Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 14, 2015.

Untitled fourth Avenged Sevenfold album[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect's target has a title. Also, does the redirect hint that there are at least four untitled Avenged Sevenfold albums? So, delete as inaccurate and confusing. Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I understand that there's a lot of lee-way when it comes to redirects, but we are indeed talking about an album that does in fact have a title. The redirect is fundamentally misleading. I would just delete it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:48, 15 December 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.

Black Annie (2014 film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. NeilN talk to me 17:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my country this film is called "Black Annie", if u google "black annie" you find the wiki page, but if you search wikipedia for black annie you will not find it, so i made the redirect. isnt this the point of redirect? do you not understand why i did this? Haitian STEVE (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your country is supposedly the United States --NeilN talk to me 18:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no film by this name. MarnetteD|Talk 18:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Haitian STEVE, Black Annie is a redirect to Annie (2014 film), so I don't understand what the need is for this one. I mean, you say yourself that people call it "Black Annie" in your country, right? "Black Annie". Not "Black Annie (2014 film)". I can't believe anybody calls it that. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Black Annie redirects to the target, and this is a 2014 film according to STEVE (assuming he meant released in Haiti), so it is valid (assuming what STEVE says) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you actually click on the redirect to see where it goes. Your rationale makes no sense. --NeilN talk to me 07:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ivanvector, it is an implausible redirect. We don't add redirects with the year for every movie, TV show, etc. - only if the disambiguation term is necessary. --NeilN talk to me 22:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It could disambiguate from The Legend of Black Annie, an unrelated 2012 film. Although it doesn't have a wiki article and is ranked 3.7/10 at IMDb. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because I can't find any evidence of the film being called "Black Annie." I've seen some support for the girl being called "Black Annie" (mainly via an SNL sketch) so I'm fine with that redirect, but not this one. Also, literally the only thing I could find regarding "Black Annie" and Haiti is that the aforementioned SNL skit mentions that "Black Annie" is from Haiti, but in the film, it's implied that Annie is from Harlem. My assumption would be that the film was released as "Annie" in Haiti as well, unless there's evidence supporting otherwise. -- Tavix (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - on further thought, "Black Annie" seems to refer to the character rather than the film, so the redirect is nonsense. There are no films titled "Black Annie" as far as I can tell, other than the partial title match for the one I mentioned above, but it was not released in 2014. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete because there is no actual film called "Black Annie". It's somewhat OK for black annie to redirect to Annie (2014 film), but it's not OK for a completely false and made-up film title to exist on Wikipedia as a redirect to the title of an existing film. The purpose of the black annie redirect achieves all that is necessary (if indeed it is indeed necessary, which is debatable, since Wikipedia is not Google or a search engine). Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 14 December 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.

Manley Hopkins[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. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More Middle+Last -> First+Last Names or First+Middle=>Full name. Confusing and silly Neelix creations, so can be G6 Housekeeping.Legacypac (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "Manley Hopkins" which is a plausible search term. I suspect most of the others should be deleted per nom but I'll defer to subject specialists as I'm not familiar with the subjects. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC); (irrelevant text stricken by Softlavender (talk) now that !vote has been moved to one single entry from a mass nomination. 23:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete all - pure Neelix redirect spam —МандичкаYO 😜 23:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both. People often forget Hopkins' first or last name. Softlavender (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible mistakes, especially the first. I think some people take Manley Hopkins to be a surname as, unusually for a Brit, he is always called by the 3 names. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per considered rationales above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:57, 14 December 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.

Spiderwort ulilliogtugputy[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 Speedied per nom and discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gibberish. Plantdrew (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:HOAX. It was added to the target by the redirect's creator here, flagged for verification here, then deleted here. It was in the article for about 18 months altogether, and I'll assume that it failed verification since the only Google hits I get for it are Wikipedia mirrors. Odd. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:36, 14 December 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.

Verdemont Station[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This title appears to be a promotional, booster-y neologism. No mention of this title in official or reliable sources covering the parent transit line, and zero Google hits outside of Wikipedia clones. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 09:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Torritorri: I've merged these two since when the double redirect is repaired, these will have the same target. I picked one of your nomination statements since they were substantially similar. Please check and correct if you'd like to. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help :) Sorry for the hassle. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 00:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the station is officially referred to as "Palm" in the San Bernardino Express transit authority's official map, and I don't see evidence that it's referred to as Verdemont anywhere except Wikipedia mirrors. It is located near the neighbourhood of Verdemont, but so are other stations. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:49, 14 December 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_December_14&oldid=1079637896"