Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 18, 2015.

2060 Summer Olympics[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) 17:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. You may find a related discussion from May 2015 here. -- Tavix (talk) 19:58, 18 October 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.

Wii launch games[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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 08:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect sst✈ 15:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:RFD#K5. Not a phrase I was familiar with, but definitely plausible. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's nothing wrong with going from a subtopic to a general topic when the article being discussed does indeed address that very subtopic. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:29, 25 October 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.

Nindendo Revolution[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) 17:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect sst✈ 15:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep {{R from misspelling}} mistaking "t" for "d"; the "Revolution" alternate name is documented in the target -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. "Revolution" was the code-name and is rarely used to refer to the system, and it is combined with a misspelling. Most hits I get are Wiki-mirrors, and there's not much else. -- Tavix (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The company that makes the device and its working name. Unfortunately it is misspelled, Nintendo Revolution exists though issues have been raised about similar redirects (see here for more info).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:59, 18 October 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.

Wiintendo[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. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect sst✈ 15:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep {{R from alternate name}} -- slang name for the console [1] -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Not mentioned at the target, and while it may be used as slang, I don't find any reliable sources using the term. It appears to refer to user(s) at several different sites, and a mod site itself; either way, perhaps undue promotion.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is it promoting? It's the Wii console by Nintendo, Wii+Ninendo = Wiitendo -- and we already have an article on it, there's no superlatives in the redirect ; this isn't an article, it si a redirect, so reliably sourcing slang redirects is an odd thing to since redirects don't support references, and slang is generally not used in reliable sources. Adding synonyms to the article itself is also odd, since it contravenes making dictionary entries out of articles. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:59, 18 October 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.

Nintendo revulution[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) 17:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect sst✈ 15:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you spell revoulve, then? Very 18th century :) Not dropped but replaced. Still plausible. Si Trew (talk) 10:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, stats show that this isn't used and is thus implausible. It got 12 hits total in the two months prior to this one, which is at noise level. -- Tavix (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:59, 18 October 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 art historians who happen to be women[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) 17:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gloriously fails WP:NPOV. The Traditionalist (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the the redirect was the original title. If this is the case do we need to keep it of are we allowed to remove original titles?--64.229.166.187 (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A total of one hit this month and two last month. One would expect the bots to cause more traffic than that. The only policy rationale for keeping this is that there may be external incoming links. As it was moved to the current title just over one hour after the article was created, that is unlikely in the extreme. SpinningSpark 21:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per G S Palmer.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obscure synonym at best --Lenticel (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete especially per Spinningspark. Not necessary to keep page move redirects which only lived for a matter of minutes and have no current activity. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:48, 19 October 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.

Anatidaephobia[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. 18:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFD'd twice, years ago, as a joke phobia from an old Far Side strip. It was redirected to List_of_phobias#Jocular_and_fictional_phobias until that section was removed; it now directs to Specific phobia which has nothing to say about anatidaephobia. McGeddon (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I got an "Adding deletion tag to redirect: Failed to save edit: Page is fully protected" warning when nominating this, but I assume this doesn't invalidate the discussion?) --McGeddon (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I put an edit request on the page to add the tag. No, it should not prejudice this discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the section was removed in this edit and the redirect was retargeted as a result, although as far as I can tell there isn't nor has ever been any content about this at the new target. Still looking into it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page discussion referred to is here. It seems that the longstanding section was removed by a consensus of one editor. Since the section was for the most part properly referenced and contains information that readers are obviously looking for, I propose per WP:PRESERVE that we restore the section and retarget this redirect there. Alternatively, a new list article could be created from the content in that section, and this redirect pointed there. In any case full protection on the redirect should be maintained, according to the history it's actually been deleted ten times and was a frequent target of vandalism. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus of two, actually. The issue was that while much of the material was properly cited, it was not suitable for coverage on Wikipedia or the coverage given was undue. Most of these were neologisms created for humorous effect and used once, but then covered in various lists of phobias in other media. Anatidaephobia is a good example, the term having been created for a comic strip and never used anywhere else, except in discussions of that comic strip and lists of phobia names.--Srleffler (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and retarget per Ivanvector. --Rubbish computer 00:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and retarget per Ivanvector. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Not even remotely notable, and the section it formerly targeted was trivia-like garbage. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems that the two options are either outright deletion, or restore content. I've left a note on Talk:List of phobias to direct more participation to this discussion. I note that a related possibility is to restore the list of fictional phobias into a separate list article at List of jocular and fictional phobias.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A good case for speedying. The page has been deleted twelve times and permanently protected against recreation, so how have we even got here? This kind of material is more suitable for Wiktionary, but even there it would probably struggle. Their CFI require three quotations of usage from durably archived sources. I doubt that anybody other than Larson has actually used the word, as opposed to mentioning it (ie, just defining it). I am also in favour of do not restore the list. It is pure cruft, there is no limit to such made up words; a comprehensive list would be huge. Any list should be limited to notable examples of such words (if there are any), that is, words that already have, or could have, an article. SpinningSpark 16:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term lacks notability; content relating to it does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia nor Wiktionary, for the reasons discussed above. The redirect serves to prevent the page from being recreated. If recreation can be prevented by other means, by all means delete the redirect. --Srleffler (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redirect does not in any way stop page creation (except by way of confusing the would be creator). It is page protection that stops it being recreated, whether the page exists as a redirect or has been completely deleted. SpinningSpark 17:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a notable subject and there isn't a suitable target. -- Tavix (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We're not talking about any kind of really popular and well-covered fictional concept here (like death rays, anti-gravity things, etc). This just isn't particularly notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:31, 25 October 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.

RIVER[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) 17:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant. Why would any reader type River in caps.? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget River A person using a keyboard with a broken caps lock key might. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 00:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to river -- {{R from alternate capitalization}} -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - R.I.V.E.R. does not appear to be an acronym for anything, and hard-retargeting an all-caps redirect just bypasses the search engine. Unnecessary. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per the two above. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 18:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. —Kusma (t·c) 18:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. Someone who types in all caps is probably looking for a topic that's capitalised abnormally, not the ordinary non-proper noun at the base title. That's why, e.g. BOLD, GREEN, BIRD, WHIP, COWS, and many other all-caps titles point to disambiguation pages rather than base titles. However, there doesn't seem to be anything at River (disambiguation) which is normally written in all-caps. (On the other other hand, whip (disambiguation) doesn't seem to have any WHIPs either.) 210.6.254.106 (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Walks plus hits per innings pitched (WHIP). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The other WHIP is a radio station, hence why it is at a disambiguation and not Walks plus hits per innings pitched. -- Tavix (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks, missed that. Struck my incorrect statement. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RCAPS unless it can be proven that any subjects are known as "RIVER", either as an acronym or via branding, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to river. Sometimes, a pet or young child will press "caps lock" at an inopportune moment. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:08, 20 October 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.

If you want to know what God thinks about money, just look at the people He gives it to[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) 17:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just an excuse for a POV statement. No incoming links and an unlikely search term. SpinningSpark 10:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV redirects (as opposed to purely abusive "Joe Bloggs is a loser" redirects) to neutrally-titled pages are fine in general per WP:RNEUTRAL, lack of incoming links is not a deletion criterion, and quotes may be likely search terms (this one gets more traffic than some articles I've written). However this one isn't useful to readers as the target page tells them nothing about the quote (and nor should it, per WP:WEIGHT; the quote appears to have been general Dorothy Parker snark rather than part of any specific notable criticism of prosperity theology), and there doesn't appear to be a better target. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 210.6 based on there being no explanation for this quote at the loosely-associated target, and there being no better target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:00, 19 October 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.

Pedovement[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) 17:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:R#D8. Apparently an effort to promote an obscure protologism. Not mentioned on target, and the only Google hits are for Wikipedia scrapers. I suppose it might be a typo for "pedocement" (a geological term for cement formed through pedocementation, i.e. cementation (geology) of soil), but that article doesn't use the term pedocementation. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess this is supposed to mean "pedo movement"? Salon had some interesting articles from a member of Virtuous Pedophiles, and there might be a merit for such an article if we could pin down the "movement" this might represent. I don't see what can be done with this redirect right now, though. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Only google thinks this could be a misspelling of pedocement. Even if it was, the redirect would make no sense at all. SpinningSpark 16:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like this is a term that's not really used out there in the world by reliable sources. The redirect just plain isn't helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:00, 19 October 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.

United States presidential election, 2028[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 same will go for 2020. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BALL. 333-blue 03:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2024 is create-protected, to boot. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2028 has been deleted a few times now, so it seems that one should be salted as well. -- Tavix (talk) 14:59, 19 October 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.

华夏电影[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. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are foreign language redirects. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: not English, or translate, then redirect, delete'll be better, which is a redirect. 333-blue 03:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep {{R from alternate language}} original language names, therefore valid search terms. This is a company in China, so will have a Chinese language name, and we have redirects from the real names of things to the English titles used on Wikipedia, because it is logical that one should be able to search under the real name and not just the fake name that people/marketers/linguists/governments invent for use in English. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per 70 & WP:FORRED; the language of the redirect is clearly related to the target. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, original language name of the company, clearly useful, clearly related language. Creation of this type of foreign language redirects should be encouraged. —Kusma (t·c) 10:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:FORRED as the redirect's language has a primary affiliation to the topic. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while WP:FORRED often is a deletion rational in case like this it does not apply here since a Chinese name for a Chinese company is clearly a Strong connection.--67.68.163.32 (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be the company's native name --Lenticel (talk) 01:08, 19 October 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_October_18&oldid=1037881442"