Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 6, 2017.

Romford Warehouse[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) 19:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless redirect - It has a warehouse in Romford however it has warehouses in various other parts of the UK too so IMHO it's a rather pointless redirect, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 19:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not a directory of warehouse locations. Not mentioned in the article for any historical significance. Romford has other businesses with warehouses. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:10, 7 July 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.

Andrelli[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) 22:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are more music items by this person, so there has to be an standalone page, not 1 redirect to an remix. Delete if not notable. » Shadowowl | talk 18:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - So what if that person has 'more music items'? How is that relevant to any Wikipedia policy? If you think there should be a standalone page, then request it to be created, why does this redirect bother you? Whether or not the person is notable doesn't matter because it's a redirect not an actual article. - TheMagnificentist 04:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to make redlink. He also remixed Lady Gaga's Million Reasons. Is that enough for him to have a page? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:AngusWOOF, yes, it actually is enough. Only notable remixers get to have their remixes released by the artists themselves, which shows significance. This is not an article so notability does not matter. Please have an unbiased judgment (just putting it out there). - TheMagnificentist 05:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If they're notable for more than one thing then redirecting to a single work is detrimental both to readers and editors. Someone linking to "Andrelli" does not want to link to some random song they were involved with instead. Xezbeth (talk) 12:05, 7 July 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.

Young and Reckless[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 Young & Reckless. Consider this withdrawn. -- Tavix (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article, nor at List of songs recorded by Kesha. From what I can tell, it's an unreleased song, but we've got no information on it. -- Tavix (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, that seems like the obvious thing to do. I'm going to go ahead and close this and retarget it. -- Tavix (talk) 18:13, 7 July 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.

EThekwini[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 23#EThekwini

2018 World Series[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. WP:SALT is for titles that are repeatedly recreated, which isn't the case here. That being said, this should not be created until there's information about this event. -- Tavix (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems way to early to have a World Series page for the end of NEXT season. Jdavi333 (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt until basic information has been provided: venue, dates, etc. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that per WP:SALT, it should only be applied when a page has been repeatedly recreated, which isn't the case here. -- Tavix (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't necessarily asking to salt the page, just delete it. Jdavi333 (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just threw in the salt because of the likelihood of it being crystal created, but that's fine to just delete. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will note the redirect is simply a placeholder and should not be opened until next season. Eddie 18:35, 9 July 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.

Gene Hernandez[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. 15:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:PTM of his birth name, "Peter Gene Hernandez". I can't find any sources calling him this, making it obscure. -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Middle+Last should only be used when it's an official stage name or common name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless we can show that he actually uses that name. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:31, 6 July 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.

Catp[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 Catp, retarget Didp to Diisodecyl phthalate, retarget Foxp to FOX proteins, disambiguate Woop, delete the rest. Please feel free to individually renominate any redirects if further discussion is desired. -- Tavix (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just like the much more numerous and now deleted pagename plus m and pagename plus n redirects created via the popular redlinks query, there was a small window of pagename plus p redirects created. These should all be deleted as well. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep didp; it's just a decapitalised form of DIDP, whose target article specifies that the "p" is indeed part of it. It's only a redirect to DID because it was later retargeted. No opinion on the others. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also keep catp for the same reason. Uncertain on XMLp and IBMp (it seems odd to mix capitalisation like that) and tending toward keep for Woop, as it has the form of the singular of Whoops. This nomination's rationale is only applicable to titles that make sense for the same purpose if you drop the concluding "p", and when we're talking redirects to "Whoops", "Woop" makes a lot more sense than "Woo" does. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Woop as that is covered by the dab page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the exception of Woop, these redirects are capitalisation variants of their targets (or things mentioned on the targets), and those that are not can be retargeted to articles of which they are such variants (like DNAP, FOX proteins etc.). The question is then essentially about whether these (mis)capitalisations should be kept. – Uanfala 09:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • To unpack my previous comment a little bit, I see three groups of redirects here:
      • Redirects from a lower-case title to an all-caps one. These are plausible and shouldn't be deleted. The actions I recommenda are: keeping Catp, and retargeting Didp and Foxp back to their previous targets DIDP and FOX proteins (to match FOXP). Why the latter two had been pointed to their present targets I will never know.
      • Redirects from a mixed capitalisation to an upper-caps title. These aren't plausible as misspellings and should only be kept if it's shown that their targets are referred to using the mixed capitalisation variant. A cursory web search didn't reveal any leads in that direction.
      • Woop. This is the apple among the oranges, and it should be turned into a disambiguation page separate from Whoop as the two terms refer to distinct sets of topics. Draft is available below the redirect. – Uanfala 18:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Foxp as it is unclear why it was created or what it is supposed to represent. Currently it looks like a poor spelling of Fox - we expect Wikipedia visitors to be literate. William Harris • (talk) • 22:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Both 'didp' and 'catp' are reasonable enough. Not sure about the others. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:56, 12 July 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.

Americna Airlines[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) 22:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlikely typo. How do I know? It is the only "Americna" redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep on the grounds that the typo has been done on the internet - Swapping two letters isn't unlikely. (I do wish I remember which website/page I saw which inspired me to create that redirect) WhisperToMe (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's an entirely plausible typo which only has one possible target. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it initially got around 15-30 searches a month in 2015 and part of 2016 but dropped to under 5 per month in 2017. Is that enough to be useful? [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It might be a typo of borderline plausibility, but the views it gets are likely attributable to it being the only redirect that features this particular misspelling. It shows up at the top in the search box drop-down suggestions whenever a user makes this typo when searching for anything "American", and so all it does is add confusion. – Uanfala 11:22, 13 July 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.

.25 process[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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*.25 process → Integrated circuit  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete Term does not appear in target article UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom. withdrawn, retargeted both per AW's suggestion below. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:45, 6 July 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.

Piranha Plant (Crash Bandicoot)[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) 19:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's going on here, but Mario and Crash Bandicoot are not the same video game series. Steel1943 (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No evidence the plants are in the Crash series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:26, 6 July 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.

Reedii[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) 19:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No such character of that name, and this interferes with the multiple reedii plant species that show up from regular search. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated above, this interferes with multiple scientific articles that we have. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:37, 19 July 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.

Apple phone[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) feminist 03:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the below discussion, there also was the Motorola Rokr. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it's overwhelmingly likely that iPhone is what the user is searching for. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This would be like Google phone where the searcher wants to know what phones are made by the company. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it is not at all like Google phone, for the aforementioned is a dab page, yes, people searching for this would undoubtedly want to know what phones are made by the company, but the iPhone is not the only Apple phone. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The iphone article does have history of previous phones made by Apple like the Rokr so this would still give information for the searcher. But if you want to make it a dab page for the different Apple-related phone products then sure. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:09, 7 July 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.

Apple Tablet[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially ambiguous, yes most people would think of the iPad, but there was also the MessagePad series. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it's overwhelmingly likely that iPad is what the user is searching for. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article also has links to MessagePad in its history. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:15, 6 July 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_July_6&oldid=1143889524"