Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 14, 2016.

Stereotypes of Arabs[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 encourage article creation. Deryck C. 23:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a new essay, Wikipedia:In the United States, to address this sort of perennial problem. Either these redirects should be deleted, an article should be written on the subject, or the target article should be moved to a broader title (probably one of these titles). See also the discussion for Stereotypes of West and Central Asians. --BDD (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment For these, I Oppose moving the US articles. We should stubbify a worldwide article at each location instead. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenticel: I'm afraid that it would have the opposite effect. Editors who attempt to create these pages will see that they have been deleted, so they may be reluctant to re-create them. Jarble (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's debatable, though it's a typical argument at RfD. See WP:REDLINK, which supports that interpretation. The general sense is that if a page doesn't exist, it's fewer clicks and more straightforward to write it than it is to pin down a redirect and overwrite it. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 19 January 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.

Charity and Charities[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 deletions. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY as Charity is a dab page and Charities redirects to charitable organizations. It's a bizarre phrase, I can't imagine someone searching specifically for both things at the same time unless it was a search suggestion. Stats show that it's not being used, so the potential for confusion outweighs any utility this might have. -- Tavix (talk) 21:04, 14 January 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.

Karmanye[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) 19:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Karmanye" doesn't mean "Bhagavad Gita", and the article Bhagavad Gita doesn't mention Karmanye or help understand what it is, so this redirect can only cause confusion and frustration while providing no benefit. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This seems to be part of a quote by Krishna during the events of Bhagavad Gita. According to this book, it's part of the quote Karmanye waadhikare astu ma phale su kadachana or "Surrender the fruits of actions unto Me". Basically he's saying that one should just work and not worry about the results of said work. Still delete as vague since the quote itself is incomplete --Lenticel (talk) 01:16, 15 January 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.

Querulously[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) 19:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a head scratcher. Sure, plantiffs can be querulous (full of complaints), but that doesn't explain why this variant would redirect there. No mention of any form of the 'word' now or when this was created. -- Tavix (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Querulous was retargeted (from Plaintiff) on 21 July 2010 by User:The Anome, who at the same time created Querulous behavior, Querulous behaviour, Querulous paranoia, Querulance, Querulant paranoia, Querulent, Querulence and Litigious paranoia, as redirects to Querulant, and on 12 May 2012 the redirects Paranoia querulantium and Paranoia querulans, which are an odd mix of Latin and Greek but do have RS – the first seems a nonce word in Kraft-Ebbing (1879) although the second is in the OED
I am not sure if any or all of these should be added to this nomination; none is rcatted. Si Trew (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see we are still working our way through Neelix' thesaurus. Given the less-than-once-a-day page views this gets, there seems no harm in deleting it, but I would just redirect to Querulant, as with querulous paranoia. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirected to querulant. -- The Anome (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible search term. We still have a lot to tackle in Neelix's thesaurus. Less then 1 view per day is bot activity. Legacypac (talk) 22:00, 17 January 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.

John Andrew Tennant Mortlock[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) 19:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Random redirect to his grandfather. Both his father and grandfather are notable; he is arguably borderline but this redirect makes no sense - there is no useful information on him in that article and no logic behind the redirect. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The only relevant info in the target article is "Along with his son, daughter-in-law Rosina, grandson, John Andrew Tennant Mortlock (1894–1950), and John's wife Dorothy Elizabeth Mortlock (1906–1979), the Mortlock family left [various legacies]." This would be different if this individual is in themselves notable, so that the redirect might eventually become an article in its own right, but I see no evidence of that. YBG (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, mentioned at target. It's OK to have a redirect from a person who is not notable to a relative who is: WP:INVALIDBIO. Si Trew (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete kind of like a namecheck. Legacypac (talk) 22:01, 17 January 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.

Dorothy Elizabeth Mortlock[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) 19:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Random redirect to husband's grandfather - no useful information about her in that article and no reason for redirect. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The only relevant info in the target article is "Along with his son, daughter-in-law Rosina, grandson, John Andrew Tennant Mortlock (1894–1950), and John's wife Dorothy Elizabeth Mortlock (1906–1979), the Mortlock family left [various legacies]." This would be different if this individual is in themselves notable, so that the redirect might eventually become an article in its own right, but I see no evidence of that. YBG (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, mentioned at target. It's OK to have a redirect from a person who is not notable to a relative who is: WP:INVALIDBIO. Si Trew (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete kind of like a namecheck. Legacypac (talk) 22:06, 17 January 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.

Rosina Forsyth Mortlock[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) 19:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Random redirect of other family member to her father-in-law: no useful information about her there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The only relevant info in the target article is "Along with his son, daughter-in-law Rosina, grandson, John Andrew Tennant Mortlock (1894–1950), and John's wife Dorothy Elizabeth Mortlock (1906–1979), the Mortlock family left [various legacies]." This would be different if this individual is in themselves notable, so that the redirect might eventually become an article in its own right, but I see no evidence of that. YBG (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, mentioned at target. It's OK to have a redirect from a person who is not notable to a relative who is: WP:INVALIDBIO. Si Trew (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete kind of like a namecheck. Legacypac (talk) 22:06, 17 January 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.

Posthumous award[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 21#Posthumous award

Mmmm[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 21#Mmmm

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_14&oldid=1037883113"