Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 27, 2015.

A simple proof that 22/7 exceeds I€[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) 18:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mojibake. Gorobay (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the redirects that use "E" instead of the Euro symbol are not even mojibake, they are tyopos of mojibake generated by Eubot (talk · contribs) so are not even usable as mojibake -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:52, 28 January 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.

Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The Wyatt Family (American Guns)[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 WP:CSD#G6, but take your pick... JohnCD (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible and unlinked Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:11, 27 January 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.

Cousin Fatstuff[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) 18:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense redirect. Google search returns no relation between the redirect and the television show Diff'rent Strokes.

Redirect was created by user indeffed and whose talk page is filled with templates notifying of WP:SPEEDY articles. AldezD (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no relation to target, and no better target available. Google returns a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors that link back to the redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 03:06, 31 January 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.

Gonzaga Debate Institute[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, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

org name with no mention at general target. unlikely to be a notable org - not a R with possibilities. Widefox; talk 19:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Gonzaga University. The Gonzaga Debate Institute is a summer camp run by this university, for high school students interested in competitive debate. I think. It's also possible that it is the university's own debate team. They're not mentioned in our university article, so deletion is also possible. Ivanvector (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Weak retarget to Gonzaga University per Ivanvector's findings. --Lenticel (talk) 23:46, 28 January 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.

Tuerkiye Cumhuriyeti Merkez BankasA+-[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 per WP:G6 by Mojo Hand. This is a procedural close (non-admin closure). Ivanvector (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This ASCIIfied mojibake was accepted for deletion in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 23#ZdenÄ›k Miler but wasn’t actually deleted. Gorobay (talk) 17:26, 27 January 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.

Indepedent Access[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. Though I'm WP:INVOLVED in this discussion, I think consensus is very clear after over a month of listing and two relists. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No relation to Garbage (band). Lapadite (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been the title of a 1998 promotional single for the US market. Looking at a contemporary version of the discography article, it mentioned it at the time the redirect was created. --McGeddon (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've added {{R from misspelling}} to the first two. I don't know why the firs should go to a different place than the other two. Si Trew (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Access Independent Services. None has any internal wikilinks. Stats are at background noise level. Si Trew (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think these would be very unlikely search terms for access-independent services. This is access which is independent; that is services which are independent of access. Search results would probably include that high up anyway. --BDD (talk) 14:19, 13 January 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) 07:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no longer mentioned in target article. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, I think if someone searches for this, they should be taken to the search page. There's no point in having it redirected to a page that doesn't include the search term. Tavix |  Talk  00:48, 28 January 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.

List of ...for Dummies books[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 (non-admin closure). I see no agreement in the lengthy discussion below on what to do with this redirect, and the discussion has fizzled. A "no consensus" result is one in which no action is agreed upon, thus the redirect is kept, however the redirects were already retargeted to the current section name by another user, which I'll take as routine housekeeping. Ivanvector (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine by me if you want to add that to this discussion, if you will please first add the appropriate notice at the redirect itself. The principle is the mostly the same: having a redirect from a potential list-article title seems appropriate to me, seems not helpful to Choor monster apparently. I happened to think that "List of For Dummies books" was the obvious title, and did not find my way to the long-ago AFD about "List of ...For Dummies books" until later. Which is a point towards having the redirects set up, to provide ways to link to previous discussions. --doncram 23:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too tedious for me. Do so if you wish. Whatever is decided here just applies there without need for discussion, right? As it is, I provided the link to the long ago deletion discussion in my initial RFD here, so your point about the need for extra redirects completely escapes me. Redirects are for the benefit of our readers, not editors who are in an RFD. Choor monster (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this redirect was created solely as a gaming-the-system action on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Success as a Mediator for Dummies; there used to be an article with the same title, long-ago deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ...for Dummies books (2 nomination); see also the Edit Summary comments on For Dummies that this "redirect" is a placeholder for a supposedly future article. The comments in the original deletion seem as relevant today as then. The target is actually For Dummies#List of For Dummies books, but the section wasn't a "list" of For Dummies books, just a short annotated list of some better sellers from the series. Choor monster (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...Or targeting whatever the section is named when this discussion is closed. Please see my responses to Doncram's vote below for details. Steel1943 (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That amounts to calling for "Keep", IMO. Of course the redirect should be updated if the section title is changed. Or it could be revised to go to an "anchor" that will stay no matter how many times the section title is revised. Section title has changed several times now. --doncram 01:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nonsense that the redirect was part of any "gaming the system". There obviously are some notable examples, including the book asserted to be the biggest-selling computer book of all time (which was not previously mentioned in the For Dummies article). It is perfectly fine for there to be a section in the For Dummies article listing notable examples in the series, and it is perfectly fine to have a redirect or two to that section, rather than splitting out a separate list-article already. I imagine the deletion nominator would dislike there being a separate Wikipedia article right away; it is appropriate to build a list of notable examples as a section. --doncram 23:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It doesn't matter whether the section in the "For Dummies" article is named "List of For Dummies books" or "Landmark For Dummies books" or whatever; it is helpful to have a redirect from "List of For Dummies books" to the section where a list is started and can be further developed, before it is split out. --doncram 00:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I call its appearance in the midst of an AFD, explicitly mentioned by you, in order to support your preferred outcome of that discussion, "gaming". In particular, I see no reason why any wikilinking shouldn't simply be a pipe directly to For Dummies. Lists, per se, are not a natural wikilink target, almost only used in "See also" or other generic information information. If you have a need to mention an obscure crater on the Moon that doesn't have its own article, you link to the most informative article, not the "List". Choor monster (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, that's incorrect. My !Vote there was/is to Keep the article. My creating the list-section at For Dummies actually facilitates a different outcome. It was created by me to end silliness there about whether a list of For dummies books could exist as a list-article; it is obvious that a list can exist as a section at least, if not a separate list-article. Your opening this RFD seems to support your preferred outcome of that discussion, "gaming".... --doncram 00:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doncram: Regardless of the nominator's intent with nominating the redirect, as the situation currently stands, the section in the nominated redirect, For Dummies#List of For Dummies books, currently does not exist in the article, so "keep" is not really a valid outcome. For it to be, the section would have to be created; at the present time, the only section that even slightly resembles the topic of the redirect's title, from what I see, is the section I mentioned in my "vote" above. Redirects to sections that do not exist are not helpful for our readers; in fact, I've seen in some cases in the past where a redirect would be deleted per WP:REDLINK to promote article creation, but as mentioned above, that may not be the best case since the list as an article has been nominated for WP:AFD previously. Steel1943 (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only because, just before opening this RFD (24 minutes before), the RFD nominator changed it, in this edit, to show "Landmark For Dummies books", instead. The section title did exist exactly as "List of For Dummies books". Was that to help "win" a little battle here? In my opinion, "List of For Dummies books" is obviously the better section title. Either way, it is appropriate to use redirects at List of For Dummies books and at List of ...for Dummies books to give a heads-up to future editors that they oughta check out the section there, first, instead of proceeding with the otherwise natural step of creating a list-article separately at either of these natural titles. (And it would be fine to include, in hidden comments or at Talk pages of those redirects, links to the long-ago AFD, for their information, although they and we are not strictly bound by that long-ago AFD. And you don't get it, I am supporting the sense of the AFD, that a separate list-article is not yet needed...). Obviously the redirect be adjusted to point to the actual section title, if/when that settles down. I wonder, should I respond by changing the section title back to "List of For Dummies books"? Would that help in "winning" the RFD here, with you, Steel1943? I'm not going to edit-war there. This is all a bit silly. Redirects are cheap; having a couple redirects to establish where a list-article / list-section is being developed is highly appropriate. --doncram 02:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doncram, the nominator's edit diff you referenced above answered my concerns stated above in my vote. Since the section I referenced above for a retargeting option is the current section target renamed, we essentially want the redirect to target the same section. This whole conversation, in my opinion, seems more like a content dispute that really belongs on the talk page of the article, given the dispute regarding the section name. So, I essentially believe this redirect should target ... whatever the section is named when this discussion is closed. Steel1943 (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies, Doncram, and anyone else reading this. I did not think the exact name of the redirect section mattered, and that the Keep option was of course understood to be "redirect to the appropriate section", and there's no hurry to fix it, since absolutely nothing links to the redirect. I mean, if we close as a Keep and six months from now someone changes the section name yet again, do we have to have another discussion to fix the redirect? Of course not. As it is, I have a hard time wrapping my head around this "list-article/list-section is being developed" bit you assert. A couple of books a day? Why don't you just download the publisher's list?
  • Of course redirects are cheap. But there is a list of proper reasons for a redirect, and this one doesn't meet any of them. In fact, I have a very hard time visualizing how it could ever serve a purpose. A particular title should, if linked, be linked to For Dummies. As I mentioned, "List of" links are very uncommon in the first place.
  • In the 8 years since the original List was deleted, no one has had the least bit of inclination to recreate it, until the Success AFD came up. I think that is quite telling. Choor monster (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to comment, repeating somewhat. It's not "telling" that there is not yet a big list of For Dummies books. I have the impression that a number of them are quite notable, including the book asserted to be the biggest-selling computer book of all time (which was not previously mentioned in the For Dummies article). I for one was surprised there was not yet such a list, but I think I am more comfortable with the value of incomplete lists like List of Presbyterian churches. I am not terribly interested, myself, in creating a separate list-article, as indeed the publisher itself publishes a webpage list at For Dummies titles, but it seems to me that a short list of the most notable ones oughta be available. Implicitly, a "List of Things" in wikipedia is a "List of Important-Enough-To-Mention Things"; we don't have to use the qualifier "Notable" or "Landmark" in the title.
There is indeed use for having the redirects from natural list-article titles to a starter list in a section (i.e. from List of For Dummies books and from List of ...for Dummies books). This gives a heads-up to future editors that they oughta check out the section there, first, instead of proceeding with the otherwise natural step of creating a list-article separately at either of these natural titles. And it would be fine to include, in hidden comments or at Talk pages of those redirects, links to the long-ago AFD, for their information, although they and we are not strictly bound by that long-ago AFD, which was not informed by current practices with lists and views such as wp:CLT. I think you don't get that I am supporting the sense of the past AFD, that a separate list-article is not yet needed.
Again, redirects are cheap, but also don't matter very much, and I am repeating, so I may not comment further. --doncram 00:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two kinds of WP lists. Those that list everything that meets some criterion (in which case not all items need be notable) and those that are incomplete lists, restricted to WP-notable items only (although they might not yet have an article). If you are claiming the second kind of list, then most of those items need to be deleted. Calling it "landmark" on my part was doing you a favor.
  • And as for someone wondering about creating a potential List of X, he doesn't need a redirect to be told to check out X. If I think a List of people from Xenia, Ohio might be interesting, I don't create it first, I check out Xenia, Ohio. There is a list there, and I don't do anyone any favors by creating the "List" as a redirect. Again, by admitting that you're not interested in doing the work, and have nothing to offer more than a link to the publisher, you have admitted, as far as I can tell, you were only gaming-the-system on the earlier AFD. Choor monster (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is still all nonsense, IMHO, as I was not gaming any system. This seems a bit too much personally directed...you are seeming to accuse me as an individual, verging on violation of wp:NPA. To rebut point by point:
  1. I see you interpret my having created a redirect as gaming somewhow, but really it was just a convenient, non-controversial step, to link to where a list could naturally be created. To end what I thought was unnecessary discussion about whether a list of For Dummies books could exist and be the redirect target for that one For Dummy book title. Of course a list of For Dummies books could exist, I thought, and i put a small effort into creating a starter list of some of the more notable ones, including one asserted to be the biggest-selling computer book of all time. Having a list did not game/fix that the one For Dummy book title should be redirected to there; it just ended discussion of whether a list could exist or not.
  2. It is often helpful for a redirect to be created at alternate name for a topic, so that a duplicative article is not started later. E.g. see ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coral Springs Museum of Art, where it turns out a duplicative article was started. One reason I created the two redirects in this case was exactly that reason, to head off someone in the future from starting a separate list-article. It is an obvious list-article to create. Someone did created a version long ago at a title variation. I myself thought to and did create a version. I am sure others have and will think of doing so.
  3. Another reason to have a redirect is that it allows the redirect to be included in categories that are not properly descriptive of the target. E.g. List of For Dummies books is now included in Category:Lists of books by imprint or publisher. It could be labelled as a "redirect with possibilities", there is a template for that too, and such are accepted contributions in Wikipedia.
  4. Also it is just simply convenient to set up a redirect from the obvious title, to use in discussion rather than trying to type out "article#section title", especially when it is possible someone else might revise the section title. It is thus a useful permanent link. (It's perhaps better if the link goes to an "anchor" that is not as likely to be changed by other editors. In this case the target section title has been changed several times during this RFD.) Of course the redirect should be adjusted as needed so that it points to where it is meant to go.
  5. Redirects are cheap, and these ones serve a purpose, and are in place, and I see no Wikipedia policy or guideline suggesting that they should be deleted.
  6. I have not "admitted" anything like what you say, and your comments are amounting to badgering.
  7. I see no reasoning towards deletion besides personal-attack-type thinking, or battleground-type thinking, in editor Choor monster's comments, which seem to follow on from that editor's participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Pynchon (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Success as a Mediator for Dummies. I see badgering and other problematic participation by that editor in those discussions, too. I don't like my own responding with personal direction about the personally-directed-at-me comments. But this is relevant here as explaining Choor monster's behavior / strength of opinion here. If the closing administrator can see other merit on content/policy in this editor's views, great, but please don't seek a compromise solution to make everyone happy that puts equal weight on non-policy views, however strongly held.
I'd like not to engage further in personally-directed comments here. Please comment on the topic, not the person, at least from now on, please. Take personal issues to a personal Talk page or dispute resolution, please. --doncram 23:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I regret that you feel my comments are a personal attack. The redirect you created still strikes me as absolutely ridiculous, serving no need, and not meeting any of WP:POFRED. The reasons you have advanced are quite spurious. As such, when bringing it up as a point in the previous AFD, it comes off as a manufactured point, a loophole, of the sort mentioned in WP:GAME. Your point 1: whether it could exist or not was silly, since that is true whether or not the redirect actually exists. Creating it was WP:POINTy. Your point 2: it is not an existing topic, so the redirect was not helpful for anyone. Your point 3: I see no WP:LIST in the article, so your category inclusion is actually misleading and ought to be deleted from the article. Since the previous List was deleted, and the deletion reasons seem as germane today as then, this is not a redirect with possibilities. And by creating this category in the middle of this RFD and then saying look at this relevant point, you strike me as again gaming. Worse, it strikes me as a terrible category: WP categories serve a different purpose than WP lists, and you are willy-nilly creating trash by converting a few categories into lists. Your point 4: not in WP:POFRED. Your point 5: completely irrelevant, as if you're hoping something is an argument. I haven't pushed the running-out-of-space panic button, so there is no need to unpush. We do delete redirects, after all. Not for the storage space, but for the reasons stated in WP:R. Your point 6: you have not created anything approaching a WP:LIST. See especially the "Development" subsection under WP:LISTPURP. You created something almost entirely of redlinks, and then missing 99% of what should be there, which this subsection says belongs outside of Main space. That is why I changed the name of the target. And the fact that you stated you are not intending to continue means you were never willing to create a WP:LIST in the first place. Your point 7: Not relevant to this RFD, I'll respond on my Talk page tomorrow. Choor monster (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To the closer: notwithstanding what the last editor is saying (that there is no list), there is a list that the redirect goes to. Well, after i updated the redirects again to reflect the current section title. They said, much further above, that the list, a section in the For Dummies article is not "a 'list' of For Dummies books, just a short annotated list of some better sellers from the series." Right, it is there as a short list of notable For Dummies books, and is not intended by me to become a comprehensive list of all For Dummies books. I literally don't understand the editor's assertions. I and the editor are conversing somewhat on their Talk page. --doncram 20:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And since you did not intend to create a WP:LIST, it was indeed created by you for the sake of making a point in an AFD discussion. That is gaming. Since it is not a WP:LIST, the very name of the redirect is misleading. Choor monster (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I opened what I hope may be a general discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books#Thoughts on lists of books by imprint or publisher. In passing it includes mention of this RFD and also of ongoing AFD about List of Amistad Press books. It's not wp:canvassing to do so (it is not biased, not at personal talk pages, is transparent) and frankly I am really seeking general discussion and feedback; please do consider contributing to general discussion there. --doncram 23:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If we're only ever going to have a selective list, I'm concerned that this will mislead readers. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2014 (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) 07:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't usually complain about a relist, but ... seriously, why was this relisted again? The majority of this discussion is two editors talking to each other with minor comments added by myself and one other editor. I followed this discussion since it started, and consensus looks clear, but I obviously cannot close it since I am involved in this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus. It's too soon after relisting for me to close this myself as a non-admin, but it should be closed. The dispute about what the section header in the For Dummies article should be called should move to its talk page if it hasn't already, and once that is resolved, this should be retargeted to that section as routine maintenance. Ivanvector (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ivanvector: If I hadn't already participated in this discussion, I would go ahead and close it now. This discussion has been open for almost two months, and there have not been any more responses since the first relist on 22 December 2014. IMO, the 7-day rule only applies to the initial nomination time, especially if the discussion has been open for as long as this one has. Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Steel. I hope you don't mind if I take that as an endorsement. Ivanvector (talk) 18:16, 27 January 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.

Welfare check[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. After reviewing the discussion, I do not foresee how another 7 days will help clarify this discussion that has been open for almost three months, with its most recent comment happening on 29 November 2014. Amongst the opinions listed below are "keep", "delete", and "retarget to Welfare queen". From looking at it, the term "welfare queen" doesn't seem as synonymous with the term "welfare check" as the redirect's current target. So, in this case, the lack of consensus results in the redirect staying as is by default. Also, no prejudice in converting the redirect into a disambiguation page, if possible. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The typical meaning of welfare check is when police officers known on a door to see if the resident is okay. I don't see this redirect as appropriate, and if there is no reasonable new target, I would say delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment in American English, a "check" is a "cheque" (British English) as in an instrument of monetary transfer. So this doesn't only mean a police officer coming and checking the wellbeing of a person at risk, it also means the cheque in the mail that transfers monetary funds from the government to the recipient. Indeed, our article welfare queen uses the term "welfare check" in the manner of an instrument of monetary transfer. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Yea, "Check" here is genuinely ambiguous between American and British English, you can blame Noah Webster (I do). A rain check is not to check if it is raining, for example. I thought of Giro#Cultural significance, but that is not helpful for Our American Cousin. Si Trew (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Welfare (disambiguation). Not sure about that, but "Welfare" in my view is quite US-centric, the term "Welfare" I assume is primary is not used in British English. By analogy, Dole Br. Eng.) is a DAB with Unemployment benefits at third and Welfare at fourth entry. Si Trew (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "welfare" is also used in Canadian English, so not just US English. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That definition seems to be more commonly known (and less ambiguously) as "police welfare/wellness check"? [1] [2] [3] 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 07:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: around these parts, "welfare cheque" ("check" for our friends across the lake) is a somewhat derogatory term for social assistance payments used by folks who align with the politics of our infamous soon-to-be-former mayor to denigrate the people who receive such payments. As a hideous example, "the Beer Store is packed today, must be welfare cheque day". Perhaps I am being overly sensitive, but I suggest that this meaning or the one suggested by Oiyarbepsy are both inappropriate POV for the encyclopedia and should simply be deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, it should retarget to welfare queen as that is the pejorative implication of the term. In my experience, anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I missed your pipe: "across the lake" I assumed you meant the Atlantic Ocean and actually you piped "Lake Ontario". Deliberately I said "US-centric" because the target didn't mention Canada at all. Is "cheque" how it would be written in Canadian English? I went out with an Ontarian for seven years, but she didn't never wrote out "cheque". Signed a lot of mine, though. Si Trew (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "cheque" is used in Canada to refer to the instrument of monetary transfer[4][5], while "check" is used to refer to verification. But you can also find "check" used to refer to cheques in Canada. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's something I didn't know: if you add a capital V the link to my userpage breaks. Should we redirect User:IvanVector → User:Ivanvector?? Ivanvector (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC) not a serious suggestion[reply]
Wow, I wonder how that happens. SDoesn't break for me, I just get redlink. Sorry about that, Victor. :) Si Trew (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several possible meaings, and it would seem confusing to redirect to any one of them. Possibly there is some way to disambiguate. DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Police knocking on doors to see if residents are okay is something different from government provided welfare and basic health. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a good reason to delete... ansh666 01:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there have been a lot of comments above and good discussion, but we're all tripping around the fact that we don't have an article for many of the suggested meanings, but keeping this redirect as-is gets readers to the information they're looking for, even if they might need more clicks if they want more specific information. There is a Welfare (disambiguation) but I think the redirect is best as-is, for the same reasons. Ivanvector (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even absent the police term, we don't seem to discuss actual welfare checks, the means of transferring welfare benefits, anywhere. "Welfare check" and "welfare queen" may both be pejorative terms, but I don't think they're at all equivalent. --BDD (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2014 (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) 07:16, 27 January 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.

Carolina Cheetahs[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) 18:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unhelpful, because it's not mentioned in the target article at all, and per WP:REDLINK to show that the article does not exist. Tavix |  Talk  03:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • That list page is the whole reason why I have the WP:REDLINK rationale. Let's say someone stumbles across List of former American Basketball Association teams. Since this person is from Carolina, the Cheetahs catches their eye. There's nothing else listed besides the team name, so they click on that link, only to be redirected right back to where they are. Isn't that frustrating? Now, let's say that Carolina Cheetahs is a redlink. That same person is browsing that list, sees that it is a redlink, and doesn't have to worry about clicking on it. Alternately, this could pique their interest into creating the article (if it is deemed notable). Tavix |  Talk  01:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, that is a good rational to me. Changing !vote to delete. Natg 19 (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom to encourage article creation. --Lenticel (talk) 01:44, 2 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_January_27&oldid=1138580157"