Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 15, 2017.

HITMAN[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 Hitman (disambiguation). -- Tavix (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed redirect from Hitman (2016 video game) to Contract killing (where hitman redirects to), as the cover style of the latest Hitman video game is not a style used by reliable sources. Not a sensible redirect that a user would type HITMAN, looking for a video game. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The game is officially called “HITMAN.” Why would someone type “HITMAN” in all-capital letters when looking for the article about actual hitmen?
    ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 03:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reader who didn't know about MediaWiki's strict capitalization rules might well type in all caps (or all lower case) and expect to get that page.
    Both targets appear plausible and neither is obviously primary for the all-caps version. Be bold and just disambiguate retarget it. Rossami (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't know that existed. That is better. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hitman (disambiguation). I agree with Rossami's reasoning that this is ambiguous, but we already have a suitable disambiguation page that covers both targets suggested here (and others that are equally plausible). Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hitman (disambiguation) since that appears to be fairly helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hitman (disambiguation) per Rossami --Lenticel (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hitman (disambiguation) since the video game is all-caps, and the dab page has several video game versions as well as a feature film based on the game franchise. The comic book looks like it goes by all-caps but it's not clear whether it uses lower-case when referring to the character itself. It should not point to the regular contract killing with all caps. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:06, 17 February 2017 (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.

TBW[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 disambiguate. -- Tavix (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is ambiguous, and could be used as an abbreviation for Total body water, etc. Interestingly, some have used it to abbreviate "That Bloody Woman". --Nevé–selbert 19:26, 15 February 2017 (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.

the ''date'' vowel[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely such term. Should be deleted. Fish567 (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because it's been around for over a decade and deletion would almost certainly break links. Retarget to Close-mid front unrounded vowel because the page history shows that's almost certainly the page the original author really intended. Rossami (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as the redirect contains now blacklisted wiki-markup. Besides, even if it was quotation marks, I don't think they make sense in that context. Just use The date vowel if someone truly believes it's a useful term. -- Tavix (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't really see the use of keeping this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No real use for this. The vowel is referred to as long a, not the date vowel. Fish567 (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the markups that may cause issues. It is also confusing --Lenticel (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2017 (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.

What Kind of Man Would I Be? (song)[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 retargeted to What Kind of Man Would I Be? by MPFitz1968. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A confusing disambiguation which is about Mint Condition's song with that title from 1996 but redirects to the album it comes from, Definition of a Band. The redirect may be due to its lack of notability, and I hesitate to move it to a more precise title at this time. While it peaked at #17 on the Billboard Hot 100, it is not the only song with that title to make that chart (and not the highest peaking either). The band Chicago had a song with that title that peaked at #5 in 1990 (their final top 10 on the Hot 100), from their album Chicago 19. When I came across this title in the Wikipedia search, I was thinking it to be that Chicago song, not a redirect to a Mint Condition album. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2017 (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.

Political assassination[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) 00:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this one. Taken literally, the phrase is redundant—if a murder is apolitical, we don't call it an assassination. Alone, that's not a great reason to delete. But the phrase also has a metaphorical usage: for example, see these two articles I came across today. This was tagged with {{R with possibilities}} over 10 years ago, and I wish I knew whether the metaphorical usage was what was on the tagger's mind (he's inactive now). I'm leaning delete but wanted to see what others think. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep first one correctly spelled one as useful, getting consistent numbers of hits over time. The misspelled one, not as much. It does get used, but it wouldn't be missed. There's also Character assassination and there are assassinations of religious leaders. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. The first is a useful search term (and there are a-political assassinations, e.g. of business leaders and as AngusWOOF notes) so it's arguably an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and the second is a very plausible misspelling of it and so could be tagged as {{R avoided double redirect}}. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • An assassination by definition is still political—it's not necessary for the victim to be personally in the realm of politics. If I murder a CEO or a priest because I'm mugging him, it's a regular murder, but if I'm murdering him so I or someone else can exploit a power vacuum, it's an assassination. --BDD (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Whether it is tautological or not people are using this search term and sending them to the clear primary topic seems far better than requiring them to navigate search results (or in some cases first invite them to search, then navigate search results). Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - Technically, the term "assassinate" has two meanings, only one of which is generally political. See here. Historically, I can think of multiple deaths or near deaths that attract the "assassinate" label despite their lack of political intent; how Arthur Bremer, an apolitical loner who called himself "An unemployed malcontent who fancys (sic) himself a writer" rather than anything profound, almost killed George Wallace comes to mind. I can't see these redirects as being harmful, so I'd rather that we just leave them be. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2017 (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.

Communist era[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 2#Communist era

Brian Harmon[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 Champtown and hatnote. -- Tavix (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

REVERT to version 258062515. This article was first redirected to a redlink, then the redirect was "repaired" to point to an article about a completely different person. If the original article doesn't pass notoriety criteria, perhaps the article should be deleted; either way, the redirect should not be in place, as there are actual Brian Harmons in the world, including a published author. Morfusmax (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not revert. The last article revision at this title, from 23 December 2008 was nominated for speedy deletion as a duplicate of Brian Michael Harmon, which at that time was at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Brian Harmon) but deleted 3 days later. The version at this title is identical to the version that was deleted, except that it has fewer references, and so would be speedy deletable under criterion WP:CSD#G4 as a repost. I will happily provide the content of the deleted article to anyone who wants to write a draft about this person, but that draft will have to show that he is more notable now that in December 2008 to survive as an article (I have not looked and so have no opinion whether they are or not). In the mean time, this redirect is clearly plausible as a {{R from misspelling}} but whether that is better or worse than a redlink I'm not presently sure. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:57, 15 February 2017 (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.

Danny Webb (voice actor)[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. There may be a case for an article here, and no information about him at the target page. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing. There's Danny Webb (actor) (might need further disambiguation) and Danny Webb (child actor) (might not be notable), but neither are known for doing voice acting. -- Tavix (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can only find one source discussing the voice actor. That source is not nearly enough to support an article. The source does suggest that all (or mostly all) his work was for Warner Brothers. If someone can find better sources to suggest that an article could be created, redlink it. But until those sources are found, leave it as is. Rossami (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why leave it as is? There's no discussion of any Danny Webbs at the current target, so someone searching for information on him won't be helped by the target. -- Tavix (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Behind the Voice Actors doesn't show a checkmark for Danny Webb's voice acting, so it can't be used as a reliable source. Still it implies he might have been the very first voice of Elmer Fudd / Egghead. Here are some better sources Cartoon Research - Woody Woodpecker, Warner Bros. backup in general but it's unclear whether enough can be written up about him for him to get an article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion will appreciate more help to figure out the situation of this topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:20, 15 February 2017 (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.

The other way of deception[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is a {{R from incorrect name}}, but even as so, it is potentially ambiguous. It's "prequel" is By Way of Deception. In fact, most results for searching the redirect via third-party search engines returns results for By Way of Deception. And also, the redirect doesn't have proper capitalization to be a proper title of a proper subject, so that may need consideration as well. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While you have a point about the ambiguity, the two possible target articles are closely related and prominently link to each other. I have no strong opinion about which target should be primary or even if the title should be turned into a disambig page but returning nothing seems like the worst solution. Remember that not everyone navigates the wiki via the search engine. Rossami (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as this is needlessly confusing and unused. -- Tavix (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. unclear which of the two articles it could refer to AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:55, 15 February 2017 (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.

GBC Asset Management – a division of Pembroke Management[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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Implausible redirect left behind by a page move in 2010, so it doesn't qualify as "recently created" for WP:CSD#R3. Pageview tool shows only 13 hits since July 2015. Anomie⚔ 14:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It is an artifact of a pagemove almost immediately after the article was first created but it's harmless so there's no good reason to delete it either.
    Note that this would not be a CSD:R3 candidate even if it had been found immediately. It was neither a typo nor a misnomer. It was a sub-optimal title but that does not automatically make it a speedy-deletion candidate. Rossami (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not useful dab either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep (and allow creation of the alternately dashed version) per Rossami. This is equivalent to the title and subtitle of a work which we would routinely keep. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:20, 15 February 2017 (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.

Gefangnis[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) 15:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking deletion. It is unlikely this foreign-language redirect will ever be used. HapHaxion (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HapHaxion. Since I do not have permission to delete articles would you be able to delete it now? Or if you think the deletion should hold off for a few more days or with more delete votes that is fine also. I am also asking this cause in the closed discussion you even mentioned nominating it for speedy deletion. --Necip Necipoglu (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this process has already started, I'll wait until it is completed before trying speedy deletion via WP:A2 or WP:NAD. If the end result of this discussion is Delete anyway, there will be no need for it. HapHaxion (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HapHaxion: WP:CSD#A2, like all the A speedy deletion criteria, do not apply to redirects (only the R and G criteria do). Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion for the exact same reasons as Gefangnis. An unnecessary redirect that is a translation from German.

--Necip Necipoglu (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copied the above rationale from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 16#Gefängnis/Gefaengnis. George Ho (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2017 (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/2017_February_15&oldid=1142586890"