Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 14[edit]

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

List of Pokemon Orange Islands Gym Leaders[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 24#List of Pokemon Orange Islands Gym Leaders

Mcdonalds marketing fail on twitter[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. Deryck C. 21:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another "essay" that should have been deleted instead of redirected. -- Tavix (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the content that was mentioned in the Twiiter fail aricle is now covered at Hashtag#Consumer complaints and is the only example given. I'm curious I if the level of coverage is appropriate or if it is giving go much attention to this particular issue and should be removed?--67.68.29.1 (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. On 67.68's point: I think the passage in the Hashtag article is fine as is, it's a good example of what's being described there. This redirect is probably excessively POV for that subject though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 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.

Untitled superhero projects[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) 02:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are all outdated redirects. The projects that these redirects refer to all have titles. They should be deleted as confusing because it might lead people to think they are referring to a separate, future untitled project. -- Tavix (talk) 16:23, 14 July 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.

Balompié[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. Deryck C. 12:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D8 and WP:RFOREIGN as this is an obscure synonym for football. Even in Spanish, it's mainly called "fútbol" (see also: es:Fútbol). -- Tavix (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - never used. GiantSnowman 17:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unclear how this would be useful on enWiki. I would think people coming to the English Wikipedia would search for articles using the English language. This is not a term used in English. Fenix down (talk) 08:04, 16 July 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.

Human Rights in the Qur'an[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, unopposed. Deryck C. 12:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of human rights isn't discussed at the target article. This also doesn't seem like a good fit for any of the topics at the (messy) dab Human rights in Islam. Were that an article, it would probably make sense to retarget there. BDD (talk) 15:25, 14 July 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.

Wilhelm Hasselbach[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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirects to other language wikis are generally not considered useful on the English WP. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've replaced the only link to it with an {{interlanguage link}}. (As with a normal link, it's not operational during this RfD, since an English "article" by this name is detected.) --BDD (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-English content not useful for the general readership as the readership is not expected to know any language except English in common with any other reader. Most English-speaking localities are not associated with German language usage. Further WP:REDLINK, if an article appears on German Wikipedia, then we can expect it should support an English language one, so delete to encourage creation -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:22, 15 July 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.

Template:Crackers[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 as confusing.] - Nabla (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few uses of this redirect, but I propose they be replaced and the redirect deleted. The name suggests a navbox of Cracker (food). While "cracker" is certainly a term for white people, it's not from non-Western cultures, as the navbox is currently defined. This was the original title of the template when it was created in July 2009, but the second edit, the next day, was to move it to the current title. BDD (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete that's a horrid redirect. "White people terms" is not a template about "crackers" which leads to a disambiguation page. Indeed there is nothing about African American slang in that template at all. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~GottaGoFast Stepitup 14:41, 15 July 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.

Women's Health Clinic[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. Deryck C. 12:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "Women's Health" and "Abortion" mean the same thing. I say we delete it. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It might be better to improve the target article. As far as I know, most abortion clinics (e.g., Planned Parenthood) provide a variety of other women's health services. That could make the title a bit misleading, but I suspect it might still be the WP:COMMONNAME. --BDD (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Women's Health and Abortion are certainly not the same thing. ~GottaGoFast Stepitup 14:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - these are not the same thing at all. Women's health =/= abortion Do you know what the WP:COMMONNAME for abortion clinics is? Abortion clinics. I almost think this is some kind of antichoice political statement. Ogress smash! 11:04, 23 July 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.

Windows X[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 24#Windows X

Bill Cunningham (politician)[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 without prejudice against article creation. Meanwhile, WP:DABMENTION at Bill Cunningham is a sufficient solution. Deryck C. 09:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unsuccessful politician in one election. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Burnaby—Douglas. He is a perennial candidate in that riding, as such there is more information on him there than in the currently targeted list. Ivanvector (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:POLOUTCOMES, bullet point #3 — it's considered standard practice on Wikipedia that the names of unelected candidates who don't have any other claim to notability are always allowed to be be created as a redirect to a candidate list of this type. The original reasoning, in part, was an attempt to actively control the likelihood of somebody creating a campaign brochure article about the candidate (it didn't eliminate it entirely, since it is possible to convert a redirect into an article — but it certainly reduced it, as newbies who are unfamiliar with WP:NPOL are also less likely to know how to get to the redirect's edit window since it's not as easy as getting to the edit window of a regular article.)
    I'm not at all wedded to the keeping of all the redirects — they sometimes end up sitting on top of more notable people with the same name, and given the tightening of related policies (WP:BLP, etc.) that's happened since the consensus was first established in 2004, even the lists themselves have far less encyclopedic value today than was originally thought. (And I absolutely don't buy that any Wikipedia user is actually looking for information about these people, either.) I'd be completely in favour of overturning that consensus, and completely killing off all of the lists and all of the candidates whose names exist as redirects to them — in fact, I've tried arguing for exactly that more than once in the past.
    But because there has been an established consensus that this was a standard practice, there are literally hundreds, maybe even thousands, of such redirects from non-winning candidates in past Canadian elections (at both the federal and provincial levels) to candidate lists of this type, and I can't see any valid reason to single out Cunningham as a special case. Either he needs to stay or all such redirects need to go — Cunningham is not an isolated case who's uniquely ineligible for the standard consensus practice, while hundreds to thousands of his fellow candidates continue to stay around as redirects to candidate lists. Keep, pending a larger discussion to overturn the consensus and kill off all of the contextually identical redirects that also exist. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly this 2004 consensus needs to be reversed because it goes against the purpose of an encyclopedia at the base. An encyclopedia provides information about a notable subject. Redirects only work if the subject is contained in a substantive way in the target article. Redirects to lists that carry a name and virtually nothing else should be discouraged as unencyclopedic IMO. WP:NOT discourages directories, which this redirect contributes to. It could be argued that the target is in violation of WP:NOT but I think the political area and context serves as an exception. Adding redirects however increases the violation of WP:NOT to unacceptable levels. Dragonfire X (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how else to say this, but - is this a joke? Like, literally every sentence here is 100% factually wrong in a way that's a 100% diametrically opposed to the true of the matter. The redirect is the whole point of an encyclopaedia - to provide one with a refreshed on the notable information about the subject, which is exactly what's being done here. Redirects work when we have information about a subject, but there isn't so much as to necessitate a separate article - why in the world would we tell readers "Yes, you're looking for information on Bill Cunnigham, and yes, we have information on Bill Cunningham, but we're going to do our darnedest to stop you from finding it!" - hiding information from readers, as you're proposing, would go exactly "against the purpose of an encyclopaedia at the base". And so on. WilyD 06:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • But where is the information on Bill Cunningham? And when I say information I mean more than just a name check. It does not achieve what you say it should be achieving. No, we do not have information on him to correct your comment. Dragonfire X (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • In Burnaby—Douglas. Did you not look at the article before !voting? That would certainly explain why what you're saying doesn't make any sense, or jive with the facts. WilyD 09:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not "jiving" with the facts. Name checks are not information. To insist that it is smells of WP:SNOW and possible WP:COI. I repeat that this should be deleted. Dragonfire X (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • The electoral district's article contains no more substantive information about him than the list does. His name just appears in a couple of the vote results tables, but nowhere in the entire article is there any information about him beyond the presence of his name as superficial acknowledgement that he exists. If the problem with redirecting him to a candidate list is that the list just namechecks his existence while failing to offer any substantive information about him, then redirecting him to the Burnaby—Douglas article doesn't solve that problem, because that article also just namechecks his existence while failing to offer any substantive information about him. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Burnaby—Douglas indeed, since he's been a candidate there multiple times. Until he wins, redlinking to encourage creation is a bad idea, so we should send readers to the page with the most information on the subject. WilyD 06:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thanks User:Steel1943 for digging this out from the old logs. We forgot to close this discussion last month. Since I can't see an overwhelming consensus, I think the best course of action is to relist it as is. Deryck C. 07:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 07:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat's BLP argument. I don't buy that we need to keep this redirect because of a 2004 consensus and I also don't think we are singling out Bill Cunningham. On the other hand, he could be a test case to see whether or not there is consensus to nominate other Canadian perennial candidates for which there isn't information about. I also don't buy Wily's argument that we're making it any harder to find that list. He passes WP:DABMENTION so we can add his name to the Bill Cunningham dab. Problem solved. -- Tavix (talk) 18:35, 21 July 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 Henry Danger Episodes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 23#List of Henry Danger Episodes

Brave (upcoming 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. Deryck C. 09:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 2012 movie Brave has already been released, so why would it still be "upcoming?" SONIC678|Hang out with me! 03:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and speedy close. This should be a common-sense decision, in my opinion. --McDoobAU93 13:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To answer the nom's question, the film was moved to that title when it was still "upcoming" and the redirect is a relic of that. -- Tavix (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. ~GottaGoFast Stepitup 15:13, 15 July 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_July_14&oldid=1050182845"