Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 5, 2016.

Combat Service Support[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 15

Inquisition Controversy[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) 04:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, "controversy": where WP:NPOV meets WP:WEASEL. Seriously, though, this is just way too vague to be useful. The Inquisition in its varying incarnations had plenty of controversial aspects. I don't see why the phrase would necessarily refer to historical revisionism. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 5 October 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.

Draft:Stephen V. Cameron[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 12#Draft:Stephen V. Cameron

Interstate 13 in California[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. Perhaps this won't come up again, now that the target article has information about the proposed name. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 1#Interstate 13. The consensus of that discussion was to retarget Interstate 13 away from the article on Interstate 605 due to the lack of reliable sources connecting an Interstate 13 to Interstate 605. Since the stituation hasn't changed in the meantime, I propose that this redirect should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that this redirect should be kept and reliable information on the planning numbering of I-605 as I-13 should be re-added to the I-605 article. Then, the Interstate 13 redirect should be turned into a disambiguation page for both I-13s. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, someone needs to find reliable information to add to that article. That was the whole reason the other redirect was retargeted instead of dabbed. -- Tavix (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: The "in" is a standard along with the parenthetical disambiguation. They refer to two different things though. Check out Category:Interstate 95, for example. There are sub-articles for each state that I-95 is "in" (eg: Interstate 95 in Maine and Interstate 95 in Maryland). The parenthetical disambiguation comes into play when there are multiple interstates with the same name; the state is used to disambiguate (eg: Interstate 195 (Maine) and Interstate 195 (Maryland). -- Tavix (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I stand corrected. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 20:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I boldly added a (sourced) bit to the "History" section of the target to cover this. The original text added in 2005 said "The numbering for this route was originally suggested as I-13, as it is positioned approximately midway between I-5 and I-15 (although it intersects the former)." By the time the reference to I-13 was removed ten years later, the text had gotten mangled so that it read "Originally it was planned as I-13 running from Interstate 5 to I-15." The edit summary was rm content that is highly dubious, and no wonder! There was no doubt cast on the reliability of the source, just the accuracy of the route. So now the target mentions the old number, and we can keep the redirect. — Gorthian (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first choice would be to keep now that Gorthian has added info about the proposed I-13 designation. My second choice would be to retarget to California State Route 13, since I think there is a fair chance that some readers may mistake that highway for an interstate. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no I-13 and has never been one. The mention in I-605 that has been recently re-added is so trivial that I don't think it belongs in that article. The source cited is one website that says I-13 was briefly proposed 50 years ago as the number for what became I-605. MB 14:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and comment: This should be kept. There are articles on Wikipedia of Interstate highways that were proposed, but never built, so this should definitely be kept. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:24, 5 October 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.

Thriller (album)[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) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Retarget to Thriller#Albums. This is an incomplete disambiguation, and as such should point to the disambiguation page as there are multiple albums with this title. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note There is a technical problem with this page, if being kept please delete and restore all version to clear a stuck unpatrolled status on the page. — xaosflux Talk 17:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Issue is resolved now. — xaosflux Talk 00:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect to the Michael Jackson album. The fundamental purpose of redirects is to get people to the article they most likely wanted to read, and this redirect serves that purpose. WP:PDAB makes it clear that there has been disagreement in the past about this specific redirect and similar redirects. The only argument against such redirects that I can see is that WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT doesn't specifically say that an article with a disambiguator in its title can be considered a primary topic for the purpose of a redirect. However, it seems clear that redirects such as this one meet the spirit of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I feel confident that most people typing "Thriller (album)" would want the Michael Jackson album, and that this redirect will be most useful to the community as it currently is. Calathan (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing at WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT that has any relevance to this situation. You can't have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for an ambiguated (partially or otherwise) article title. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can. The disambiguation means that all we have to determine is what is the primary topic for works titled "Thriller" that are albums. That determination is clear. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in the guidelines that either says you can or can't do this. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based alone on the fact that this has been discussed several times in the past on Talk:Thriller (Michael Jackson album), and it doesn't seem that any new information has been presented since that could form consensus otherwise ... but I'm "weak" since I don't agree with the current situation per nom (but I do not have the desire to change the situation proactively since consensus has repeatedly enforced the current situation.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Calathan. Readers searching "Thriller (album)" are looking for an album called Thriller, and the primary topic for that search is by far the Michael Jackson album. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No argument has been made that any other album titled "Thriller" even remotely approaches the encyclopedic significance of the current link target. bd2412 T 13:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm not persuaded to challenge the past consensus. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:55, 9 October 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.

Lists of AFVs[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. I'm invoking WP:IAR here since I guess I'm WP:INVOLVED, but so is every other admin who's regularly closing discussions here. I'm fairly confident any reasonable admin would find the same result. If it helps, I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on this particular redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term "AFV" isn't exclusive to "armoured fighting vehicles". Steel1943 (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: If deleting isn't an option, then weak retarget to AFV. Since "AFV" is currently not a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Armoured fighting vehicle, the connection via this redirect should not remain due to potentially causing reader confusion. (I'm "weak" on this alternative since the redirect in its entirety is not an alternate spelling or punctuation of "AFV" since AFV is currently a disambiguation page.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the term AFV does not mean just armoured fighting vehicles, the lists of them are exclusive to armoured fighting vehicles. (We don't have a list of Ansdell and Fairhaven railway stations for example, let alone a list of lists of Ansdell and Fairhaven railway stations). I will cat it if not already done, but lists of lists are not uncommon, List of lists of lists being the end of the recursion. Without prejudice I have catted into Category:Lists of lists. The DAB at AFV doesn't really need all the section headers in, each with one entry, but I shall leave that until this discussion closes in my favour (ahem). Si Trew (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am going to be bold and take all the sections out of that DAB that Steely kindly referred to, it does not need a section for each entry. Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done that. Now, I notice that it is "armoured fighting vehicle" with the British spelling not "armored fighting vehicle" as I think it would be with the american spelling. I imagine the spelling was hard fought for, possibly with cannon: but there may be other Rs lurking about that need {{R from other spelling}} or adding to this nom, i will try to find them. Si Trew (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until there is also a list of alternative fuel vehicles or something: then create a disambiguation page. —Michael Z. 2016-09-22 12:49 z
Heh, I was thinking List of America's Funniest Home Videos. But the armored ones are primary topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Armoured fighting vehicles is by far the primary topic for this. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. I just glanced over Alternative fuel vehicle, and it does have a list-y feel to it. I wouldn't object to a retarget to the disambiguation, however. -- Tavix (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. I wasn't bothered by this if there was only one such list, but I agree with his assessment of Alternative fuel vehicle, which indeed lists types of (that kind of) AFVs. Just because it's not bulleted doesn't mean a list. I don't like the idea of disambiguation, since most "List of" titles are artificial/descriptive Wikipedia-isms. Perhaps readers get used to that, though. --BDD (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD and Tavix. — Gorthian (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as pointing towards the primary topic. I suggest adding a dabnote to the target article pointing to AFV. WJBscribe (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a contradictory comment. If you think there's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "AFV", you should request a move, because the base title is currently a dab! --BDD (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstand me, I think Lists of armoured fighting vehicles is the primary topic for Lists of AFVs. But I suggest adding a dabnote to Lists of armoured fighting vehicles along the lines of:
    "Lists of AFVs redirects here, for other uses see AFV."
    WJBscribe (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A primary topic for "List of AFVs" but not "AFV"? Seems like splitting hairs, but I appreciate the explanation. --BDD (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bit of a tangent, but to explain my reasoning, AFV includes a number of entries that cannot be the subject of lists. It would not make sense to have "List(s) of Ansdell and Fairhaven railway station(s)", "List(s) of Artistic Freedom Voucher(s)", "List(s) of Alianza Fidelidad por Veracruz" or "List(s) of Addams Family Values" (as it the name of a movie). The fact that the hypothetical reader has searched for "Lists of AFVs" rather than just "AFV" has narrowed the number of likely articles that they might be looking for. WJBscribe (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! You know what, I completely overlooked the initial plural on this one. Perhaps a reader would make a similar mistake, but as we only have one list of lists of something called "AFVs", and don't seem likely to have another such list of lists anytime soon, I'm fine with keeping this. --BDD (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't notice that either. That does change things somewhat. I'm striking my !vote and switching to neutral. -- Tavix (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:07, 5 October 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.

SelenaGomez.com[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has got to be pushing it... Delete, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Si Trew (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing notable about the website names that it requires a redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perfectly valid {{R from domain name}}. This is not like the Qantas case where all of the domains are not mentioned at the target, this one is mentioned, so I see no reason for deletion. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's WP:PROMO too. As AngusWOOLF implied, the article should be about a notable website, not a notable person. For if not, we might as well have redirects for anything that has a website= in its infobox. and the one with the intercapping is not even a well-formed URL, but never mind. You'll probably say keep. So let's make manchesterunited.com or whatever. I know, in fact explicitly, the nonexistence of other redirects is no reason to argue against the deletion of those that exist, but I know in practice over the years what precedence means. madonna.com does not exist, for example, this is pure WP:PROMO to get external linksto divert people to the Wikipedia page. We are not not a WP:FANSITE. Si Trew (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree not having an active link isn't grounds for removal, but there are still no outside articles that refer specifically to the website name, so that implies the name of the website is not notable enough for a redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: We have apple.com, microsoft.com, google.com etc. Qantas.com.au is also a redirect, you may feel free to nominate any of these, but I still haven't changed my opinion on this nomination. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Champion. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I feel that someone searching this already knows about Selena Gomez, and is wanting specific information about the website. The article doesn't discuss the website at all, just the fact that it's hers, which wouldn't help those searching this. {{R from domain name}} specifies that it's for an "article about a website", which isn't the case here since Selena Gomez is notable as an actress/singer, not as a website. -- Tavix (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix:By your logic, Qantas.com.au, Apple.com and so on, should all be deleted due to them not being notable as a website, I would oppose such mass-deletion, people do get what they are looking for due to the website being mentioned at the target. Quoting you from the linked discussion above, "this is not the official website of Qantas", I assumed that you were in favor of keeping the redirect from the actual official website. You are certainly entitled to change, of course, but I would like an explanation. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep the discussion focused on the redirect nominated. Those other redirects have not been nominated and I have not cast judgement upon them. I would oppose a mass nomination of this sort as well, but that's a red herring at this point since there isn't one. (After thinking about this more, I could support an updated wording to {{R from domain name}}, but I'm unsure how to phrase it at this time.)-- Tavix (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC) updated 13:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Weak delete per Tavix. I think we're letting other URL discussions distract us, because the question we're trying to settle is not "Is this an official website?" It's "How does this help readers?" And I'm having trouble answering that, and especially having trouble imagining a reader searching one of these terms, getting frustrated, and saying, "Gee, how am I going to find information on Selena Gomez now?", i.e., without just searching for her name. Champion's comments give me pause, because I'm not immediately inclined to say delete on some of those other sites. But maybe I should—indeed, how are they different? --BDD (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As nom, I was well aware other domqin name pqges existed, pleqse let's just discuss these two. Si Trew (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm willing to consider domains name redirects in cases of companies where the domain name is an integral part of the company's identity. However, over here Selena Gomez is clearly not notable for being a websit/company. No need to keep these redirects here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Something like CNN.com as a website has a fundamental link to the parent company and the related television network. Other examples of domain name redirects touch on that sense of identity. Gomez is known for being a highly popular performer, not as a web designer (or having had a lot of effort put her into online presence by others). While I don't have strong opinions on this, I'm inclined to agree with the above arguments that readers are likely looking for direct information about her website. That's not being provided. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:04, 14 October 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.

Sojourned[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 Sojourn. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix redirects) Not sure. Both Sojourn and Sojourner are DABs each with a brief one-liner in the lede saying what a sojourn(er) is, before listing albums and so forth of that name, so they don't seem like good targets. As these stand, they are probably just WP:DICDEF and WP:RFD#D2 confusing: Neither "sojourn" nor any derivative is at the current target. The current target itself is tather vague and brief, and its content probably covered by another article, but none of hotel, boarding house, rented accommodation (-> Housing tenure) etc. seem quite to fit, anyway "lodging" in the sense at the target has little to do with sojourning as it describes the place of stay, not the stay itself. Si Trew (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Sojourners is a Christian monthly magazine... Si Trew (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sojourn as with variants of Travel. Split off other variants if they gather enough dabs or primary topics (like Sojourners) of their own. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a tricky situation, but I also support redirecting all of these to 'Sojourn'. I'm not too sure, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:49, 5 October 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.

Identic[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, default to soft redirect to wikt:identic as the alternative to deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) Delete, I think. Dictionaries basically define it as a synonym of identical, which is a DAB... so we could redirect it there as a {{R from adjective}}, but I am not sure, considering the entries there, that it would make sense to do so... Identity (disambiguation) is possible, too. Si Trew (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wikt:identic. Identic has a specific meaning in diplomacy that identical doesn't have, and readers are more likely to be searching in an encyclopedia for this technical meaning rather than the generic one. I can't find a suitable place on wikipedia (Identic note is too specific) . Uanfala (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect per Uanfala. If someone's looking for identical this would have a link to that too. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Nom comment) I'm really not a fan of redirects to Wiktionary. WP:NOTDIC. If people want to find out, as I did, that identic is an archaic synonym of identical, they can go and look in a dictionary. If the Wikimedia Foundation has decided to split a dictionary from an encyclopaedia we should keep that distinction. There are thousands of Neelix redirects for every possible conjugation or declension of every possible noun or verb, and quite a few that the are impossible or just wrong words, such as accumulatorily or some thing like that (I have been WP:X1ing the more absurd "accumulator" ones. I think there was accumalatively when the right word would be cumulatively, which to nobody's surprise we don't have, because we are WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement that the word is something readers search for should be enough to weed out most of the X1 stuff, no? Uanfala (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How? Are you suggesting some "weeding" – more like mass extermination – for every Neelix redirect that gets fewer than a certain number of hits (the "bot noise" threshhold)? I'm not particularly against that proposal. Si Trew (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. The pageview threshold is only for the case where the most suitable solution would be a wiktionary redirect. An automated tool can't decide whether this is going to be the case. – Uanfala (talk) 17:54, 11 October 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.

Manbulge[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 00:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTURBANDICT and WP:NOTNEO. There is no mention of this term in reliable sources or academic literature. A few mentions in tumblr are all I can see. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:27, 5 October 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.

Joseph W. Montgomery Strength Training Center[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) 04:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a nonexistent section; the section was removed as a copyvio over 6 years ago. A training center at a college sports venue is pretty WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, and the target article could be reasonably complete without mentioning it, and does not do so now. --BDD (talk) 13:25, 5 October 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.

Bqhatevwr[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, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling for 'whatever', used by this politician on Twitter. Went viral as a hashtag. "Bqhatevwr" not mentioned in the target article. LittleWink (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Flash-in-the-pan type stuff isn't really worth getting into here. We're not 'Know Your Meme' or 'Reddit'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: I hate you, you made me look. I was somehow not expecting it to link to Potato. I thought it would be something more bizarre. It has in the past on several occasions redirected to Dan Quayle, though, although it should be pretty obvious that one thing is a large white vegetable which can grow distasteful eyes, and the other is a potato. Si Trew (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF, I don't actually hate you. (I don't actually hate anyone or anything, I haven't the energy to hate things.) For some reason User:Champion seems to think that was a personal attack. I thought it was pretty obvious it was meant tongue-in-cheek, but sometimes these things don't come across well when written. So to make it clear: I respect you and thank you for all the hard work you do at RfD. Si Trew (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Si Trew, Champion no offense taken. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:10, 7 October 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.

Legend Cinema[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) 04:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we need this redirect. The company doesn't seem to be notable enough for an article and we don't redirect a company article to a random film article. More importantly, there are multiple "Legend Cinema" around the world, so I don't see why we need to redirect this to the movie. This seems to be creation of a redirect for purely promotional purposes. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legend Cinema is production company from south India which are making number of movies this year and coming years. Please consider, Thank you. SinestroCorps (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Should that South India company be Wikipedia-level notable then the redlink can encourage creation of an article. If Dwaraka is their one-film wonder then retain. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:55, 6 October 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.

IOS 6 Maps[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 12#IOS 6 Maps

ABC 4 Kids Channel[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, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion as the name "ABC 4 Kids Channel" is a recently created redirect that is an unnecessary expansion of the former name of the subject (ABC Kids, formerly known as ABC 4 Kids). Makes as much sense as creating a redirect for "BBC One Channel" or "PBS Channel", the 'channel' suffix is not required. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 10:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ABC 4 Kids already covers this. There doesn't need to be multiple variants. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:37, 6 October 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.

Daniel James (assisted suicide)[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) 16:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Daniel James" is not mentioned once at the target. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good day to you, Mr Sinden. Thanks for contacting me regarding this redirect. I have absolutely no memory of setting up the page or redirect. So whatever you or the community decide is OK by me. I guess it's possible that Daniel James was once mentioned at the target page but is no longer. But it may well be that he never was. I don't work on Wikipedia any more so I'm not invested in the outcome of this decision. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Given the media coverage about the death of James, reported on publications such as The Daily Telegraph and The Independent as well as others, it appears that situation might be notable enough to mention in the article. News coverage appears to have kept on going for a bit of time. I'm not too sure, though, as 'Euthanasia in the United Kingdom' is a broad concept page far beyond mere individual situations. At any rate, James' death isn't there now, and I think deleting the redirect is indeed in order. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not at target, WP:RFD#D2 confusing: the dab at Daniel James will need fixed too. Si Trew (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:37, 6 October 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.

Mayavada[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. Feel free to proceed with an article. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pejorative term (somewhat similar to "godless" in English). It should probably not be used as a redirect. Kaldari (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment added māyāvāda to this nomination. Per WP:RNEUTRAL, Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. However, this term is not explained at all at the target page and only appears once, so the redirect is not useful to readers. I don't know enough about this topic area to find if there's any better target. Search results might be the best option. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redirects don't need to be neutral, yes, but I also agree that these aren't helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term isn't pejorative (see Jacobi's 1913 paper [1]) and from what I see it is an important doctrine in Vedanta, so the current target is where there should ultimately be content on the topic, until it becomes a separate article. On the other hand, I'm wondering if it isn't best to encourage the creation of an article by deleting the redirect. Ms Sarah Welch, what do you think? Uanfala (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Uanfala: In most cases it is not pejorative indeed, but it was used in that sense in the polemics of Dvaita scholars against Advaitins and against the Buddhists. It is a bad redirect. It should be an article instead, a short one at least. Mayavada is a notable term, used for certain Vedanta doctrines/sub-schools and for certain Buddhist doctrines/sub-schools. For latter, see 1 (pages 190-191), 2, 3, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:21, 7 October 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.

KKChouhan[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 00:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source title doesn't seem popular or fitting any known style. – SJ + 01:26, 5 October 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.

Frozen (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 no consensus. The idea of these "sub-primary topics" has been a perennial, contentious issue, and there is certainly not consensus here to establish another redirect in the mold of Thriller (album), which itself is largely sui generis.
I would suggest a larger discussion, though those have typically failed to find consensus too. A sticking point is that if you judge a term like "Frozen" or "Thriller" to be ambiguous but terms like "Frozen (film)" or "Thriller (album)" to have a primary topic, those latter terms should be sufficient for titles. This can be considered the intersection of PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONCISE, much as we don't have "Blizzard" redirect to "Blizzard (weather)". But extended to "sub" primary topics, many editors have strongly opposed this logic.
I would admire any editor that's able to build a consensus around the status quo. But that's quite the task—perhaps it's better to let it go. --BDD (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to Frozen (2013 film) for WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT.- Prisencolin (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The argument isn't that the Disney film is the primary topic for "Frozen", which is unlikely to be the case given the commonly used adjectival form of freezing, but for "Frozen (film)." Given that using parenthetical disambiguation is a fairly common aspect of Wikipedia article names, it's not illogical to consider them when applying guidelines re: primary topics. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget because the vast majority of searches with this term are looking for one thing. Just like Thriller (album) goes where it should. Siuenti (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Siuenti: ...And the situation with Thriller (album) is the only such example I can recall being able to find throughout my years of editing Wikipedia, so I think that is more of a WP:IAR situation enforced by consensus. Do you by chance know of any other such examples? Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revolver (album), Revolution (song), Erotica (album), Bedtime Stories (album), all with consensus at RfD--this are all the redirects I known, might be more there. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 23:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. It doesn't change my opinion since I don't think that redirecting titles with a more precise disambiguator than its target (provided that the target has a disambiguator) is useful for our readers (so I don't agree with those mentioned above either), but it's good to know that there are more such situations, meaning there's precedent for it in some cases. Steel1943 (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - Retargeting matches the intent of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and the purpose of redirects in general, as it will help people get to the article they are most likely looking for. Calathan (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. "Frozen (film)" is a barely used redirect - before this RFD it was averaging 4 hits a day. There's little benefit by changing it to point to the film, especially evidence lacking that people are actually using it to link or to get to the Disney film's article. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as with browsing DVDs at the public library, there are other Frozen films that are on the shelf especially Frozen (2010 American film). I would support the creation of Frozen (Disney film) redirect though. That would attract type-in searches for "Frozen (". There's already Disney's Frozen. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. The second bullet point of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT would be analogous, where the primary topic for "Einstein" is "Albert Einstein", which is at a different page because of naming conventions. It seems clear that the primary topic for "Frozen (film)" (not "Frozen" – which some have argued must be the case – because of freezing) is the Disney film. Adding up all the page views per day between July 1, 2015 and the day before this nomination for the items listed at the current section on the DAB page, the Disney film gets 8145/9243 hits each day, or 88%, which seems sufficient to meet the first prong of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (usage by readers). The fact that the the Disney film is the only film to have multiple related entries at the DAB page (short sequel film, franchise article, soundtrack album, upcoming Broadway musical) would mean that it meets the second prong of PRIMARYTOPIC (long-term significance) . ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:32, 6 October 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_October_5&oldid=1138581309"