21:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing and violation of WP:NPOV --Lenticel (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's not mentioned at the target, and I could imagine many hundreds of things reasonably called "2012 Fuck up" WilyD 15:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:52, 17 August 2015 (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.

Steph avery[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 deleted as vandalism. [Additional comments.] Peridon (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was originally an article deleted under G10. Gorobay (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2015 (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.

Bleached[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. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is plausible (I doubt many people would search for something like this in the past tense). It also has nothing to do with what the article was originally about. Adam9007 (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree, I reviewed this yesterday and didn't mark as reviewed because I don't think anyone would get confused between bleach and bleached, although WP:CHEAP explains that it is not costly to add redirects, so I think it should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrwairport (talk • contribs) 19:50, 16 August 2015‎ (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.

Fresh Prince[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 move Fresh Prince (disambiguation) over the first redirect and retarget The Fresh Prince there. --BDD (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Fresh Prince" and "The Fresh Prince" currently redirect to DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince. However, in a similar vein to how "Marky Mark" redirects to Mark Wahlberg rather than Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch, I propose retargeting these to Will Smith since this is an alias Smith himself has used and is affiliated with him as an individual (especially with The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air being named for his rapper name) more than as part of a duo. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. Compassionate727 (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - To a disambiguation article, given that something like half of the people that search the term want the TV show while half want something else CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Fresh Prince (disambiguation) to Fresh Prince and redirect The Fresh Prince to it, per the above points in favour of this. Rubbish computer 20:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate and such per Steel1943. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move disambiguation page to base location, and repoint the other to it. There are 3 topics for which might be considered the primary, the duo, the person who was part of the duo, and the character on the TV show named after the character named after the act -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2015 (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.

Great Red Spot[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. While Wikipedia's content about the Great Red Spot is at the target location, this remains an obviously correct redirect. Whether that content should be spun out and if so what content to base it on (the former independent article or current merged article) is not a matter for RfD but for talk:Atmosphere of Jupiter. This close is without prejudice to overwriting the redirect with content if that is the consensus reached at the article talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split. The Great Red Spot may be the most notable extraterrestrial storm ever known. The Great White Spot and Great Dark Spot, similar storms on Saturn and Neptune, respectively, have their own articles, and the Great Red Spot is FAR more well known, so why is it a redirect? I suggest the page be restored to full article. DN-boards1 (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close RFD is not a place to propose splits. You should discuss this on the article's talk page, and inform WP:AST and WP:SOLAR -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Procedural close per 67, this is the wrong place for this. Rubbish computer 11:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: uhh, guys? This is a redirect being discussed at redirects for discussion. That's not a problem at all. Just because the nom incorrectly used the word "split", doesn't mean that we can't discuss it. The discussion should be about whether you want the previous article restored or the redirect kept as it is (I guess delete or a retarget is an option too, but I wouldn't recommend that). If you want wider outside discussion, then inform the talk page and relevant WikiProjects. -- Tavix (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are discussing the splitting of an existing article, which is not the purpose of RfD. The nominator's statement says split, and we have other processes for WP:SPLIT such as template {{split section}}; further Wikipedia:Proposed splits does not lead to RfD. Indeed, discussing the content of the article "Atmosphere of Jupiter" isn't part of RfD, since that isn't an redirect either, and we are talking about splitting an article. The article is an FA-class article and no one has bothered to inform the talk page. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore this previous version per nom. The Great Red Spot can be covered in a lot more depth as its own article instead of a redirect to a section. -- Tavix (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Tavix. --Rubbish computer 00:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the article should not be restored, because it was merged with Atmosphere of Jupiter years ago. It probably should be an article, but it should be based on the content that's in the Atmosphere article now, not the content that was in the Red Spot article 5 years ago. Pending such a split, the redirect is appropriate, and any splits should be discussed at Talk:Atmosphere of Jupiter. As a side note, restoring the article was reverted a few times in the redirect's history with an edit summary mentioning a talk page discussion, but I can find no discussion, so I wonder whether there was ever consensus for the redirect in the first place. But this does not affect my rationale. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So restore the article and clean it up using material from the other article??? -- Tavix (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2015 (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.

Life on Mercury[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 restore article. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially confusing and misleading since Mercury (planet) contains no mention of life/potential life/habitable conditions on Mercury, nor is it expected to. A2soup (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It USED to be its own page, and then SOMEONE decided "let's redirect it but not incorporate ANYTHING from the redirected page into the target". I propose it be split back off, since it appears the contents are not at all going to ever make it into the Mercury article. DN-boards1 (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the contents can't make it into the Mercury article not for reasons of space, but because including would be giving WP:FRINGE ideas undue weight, then having a separate article to hold those contents would constitute a POV fork. A2soup (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a fringe idea, no worries. It's just that someone determined the contents weren't notable for an article and then had a mini-discussion, two people voted in favor of the merge, and then it was swiftly swept under the rug and merged before anyone else could comment. DN-boards1 (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like something to take up on the Mercury talk page. Whether it is fringe or not, making a separate article for material removed from the main article on the subject as a result of a content dispute is POV forking. A2soup (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The content was never there, therefore it's not a POV fork. The article covered a subject strangely absent entirely from Mercury. DN-boards1 (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I don't see the two votes in favor of the merge, though, just a merge proposal followed by someone redirecting it, saying the content is already in Mercury (planet). If you think the content is not there (and I don't see it), then I would suggest adding the content to Mercury (planet) and pointing this redirect to the section containing it. In any case, the redirect as it stands now, given the current state of the Mercury article, is confusing and misleading. A2soup (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my apologies for making the rather strong allegation of a POV fork without looking at histories. A2soup (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article since this was converted to a redirect less than a day before this RFD. It was properly sourced, so I could see it passing through AFD unscathed. -- Tavix (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I proposed the merger, per talk page. There just wasn't enough there for a separate article. Not responsible for the redirect.--Savonneux (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the article and determine consensus as to whether or not this should be a redirect. Rubbish computer 11:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article and immediately list at AfD. This looks like an end-run around AfD. Some users have suggested the topic could be notable or could be merged to another article, however I have doubts about the reliability of the sources and the depth of coverage. AfD is better equipped to evaluate article notability issues. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the nom, I support this idea. It was not an attempted end-run on my part at least-- I didn't check the history (and probably should have). A2soup (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore without prejudice to AfD per above. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2015 (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.

Djahe[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) 17:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED: Dutch-language redirect to subject without origins in Dutch cultures. Steel1943 (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. Chinese topic with no particular affinity for non-(southeast&)East-Asian languages -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - This term appears to have basically little to no usage in English, and so I don't think it's particularly helpful here in an English encyclopedia. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 11:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unambiguously redirects readers to the content they're looking for. No argument has been presented for deletion, nor can I discern any. WilyD 15:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#D8 and because it isn't mentioned in the article. -- Tavix (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2015 (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/2015_August_16&oldid=1050183177"