Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 28, 2017.

M. Johnson[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 13#M. Johnson

Michael Sharp[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 13#Michael Sharp

Hyperexcitability[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) 16:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion – "Hyperexcitability" is a very poor synonym for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Moreover, all the incoming links to the hyperexcitability page are about either neuronal excitability or muscle excitability, and neither of these are relevant to ADHD. The only options that I can think of which address one or more of these problems are to delete all of the incoming links to the page, create a DAB page (this also necessitates deleting all the incoming links), or deleting the bad redirect. Deleting the redirect is the only option that addresses both problems. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excitability is mentioned in Muscle contraction and Neuron, but neither article talks about hyperexcitabiity. There is already a dab for Excitation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:12, 30 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.

Recycle a laptop[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 Laptop recycling, delete the rest. Thanks, Tavix, for making this easier to carry out! --BDD (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the rest of the list
Discussion[edit]

This is a list of 219 redirects created by John J. Bulten to Computer recycling, in what appears to be every permutation he could think of. Similar to the Neelix situation, I consider these to be obscure forms of the article title. -- Tavix (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admin: I've included a raw list on the talk page. This should make the closure very simple with Twinkle's d-batch tool once the redirect(s) that will be kept are removed. -- Tavix (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep Laptop recycling as a plausible search term, the rest, especially those with hyphens, are either all implausible or users looking for a service, and should all be deleted. – Train2104 (t • c) 15:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some just the most likely used phrases recycle/recycled/recycling laptop/laptops/computer/computers. Keep laptop recycling. That's about it. Remove all the weird proper noun (capitalized) phrases and hyphens as nothing pertains to those versions. Computers don't have to be old to be recycled. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:15, 28 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.

Iiga[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 International Island Games Association. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo with no incoming links and the term is not found on target article. Senator2029 “Talk” 13:34, 28 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.

National Airport[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 11#National Airport

User:Hemanshu/sandbox239[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 11#User:Hemanshu/sandbox239

Red plains texas[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 11#Red plains texas

Black 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the page history for a sense of what's going on here. I propose restoring the article (something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_English&oldid=763629814 this version) or making a tighter disambiguation page. Redirecting to AAVE seems like a massive WP:WORLDWIDE fail. If nothing else, Black British are overwhelmingly English. BDD (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. An appealing idea, but I'm now too sleepy to think straight. (For one thing, I don't understand "Black British are overwhelmingly English" in this context.) I'd be interested in Aeusoes1's opinion. -- Hoary (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand "Black British are overwhelmingly English" See the infobox at Black British. By my calculation, 97% of Black British are from England, making them "Black English". -- Tavix (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect As shown by the diff linked to in the nomination, the article was nothing but a completely unreferenced, highly indiscriminate list of dialects - not all of which are spoken (primarily, or at all) by any ethnic grouping traced from an African diaspora. To restore the article to the state that the nominator suggests would require proof that the term meets the General Notability Guideline and the sources just aren't out there. While I agree that the title of the target is not ideal, that doesn't make the redirect any less valid. If anything, a RfC could be opened to discuss the target's title but the redirect itself should remain a redirect. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect. I've never seen "Black English" refer to anything other than the speech of African Americans in the United States. If the nominator feels that they can produce a quality article that is referentially distinct from the AAVE article we have, I suggest creating a draft in their user space. What exists in the history is not worthwhile for the project, IMHO. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate to include the linguistic usages and Black British, at the very least. -- Tavix (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a highly implausible usage of the term - can you provide a single instance in a reliable source of this usage? I only ask because I'm in the United Kingdom and I've never encountered the term used as a demographic descriptor. That'd be a prime target for a Deletion Discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be a prime target for a Deletion Discussion. What, Black British? You think that should be deleted? -- Tavix (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not, I'm referring to the use of "Black English" as some kind of demographic identifying term. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with "being a prime target for a deletion discussion"? -- Tavix (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, is "Black English" used as a descriptive demographic term in any reliable source? It's a straightforward question. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's an unrelated question than the one I asked. However, to address this question, see below where I address another part of your argument and my reply to Hoary for more info. -- Tavix (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For your "I've never heard of it" argument, see English people#Current national and political identity for an answer why you specifically might not have heard it. The relevant sentence is Today, black and minority ethnic people of England still generally identify as British rather than English to a greater extent than their white counterparts; however, groups such as The Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) suggest the emergence of a broader civic and multi-ethnic English nationhood. It's all sourced. Enjoy. -- Tavix (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of "Black English" there. Never mind. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a discussion of Black people of England, which would be Black English. The logic is no different than the (slightly wider) Black British, or (significantly smaller) Black Scottish. -- Tavix (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions. I'm open to the idea of resurrecting this as a disambiguation page. Let's look at this earlier version, as has been suggested. Of all that are listed here, I think that AAVE and Black British English are at times called "Black English". What about the others? I'm very willing to be persuaded that the term is used more widely than I realize, but is it? (To pick an example at random, is Saint Kitts Creole called "Black English"?) Meanwhile, Tavix seems to be saying that "Black English" would be a reasonable sort of term for Black English people. It would indeed, but are they so called, to a significant extent? -- Hoary (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've found no sources that use "Black English" as a term to describe black people born/living in/from England. Redirects are cheap, but disambiguation pages aren't redirects - if the term doesn't meet the GNG then there's no justification for the creation of the disambiguation - basically, there's a risk of creating a disambiguation based purely on the opinions of editors - original research. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the abstract, "Black English" may have more than one meaning, but in the real world it appears to have only one. Without some sources, reliable or not, that indicate real-world usage of the phrase with any other meaning, I don't see any reason to change the redirect. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Datum. Tom McArthur ("T.MCA.") provides an entry for "black English" in The Oxford Companion to the English Language (ed Tom McArthur, OUP, 1992): "BLACK ENGLISH [Late 20C]. A controversial term for the English of people of African origin or for English in Black Africa. In the US, the term generally refers to the vernaculars of descendants of slaves, some called dialects, some creoles. In the UK, the term generally refers to the usage of West Indian immigrant communities. . . ." (No, he doesn't say who uses the term, or where it's used, or what the controversy is.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit unclear at the end there. Does it say it's used to describe a demographic of people? Exemplo347 (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear. I can guess, but that's all I can do, so I won't. Certainly McArthur doesn't explain. (Incidentally, he also has an entry for "White English". He doesn't call this controversial; but I'd guess that the only reason he has an entry for it is that he was surprised or amused when he noticed a single [jokey?] use of it by a movie critic, which he reproduces.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:02, 28 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.

Blade weapon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 11#Blade weapon

Rough sex[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 11#Rough sex

Shon pan[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) 16:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this spelling is too implausible to be considered helpful. Stats are negligible. -- Tavix (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was expecting some sort of Chinese name, not some nickname to an American actor, and certainly not the way he wants his name pronounced. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a joke/ very obscure synonym --Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 30 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.

Grease witherspoon[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 14:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this could be seen as a WP:BLP violation. -- Tavix (talk) 00:53, 28 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.

Little Boy (2013 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 delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and misleading redirect since the film was not released in 2013, nor does the article make any mention of the year. -- Tavix (talk) 00:42, 28 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.

Our Kind of Traitor (2014 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to IMDb, there are no 2014 films by this name. -- Tavix (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete failed crystal. Film came out in 2016. No notable screenings or film festivals in 2014. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:24, 28 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.

USSR Virus[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) 00:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable, not a single reference to russia or USSR within the article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeWithMarkets: I could see it being retargeted, although it does seem like a bit of an unlikely search, its borderline. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:04, 28 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.

Ford Library[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. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, should this be retargeted to Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library instead? I'm wondering if it is ambiguous. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • disambig per my above comment there are at least two good entries for a dab page, neither of which are the primary target. I agree with Nyttend that disambiguation is significantly preferable to deletion in situations like this. Thryduulf (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library, which I believe is the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. No prejudice against a hatnote if the Duke Library can be mentioned (shouldn't seem that hard). -- Tavix (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: The Ford Library is now mentioned at Fuqua School of Business. -- Tavix (talk) 21:26, 6 April 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_March_28&oldid=1127488127"