Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 21, 2016.

Magnet quench incident[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 Superconducting magnet#Magnet quench. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The redirect doesn't make sense, many magnets quenched in various places (random example), it's like redirecting capital to a specific capital of a country. See also Bosley John Bosley's talk page. mfb (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Can you provide a link to another Magnet quench incident that is sufficiently notable that it has or should receive coverage on Wikipedia. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is reversing the burden of proof. Can you prove that "magnet quench incident" without further context clearly refers to the LHC one? As an example, is there any news talking about that which doesn't mention the LHC explicitly? --mfb (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Retarget. I simply asked for further information and this has not been forthcoming...the LHC magnet quench incident remains the only notable magnet quench incident of which I am aware. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "decommissioning process"? Disassembling magnets happens without current in them - no quench. --mfb (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 2 = Typical example, although I have had to amend always to sometimes Bosley John Bosley (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with retarget. --mfb (talk) 16:45, 3 July 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.

Loafer (upcoming 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 withdrawn, or rather moving the discussion elsewhere. While I'm still unconvinced that the film is "upcoming," the point is moot if the article gets deleted. I've started an AFD on the matter, you may find it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loafer (Bengali film). -- Tavix (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Upcoming" implies that the film will be released in the future. This is an unreleased film, and I can't find any evidence that this film will be released. Therefore it's not "upcoming" and should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm... I just looked at the target article a bit. It's odd that a film would have a soundtrack if it was never released, but I'm not seeing any references for the soundtrack's existence other than the one reference from a site that only lists tracks, sometimes whether or not the album's existence is verifiable. So, I wonder if the target article is a candidate for WP:AFD. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's even more odd is that I seem to have found a 16-part series of YouTube videos possibly for this film that were uploaded in November 2012. What in the... Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, what I guess I'm getting at is there seems to be evidence that the film has already been released, and there's evidence that it hasn't. But, even though maybe it hasn't, there also doesn't seem to be any evidence that it will not be. So ... I'm going to go with weak keep on this one. (However, if its target article gets deleted, WP:G8 would then apply.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Perhaps it wasn't officially released, but the film and soundtrack were leaked on the internet? I thought about AFD too, but I have no idea what the notability standards are for Indian films. -- Tavix (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it was leaked "everywhere" but didn't have an actual commercial release, then I'd say with the state the target article is currently in, WP:TNT would apply regardless of WP:GNG. Steel1943 (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, from what I've seen in my experiences with aspects related to WP:GNG here (so I'm not really going to be citing any specific guidelines), film soundtracks are usually not independently notable (and the one in the target article definitely isn't), and unless a planned release or a projected date can be verified for a film, that usually automatically deems it unnotable as WP:CRYSTAL. Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep short of subtle libel/attack pages, I don't think what a redirect "implies" is that relevant compared to whether it is plausible. This is (weakly) plausible. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd support the deletion of the target article. WP:GNG needs to apply, and for a film that wasn't released, it's lacking in that department. There might be a lot of press about why it didn't get released, but unless it's along the lines of Orson Welles The Other Side of the Wind, then it's probably not worth keeping. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it doesn't look like it has actually been released, though like Lugnuts, I would support deletion of the target article. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:28, 28 June 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 upcoming Hannah Montana episodes[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hannah Montana is no longer releasing new episodes, so a list of upcoming episodes would have zero entries. -- Tavix (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Deprecated link and there shouldn't be articles named lists of upcoming episodes for any show. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:22, 22 June 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.

Lullaby (upcoming 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 all.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading since these projects are no longer "upcoming." -- Tavix (talk) 20:01, 21 June 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.

Master's House[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 both.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both are fairly generic terms, redirecting to specific buildings doesn't seem helpful as there are any number of possible alternatives. I'm not sure where they should ideally be retargeted though. PC78 (talk) 16:46, 21 June 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.

Czechia (one-word name of the Czech Republic)[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an implausible search term due to the bulky disambiguation. It's also misleading since "Czechia" isn't the only one-word name of the Czech Republic, as the article describes. -- Tavix (talk) 16:04, 21 June 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.

Intertouchdownception[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 2#Intertouchdownception

Seoul International Airport[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 Seoul Airport. --BDD (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gimpo International Airport also serves international destinations. SSTflyer 09:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. Before Incheon Airport was built, apparently Gimpo was Seoul's major international airport. —Kusma (t·c) 11:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote. Incheon is currently the largest and busiest airport in SK. If someone is searching for "Seoul International" they are looking for Incheon, not Gimpo. Having a hatnote to Gimpo would be sufficient, especially since there are only two major airports in the city per List of airports in South Korea. --- Patar knight - chat/contributions 11:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote per WP:TWODABS, add list of airports in South Korea to hatnote if there is a third one in Seoul. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate like Houston International Airport or retarget to Seoul Airport like Moscow International Airport and Paris International Airport. Should be treated like all the other not-really-correct titles which could refer to multiple airports (and which are not pointed to a single airport even when there's wide traffic disparities). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Seoul Airport, a disambiguation. I'm convinced by Kusma's argument, but we don't have to reinvent the wheel for a disambiguation that already exists. -- Tavix (talk) 16:44, 2 July 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.

Recent history of ...[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 2#Recent history of ...

Pseudo-objectively[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same thing, and possibly an article topic in its own right. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:05, 21 June 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.

Didacticly[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should these target Didacticism, Didactic method, or just be deleted? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • My first preference is delete, especially for Didacticly. For the others, I believe didactic method is a better target than the current one, but deletion is still probably better. —Kusma (t·c) 08:46, 21 June 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.

Renationalizing[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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of silly forms of nationalization, Neelix speedies declined. No version of re- form is mentioned in the article, and may not be a real word. Nationalizer doesn't seem legit either. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Patar knight Except these redirects suggest that Wikipedia addresses renationalization as a topic distinct from nationalization, when we don't. No form of renationalization even appears in the article. Just because a word is used doesn't make it a helpful redirect, and in this case, it ain't. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can safely assume that people are familiar enough with the English language to know that the prefix "re-" usually means to do the following verb again. Re-make, Re-nominate, Re-consider, Re-nationalize. In this case though, not only it used as the central focus of reliable sources as I've shown above, it's also in the article (just with a dash): "A re-nationalization occurs when state-owned assets are privatized and later nationalized again, often when a different political party or faction is in power. A re-nationalization process may also be called 'reverse privatization'. " ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The definition should be added up front and the term bolded in the lead paragraph as with Reunification if you want these variants to stay around. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC) updated 19:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence to the lede. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:29, 21 June 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.

Business related 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 the stand-alone "non-business" ones, no consensus on the rest. -- Tavix (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirects. There were more similar to these but they have already been deleted under G6 Neelix. One or two may be viable but ~10 isn't necessary. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These need to be bolded in the lead in the non-profit article. Is "non-business" a term or it is always associated with organization? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-business entity is bolded so that set is okay to stay. I just have to question whether the term non-business is used like non-profit. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a Google search shows that non-business seems to more commonly apply to non-business activities of companies, so those should be deleted. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the lot I do not automatically make the jump from non-business to non-profit or for that matter from organization to corporation. Governmental agencies are non-business; so is the weekly bridge club. "Nonprofit organization" is a term-of-art, but "non-business organization" is hardly synonymous. THis is just another Neelix "trap every search whether it makes sense to or not" case. Mangoe (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:22, 21 June 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.

Jeopardisers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 6#Jeopardisers

Recent history of Stonehenge[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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "recent" in this redirect is ambiguous and subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 00:06, 21 June 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_June_21&oldid=1088282804"