Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 22, 2015.

Aaliyah X[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. 08:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D5, nonsense. Aaliyah doesn't have anything titled "Aaliyah X" -- Tavix (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as implausible synonym. The artist wasn't called as such nor did she created songs and/or albums named as such. --Lenticel (talk) 00:43, 27 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.

The Office spinoff[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) 14:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parks and Recreation is not a spinoff from The Office. The show was originally going to be, but that idea was scrapped early on (see Parks and Recreation#Conception). Delete as confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per the RfD delete confusing/misleading criterion (I'm too lazy to look it up right now, just like these redirects are lazy). Parks and Recreation is not a spinoff of The Office, it was barely a spinoff of The Office (U.S. TV series), and in any case it's not untitled. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC) I copied my comment from the discussion below, because that's just how lazy these redirects are. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as vague. --Lenticel (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Office is a The Office spinoff, and office spinoff can refer to oh so many things, such as Microsoft Works with Word, etc. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:02, 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.

Skittles (confectioner y)[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) 14:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, implausible typo. It's less than four months old so I don't think we have to worry about breaking any links. -- Tavix (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that but didn't because I figured it was too long ago. Is there anywhere that defines "recent" or is that just up to the admin's interpretation? -- Tavix (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Admin interpretation, I think. What defines "recent" would be an explosive ANI case I'm sure. I figured since you called it "less than four months old" then it's probably "recent" enough. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 22 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.

Fresh Pickle[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 (surprisingly, but that's the consensus). Deryck C. 15:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This was originally an article basically explaining "how to grow a fresh pickle" and was redirected instead of deleted (WP:NOTHOWTO). Now it's sitting at a disambiguation page which is completely inappropriate because there is nothing at that page titled "Fresh Pickle." The previous RFD was derailed due to an entry at List of cucumber varieties called "fresh pickle" but it was removed because no one could find any sources on it. Due to that fact, I'm recommending deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I was one of the keep opinions the last time around but we are certainly not pointing this anywhere that says anything about a fresh pickle. Looking at the original "article" it was patent nonsense that should have been speedily deleted rather than converted to a dubious redirect. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absent evidence that this is actually a cultivar. Also, can a pickle really even be fresh? --BDD (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the joke... -- Tavix (talk) 21:20, 22 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.

The Untitled Office Spin-Off[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) 13:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no longer untitled. -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per the RfD delete confusing/misleading criterion (I'm too lazy to look it up right now, just like these redirects are lazy). Parks and Recreation is not a spinoff of The Office, it was barely a spinoff of The Office (U.S. TV series), and in any case it's not untitled. Amy Poehler may have (and likely does have) other untitled projects in the works, but this fails WP:CRYSTAL. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there have been several Microsoft Office spinoffs that were not properly titled until release. Extreme vagueness -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:03, 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.

Kingdom of 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 retarget to Monarchy of Australia. There's consensus that this is an unacceptable synonym for Australia, but that relevant information can be found there. I've also tagged the redirect with {{R unprintworthy}}. --BDD (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such place, could not find any significant usage of the term. - TheChampionMan1234 05:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment technically, as a Commonwealth Realm, it is a kingdom whose monarch is Queen Elizabeth (see Monarchy in Australia ) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Australia is a monarchal country with a Queen of Australia -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Australia is a constitutional monarchy; it is not, and never has been, a kingdom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Monarchy of Australia. One definition of "monarchy" is "a kingdom" (eg: wikt:monarchy). I know it's more complicated than that, but as a redirect, I think this is a good solution. I feel like that's the type of article someone would be looking for if searching with that term. I don't think they'd be looking for Australia because they'd more than likely use the common name and not guess at an official name. I wouldn't object to an {{R from incorrect name}} tag. -- Tavix (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that works, and I'll go with it. The problem I see with that is that "kingdom" (wikt:kingdom) implies an absolute monarchy where the king is the supreme ruler. That is very far from the case for the Head of the Commonwealth/Queen of Australia who actually wields very little absolute power (maybe none). However, someone searching this probably won't be disappointed with an article on the monarchy, unless they're looking for an ancient or pre-European Kingdom of Australia, which doesn't exist. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little bit of research and ended up changing that definition. Take a look at other major dictionaries (I tried M-W and dictionary.com), and they define it simply as a nation/state/country/whatever that has a king and/or queen as it's head. That makes sense when we think about the modern day "Kingdom" of the United Kingdom: Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state, so it would make that definition fit. We can apply that same definition to Australia. Even though it's not a Kingdom (capital K), we can still say "kingdom (lowercase k) of Australia" because Queen Elizabeth II (a monarch) is the head of state of Australia. -- Tavix (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProject Australia has been informed about this discussion. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to the monarchy for reasons illustrated above. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Australia is a federation of states, it was formed by the states for the benefit of the states not the monarch Gnangarra 04:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. ColonialGrid (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally disagree with Tavix's explanation as to usage, there is nothing in the history of australia where the term has been used, the standard appellation for the country where it is an entity in any way other than the country name is the Commonwealth of Australia and nothing to do with anything relative to any monarchy in any way, much closer to Gnangarra's explanation. JarrahTree 06:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that someone searching "kingdom of Australia" is probably looking for "monarchy of Australia", so let's reward them for their efforts. It's a better solution than deleting it simply because Australia is not a Kingdom. {{R from incorrect name}} applies here. -- Tavix (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Entirely plausible mistake that can be searched by anybody who does not have the slightest idea about Australian political and constitutional history and just heard that Australia has a Queen.--The Traditionalist (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
if some just heard Australia had a Queen they would search for Queen of Australia Gnangarra 02:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ivanvector, my position is retarget to monarchy of Australia. I don't think it should be kept at Australia because someone searching for this term would "more than likely use the common name and not guess at an official name." -- Tavix (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bah, I'm not getting enough sleep. !vote adjusted. It's what I meant. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#DELETE item 8 - "the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym ..."
  • Retarget at Monarchy of Australia. It is not in dispute that the country is not and has never been known by that name, but it is a plausible that someone might assume that since there is a "Queen of Australia" (or a King perhaps, in the future), that there's a Kingdom too. It's best to direct such readers to a page that will clarify the matter for them. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:15, 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.

New Gold Mountain[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 29#New Gold Mountain

Leondeon[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) 13:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several non-notable, obscure uses of this word (mostly corporate/institutional names). However none refer to London. - TheChampionMan1234 05:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - implausible misspelling. E is a long way on the keyboard from pretty much all of the other letters in London. Except D, which is for delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this is supposed to be some kind of Korean eye-dialect using Revised Romanization, in which an o-like sound is spelled "eo". It's a very unlikely search term, though, and should probably be deleted per WP:RFD#D8. The IP responsible for this has created a number of other similar redirects; the non-Asian ones, at least, should probably also go if this is deleted. Sideways713 (talk) 22:59, 22 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.

Vittle[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) 13:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Term not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 05:31, 22 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.

Max Read[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 29#Max Read

Summary of trojan war[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 31#Summary of trojan war

Wittle[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 5#Wittle

Yummy Food[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) 13:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 10#Delicious Pie. Not all foods are "yummy" (although I will add, the history shows a pretty epic edit war in November 2009). -- Tavix (talk) 01:40, 22 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.

The intersection of Clinton & Fidelity[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) 13:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not mentioned at the target's article. -- Tavix (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - high potential of being a WP:BLP violation and non-permissible WP:POV redirect. I think WP:G10 should apply. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The truth is more innocuous, though the redirect is still unhelpful. According to this source, this is a literal street intersection in Houston. It's just funny for its own reasons. --BDD (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's why I believe it to be a BLP issue. If not for the connotation, why create the redirect? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Check it out for yourself. -- Tavix (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute its existence; it's clearly there. The issue is that the user who created this redirect asserted its notability, and it can only be notable for being a coincidental but direct inference to the Lewinsky scandal. Furthermore, the creator is a user so toxic they got themselves globally banned by both ArbCom and the community, and there is a suggestion in their block log that they're connected to one of our most prolific vandals. Thus I don't assume good faith that this was created innocuously. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 24 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.

Fireball Foosball Table[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) 13:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO as it appears to be a foosball table brand. -- Tavix (talk) 01:01, 22 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.

Hand Soccer[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) 13:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that basketball was originally played with a soccer ball, I'm not seeing a connection between the phrase and the sport. -- Tavix (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. The closest target that I got is Table football which is operated by hand. --Lenticel (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Handball is the first thing that comes to mind here, but if we can't find other sources calling it "hand soccer", we shouldn't promulgate the misnomer. --BDD (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete would think of European Handball or Foosball, not basketball - 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't seem like a very common nickname. – Illegitimate Barrister 05:56, 28 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.

Baloncesto[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) 13:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D8 and WP:RFOREIGN. -- Tavix (talk) 00:17, 22 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.

African Jungleball[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 Delete, G10 by Chillum Lenticel (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL, not well known name and not found in the article. It's been around since January 2007. -- Tavix (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Seems like vandalism. – Illegitimate Barrister 00:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per R3 and G3; this appears to be blatant racism. Chase (talk | contributions) 00:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obscure synonym at best.--Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disgusting. I've nominated it for speedy deletion. I probably could've just done it myself, but I'd rather have my decision endorsed by another admin. --BDD (talk) 02:43, 22 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_22&oldid=1142587187"