Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 30, 2015.

God of light[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 List of light deities, which I just created. Thanks to Lenticel for getting me started. --BDD (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently "one of the titles of Lúcifer in the body of Italian witchcraft known as Stregheria", but it's not mentioned at the target article and doesn't seem like a good search term for Lucifer. I'd expect this to redirect to a list of deities associated with light (cf. God of war → List of war deities). BDD (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far I found these gods as fitting the "God of light" moniker.
  • Hyperion (mythology) - "God of Watchfulness, Wisdom and the Light"
  • Apollo - God of music, poetry, art, oracles, archery, plague, medicine, sun, light and knowledge
  • Aether - The god of the upper atmosphere and light.
  • Ao (mythology) - deity that is the personificiation of light
  • Horus as "Her-ur", the god of light
  • Heimdallr - Norse god of light (according to my search)

--Lenticel (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or disambigaute there are many gods of light WP:BIAS Judeo-Christianity isn't the only thing in the world. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:08, 1 December 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.

Rejection of God[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 discussion below has shown that "rejection of God" could refer to a few related concepts so a redirect could be confusing. Deryck C. 10:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how plausible a search term this is, or that it's "close enough" to atheism. The phrase implies the existence of a god, so to me it makes me think of a biblical figure who "rejects" God in the sense of refusing to follow him. Indeed, the redirect originally pointed to Amalek (see Amalek#Judaist views of the Amalekites for context). This seems like more trouble than it's worth. BDD (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The first sentence of the target starts "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities" (my emphasis). Assuming that it's ok to equate a god with a deity, I see no problem here. Acceptance of God is red, though. Si Trew (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And as a WP:FIRSTSENTENCE "the x of y of z" is a study in indirection; it took me a long while to work out what it is an atheist is not believing in, the existence of something, or the belief in that existence. I think they don't believe in the thing, but it might be that they don't believe in the existence of the thing, or that the concept of the belief of the thing exists, but perhaps they might not believe in the belief of the existence. Nobody ever heard of the possessive case? Never mind, no doubt it was a hard-fought "compromise". Chop, chop, chop: Law of Demeter. And so to bed. Si Trew (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment one could say that Lucifer rejected God, but still believes that God exists, so is not an atheist... rejection of the gods does not equate to rejection of the existence of the gods. So... perhaps a set index, disambiguation page or conceptdab is in order -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one makes no sense. More trouble then its worth. Legacypac (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think this would refer to atheism more than anything else, and it's accurate in that Atheism is, in a sense, the rejection of God (yes, God with a capital G is usually the Judeo-Christian God, but I don't think it really matters here). I also think it's a plausible search term, especially for someone who's familiar with the concept, but not the word "atheism" itself. -- Tavix (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent !votes got me thinking about this more, so I'm going to stay neutral for now. I still think it's close enough for Atheism, but it could be close enough for other things too, potentially making this confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think these terms are synonymous; indeed, rejection is not necessarily the same concept as disbelief. I think one could make a plausible argument that an individual can "reject" God while still believing in the existence of God (i.e. by rejecting the notion that they should follow God's commandments). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This could just as well point to apostasy, and for that matter "rejection" doesn't imply "rejection of belief". I just don't see any definite target. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 2 December 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.

Light News[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, G8. --BDD (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect to a non-notable publication. This could mean a bunch of things Legacypac (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Provisional keep due to lack of evidence yet presented to show what other current existing encyclopedic subject this phrase could refer. Otherwise, this is an unambiguous redirect as a shortened name. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Delete the target if it's not notable, but until then, this is fine. Si Trew (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly I tried searching for such things as Fluorescent Tubes Weekly, LED Digest and Matchbox Çollectors Journal. LEDs Magazine (here) did exist once, but was deleted in June 2015 as non-notable. LEUKOS, the Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (here), is red. Collectors of cigarette lighters are found wanting for a journal of record.
An R to soft media would be, I think, essentially WP:OR. Good news is, unsurprisingly, a DAB, on which publication The Good News is an entry, but the good news is not particularly light. City light is an R to tbe DAB at City lights (disambiguation), but City Lights is an article. We have Humor magazine but not Humour magazine nor Humorous weekly even though that term seems quite common). Si Trew (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My checking found the paper was renamed CLN (from City Light News) some years ago, so this redirect is a real stretch. Legacypac (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Light (journal) sounds very implausible. It doesn't look like it includes news at all. --BDD (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The target City Light News is at AfD still due to relists. Could use comments. Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 1 December 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.

Gabriel Dante Rossetti[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 *Rossetti (except Gabriel Rossetti already retargeted to Gabriele Rossetti), delete others. Deryck C. 01:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10 alternative names is too many.

Legacypac (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:13, 30 November 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.

Brown Sequard[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 12#Brown Sequard

Islamic Arab[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 12#Islamic Arab

Filippo Iannone[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. Thanks, Si! --BDD (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, redirect to non-English wiki. Bamyers99 (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no English page for this person. Page redirects appropriately to the correct page. --Stunink (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close, please; I've translated the Italian article, so this is no longer a redirect. It's WP:NOTPERFECT, I am not great at Italian, but better than sending people over to IT:WP which would be WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 23:55, 30 November 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.

Ryszard Kasyna[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. 01:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, redirect to non-English wiki. Bamyers99 (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no English page for this person. Page redirects appropriately to the correct page. --Stunink (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete WP:REDLINK and non-English content ; redirects to non-English content do not serve a readership whose only qualification is reading English. If the subject exists in another language, then this is a prima facie case that it could exist in English thus should be redlinked to encourage creation -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:18, 1 December 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.

Fernando José Monteiro Guimarães[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. 01:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, redirect to non-English wiki. Bamyers99 (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no English page for this person. Page redirects appropriately to the correct page. --Stunink (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is the English Wikipedia. A redirect to an article in another language does not help someone who speaks English. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete WP:REDLINK and non-English content ; redirects to non-English content do not serve a readership whose only qualification is reading English. If the subject exists in another language, then this is a prima facie case that it could exist in English thus should be redlinked to encourage creation -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:19, 1 December 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.

Irrationalism[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. 01:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, the redirect points at a section in the article that doesn't exist. The target article doesn't contain the word "irrationalism", or "rational", or really anything to do with the original redirect, so it doesn't make any sense WP:RFD#D5. MCSDWVL (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Irrationalism is a real philosophical movement which isn't the same as aetheticism. This should be a red link. Mangoe (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. This seems to be a notable subject based on the books I've seen in Google Books --Lenticel (talk) 00:58, 7 December 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.

Arab Islam[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 all. Deryck C. 01:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The target article is about a group of people (Muslims) by ethnicity, so I think these terms are misleading. They suggest an ideology (e.g., a strain of Islam or pan-Arabism) or artistic movement (e.g., architectural). The ones that use "Islamist" are especially egregious, since that can be an inflammatory term. Finally, some of these are just nonsense terms. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Stats for most of these are comfortably under <25⁄60; the three exceptions are Arab-Islamic (37⁄60), Arab-Islam (29⁄60) and Arab Islam (25⁄60: all <1/day, below noise level. Si Trew (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, @BDD: I've pissed on your bonfire a bit by moving the target over the redirect to Arab Muslim (and fixing then for singular versus plural, per WP:TITLE); but I don't think that makes this nomination invalid. No bot has fixed the double redirects yet. Si Trew (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe reverse that. Articles on ethnic groups typically use plural titles. See Arabs, Hungarians, Indigenous Australians, etc. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, I had second thoughts too: but I can't do that as a no-admin: no problem if you as admin do. The article as such is rather thin, anyway, and I've marked it as {[tlx|islam stub}}. Si Trew (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --BDD (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I looked at these earlier when sorting through the 50k list but while I did not like them I could not come up with your good arguement. More redirect spam. Madeupworditism. Legacypac (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Yet another block of Neelix idiosyncrasies. Mangoe (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per others, offensive and nonsense —МандичкаYO 😜 19:17, 4 December 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.

Ted Cruz In Defense of Christians controversy[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. 01:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was redirected as the result of an AfD more than a year ago, to allow for the possibility of a merge. That hasn't been carried out, and the controversy isn't mentioned on Cruz's page. (I'm pretty well informed about American politics, and I had never heard of it.) Editors interested in merging anything can still contact an admin for access. In the meantime, this is just going to mislead and disappoint readers. BDD (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. The only thing controversial (in the article) is his support of the Keystone XL Pipeline, in section Ted Cruz#Environment. Christ is not in the running text at all, although one reference is to the Christian Post. Si Trew (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read this. Although overzealous editors have scrubbed it from Cruz' article, I think it ought to be covered there since it gives an important facet of Cruz' personality and his disposition toward Christians who don't share his dispensationalist/Zionist theology, and Middle Eastern Christians in general. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - useless, since not covered in his article —МандичкаYO 😜 19:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:RFD#DELETE #2, confusing and non-neutral redirect about a non-notable incident. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:53, 11 December 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.

Pro-Nazi[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 all. Deryck C. 01:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The target article is too specific to redirect from the general idea of being "pro-Nazi". Besides the Nazis themselves, many Nazi-era Germans were "pro-Nazi", as are neo-Nazis of any period. For now, I think variants that specify "Nazi Germany" or "during World War II" are ok, but not the ones that are just about support for Nazism generally. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as WP:RFD#D2 confusing via WP:XY for many if not all (a Nazi supporter could just mean a member of the Nazi Party, f'rexample). If memory serves, Orwell was against this kind of confusing generalization, while admittedly being guilty of it himself, see for here in the Atlantic Monthly, for example. Pronazi, pronazist, pronazists, pronazism are not actually words, as far as I can tell, and so are WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete collaboration does not equate to these terms. There should be some other topic on this, if not, then deletion is best. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I went after another batch of Neelix redirects to the same target for other reasons. Most of these are nonsense terms, and based on how quickly he created them it is likely he just dreamed them up, siggesting there is no actual reason to have them. Per ANi these can be deleted quickly if an Admin is so inclined. Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - redirect spam —МандичкаYO 😜 19:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Nazi. Opposition to Nazis. Legacypac (talk) 00:55, 8 December 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.

H-B Woodlawn Chamber Singers[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 unopposed. Deryck C. 01:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable student club not mentioned at the target article. BDD (talk) 15:40, 30 November 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.

Unipers[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. Target section no longer exists and editors in the discussion below think that it's unlikely that UniPers will become notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia in the future. Deryck C. 01:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete redirect, these look like aliases:

Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete all. None of these is at the target, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. The target is an anchor, though none of this is marked as {{R from anchor}}}... yet.... Si Trew (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've listed them all fully and added {{R to anchor}}, but this section/anchor no longer exists. Therefore Delete via WP:RFD#D2 confusing, no mention at target (no anchor). I've also searched for (the starting letters of) each of these terms in the article, and none of them is mentioned anywhere else. The last mention of UniPers was removed by the nominator, with this edit of 18 October 2015. Si Trew (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no reason to keep redirects to nonexistent parts of articles. Should those parts be restored, however? I don't think so, unless UniPers can be demonstrated to be a major romanisation system supported either by a formal institution, by a significant number of specialists or generally by Persian-speakers. --Pare Mo (talk) 02:28, 2 December 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.

Amphibium[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 12#Amphibium

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_30&oldid=1079637787"