Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 10, 2017.

Deniz Efe Açıkgöz[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 18#Deniz Efe Açıkgöz

Tuesday Night Massacre[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of notability for this moniker. Page was moved at 00:32, 10 May 2017‎ with comment "Old name was a nickname that cannot be verified in any sources and seems made up". — JFG talk 18:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete as the page mover. -- SlitherSnakeSempter, 19:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC) (Blocked sock puppet. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - With respect to all, we have to stop making up facts. The name "Tuesday Night Massacre" has been used by virtually every major news outlet and is a major trend on social media:
[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]
I realize some people have personal reasons for not liking the name but hiding this name from the public because of personal preferences is not the WP way.
--MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems to be a well-used term to refer to the event with no other notable topics using it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's documented in numerous RS, so it's an obvious search term. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Agree with above per linked sources in the main article lead -- Kamalthebest

So ... any objections to following WP:SNOW and going ahead and restoring the link (i.e. removing the banner) so that it can work properly again? -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100C:B00C:CE5C:20FF:18AA:11B6:F878 (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No objections here. It's a useful redirect because it's a reasonable search term.LM2000 (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' - It's a well documented term. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:56, 17 May 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.

Wikipedia:Ramesh Chander[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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 - redirect created fixing a page moved to the wrong namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded redirect from when the author accidentally published in projectspace. ProgrammingGeek talktome 18:13, 10 May 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.

Panendeism[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 05:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section this points to was deleted by User:ScrapIronIV as "sourced solely on WP:PRIMARY sources" (spotty, unreliable ones at that) "and claims of notability based on a single local newspaper." User:Ningauble's take at q:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Panendeism is telling. Classic example of WP:PROMOTION of a WP:MADEUP thing. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am the web dev for the Panendeism(dot)org site and a founding member. After gaining an understanding of Wikipedia policies, I agree that it's WP:NEO - there simply are no exceptionally notable sources for it. The intent was not to make it bigger than life, but to maintain the original meaning of the definition. Much of what is being interpreted as "promotion" was not added by me or, to the best of my knowledge, anyone else at our organization. We are however, trying to maintain the initial menaing of the term. There is an apparent crusade to portray Panendeism as Pandeism and all of the entries cited by ScrapIronIV, accurately reflect that. TBH, I would prefer not to have to engage in a never ending WP battle to clarify the term and deleting it would actually make my life a lot easier. The only entry anyone I am associated with has made was on Wikiquotes. We've edited the Wikipedia entry, but did not create it and attempted to edit the Wiktionary entry as well. If deleted, for the love of deist-god, please purge everything, it would be much appreciated.SullivanBenjamin (talk) 21:49, 11 May 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.

Gamaliel Harding[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 18#Gamaliel Harding

Thagana[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 18#Thagana

Blood chemistry[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 18#Blood chemistry

Charles V of England[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 16:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't Charles V. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. From the target article, "If he keeps his current first name, he will be known as Charles III." That is a significant "if", it's conceivable at a big stretch he may be Charles IV (see Bonnie Prince Charlie), but not Charles V. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Thryduulf. I'll note parenthetically that the reason it's "Charles V" rather than "Charles IV" is that Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia had a potential claim to being Charles IV of England by virtue of being the next in line to the Jacobite succession after the death of Henry Stuart. He never claimed that title, though, and presumably any Jacobite committed enough to care about the succession after the death of Henry Stuart would deny that the Windsors are legitimate in the first place. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for 4 reasons: "Charles", "V", "of England", and WP:CRYSTAL. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find even a fictional future Charles V worth merging (like Queen Elizabeth X). Hyperbolick (talk) 17:15, 15 May 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.

Solomon Curtis[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 18#Solomon Curtis

Jessica Taylor (The Platters)[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 16:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Although there is an individual who puts forth the claim that she is Jessica Taylor of a 2005 incarnation of The Platters, I do not believe that any legitimate incarnation of The Platters ever included Jessica Taylor. Her Official website seems to be untruthful; if she really toured Around the World as a former member of The Platters for over 20 years she would have to have started before 1997; Clicking on Shows on her website shows she has none; Google search for "The Platters" "Jessica Taylor" seems to find only self-created content and wikis. The content for this article before it was a redirect was probably created by the individual in question; nothing links here. Anomalocaris (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Anomalocaris. There seem to be no shortage of people illegitimately claiming to be The Platters. Without a reliable source indicating otherwise, I think we're going to have to assume that Ms. Taylor is among them. Kaldari (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia shouldn't humor poseurs. LK (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:41, 10 May 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.

Yvette Felarca[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 18#Yvette Felarca

Obongo[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 Jai Rawat. -- Tavix (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obongo.com is a nonexistent website, making the redirect either a malicious hoax or at best a good faith entry that is not notable. A Google search of Obongo only yields racial slurs against a former President, which while arguably prominent, isn't notable either. Obongo yields no search result for a supposed website called Obongo.com in the first page and in fact attempting to put Obongo.com in your address bar might take you to a search engine. NCMECK345 (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for the AfD to resolve. If the target is deleted, I would recommend against G8 deletion in favor of a proper resolution here as a couple other options have been suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In line with Tavix' comment, I've added {{G8-exempt}} to the redirect. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nyttend! I had forgotten about that template. -- Tavix (talk) 13:48, 10 May 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 Voyager with Josh Garcia[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 The More You Know (block) as I find no consensus to delete. -- Tavix (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not even mentioned in the article, and only a weak connection (they produced it, among many other shows) DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:26, 10 May 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.

Vacation Creation[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 One Magnificent Morning as I find no consensus to delete. -- Tavix (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not even mentioned in the article, and only a weak connection (they produced it, among many other shows) DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If this is kept though, maybe think about a {{selfref}} hatnote to WP:MADEUP, but it's nowhere near likely enough (or the target important enough) to be worth even considering a CNR if this is deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:26, 10 May 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.

Touch keyboard[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 Keyboard. (non-admin closure) feminist 03:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another offering from UpsandDowns1234, who IMO is rapidly becoming Neelix 2.0. While Microsoft uses the term "touch keyboard" to refer to the on-screen keyboard on tablets, it's certainly not the primary usage of the term, which at least since the launch of the ZX80 almost 40 years ago has meant and continues to mean physical keyboards in which the keys themselves don't move. The meaning is gradually changing, as there's been a recent trend among hardware manufactures to use the term "touch keyboard" to refer to physical keyboards containing a built-in touchpad, but that's also not where this redirect is pointing.  ‑ Iridescent 19:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's sounding like some sort of disambiguation is needed here, but I'm not sure if it should be primary or not? Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify. Can refer to Virtual keyboard, Projection keyboard, or any of the other meanings referred in the nom. – Train2104 (t • c) 22:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Keyboard which is already a disambiguation page, and add entries if necessary. Let readers figure out which topic they're looking for, and let editors be smarter about disambiguating their own content. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete; whether it should be disambiguated or retargeted I don't know, but you've solidly given a reason for causing it to continue to exist in some fashion. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Keyboard, following the reasoning of Ivanvector above. LK (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Keyboard. Per Ivanvector that seems like a good location to have the disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 10 May 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.

GFACE[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 Crytek#Ryse: Son of Rome, Homefront: The Revolution and Crysis 3. Consensus is to keep the redirects. (non-admin closure) feminist 10:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only mentioned once in target article Lordtobi (✉) 14:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I combined these two entries. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:25, 10 May 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.

Blood on the Floor (Painting)[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) 18:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request the deletion of 43 redirects which confound the purpose of a navigation template on the paintings of the artist, which has essentially served as a worklist and has properly shown redlinks where articles were needed. The creation of the redirects (some or all back on March 7 or so) changed the redlinks to bluelinks, perhaps tricking some readers and certainly undermining the point of the navigation template, and has caused some frustration amongst editors. This has been covered in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Another Believer (still open as of 5/9). Removing the redirects would help. doncram 01:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This regards a total of 43 redirects:

Extended content
  1. Blood on the Floor (Painting)
  2. After Muybridge - Study of the Human Figure in Motion - Woman Emptying a Bowl of Water
  3. Carcase of Meat and Bird of Prey
  4. Diptych (Human Body)
  5. Dog (Bacon 1952)
  6. Double Portrait of Lucian Freud and Frank Auerbach
  7. Female Nude Standing in a Doorway
  8. Figure Study I
  9. In Memory of George Dyer
  10. Lying Figure
  11. Lying Figure with Hypodermic Syringe
  12. Portrait of Lucian Freud (on Orange Couch)
  13. Portrait of Michel Leris, 1976
  14. Portrait of Michel Leris, 1978
  15. Seated Figure (1973)
  16. Self-portrait (Bacon, 1972)
  17. Self-portrait (Bacon, 1973)
  18. Sleeping Figure (Bacon, 1974)
  19. Sphinx: Portrait of Muriel Blecher
  20. Study for a Portrait (Isabel Rawsthorn)
  21. Study for Head of George Dyer
  22. Study for the Nurse in the film Battleship Potemkin
  23. Study for Three Heads
  24. Study from Innocent X
  25. Study from the Human Body
  26. Three Figures and Portrait
  27. Three Studies for a Portrait of George Dyer
  28. Three Studies for a Portrait of John Edwards (1980)
  29. Three Studies for a Portrait of Lucian Freud
  30. Three Studies for a Portrait of Peter Beard
  31. Three Studies for a Self Portrait (1973)
  32. Three Studies for a Self Portrait (Bacon 1974)
  33. Three Studies for a Self Portrait (Bacon 1976)
  34. Three Studies for a Self Portrait (Bacon 1979)
  35. Three Studies for the Head of Isabel Rawsthorn
  36. Three Studies from the Human Head
  37. Three Studies of Henrietta Moraes laughing
  38. Three Studies of Muriel Belcher
  39. Triptych 1976
  40. Triptych inspired by T.S Elliot's 'Sweeney Agonistes'
  41. Two Figures (Bacon)
  42. Two Figures Lying on a bed with Attendants
  43. Two Seated Figures
--doncram 01:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, I saw your note at ANI and came here. This list is really rather long (just a display problem; nothing wrong with the batch nomination itself), so I've collapsed it. This won't interfere with the working of the RFD, and since the situation's apparently identical with all of these redirects, I'm sure that you won't get opposition to the format — all the voters will likely give a "keep all" or "delete all". Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks I guess, though I don't really see why it has to be shortened, but I also am not familiar with how things are done here at RFD. By the way, I did not and do not intend to post notices of this RFD at each of those redirects. --doncram 04:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: Posting notices of RfD on redirects nominated is not optional. It's fine to get an AWB user to do it if there are too many for you to do individually, but if the redirects are not tagged the discussion will very likely be procedurally kept or relisted for this reason. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be fine if an AWB user would do that, please do. But the redirects were all created recently (maybe all on March 7) and the only editor watching them is the creator, who already commented here, so posting notices would notify no one. I can't prove that no one else is watching them, but I cannot conceive how anyone could possibly have found their way to watchlist them. This is unlike other multiple RFD discussions. --doncram 23:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, I checked a couple at random, and they had one page watcher, probably the creator. SarahSV (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as redirects to List of paintings by Francis Bacon. I know I should probably not participate in this discussion, but I want to at least share that I created these pages as possible search terms. Since I failed to redirect the pages to List of paintings by Francis Bacon from the start, I went through the list and updated all of the pages. In my opinion, the redirects continue to serve as potential search terms and serve a purpose. Editors may disagree, and that's fine, but at least the community can make a decision here as to whether or not these redirects are beneficial to Wikipedia. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • O really? right-o.... Okay I guess it is good to have this RFD, because there is real non-agreement here. Another Believer, I assume the only way you knew that these paintings existed was because they were listed in the navigation template. And I assume you just went through it bang bang creating redirects to the artist. This really shows no understanding of how navigation templates have been used to list the articles needed, which another editor or multiple editors were working on (including whoever created the template). For an only slightly more extreme example, would you understand that it would piss off a lot of people, if on National Register of Historic Places listings in Clackamas County, Oregon, say, some editor went through and redirected every red-link to Clackamas County, Oregon. That would screw up the wp:NRHPprogress mapping system, it would obviously immediately screw the visual use of red-links in the list-article. And actually it would be claiming ownership (original author, forever) over every one of those items. Try it, go through the 20,000 redlinks in the NRHP list-article system and see how popular that makes you.
  • I am not positive how DYK works nowadays, but if someone were to start an article where you have created a redirect, I think you would might get DYK credit. I know that it would count as an article that you created, forever, and add to your tally in lists of articles created. You don't need that, and if you were driving for that, it is unworthy, and you should avoid that impression.
  • I doubt that many or any of the painting titles would be searched for, but if that happened, the navigation template would show up (or an article that included the given temple), and the reader would see that there was a redlink, accurately conveying the fact that there is not an article. Try searching on a redlink in the Clackamas NRHP list, e.g. search on "Charles C. Babcock House" with the quote marks, and it brings you to the Clackamas NRHP list. A redirect replacing the redlink would not help.
  • Right now, on the Template:Francis Bacon (artist), a reader is clearly poorly served. I think there do exist a couple real articles, but I cannot tell which ones they are, all show as bluelinks. I would like to know which I could click on to actually get something. Readers are immediately, currently disserved by the trickery, and it somewhat undermines readers' belief that bluelinks elsewhere will get to anything useful. I do hope others will comment and clarify this. --doncram 04:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not aware of List of paintings by Francis Bacon existing but that does not change things. It would show up if you searched for "Study of a Dog", if there was not a redirect. That list-article could, perhaps should be edited to show links for all the expected articles, properly showing red-links where there is no article. With the redirects, it can't do that, it would show all bluelinks like the navigation template. Clearly the editors developing about paintings are using the list-article and the navigation template differently than is done by NRHP editors about historic sites, because they are shying away from showing (ugly?) redlinks on the list-article, but who the hell are you or me to dictate they should do their development differently. It adds no value, still, and it hurts readers and developing editors, too, to have those topics as redlinks. --doncram 05:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. There is no purpose to these redirects: if they are deleted, a reader searching for the artist of a particular painting will still find it through List of paintings by Francis Bacon, and the redirects offer no more information than that. The creation of useful articles on the individual paintings, the longer-term objective, is hampered rather than assisted by the existence of the redirect; see WP:REDLINK. This has been explained at AN/I to the creator of the redirects in connection to the use of the Francis Bacon navigation template, and having red links in a navigation template as an indication that an article is needed is not unprecedented (I've created a couple of such articles myself). Creation was mistaken and does more harm than good, deletion will be helpful and does not hurt the reader in any way. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thoughts on this. 1) do we assume every painting on the list deserves its own article? Ones that don't would better have a link to a list than nothing at all; 2) some of these are surprising there's no disambiguation page or other meaning for them. Bacon can't be the only painter of a "Lying Figure" or "Figure Study I" or "Two Seated Figures." Hyperbolick (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To User:Hyperbolick, I think (not sure) the way it is being done is that the navigation template lists only paintings where an article is intended (and is intended to show redlinks), while the list-article lists more paintings but shows "blacklinks", i.e. unlinked painting titles, where no future article is expected. Where it is reasonable to expect future disambiguation will be needed, I happen to think that an article would better be titled with parenthetic disambiguation, e.g. if/when an article is created for "Two Seated Figures", it could be put at Two Seated Figures (Francis Bacon), and "Two Seated Figures" could be a redirect, marked as a {{Redirect with possibilities}}, but that is not urgent. --doncram 21:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyperbolic; both of your questions are astute. On the first, Doncram is exactly correct in substance and in describing the preferred title formulation; a number of the article names used by AN are legacy, not well thought, and would have been changed as future reasonably substantially articles were created; indicating the ill thought out nature of the recent, out of the blue, venture under discussion here.
Re "every painting": Bacon is a very significant 20th century painter; to be vulgar see here, and the literature is vast and accumulating (one of the reasons I am disappointed by the quality of sources used for the redirects later dressed up as 1 line stubs). Any of his works are inherently notable, and sell at minimum in the hundreds of thousands (to be vulgar again), more over, he was figurative, and his popularity and regard seem to be invulnerable to whims and fashion. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2017 (
  • Delete all Not every work has to have a redirect. Also (Painting) with capital P as a modifier should be discouraged. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Another Believer voted above to keep, but later said he is "fine if others feel they must be deleted as some sort of resolution". [22] SarahSV (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for both reader and editor utility. Without wanting to go into the history behind these, the sources used for the micro stubs support nothing other than Bacon painted a title of this name, and are all very poor. To see the minimal effort required for such below par article creation results, click. I would like again to be able to assess what works are reasonably covered on wiki and which are not yet, rather than weed through a heap of sub-bot generated nonsense. Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These should be redlinks so there is a chance that someone will turn them into real blue links someday. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nail on head. Look at DYK - editors are far more motivated to turn red into blue than expand a one line stub. Its human nature. One line stubs are in that way counter productive. There are [exceptions], but few and far between. Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Yngvadottir. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as I stated at Template talk:Francis Bacon (artist). These are not useful at all. The list provides minimal information about the paintings. We are better off with the red links that people might create into actual articles. ~ GB fan 02:25, 13 May 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_May_10&oldid=1088106565"