Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 12, 2016.

Iron Man of the WWE[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) 21:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non needed redirect. CrashUnderride 12:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not an alias. The only instance of "iron man" in the article is a reference to an iron man match, a type of professional wrestling match. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too easily confused with Iron Man Match and not synonymous with Ambrose.LM2000 (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator. @LM2000: this doesn't seem confusable with the match, the root noun in describing those is "match" not "man". I also believe it is synonymous with Ambrose, since that's what announcers are presently calling him. If a reliable source can later establish other wrestlers were called this by voices in the WWE then it could be adapted into a disambiguation page. Although I've seen other people like Cena called this, this was by fans in forums, so it's not on the same level as Michael Cole calling Dean this. @Ivanvector: it actually is an alias for Ambrose. I added it but someone removed it, so I will add it back and cite more thoroughly this time. I supported it with sources which recognized Cole doing so. Ranze (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it is notably his alias then obviously keep. If it's just something that some people sometimes call him, then it seems more like a vague comparative, and I'm not so sure. I didn't see it when I searched, but I'll have a look at what you come up with. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: That the creator, Ranze, has a habit of adding unverified "nicknames" to article and then arguing for days when they are opposed. IF it's used as a nickname keep it in the article, same with Rose, but the redirects aren't needed. No one is gonna type www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Man_of_the_WWE or www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Mongoose when they could just go to Dean Ambrose or Adam Rose quicker. CrashUnderride 00:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong ad hominem attack there, ever heard of arguing the topic and not the person? In this case I've provided 3 reliable sources supporting the 'Iron Man' nickname in WWE. If you can do so for someone else in WWE then I'm all for changing it to a disambig but until then it ought to be a redirect. People will not type out a name if they don't know it. Sometimes people view only clips of shows. Like if you watched Adam face off against Titus tonight shouting "I'm the Radical Mongoose, the UNIVERSE named me the Radical Mongoose" all you are hearing is RM and not AR. Not everyone watches the entire episode, sometimes their attention wavers, they step out, etc. Ranze (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nicknames don't need to be redirects, as I stated previously. Anyone that knows a nickname will know the wrestlers (oops, I'm sorry) sports entertainers name. Therefore they would be able to come to the article without having to use the redirect. CrashUnderride 06:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the sources do indeed confirm this is a name that he goes by, or at least a plausible variation of it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ambrose called himself the Iron Man of the WWE. We can't include every time a wrestler calls himself "the XX of WWE". The sources only includes the promo and Saxton and Cole comentating a match (Commentators say a lot of thing). However, at WWE.com, Iron man of WWE doesn't redirect to anywhere.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we include every time a wrestler goes by some other alias? Redirects are cheap. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not an alias or a nickname. Just a promo. Not even WWE talks about Iron Man of the WWE in the website. Every week, a wrestler calls himself The Future, The Man, The Best... this aren't nicknames or alias. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To call this a "nickname" or an "alias" is misleading. Ambrose referred to himself as this *once*, somewhat off-handedly, in a promo. He may never refer to himself as this again. It seems completely unnecessary to create a redirect that is unlikely to ever be typed into the search bar. Skudrafan1 (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading given that this isn't the actual nickname of the wrestler --Lenticel (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could see s case if this was a name that Ambrose used consistently but I agree that a term a wrestler once used in a promo does not qualify as a nickname.--67.68.21.106 (talk) 01:57, 17 February 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.

Nakshal (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. There's clear agreement that the existing redirect goes to the wrong place. As we're unsure whether Nakshal is an attested alternative spelling of Naxal, I'm closing this as delete, without prejudice against re-creation by someone who understands the subject. Deryck C. 17:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this page is not necessary and redirect to wrong page. see other related page Naxal (disambiguation) Bongan® →TalkToMe← 18:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Naxal (film). The dab and the page titles needed some cleaning up, but this seems by far the most likely place for this search. --BDD (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless there's evidence that "Nakshal" is an alternative spelling and not just a misspelling. As far as typos go, I don't see this as likely, coupled with confusion of which target is "best." -- Tavix (talk) 16:47, 19 February 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.

Ow the Edge[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) 21:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable meme from the game, unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The internet meme concept of being 'edgy' just for the purposes of being 'edgy' may or may not be notable, but targeting to the character seems clearly not the way to go. I could maybe see retargeting to here maybe, but even that's a stretch. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 15 February 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.

Invisible control character[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 19#Invisible control character

White stereotypes[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 without prejudice against article creation or repurposing existing articles to these titles as appropriate. Deryck C. 17:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the article histories beneath the redirects and performed a histmerge "Stereotypes of ethnic groups from the white race" → Stereotypes of white people in the United States. Deryck C. 17:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another "In the United States" problem. Similar redirects for Hispanics, West and Central Asians, and Arabs have already been deleted. Links available from the most recent of those discussions. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. We deleted the others, and while WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST it would seem a surprise that these existed and the others didn't – and although WP:RNEUTRAL applies to indvidual redirects, this could seem to be a form of systemic bias when a bloc of (say) "Hispanic" ones is deleted but a bloc of "White" ones is kept. These are redirects from the general to the specific, but that is not in itself a reason for deletion (it's a reason for moving the page and then marking it as WP:WORLDWIDE).. Si Trew (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I mentioned in the other discussions and wrote at Wikipedia:In the United States, moving the target article to a general title is also acceptable, at least as an improvement over the status quo. Though I suspect there are enough stereotypes of white people, and perhaps different enough in different places, that multiple pages would be necessary and you'd have a situation like Stereotypes of Asians. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 13 February 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.

Tn air[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. As for the need for attribution, I've checked that no substantial content survives in the current Nike, Inc. article. I've made a dummy edit to preserve attribution anyway. Deryck C. 17:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

These brands aren't discussed at the Nike article, making them just about worthless to readers. The "T90 Tracer" is probably a variant of the Nike Total 90, but it's not discussed there either. We're not a product catalog. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Nike Quickstrike because that title holds considerable history of content that was merged to the target. The fact that the content has been edited out since is irrelevant since that could be just as easily restored if editorial opinions change. Preservation of the history is important. The rest have no significant history so I abstain on them. Rossami (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target (dangling pointer). Although preservation of history is important, it's irrelevant to whether a page is deleted. For if not, we could never delete anything or {{db-blanked}}, since creating a redirect or blank article is (by definition) a creative act and so needs attribution (although I seem to remember having an RfD discussion where consensus was that the process of an editor creating a page was not in itself creative enough to consider it a creative act). The history is still preserved and can be retrieved by admins, who have done so on request for mere mortals like me. Si Trew (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Si. If it's not at the target, it's misleading and confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 19:41, 17 February 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.

Jahga Sports[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 20#Jahga Sports

Nike football[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 refine to Nike, Inc.#Products. Deryck C. 17:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Ball (association football) or delete. The phrase is ambiguous enough to delete. It could refer to lines of Nike products for any game called football, or the balls themselves. It doesn't look like Nike makes American footballs, at least not for the NFL. But they do make association footballs, and some of the Nike models are mentioned there. Either outcome would be an improvement IMO. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nike does make American footballs, I have one myself. Retargeting to Ball (association football) would be a bad idea due to the ambiguity. Nike, Inc. mentions "football" eight times, most of which as part of a description of their football related products, so the current target is helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. An image search for the phrase "Nike AND football" returns evidence that Nike does in fact make both american footballs and soccer balls (and LOTS of clothing associated with both sports). A redirect to the company seems like the least confusing target. Keep as is. Rossami (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nike makes these products, and so the redirect helpfully exists. Were there a 'List of Nike brand products' article in existence then we could go to there, but it doesn't (in a curious twist of fate, 'List of Nike sponsorships' does exist... go figure). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to section Nike, Inc.#Products. (It's also mentioned in #Acquisitions, but only very tangentially.) Si Trew (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this could relate to multiple sports. GiantSnowman 19:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Refine per above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 15:08, 17 February 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.

Palestinian infiltrators[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 19#Palestinian infiltrators

Monte Karlo metode[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) 15:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. -- Tavix (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. No Interwiki links use this exact term (many come close, of course), nor does Google Translate detect it (it thinks it is Indonesian, but translates for Monte Carlo with a C). Si Trew (talk) 03:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a misspelling at best. metode is "method" in Norwegian but Carlo is still translated as Carlo --Lenticel (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A one word off misspelling could be reasonable enough, but this is just nonsense honestly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:17, 13 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_12&oldid=1138580928"