Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 29, 2016.

Wikipedia:Confilict of interest[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. JohnCD (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There were exactly 0 uses by humans in the 90 days prior to this nomination, which strongly suggests it's completely unusued. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (especially as it is in the project space and doesn't benefit simple readership).— Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Comunity Portal[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 12#Wikipedia:Comunity Portal

2020 Democratic National Convention[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. Deryck C. 11:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL no information is present at the target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete until after 20 January 2017, then re-create. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now per WP:CRYSTAL. When something actually happens, it can be recreated. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Eureka Humboldt Standard[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. Deryck C. 11:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether or not this could be classed as implausible: this newspaper is based in Eureka, Humboldt County, but it seems unlikely that this would be included in the name without commas. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per McPhail. It appears to be the name of the newspaper when it was printed from 1956 to 1967. [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Terrrorist watch list[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 12#Terrrorist watch list

Freethought Islam[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. Deryck C. 11:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paradoxical at best, and not mentioned at the target article. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't appear to be used – no hits on google books and a google search doesn't seem to return anything meaningful either. But then it's been around since 2004. – Uanfala (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I should've checked whether the term was in the target article when the redirect was created, as I sometimes do. It was, listed as an alternative name, but without a citation. And as someone who was actually around in 2004 (ok, only one month of it), I can testify that there was a lot of loose, speculative crap around back then. --BDD (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I mean, this doesn't really make sense. Considering that the title has hardly been used, I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Şuncă[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. JohnCD (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Romanian. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Șuncă. --XXN, 22:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding alternative form to nomination per User:XXN
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Republican (politician)[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 Republican. -- Tavix (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous, there are Republican Parties everywhere, retargeting there may be an option. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nina Browne (archivist)[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. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The request is to delete this redirect page. The article was originally named with the disambiguated title, but it was not needed; There are no other "Nina Browne" articles. It is implausible that someone would query on "Nina Browne (archivist)", and would likely have a non-existent hit rate on the link. CaroleHenson (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing wrong with the redirect and redirects are cheap. Obviously someone queried the title and didn't find it, so they created the article. -- GB fan 10:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as both {{R from move}} - from August until 7 hours before this nomination the article was at this title so there will very, very likely be external links to it and search engines, mirrors, etc will not have had a chance to reflect the new target. Secondly, it's a completely harmless {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} which are useful for anyone who doesn't know that there are no more notable Nina Brownes on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I had not thought of that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon Thryduulf's point, I don't mind withdrawing the request. I am not sure if it's bad form for me to remove the redirect request template from the page, or not.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you close the discussion here first and add the record of the discussion to the talk page, withdrawing the nomination is fine. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Yuen-men[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) 01:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) Delete, not at target. Back-formation from "Yün-men" which I think is also not at target. No affinity to German, WP:RFOREIGN. There are probably others for this target but I have to go to work now. Si Trew (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Museum/Art Display[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. JohnCD (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Left over from a page move but title is not specific to the topic and thus is a useless redirect. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Krionérion, Greece[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 6

Montagnard genocide[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 (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. The main target page of the redirect mentions genocide although the sources being used are partisan sources. The redirect, when used in articles related to Vietnam in relation to Degar people is inherently promoting a point of view, thus violating the neutral point of view policy given a large piece of evidence is required before labelling it a genocide (speedy deletion criterion G11). No reliable sources exists for this claim. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. There are plenty of sources that claim that there was a genocide/the persecution is genocidal so this is a search term that is plausible people will use. If any articles are using this redirect in a non-neutral manner they should be fixed, but that does not require deletion of the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see the persecution being referred to as a genocide or akin to one by multiple sources as well. The line between 'intense, government sponsored hatred' and 'genocide' is a blurry one to begin with (see We Charge Genocide, for one), and I feel inclined to keep this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Unrecognized states[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 Unrecognized state. I will semi-protect if reverted. JohnCD (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This continues to be retargeted by 46.240.58.229 and originally pointed to unrecognized state, I don't think anyone would support the current target but since it continues to get retargeted, I figured I'd bring this here. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Trump chicago[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. Deryck C. 11:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid synonym, and I dislike the idea of a dab for there is also 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest, search results can handle this just fine. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with nom that this makes searching more difficult --MrStoofer (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is unhelpfully vague as there's various things that Trump has said or done in Chicago. The aforementioned protests happened as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The protest would never be called "Trump Chicago". The hotel, though, certainly. It's not uncommon to refer to hotels or prominent buildings this way (e.g., "Have you ever stayed at the Atlanta Marriott?"). This isn't "Trump in Chicago", so there's no real danger that this could refer to Trump's personal activities there. I say weak for two reasons: first, the incorrect capitalization; and second, Trump's election does make it seem likely that this could become ambiguous at some point. For now, though, it's helpful. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the value of this redirect. This is vague and could technically point to multiple articles. Google's semantic search engine can automatically locate search results for "trump Chicago" and point it to Trump Tower. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Terrrorist watch list[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 Speedy close, invalid nomination, no deletion rationale was provided. (non-admin closure). - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--46.240.58.229 (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wind.ca[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) 01:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect doesn't translate into more page views for target article (https://tools.wmflabs.org/redirectviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&page=Freedom_Mobile). Daylen (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The organization's proper website is freedommobile.ca, anyways, and I don't see a good reason for retaining this redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a plausible redirect. RA0808 talkcontribs 17:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Until very recently (a few days ago), this company was known as Wind Mobile, and this was its domain name. It's Canada's fourth largest mobile provider, so the previous domain name was quite well known. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wind.ca was never their domain name, the website was windmobile.ca before the rebranding to Freedom. RA0808 talkcontribs 22:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wind.ca was used on older short URLs (see go.Wind.ca) and in a short-lived m.Wind.ca mobile site. I use the Wind.ca domain quite often instead of typing the full URL. Pages like Wind.ca/Plans and Wind.ca/MyAccount still work. It may not be fully documented, but the Wind.ca short URL is out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by True Tech Talk Time (talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Obama regime[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 12#Obama regime

F. Castro[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) 01:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The infamous dictator isn't referred too often like this. --Nevé–selbert 00:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as this does get uses, even if he isn't often referred to this way that is no the same as never and this is not incorrect. An option would be retarget to Castro (surname) where there are two other F. Castros listed but as the former Cuban leader is almost certainly the primary topic, a better bet would be to add a hatnote pointing either to the surname page or to Fernando Castro Pacheco (a Mexican artist) and Francisco Castro (a Portuguese footballer) directly. Thryduulf (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Francisco Castro is actually a DAB page that has 5 different people on it, including the Portuguese footballer. -- GB fan 11:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indeed no usage in sources. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might not be being used in sources, but people are using it to find our article - why do you want to make it more difficult for them to find the content they are looking for? Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fidel-Castro[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 12#Fidel-Castro

British Presidency[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 Prime Minister of the United Kingdom#"Presidential" Premiership. -- Tavix (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom#"Presidential" Premiership? ("British Presidency" is referenced there.) --Nevé–selbert 00:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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_November_29&oldid=1088108758"