Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 28, 2015.

GC2[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 disambiguate. Thank you 70.51 for finding those. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically per WP:REDLINK. My search results are dominated by a make of car by Geely (although not mentioned there) and a golf simulator, and I feel like at least one of those could/should be notable. However, I couldn't find any references to the Wii, except as the name of a Gioteck controller for the Wii U. -- Tavix (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate there are multiple uses already on Wikipedia. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have provided a sample disambig page below the RfD -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool, that works for me. -- Tavix (talk) 04:18, 29 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.

19-0: The Historic Championship Season of New England's Unbeatable Patriots[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 page is now an article so it is out of scope of RFD. Ongoing concerns can be addressed by return to AFD. Just Chilling (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any opinions regarding this, but I'm doing this per request by 74.130.133.1 on my talk page at User talk:ZappaOMati#redirect, and to quote them: "The reason why is because the Patriots did NOT complete a 19-0 season and there is no reason it should even stay." Zappa24Mati 21:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deflate - factually incorrect in two ways: their regular season was 16-0, not 19-0, and the New York Giants proved they were not unbeatable. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It also wasn't a championship season, again thanks to the Giants. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'll change this to "per WP:REDLINK". It's possible the book achieved notability (there are a few reliable sources which mention it) and notability is not temporary. But it should not point to an article where it's not mentioned at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:REDLINK is usually to encourage article creation. This used to be an article, so you'd probably want to change your vote to "restore article" if you think it's notable. -- Tavix (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that is what I should say. I'll draft an article below the redirect pending the outcome here, but it's going to take me a bit, busy today. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered if it might be that, but since it's not mentioned at the target, you can imagine my WP:SURPRISE. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had my own WP:SURPRISE when I realized that it was me that nominated it seven years ago. It's weird when you come across edits you have no recollection of doing... -- Tavix (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Name of a book that has NOT been released. If the Patriots DID complete a historic 19-0 season and the book was released, then it would have stayed. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drafted - Ok, I restored the last version of the article and made some changes, added refs, etc. From the AfD above and from many other sources that are available from a cursory search, it's clear this written-but-never-released book is notable, since it keeps coming up in sports articles about silly folklore and giant upsets and whatnot 7-8 years after the fact, although I didn't include that in the draft. Please have a look. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article per draft above, per AfD, and earlier convo with Tavix. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC) (or restore and punt to AfD)[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.

!!m[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. Just Chilling (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Yay, more Wiidirects! I'm nominating these basically as a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 10#Instant Messenger (!!M). While I've found that "!!M" is next-to-impossible to use as a search term on Google, I've gleaned some information from previous discussions and the former article that was later redirected. Basically, !!M was rumored to be an Instant Message service for the Wii back in 2006. However those rumors never came to fruition as !!M never happened (and since the Wii is no longer Nintendo's "current" system, I can guarantee that it won't happen now). It survived an RFD last year basically with the directive to add information to the Wii article about !!M, but that never happened. I also don't know why it should, since this isn't significant at all except perhaps as a bit of trivia. Since we don't have any information about this speculation, we should delete it as someone would be searching specifically for information about "!!M" and not about the Wii in general. I'm fairly certain someone would know that that it's Wii upside-down and people don't (and shouldn't) search that way. We don't have a see also for "mom" on the wow page, that'd be silly. -- Tavix (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • ǝʇǝlǝp - as Tavix said, these redirects are ʎllᴉs and highly ǝlqᴉsnɐldɯᴉ. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • xᴉʌɐ⊥ ʮʇᴉʍ ´ǝʇǝlǝp. Si Trew (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ǝʇǝlǝp. Not mentioned in article. sst✈discuss 09:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ǝʇǝlǝD as an implausible search term. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What's next? A "iiW odnetniN" redirect? This is just plain implausible but it doesn't meet R3 because it was created long ago. Also, this is not an April Fools' nomination, so let's not ironically flip our votes. --TL22 (talk) 11:46, 2 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.

Sultan ul Arifeen Sakhi Sultan Bahoo[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) 19:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional redirect, set up apparently by an editor affiliated with a religious sect in Lahore who promotes the title of Sultan-ul-Arifeen for Sultan Bahoo. They keep carrying out promos and edit wars on Sultan Bahoo and several other Sufism-related articles. This redirect was created after they hijacked Template:Sufism by replacing "Sultan Bahoo" link with this redirect. kashmiri TALK 17:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC) kashmiri TALK 17:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The redirect is the full name of Sultan Bahoo. It is a matter pf public record, nothing promotional at all nor associated with any group. JugniSQ (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: @SimonTrew:: The section you mention was recently added by someone from a Pakistani sect who venerate the title of Sultan-ul-Arifeen. They offer no reliable sources for the title except self-published ones. I undid your tag for now. Regards, kashmiri TALK 22:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, perhaps we should rcat as {{R from non-neutral name}} then? Si Trew (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JugniSQ, although I think this is a formal title rather than a proper name. It's a valid redirect nonetheless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: JugniSQ's assertion is false, this is not a "full name" of Sultan Bahoo but his religious honorific (see Sultan-ul-Arifeen for meaning and use ) used and heavily promoted by a small religious group in Lahore. Unfotunately, since early 2015 the group flooded en-wiki with a number of promotional articles whose XfDs were immediately challenged by dozens of sockpuppets. For the sockpuppet investigation, see: [1]. JugniSQ's name was also mentioned there as one of the group. I am writing all this to put the nomination in a wider context for all those who did not follow it. Regards, kashmiri TALK 22:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But well-known religious honorifics do make appropriate redirects. See His Holiness Pope John Paul II. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, thanks. Although I am quite surprised at the existence even of the one you quoted. kashmiri TALK 00:39, 31 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.

Wikipedia:Thangamagan[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) 17:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect resulting from a bad page move. Not a redirect from mainspace so does not qualify for WP:R2 but should be a no-brainer. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 28 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.

Choked with a board[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) 17:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. This is a poor redirect as this does not describe an activity performed by John Wayne Gacy. A window cleaner me (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Factually inaccurate, and misleading. --Kieronoldham (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The target says in section John Wayne Gacy#Arrest and confession that "the victims would be handcuffed or otherwise bound, then choked with a rope or a board"... if that is factually incorrect (and it is not referenced) then we should remove it from the target and delete this as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. My online search gives a lot of results saying he choked with a rope or board across the victims' mouths, and not all seem to be WP mirrors, but none seems particularly RS. Si Trew (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well spotted. That misinformation had been on the article for several years. I've rectified that, and challenge anyone to proffer information from any reputable source pertaining Gacy "choked" with a board.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a medieval torture method -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 70. Whether or not any particular individual discussed in Wikipedia choked another using a board, that's been done more than once in history (e.g. [2]), and it's quite WP:ASTONISHing to redirect the reader to one random instance. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also, "Choked with a board" is not WP:NOUN anyway (though the pp. Choked goes to Choking, it's unused. I have just tagged it as {{R from verb}}.)
Choking with a board is red, as is Choked with a rope and Choking with a rope (which presumably means strangulation). Choking concentrates mostly on accidental choking except for a link to strangulation ( → strangling), which obviously is a different thing from choking with a board. Si Trew (talk) 07:23, 29 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.

Untitled The Legend Of Zelda Game (Wii U)[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 The Legend of Zelda (2016 video game). For now, this is an untitled Legend of Zelda game with the working title The Legend of Zelda. But of course, these will become misleading in not too long. I really think auto-salting "Untitled" could be a positive step. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is referring to The Legend of Zelda (2016 video game). It says that "The Legend of Zelda" is the working title for the game, but that is different from being untitled. -- Tavix (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it has a title that's not "Untitled X," which is usually just a placeholder name. Do you really think these redirects have utility now? They'll just be deleted months down the road when this game gets a fancy "official" subtitle. The stats aren't exactly noise, but they're well under the 1 hit/day average I usually consider "implausible." -- Tavix (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I agree with you on these, but I think this is more of a gray area, just these ones in particular. There is a confirmed future release in this series, only its title is not confirmed, so it's plausible that someone would come here looking for info on the untitled Zelda game, and we have info on that. It's not ambiguous with other possible games, at the moment. Later it will be and then it should be deleted, but that's a problem for future Wikipedia. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:37, 28 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.

Riparian willow[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 deleted WP:CSD#G7 at author's request. JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Riparian willow is a descriptive term for various willow species that grow along streams, not a common name for Salix melanopsis (or any other willow). The citation given to support "riparian willow" as a common name says "Salix melanopsis, a riparian willow with a disjunct distribution..." On doing searches for "riparian willow" all I see are instances where it is used as a descriptive term, not as a common name. If it were used as a common name, I'd turn the redirect into a set index article. I suppose an article/list on riparian willows could be created, but it seems that notability would be dubious. Best course seems to be to delete the redirect. It should not target Salix melanopsis Plantdrew (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:XY. Si Trew (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Riparian zone#Vegetation where various species of willow which are native to riparian biomes are listed. I agree it does not refer to S. melanopsis in particular. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Nice find, but there are also lots of plants there that are not willow, so I am not sure that retargeting there would be helpful. Perhaps we just make it a list article, but would that be WP:SYNTHESIS? As Plantdrew suggests, it might be hard to find RS since its use as a descriptive term will make it hard to know which species the author meant (if even they knew.) F'rexample what species of willow is meant in The Wind in the Willows? Si Trew (talk) 07:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm confused now. I didn't do my usual homework on this (you guys know where trouts go) but now I realize this redirect was created one day earlier, by the editor who nominated it for deletion. @Plantdrew: Can we skip this discussion and jump to WP:G7 "author requests deletion"? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do the trouts go in the river? Si Trew (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Yeah, I'll G7 it. I got confused. I've been tagging existing plant common name redirects with redirect categories as well as creating new redirects; at the point I realized riparian willow wasn't a common name for S. melanopsis I was thinking it existed before I came along. Sorry to waste your time here. 15:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Nominated for speedy deletion G&. Not sure if I should remove the RfD template from the redirect before discussion here is formally closed. Guess it doesn't matter too much if it actually gets deleted soon (though it looks like there's a bit of a backlog for speedy deletion right now). Plantdrew (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a waste of time at all, discussing redirects is pretty much all we do here. Yeah, no need to remove the template, if it's speedied then it will disappear anyway, and if speedy is declined for some reason then this discussion is still open by default. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 29 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.

Next batch of untitled redirects[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) 17:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the "untitled" probelm. These are all redirects to a target that has a title, making them outdated and/or incorrect. I nominated ~100 a few months ago, but they keep coming. -- Tavix (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • These fall into a few different categories:
  • Blue Beetle, Will Ferrell: created recently while the targets were already titled. These are nonsense and should be deleted.
  • 2011 AMC: nonsensically ambiguous. Delete per WP:RFD#D2.
  • Kohen Kobi Kalidas: old enough to fit {{R from page move}}, but potentially ambiguous with other things which since became titled, or may become titled later.
  • Velraj, Akhil Akkineni, Allu Arjun Boyapati, Allu Arjun - Boyapati: {{R from page move}} but not old enough to have developed usefulness.
So that's a long-winded way of saying delete all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:03, 28 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_28&oldid=1219401980"