Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 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, 2015.

WikiProject Disability[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. If I may editorialize, WikiProject Disability seems much more likely than other WikiProjects to one day meet WP:GNG. But for now, there's consensus to delete this recently created cross-namespace redirect. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete yet another fresh uncategorized cross-namespace redirect to a target with five listed shortcuts. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Having read WP:CNS and the latest relevant discussion, I have no intention of wading into the pros and cons but will simply say that I come down on the side of it being useful. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To be useful  I'd expect short + lower case + easy to memorize wrt mental and motoric abilities. What I see is the usual yet another pointy wikispam X-namespace link to a project or essay with already far more than enough X-namespace links. As noted below by another contributor, this is actually an embarrasment and detrimental for the goals of this project. Your redirect is new, it can be silently buried without causing harm. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirect to non-article content, that does not help the readership, and is not encyclopedic in any regards. The editorship is not the primary focus of reader facing pages. Further there is NO pseudo-namepsace indicator involved at all. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 70.51.200.101. This is a highly irregular redirect, there is no possibility of there ever being a legitimate mainspace article at that title. It is only "useful" insofar as the creator of the page modified long stable correct links to use this redirect. It is an embarrasment to WikiProject Disability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "what links here" tool shows that the only current links to the page are related to this discussion, thus it can be deleted without any harm. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most (maybe all) Wikipedia user projects fail WP:N and should not have redirects from main space. Actually, they shouldn't have redirects from mainspace anyway; if a WikiProject somehow passes WP:GNG then we would write an article about it, not redirect readers to the actual project pages. Ivanvector (talk) 16:43, 13 February 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.

Category:People from Salem[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 dabify. If I've missed something and the old history needs to be deleted first, please let me know. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This category should be deleted, as there are lots of Salems, e.g. Category:People from Salem, Massachusetts, Category:People from Salem, Oregon. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 9 February 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.

Strange metal[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 Fermi liquid theory#Non-Fermi liquids. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't know why this redirects to High-temperature superconductivity but the target doesn't explain the term. According to Quantum critical point it's another term for non-Fermi liquid so perhaps it could be retargeted there if verifiable. Siuenti (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update added a cited mention of strange metal in the target article.--Lenticel (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just coming from a list of whimsical music genre terms on German Wikipedia, with a heavy metal bias, as in heavy bias, I couldn't help but think of this as yet another bizarre subgenre. Avant-garde metal anyone? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-Fermi liquid redirects to Fermi liquid theory#Non-Fermi liquids, which also mentions "strange metal" as an alternative name. It would probably make sense for both of these terms to point to the same place, right? That article suggests quantum critical points are just one type of this phenomenon. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:52, 9 February 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.

Extremaduran (línguistics)[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 remaining two, the second one having been withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uncommon misspelling, apparently the result of a typo. Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, It's not a misspelling, but it's not the usual form to have (lingusitics) as the DAB for language articles. Two examples from other Romance languages:
And here for Spanish:
I need not multiply examples.
And so we would expect:
Sure, "Extremaduran" could be moved to be at primary, but I don't see any strong reason to do so: better to hold the pattern. Si Trew (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ah, I just noticed the "Extremaduran (línguistics)" in the nomination has I acute (Í), so yeah that is a typo. But my reasoning still holds about the general form these should take, so I've added the form without the diacritical remarks to the nomination above. : I hope that's not out of order. Si Trew (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note Extremaduran linguistics is red, and for the avoidance of doubt, we don't have French linguistics or Spanish linguistics, for example. (Nor even English linguistics). Si Trew (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Extremaduran (linguistics) was originally the title Extremaduran language was moved to in order to skirt the language/dialect issue. Investigating the origin of the redirect, I've just discovered yet another unlikely redirect, namely Extremaduran (linguistics.): apparently the point of both misspelt redirects was to perform a move that was otherwise not possible, although both were quite ugly kluges. Actually, after posting my nomination I wondered if I should have pointed out the accent right away, as not everyone might be so sharp-eyed ... :-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extremaduran (linguistics), as an {{R from move}}, and recommend withdrawing that one. Unless "Extremaduran" refers to something else within linguistics besides this language/dialect, that's the topic a reader would be looking for, even if it's not strictly following our naming conventions. The others have weird typos, but this one is different, IMO. --BDD (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have consensus to delete the other two, but really only a nominator should withdraw something. Florian, are you alright with having this one withdrawn and the others deleted? --BDD (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind; even if it's a non-standard title, I agree it is still a plausible redirect. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:01, 16 February 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.

Don Quishocking[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) 15:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See below © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 06:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - cross-language soft redirects are discouraged because they are unhelpful for English-language readers. This band does not appear to have been notable to an English audience, so creating an article here is unnecessary. Ivanvector (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not language dependent. Siuenti (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, my mistake. Delete to encourage creation. Ivanvector (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seem to have won the Zilveren Harp, so probably notable and redlink to encourage creation. Conceivably could be redirected to Zilveren Harp but probably not. Siuenti (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete improper offsite redirect to non-English content. WP:REDLINK -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. --Lenticel (talk) 03:27, 12 February 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.

Stephan Sulke[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) 15:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if WP:G8 applies, but cross-wiki redirects are not valid. If Sulke is notable a page should be created instead. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 06:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as above, does not appear to be notable to an English audience to encourage article creation. Ivanvector (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What does "English audience" have to do with notability? Notability is dependent on sources and sourcing policy explicity states that sources do not need to be in English. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A misunderstanding on my part (see the thread above). I falsely presumed that a subject should be notable to English speakers because this is an encyclopedia for English readers, or in other words the subject should be important to an English speaker. Alternatively, a person who is known only to German speakers would not be a suitable topic for English Wikipedia. This does not seem to be the consensus. I wasn't meaning to comment on the sources, the policy is clear that sources need not be English-language sources to establish notability. Ivanvector (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete redirect to non-site page. Delete WP:REDLINK -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, should be a redlink. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, G8 makes no sense, {{soft redirect}} exists, and the target exists. There's even an official WP:SRD guideline for this feaure (explaining G8), with a "should be avoided" for soft redirects from the article namespace to articles in other wikis. As always should can be ignored if there are obvious or documented good reasons to do this, but IMO one use on Georg Danzer isn't good enough. The red link Margot Werner on the same page might justify a soft redirect to de:Margot Werner, because there are four articles using it, but of course YMMV. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:14, 13 February 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_February_9&oldid=1142587212"