Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 16, 2017.

Agie[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 27#Agie

Yallanzai Rind)[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) 19:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible due to the single bracket. Also, the Rind bit, somewhat prestigious sounding if I remember correctly, might or might not belong there – so it might be a misleading thing for a user to see in the search box drop-down suggestions. Noting that for the first nine minutes of its existence before being turned into a redirect, this was an article, but is text was an exact copy of Yallanzai, so there's nothing to salvage there. – Uanfala (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Implausible typouse of parentheses. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC), update 23:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as implausible due to the formatting issue with ")" --Lenticel (talk) 01:20, 20 March 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.

New York-New Jersey English[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 17:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the name is original research. I have never heard anybody use the term "New York-New Jersey English". On the other hand, I hear the term New York accent all the time. Secondly, I doubt anybody would be looking up "New York-New Jersey English". Therefore, I request that it be deleted.LakeKayak (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Champion: I was unaware of the other three links, only the one. Therefore, thanks for letting me know. I do agree that they all should be deleted.LakeKayak (talk) 12:16, 17 March 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.

Aisha (Singer)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha (singer) already exists. Does not need caps version of dab. Not related to Singer company. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_12#Halsey_.28Singer.29 for a similar case that was RFD'ed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:45, 18 March 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.

First aerial victory by the U.S. military[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 27#First aerial victory by the U.S. military

Roosevelt Republican[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 26#Roosevelt Republican

iPhone 8[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. WJBscribe (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL No mention in target, thus not helpful for readers, we should do the same for all redirects like this prior - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTALHAMMER Wait until announcement is made. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per these multiple sources which link the term "iPhone 8" with the Apple iPhone in general:

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20].

  • For one, this is not some made up term. It is used in over 650,00 sources. All of which link it to the iPhone.
  • Secondly, the Wikipedia standard WP:Crystal is for articles. It was never meant to disallow redirects that could be helpful to someone who may be searching the term that is mentioned in over 650 THOUSAND web searches. The same goes for the essay, Wp:CRYSTALHAMMER.
  • Third, yes, most of the sources are just rumors, but that is why there is no actual article. Having an article full of rumors would be irresponsible, but a simple redirect hurts no one, does not violate any guideline or policy, and could be helpful to anyone who may be searching this widely used media term by allowing them to know that the source is referring to the Apple iPhone.
  • Fourth, Given that there quite a few people searching the term on Wikipedia, it would be foolish to give this number of people absolutely nothing. It will only make people angry with Wikipedia, which is already seen as a less than useful tool by many people.
  • Finally, nobody is arguing that this should be an article, but Wikipedia is supposed to be as helpful as possible. Deleting a harmless redirect isn't helpful at all, especially since there is no policy against using helpful redirects.--JOJ Hutton 01:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 00:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that this redirect is even the slightest helpful or harmless, the term is mentioned nowhere in the target article, the pageviews do show people are searching for this, yes, but they do not show whether the redirect did fulfill their searches, and since there is no information at all on the topic, there's no reason to believe that a reader will be satisfied when they are lead to where this redirect leads them to, not having the redirect gives the reader search results, which allows them to quickly realize that there is no information about the topic on Wikipedia, leaving the redirect as is may mislead the reader into thinking that there is information about "iPhone 8" at the iPhone article, which there isn't. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 11:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with edit to iPhone page -- instead of of all this wasted back-and-forth, how about somebody add a sentence or two to the end of the iPhone page, with the Wall Street Journal Apple-sourced info about the next-gen model? Infoman99 (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Okay, I just made the change to the iPhone article myself. The change meets WP:CRYSTAL because: it's notable & almost certain, based on expert sources published in reliable sources, there's wide-ranging interest in the subject matter, it's a notable expected future event, it's well documented, specific information is available, it's not pure speculation or extrapolation, and it's merged into larger topic about series of products. It's under the Models section of the article.
Frankly, instead of all this wasted breath, whoever nominated for deletion in the first place, should have just added the two sentences to the iPhone article.
Inefficiency is bad, people! :Infoman99 (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It leads to no solid info. [Insert my usual wild-goose-chase speech here.] —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, similar to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 6#Iphone 7. Let's wait for an announcement first, otherwise it's people grasping at rumors. I'd support the removal of the recently added section for those same reasons. This is an encyclopedia, not a rumor mill. -- Tavix (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment None of the reason given for deleting the article actually fall under the criteria at WP:R#DELETE. In addition redirects do not fall under the umbrella of WP:CRYSTAL. Additionally, since this nomination has been opened, the term iPhone 8 has been searched 1777 times with an average of 111 a day. That means that it is a useful redirect. Finally, Also, since this discussion was opened, with some just today alone (March 14), here are just a few links to articles on the web from media outlets that use the term iPhone 8 with the Apple iPhone, [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [[33], [34] and even Fox News is getting in on it. There are more but even I don't have that kind of time. Bottom line is that the term iPhone 8 is already being used in major news outlets. There is no reason to wait have a harmless redirect.--JOJ Hutton 02:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the reason given [...] fall under the criteria at WP:R#DELETE. They don't have to. Consensus can bring about deletion regardless of what WP:R#DELETE has to say.
  • [...] the term iPhone 8 has been searched [...] That means that it is a useful redirect. No, it doesn't. If a redirect does not lead to solid information, it is harmful; the higher the number of searches, the more the harm. In a way, the number of searches is a multiplier of the existing status and does not confer a status on its own.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response
    1. Consensus is based on the strength of the argument, not a vote. There is no policy or guideline argument at WP:R#REDIRECT that supports deleting the redirect. Anything short of that is basically an an I don't like it vote.
    2. There is no guideline that says that an article has to have, as you put it, "Solid Information". The redirect only needs to make sense, which is clear from it's intent, Major media sources are using this term and linking it to the Apple iPhone, so therefore it makes sense.
    3. Just because you don't find the redirect useful, is not a reason to delete it. WP:R#KEEP says that a reason to not delete a redirect is because, Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. stats.grok.se or the pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility. The stats and page views show that people are searching the redirect. therefore it is useful to someone, even if you do not agree.
    End of Response.--JOJ Hutton 02:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Further information/responses: Responses to comments above:
  • "No mention in target..." --> Now moot. A sourced mention has been added to the target.
  • "Delete per WP:CRYSTALHAMMER Wait until announcement is made" --> "Crystal Hammer" (or, more to the point, "Wikipedia user TenPoundHammer's law") is an essay, not policy. It is generally going to be superceded by WP:CRYSTAL. See my comment above re. my edit to iPhone and WP:CRYSTAL criteria being met.
  • "the term is mentioned nowhere in the target article,.... there is no information at all on the topic, there's no reason to believe that a reader will be satisfied" --> Now moot. A sourced mention has been added to the target.
  • "It leads to no solid info." --> Now moot. A sourced mention has been added to the target. And if they think the information is insufficient, obviously, they're welcome to add a few more sentences from the expert-sourced information available in the dozens of reliable source print publications that have published on this topic.
  • "Let's wait for an announcement first, otherwise it's people grasping at rumors." --> See my comment above re. WP:CRYSTAL criteria.
  • "Consensus can bring about deletion regardless of what WP:R#DELETE has to say." --> Sure, anything can happen. But is it likely in this situation? That's quite unclear. Infoman99 (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jojhutton: Actually, the situation was much the same when the discussion regarding IPhone 7 took place; there were many sources containing speculation then, just as the ones you refer to now do. Firstly, we shouldn't attempt to predict the name of the phone (e.g. Windows 8 was followed by Windows 10). Secondly, I'll echo Tavix, in saying that we should wait for an announcement from apple instead of promoting rumors. Lastly, I have no problem with a redirect from this title to iPhone, as soon as information about said device can be found there. iPhone#Expected 2017 model doesn't quite rise to that bar. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, there is always a source or two. But the over 600,000 Yahoo hits and the over 24 million Google hits on an "iPhone 8" search is nowhere near the same number as the "iPhone 7" search had at the same time period. Nobody at Wikipedia is predicting the name of the next Apple iPhone. iPhone 8 is what the massive number of reliable sources are calling it. In addition to that, redirects do not, in of themselves, "promote rumors". They simply provide a quick link to a topic that is widely covered by a massive amount of media coverage. Therefore WP:CRYSTAL is not the issue, because CRYSTAL is only a policy about article content and not about redirects, especially redirect terms that are used so prevalently in many many sources. A redirect does not promote a single rumor. a redirect only states what is obvious from the sources, that the term "iPhone 8" is being linked BY THE MEDIA, to the Apple "iPhone". And the page view statistics confirm that the sources are working because people are searching the term on Wikipedia.--JOJ Hutton 02:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Godsy comment:
  • The iPhone 7 redirect discussion Godsy links to is not apropos here. At a minimum, according to the comments at that discussion, the iPhone article did not have any information about the iPhone 7 at the time of the redirect discussion.
  • Godsy's directive that "we shouldn't attempt to predict the name of the phone" is also not relevant here. The iPhone page does not do so; instead, it reports that numerous reliable media sources, citing industry experts and inside sources within Apple and its partners, have referred to the phone as, inter alia, the iPhone 8.
  • Godsy's opinion that "we should wait for an announcement from apple instead of promoting rumors", while an interesting personal thought and characterization, runs contrary to the WP:CRYSTAL factors in this case, as specified at length in my comment above (at 00:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)).
  • I thank Godsy for his admission that he will not oppose the redirect once, in his opinion, "information about said device can be found there." If he believes that the current information "doesn't quite rise to that bar", he is more than welcome to take 5 minutes and search any of the dozens or even hundreds of reliable source print publications that have published print and online articles, sourced from industry experts and Apple- and Apple-linked corporate insiders 'familiar with the matter', and to add additional information about the upcoming model. It would certainly be a more efficient use of time toward "freely shar(ing)... knowledge" than haggling over a redirect. Infoman99 (talk) 00:48, 27 March 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.

Important Camorra arrests[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "important" is subjective. Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. The information sought can be found at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment from nominator: The use of the word "important" on this redirect could be seen by readers having the same problem as most redirects starting with the word "other". The reader may go to the list page without the word "important" present in its title, and in most cases (like the one of this redirect,) that page is the target of this nominated redirect. So, of the reader doesn't consider any of the items listed at the list page "important", they may look up the title with the word "important" (this redirect), and be redirected here. With this being said, this causes a similar problem as the redirects that start with the word "other", and that it ... it is unclear what the word "important" as defined in this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yes, redirects don't have to be neutrally worded or otherwise even completely accurate, but this situation seems like a can of worms... I'd rather we choose deletion given the vagueness. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:40, 17 March 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.

Dubya See Dubya[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 26#Dubya See Dubya

Beauty and the beast (disney)[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 Beauty and the Beast (franchise). Not enough participation to establish strong consensus, so this close shouldn't be taken to rule out a renomination. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First it should be retitled to "Beauty and the Beast (Disney)". Second, Also: Beauty and the Beast (Disney). It currently redirects to the 1991 film, which was OK years ago, but now there are multiple Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" it should go to either Beauty and the Beast (franchise) or Beauty and the Beast (disambiguation). © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 07:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to franchise article which covers all of Disney's adaptations of the story. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:59, 16 March 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.

Bushists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be retargeted to Bushism or deleted? I'll note that Bushist itself does not exist, it should be created if this isn't deleted, though. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't retarget to Bushism. "Bushism" is about Bush's use of the English language, but a "Bushist" would be a supporter of Bush's political ideology, so Bushism would be an inapproprite target. I've run out of time to evaluate it further though. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unlike a term such as 'Blairite', which has seen constituent usage in the press for years, 'Bushist' is something that seems unclear at best. I'm not getting a sense of it being anything other than an empty pejorative and one rarely used if that. Deletion seems like the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:43, 17 March 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.

Reaganesque[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 25#Reaganesque

Nixonian[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 25#Nixonian

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_16&oldid=1138581827"