Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 6, 2015.

Wikipedia:WANNABEKATE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 15#Wikipedia:WANNABEKATE

Mazda Sierra[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. Just Chilling (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical redirect - can't see any evidence of a Mazda version of the Sierra. Should be deleted IMO. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as purely speculative. Esquivalience t 14:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as speculative/nonsense, per above. My search turned up a dealership called "Sierra Mazda" in Monrovia, California, and a second dealership selling a "2012 Mazda Sierra 1500" which you can see by the pictures is clearly a GMC Sierra. It's true that many North American Ford models had Japanese Mazda equivalents or models which borrowed heavily, but they typically did not carry the same nameplate (Ford Ranger vs. Mazda B-Series for example) but I see no evidence that was the case here. GM was also famous for this in the 80s with many of their smaller cars being released nearly identically under all of their myriad brands (e.g. Chevrolet Cavalier, Pontiac Sunbird, Cadillac Cimarron, Buick Skyhawk and Oldsmobile Firenza were all basically the same car) but Mazda was not one of them. Ivanvector (talk) 14:39, 8 June 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.

Dan Bălan[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 procedural close. This is a move request. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Targeting or Deletion The artist Dan Balan is not recognized by the spelling of his last name Bălan which includes a Moldavian character, as noted on the artist official website[1]. At the request of the Artist and his management his page should be moved to the current re-direct page of Dan Balan while the current page Dan Bălan be used as a redirect Willflash15 (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • What you're looking for is a move (or retitle). Please use WP:RM for this. Let me know if you need any help. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://danbalan.com
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.

Preach (song)[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 M.O (group). Deryck C. 11:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. (A group called M.O (group) had a hit with the record; perhaps retarget to their page or convert to disambig if we can find any other records with the title?) Launchballer 14:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Preach (disambiguation) would need to be created if we wanted to disambiguate, per WP:INCDAB. Retargeting to M.O (group) seems like the best solution if it's the only place we cover a song by this name. --BDD (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently this was meant to be an article about (or redirect from) a song by the non-notable artist Young Dolph, whose article was redirected to 1017 Records since he seems to have been involved in a collaboration released under that label. This redirect results from the bot fixing the double redirect, however the link between this song and 1017 is extremely tenuous; there's no indication that the song was ever connected to the label. Retargeting to M.O (group) per BDD is better. Ivanvector (talk) 14:29, 8 June 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.

Lin Sue Cooney[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, default to keep. Deryck C. 10:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of redirect is not discussed in target article. Subject of redirect is potentially a biography of a living person. However, based on notability requirements the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. While there is a short blurb from local sources and copy of one of those sources re-posted at the Huffington Post none of those sources could be seen as giving the subject significant coverage. Therefore, given that no actual article can be created out of the redirect, I propose that this redirect be deleted. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think she is notable enough to have her own stand-alone article and , quite obviously , I know many here will disagree. But she should at least be mentioned in the article. Honestly, I think Wikipedia is slowly becoming just another regular encyclopedia out there, when many, If not most, of us old-timers here were attracted to the fact that at Wikipedia we could go beyond that and not just educate about the super-notable (what was already out there) but on the "barely under super-notable" as well, thus making us more unique and "cool" than other encyclopedias. Antonio Master Bee Martin (haw haw) 05:19, 30 May, 2015 (UTC)
Delete. I original set up the redirect as the article was only sourced by the person's work website as a poor mans deletion. As the article doesn't met WP:GNG. Spshu (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think we have it backwards here. If she's not notable, that only means she shouldn't have a standalone article. It's entirely normal and appropriate to redirect non-notable people to a notable organization that they're involved with (though this can get thorny if there's more than one particular target). If this person was notable as a KPNX anchor, this seems fine. Refine the target to KPNX#Notable former on-air staff. Retaining the article history could also be useful if she becomes notable. --BDD (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: The individual in question was added by an IP editor several days after the RfD began on 2 June. Per WP:LISTPEOPLE, an individual must be notable per WP:GNG or meet criteria to be considered part of the list verified to a reliable source. Now a reliable source was included, however the list is of notable former anchors. As there are insufficient non-primary reliable sources as is the view of Spshu and myself, for the subject to be considered "notable" as defined by Wikipedia, than the individual should not be listed as they are not notable enough for a stand alone article, nor do they meet criteria of the list.
Furthermore, using the reasoning for keeping by BDD if someone created a List of Americans who died during Iraq War, than all 4,486 killed American servicemembers would warrant a redirect to the list.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, there is a reliable source at the article that discusses her affiliation with the station. The Iraq War argument smacks a bit of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but yes, if we had such a list, I don't see why not. Unique names could be redirects outright; others would need disambiguators and hatnotes, etc. I'm sure there are such redirects for, say, lists of Guantanamo Bay prisoners. I'm about to run, but I'm sure I've seen them before. --BDD (talk) 21:54, 6 June 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.

Futsu[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 Futsu, Nagasaki. Deryck C. 11:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to an old version of the target article, this means "normal", and is slang for a heterosexual person. But there's no longer a section on gay slang at the target article, and per WP:NOTDIC, there probably won't be again. Retarget to Futtsu as misspelling or delete. --BDD (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. I'm no Japanese but I think it's not neutral to have a completely unrelated slang pointed to a city. --Lenticel (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not really slang, it's just an ordinary Japanese dictionary word that also has an obscure secondary slang meaning. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Futsu, Nagasaki and add a {{redirect-distinguish2|Futsu|[[Futtsu]], Chiba}} dab header to that article. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, we could just move Futsu, Nagasaki over the redirect. I'd support that. --BDD (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absent a much bigger centralised discussion than this one, it should probably stay where it is. All other similar articles are now at the "xyz, Nagasaki" form even if the bare form would be unambiguous, e.g. Category:Towns in Nagasaki Prefecture and Category:Dissolved municipalities of Nagasaki Prefecture. This arguably aids WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a good idea, per WP:CONCISE, WP:D, WP:PLACE, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, et al. There are specific guidelines, most notably WP:USPLACE, that override these general principles (unwisely, IMO), but not for Japan. In fact, I came across this while fulfilling some technical move requests for Japanese place names that had unnecessary disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 8 June 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.

Mirpuri people[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. 12:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, moving this title to British Mirpuri community was a really poor idea. If the article only talked about a specific Mirpuri diaspora community, the better approach would've been to expand its scope. No matter; the new article has taken on a life of its own. Delete this per WP:REDLINK so a proper article on Mirpuri people can take its place. There's probably some content at the target article that could be copied or merged. --BDD (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article, prior to the redirect was entirely about the British Mirpuri diaspora. Simply put, it was wrongly named, and it couldn't have been modified to encompass all Mirpuris without a substantial investment of time. I agree that the redirect should removed to enable an editor to create article about Mirpuri people in Mirpur. --RaviC (talk) 23:31, 8 June 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.

Rifk[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 15#Rifk

Aa.com.br[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 14#Aa.com.br

3rd Untitled Studio 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. Just Chilling (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This used to be redirected to "Ciara's Third Studio album" (which is Fantasy Ride, btw). Three bot "fixes" later, we now find it at "Album". This one should go the same way as Ciara's Third Studio album: deleted (the redirect, not the actual album). Tavix | Talk  01:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - excessively ambiguous. Ivanvector (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. I don't think we can point this to any specific albums in the future. --Lenticel (talk) 07:37, 9 June 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_June_6&oldid=1142587165"