Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 18, 2016.

Palestinian terrorists[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. Redirects do not need to be neutral. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 12:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TERRORIST Spirit Ethanol (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ambiguous as to what target. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that policy as forbidding or even arguing against the redirect. For one thing, redirects are intentionally not held to the same standards of NPOV as article titles or content. For another, the article itself deals with exactly the ambiguity Champion worries about. I can think of no better destination for this redirect. Finally, the redirect is coming up on 10 years old. Even if you successfully orphaned it (unlikely given the several articles where it is used), there would still be a high likelihood of external links. Keep. Rossami (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment successfully orphaned. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom Gbawden (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TERRORIST, and WP:NPOV. Not every person involved in political violence is considered a terrorist, this goes for other nations as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See WP:RNEUTRAL. Furthermore, the lede says the article is about "acts of violence on terror". NPOV means we don't call people terrorists in article text, but readers don't necessarily abide by NPOV, and that's no less reason to serve them. Compare to Israeli terrorism. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. It's an actively used redirect and points at the correct target. Orphaning the redirect was probably a good idea but there's no need to delete it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the arguments above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Less clear-cut are Palestinian infiltrators, Palestinian militants and Palestinian resistance. I've listed the first at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016_February_12#Palestinian infiltrators since I can't see that infiltration is synonymous with political violence. Si Trew (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. Someone searching for "Palestinian terrorists" will be best served by being directed to Palestinian political violence, which has the most pertinent information that they would be looking for. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:11, 21 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.

Delicious Tree[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. And obviously, pear trees are the most delicious trees. --BDD (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I think I see where the creator is coming from, I believe the potential for confusion here is too great. There's too many letters "off" to be a {{R from typo}} and IMHO, I don't find deciduous trees to be delicious. In the wild, "Delicious Tree" almost always seems to be referring to the tree of Red Delicious or Golden Delicious apple cultivars. -- Tavix (talk) 22:13, 18 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.

List of ancient civilizations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 25#List of ancient civilizations

Oxford Middle School[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) 15:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a great target for this redirect, as there are multiple "Oxford Middle School"s in Kansas alone, therefore if someone is searching for Oxford Middle School, or an article links to Oxford Middle School, it is entirely unclear that Blue Valley USD 229 is where they should end up. That said, the redirect started out as an article on the middle school in Blue Valley, and I'd hate for the history to be deleted along with the improper redirect. Meanwhile, given WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I don't think turning it into a DAB page is necessarily the best solution either. I'm somewhat at a loss. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried about the history because it will be preserved in the deletion log. For if it were not, we could never delete anything' because of CC-SA.
So do Cottonwood Point Elementary School, Blue River Elementary School, Harmony Elementary School, Heartland Elementary School, Indian Valley Elementary School, Stanley Elementary School (Overland Park, Kansas), Stilwell Elementary School, Prairie Star Elementary School, Sunset Ridge Elementary School, Morse Elementary School, and Oak Hill Elementary School. I can't believe that were these deleted, folks would not be able to find the article on the school district using the search tool.
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is about articles not redirects, and it is perhaps plausible there could be a section in this article about each of these schools: but there isn't at the moment. That would be a bit like creating a page called "List of articles we don't have" and redirecting any redlink we wanted to an entry on it: there is a reason for WP:REDLINK. (Of course, we do have lists like that, but not in the main namespace).
Tellingly, Stanley Elementary School is a DAB with four red entries, one entry for Stanley, New Brunswick which doesn't mention Stanley Elementary School, and Stanley Elementary School (Overland Park, Kansas) → Blue Valley USD 229 as the only "legit" entry. And, perhaps to nobody's surprise, its use on the DAB page is the only link it's got. So really there should only be one entry at that DAB... Si Trew (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that there is a Stanley Elementary School in Stanley, New Brunswick. But there is not an Oxford Middle School there. The closest is Oxford School in Halifax, NS, about 500 kilometres (310 mi) away. There's also a closed Oxford Regional High School in Oxford, NS, but it's closed. There is no Stanley Middle School in Oxford, either. Wait, what are we talking about? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mentioned these others as they fit the same pattern but did not want formally to nominate them until we have consensus for this. I put in a successful CSD for Stanley, and it's now a redirect to the same target as all the others, not a DAB. Si Trew (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Another suggestion could be to list the middle schools at Oxford School per WP:DABMENTION and retarget there. -- Tavix (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I think, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I know it doesn't really apply to redirects, but it does say that middle schools are unlikely to be notable unless they meet WP:GNG, and so either redirecting to a(ny) school district that happens to have a non-notable Oxford Middle School, or creating a disambiguation list of redlinks to Oxford Middle Schools, is pointless, so just delete it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:43, 18 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.

Neelix redirect[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) 15:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XNR. Without comment on the utility of the project-space shortcut, these shortcut does not belong in article space. No speedy criteria fit, so listing here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose It is useful and it does no harm. WP:XNR is simply an essay. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent minority viewpoints. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • These were double (or triple) redirects when nominated. If kept, they will point to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive906#Proposal: temporary WP:IAR speedy delete criterion. I've updated the nomination accordingly. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No WP:JUSTANESSAY is required. WP:R#DELETE is a guideline. There's no justification for this cross-namespace redirect. The proposed ANI target above is even for a temporary solution, so why would we create not a pseudo-namespace shortcut, but an actual article title shortcut? How many editors that are experienced enough to know and care about the finer points of redirects/RfD would be so confused as to need a redirect out of article space that isn't even a pseudo-namespace shortcut? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:XNR. Si Trew (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#DELETE #6 --Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. WP:XNR is a very poor reason to delete and barely applies here even so. But redirects to individual administrative decisions (whether admin noticeboard incidents or deletion discussions) are inappropriate. Rossami (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Barely serving any purpose but to disparage the user whose name is invoked in the redirects, while enshrining an opinion regarding actions by them which merely proved to be unpopular. Especially inappropriate as an WP:CNSR per above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete XNR to non-encyclopedic pipework content. Clearly this is not relevant to the readership -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:28, 20 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.

Make shift[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 snow Retarget to Makeshift. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix directing a dictionary word to an episode list ? Legacypac (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. We can snow close this one. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 18 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.

Precivilised[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) 15:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the concept of precivilized is applied to societies across all periods of time (including today in a few remote places) then the European colonial era, and a particular justification for colonialism. Legacypac (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. Not described at the target and no better target which would not be either WP:XY or WP:POV. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the distinction between civilization, civil behaviour, and living in cities, they should be deleted -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Too much vagueness between concepts here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:11, 21 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.

Civilises[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 25#Civilises

British politician sex[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. While deletion is a minority opinion, the discussion below has no consensus on a best target for this redirect. Most acknowledge that this is a direct quotation from We Didn't Start the Fire and even with that knowledge there are multiple apporpriate targets. The phrase itself is also sufficiently vague that interpretations beyond the direct quotation are suggested below. So I'm closing this as low appetite to keep, default to delete. Deryck C. 23:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem as though the redirect refers to the target in the least, and I don't think there is any way for this redirect to return a WP:SURPRISE if retargeted anywhere else. Steel1943 (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's the phrase used for the affair in Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire". I haven't heard of the "Profumo affair", but I didn't know what "British politician sex" was referring to before either. I'd probably go to the song page first if I wanted to find out, but this seems valid too, precisely because it's an unlikely enough search term for anything else. We have a category for British political sex scandals, but no list. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Hmm ... I think some sort of spin on WP:NOTLYRICS may apply here. For one, it doesn't seem that this actual term has a notable connection to the affair other than the song. When I look up the redirect on a search engine, the first 5-or-so results are about this, but the target article is one of the top 2, making me think that the results are a bit "fabricated" due to the Wikipedia connection. In addition, other British politician scandals did appear in the top 10 that were not related to the current target, so there could be a bit of an ambiguous issue here. This is one of the few cases where I would say "sure, this is a vague ambiguous title that could refer to this event, but it's not helpful since it's a bit too ambiguous". That, if I recall the song (knowing a bit about Billy Joel songs myself), in that song, he used several ambiguous phrases for specific events that one would not really understand what they referred to without watching the song's music video. So ... does that make all other vague connections in this song notable enough to warrant redirects? Steel1943 (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to We Didn't Start the Fire#1963 unless there's other notable usage. That way, the context of the quote is preserved and readers are one click away from knowing more about the affair if they so desire. -- Tavix (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on either target, although the phrasing Joel used is unique enough to refer to Profumo itself. See also: Brooklyn's got a winning team, Trouble in the Suez, Hypodermics on the shores. Sceptre (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are far too many sexual escapes related to people in power in Great Britain over the years for this to work as a clear-cut case, I think, and it's problematic already to use song lyrics, even from an admittedly really well-known track, as a redirect. We should keep in mind the spirit of WP:NOTLYRICS even if the exact case is unusual. That other redirects exist related to the song doesn't mean anything; an error is still an error even if it's compounded. As well, something like 'Trouble in the Suez' is an interesting contrast because there is one central, prominent 'Suez' out there while British politicians (and American politicians, Canadian politicians, etc) are a dime a dozen. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no source there to assert that these lyrics actually do refer to the Profumo affair.
In a similar and somewhat connected case, when Lord Astor denied having even met Mandy Rice-Davies, she replied "He would, wouldn't he? "– there's a whole section in the article about that, but we don't have a redirect for it. I'm aware WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Si Trew (talk) 06:02, 21 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.

Alabama state park[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 all. Deryck C. 14:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plus:

  1. Alaska state park
  2. Arkansas state park
  3. Colorado state park
  4. Connecticut state park
  5. Georgia state park
  6. Hawaii state park
  7. Idaho state park
  8. Kansas state park
  9. Kentucky state park
  10. Louisiana state park
  11. Maine state park
  12. Maryland state park
  13. Massachusetts state park
  14. Mississippi state park
  15. Montana state park
  16. Nebraska state park
  17. Nevada state park
  18. New Hampshire state park
  19. New Jersey state park
  20. New Mexico state park
  21. North Carolina state park
  22. North Dakota state park
  23. Ohio state park
  24. Oklahoma state park
  25. Pennsylvania state park
  26. Rhode Island state park
  27. South Carolina state park
  28. South Dakota state park
  29. Texas state park
  30. Vermont state park
  31. Virginia state park
  32. West Virginia state park
  33. Wyoming state park

A series of Neelix redirects using the singular to refer to a list of parks. We decided that Foo frog was not appropriate to lead to a list of frogs in Foo area. The plural versions were also created by Neelix and are not nominated here. The internal search engine and external search engines will find the list just fine without these confusing redirects, Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The singular implies one park, not a list of parks. The redirects are misleading because it might cause someone to think there is a state park by that name. There are a few others not created by Neelix: Arizona state park, Florida state park, Illinois state park, Indiana state park, Iowa state park, Michigan State Park, Minnesota state park, Missouri State Park, New York State Park, Oregon State Park, Tennessee State Park, Utah State Park and Wisconsin State Park. Delaware State Park is the name of a state park in Ohio and Washington State Park is the name of a state park in Missouri-- Tavix (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the discussion on rivers from a few days ago. Unless there is actually a park by this name, the singular search should be a dead end with results, not a link to a list where there are no parks by this name. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I never had a say when "We decided that Foo frog was not appropriate to lead to a list of frogs in Foo area." How many were involved, six? seven?...less?. Alabama parks; Alabama State Park; Alabama Parks should all redirect to the list... Until WP: Wikipedia is not useful has been properly integrated into our pillars policies or essays, we should consider the Billion or so others who are unfamiliar with USA Parks & Recreation. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • They really don't need to know anything about parks; they just need to know how plurals are formed in English. I'm all for accessible writing, including for readers, but the truth is that competence is required for them too. --BDD (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I figured there would be some actual xxx State Park out there much like Canadian River and Mississippi River should not direct people to lists of rivers in Canada or Mississippi. Search engines are smart enough to get people to a list or article even if they can't be bothered to put an S on the end. Legacypac (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Unlike the Canadian and Mississippi Rivers, these aren't capitalised; people aren't going to see "Arkansas state park" as an implication that there's a state park named "Arkansas State Park". This is just another version of {{R from singular}}. If we had those lists at "Arkansas state parks", "Montana state parks", etc., rather than them being the redirects mentioned in the nomination statement, I don't imagine that people would object, and these are reasonable variants of those titles. So basically, if "As" redirects to "List of As", and if "A" is a reasonable redirect to "As", it's a reasonable redirect to "List of As". And finally, please remember that not everyone uses the search engine; what about people like me who access pages by editing the URL at the top of the browser window? Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but for those who do use the search box, capitalization won't matter. And not everyone who uses the search engine clicks directly on suggestions; what about people like me who just type something in and hit enter? (Ok, I also use the URL bar, but I couldn't resist the parallel structure.) --BDD (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is the point you are making, but redirects that are exact matches (case, diacrtitic and punctuation insensitive) prevent people from getting search suggestions (results): they go straight through the redirect. So if I typed in "Arkansas state park" I would not get a list of search results even if I wanted it. Si Trew (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Redirects for pluralization variants are not merely allowed but encouraged. Rossami (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep any notable park should appear in the list, so it is working properly -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I don't like it, it's quite common for us to redirect from a thing to a list of those things – the list serves as a DAB. (Incidentally it is a pity that {{R to list}} is a redirect to {{R to list entry}}; patently redirecting to a list is not the same as redirecting to an entry in that list.) Si Trew (talk) 06:11, 21 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.

Jeffrey Pino[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. I still suggest the addressing of my concerns below, lest we see this at RfD again. --BDD (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject isn't even mentioned in the article. MSJapan (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target, and WP:REDLINK. Si Trew (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Si Trew points. Legacypac (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subject is mentioned in the article - and if REDLINK applies (i.e. topic is notable) then simply create the article now. GiantSnowman 09:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's in the article because User:GiantSnowman added him in a one-sentence mention about his death. . Refine to section #History. Si Trew (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, he's mentioned now—do we expect he always will be? Was he important enough to the company, or is this just recentism? And was this the only notable company he worked for? We've addressed the immediate concern of mention in the article, but I don't think the overall question is settled yet. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:19, 18 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.

Portal:Organized Labour/February/18/Selected article[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 resolved. As stated in this discussion, the resolution for the nominator's concern did not require deletion of the redirect (no agree image was wrapped in "noinclude" tags on the article which it is placed), so the need for a resolution, as stated in the nomination statement, has now been fulfilled. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect causes the inclusion of a non-free image, File:ILO English Logo.png, on the page Portal:Organized Labour, which is a violation of WP:NFCC#9. Stefan2 (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a decent solution. I've also asked about this here, to get a sense of best practice in case this comes up again. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per John of Reading's solution, the current issue seems to be dealt with. Rather, it seems to be an issue that deleting the redirect doesn't solve. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 18 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.

Qazi Halb Burhan-ud-din[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) 15:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion per WP:RFD#DELETE #2 and #5. The original creator seems to have mixed up names. The redirect wrote the Sirat al-Halbiya and according to this source, the redirect's correct name is Ali ibn Burhan al-Din al-Halabi, which supports the title of his book (lit. "the Halabian's hagiography"). Note #4 on page 181 says that he is a 16th century Shafi'i jurist from Cairo. The target, on the other hand, is a 12th century Hanafi jurist from Central Asia. Considering that there is no other article to redirect to, I propose a deletion to fix this confusion. HyperGaruda (talk) 08:50, 18 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_18&oldid=1075158347"