Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 4, 2016.

Cho Su-bin[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) 16:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subin (singer) is named Park Su-bin, according to the only reliable source I found (her Melon profile). Random86 (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I think this redirect should be deleted, since there isn't a subject with this name. Random86 (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Korean wiki has a article about a news anchor by the name of Cho Su Bin (조수빈) in case anybody wanted to know.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2016 (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.

WP:WORDGARBAGE[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) 16:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLEMIC, WP:NEO, WP:CNR, etc. (See also MfD/RfD actions that moved WP:DICK and WP:DIVA and effectively salted those shortcuts.) We do not need cross-namespace redirects for material created specifically to attack another individual editor (which this was [1]). The MfD about this essay/rant concluded with consensus to userspace it, but punted the decision to remove the Wikipedia-namespace redirects for later RfD (which was unnecessary, since userspace without redirect is the conventional outcome for essays that the community forcibly userspaces because they are not appropriate in the project namespace). "Verbage" also a neologism/typo (note the spelling) that no one is likely to use, making the redirect implausible, even if there were a legitimate reason for a WP shortcut for this, which there's not. Various real-English redirects to this page, such as WP:Succinct and WP:Verbiage, have been redirected to Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read, being a real WP-namespace page on the topic. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 3#Grammar Nazis for another RfD about a redirect created simply to attack another editor.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought the redirects were generally transferred even after userification. If that was the concern, you could have brought it up with me. I think one of those was used before the otherwise, I don't oppose deletion of the redirects. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ricky81682: No worries; I'm not "challenging" you, just complying with the close that suggested RfD. I don't have a problem with cautious admins. :-) I simply meant that because it's routine to ditch redirs when unconstructive essays get userspaced (because their authors cite and promote them as if they're guidelines, and the retention of the shortcuts allows them to keep doing this despite the userspacing), this RfD should be open-and-shut.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this redirect; there's no reason to pollute WP: with this nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yah, delete. Is there a group of editors turning to creative synonyms for redirects now? I wish they'd temper themselves. Tony (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2016 (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.

Nutrition Party[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. 09:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per WP:REDLINK. Could equally target United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016#Nutrition Party and United States presidential election, 2016#Nutrition Party. The search engine handles searches for this term appropriately. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Nutrition Party" redirects to Silva, so in accordance with Democratic Party (United States), Republican Party (United States), etc. it should be kept that way until a Nutrition Party article can be created. MB298 (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Huh???? Since both of those parties existed before the birth of Wikipedia, I don't understand what precedence this comment is based. Steel1943 (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Without the subject of the redirect being notable enough for its own article, it's confusing and vague at best. At the present time, until more notability is established for any "Nutrition Party" subject, a disambiguation page would be unwarranted: Search results would be more helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep U.S. political party with ballot access in at least one state, potentially a search term. As it currently does not have an standalone article, it seems appropriate to redirect to the party's founder and inaugural candidate. No compelling reason for deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like this is a one-man operation, so redirecting to his article makes sense. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete?: Nom is correct that there are three potential targets, and that search allows people to find them. Given the obscurity of the topic, it's going to be a toss-up for a long time, maybe forever, which will be petter developed about the party as such. It may only have one candidate, but it's not really a one-person operation if they have enough supporters to get on a US state ballot already. If I were looking for this, I think I would pick one of the election articles, on the assumption that the individual bio is, well, an individual bio, not about the party per se.
    Alternative: Create a section at the bio for the party, for now, in lieu of a full article on it pending increased notability, then target the redirect specifically at that section. In the short term that's probably the most useful outcome, but someone has to care enough to do it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until and unless an article on the political party itself is written. From what I can tell, this party exists solely as a vehicle for Silva. The explanation of the topic is much better at this article than at either of the time-locked lists about the 2016 election. Rossami (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2016 (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.

Grills bare[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) 16:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RTYPO. There are way too many typos here to be a plausible redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's not really a typo but, to my surprise, I can't find any RS that this is used as a sarcastic moniker; perhaps I am just not searching right. But Grills Bear and Grylls Bear are red (Grylls, Bear has the same target), so this is just WP:RFD#D2 confusing, really, not at target. No links, stats below noise level (one day last month got four hits though). Si Trew (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just WP:NONSENSE. This is exactly the same as creating a redirect "Twine murk" for Mark Twain.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:16, 5 April 2016 (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.

Pubic region[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 12#Pubic region

Development of untitled Batman/Superman film[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) 16:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No longer needed. Note: has history. SSTflyer 03:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "No longer needed" is not a valid reason for deletion. No apparent potential for confusion and no good reason to break the history. Rossami (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it was never "needed" to begin with. As the film is no longer untitled, the redirect is incorrect, and there is potential for confusion, especially when/if they begin work on a sequel. -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Deleting a page does not break its history; it can be retrieved if necessary. Otherwise, we'd never be able to delete anything. Si Trew (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A phrase this specific was not probably a plausible search term, and now certainly isn't.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:15, 5 April 2016 (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.

Batman and Superman[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 12#Batman and Superman

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_4&oldid=1077415393"