Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 16[edit]

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

Mons Hadley Delta[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 procedural close. This is no longer a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently Mons Hadley Delta redirects to Mons Hadley. Both are mountains on the moon near the Apollo 15 landing site. I suggest a having a separate article on Mons Hadley Delta, due to the fact that they are separate mountains, and more importantly that Hadley Delta was visited by the astronauts while Hadley itself was not. Can the redirect be removed so that the new article can be created? Jstuby (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The redirect doesn't need to be deleted - you can just overwrite it with an article. View the redirect page, remove what's currently there and replace it with an article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That implies I should redirect it to itself. I think the redirect needs to be deleted. Jstuby (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Until an article is created, the current target is the location with all the information on Mons Hadley Delta on Wikipedia. As it stands, the content on MHD at the current target is very little, so I don't see the need for a split at this point in time. If you feel it should have it's own article, anyone is free to edit the page and create one. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:10, 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.

DoY[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. There is consensus that both DoY and DOY should be disambiguated. Where the disambiguation page should be is a question that hasn't been decided in this discussion. The suggestion for having the disambiguation page entries on the same page as the anthroponymy article goes against current practice (see for example WP:NAMELIST). In the absence of further discussion, the default solution is to have a separate dab page with the title DOY, per WP:SMALLDIFFS (none of the entries there would be in lower case, so that wouldn't present a challenge to the primary topic status of Doy.) (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've got a bit of an WP:XY situation as DOY and Doy now go to different places. This was originally a redirect to Duke of York, but I'm assuming it was retargeted due to a lack of attestation. (DoY is not mentioned there by the way) -- Tavix (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig Doy is a set index of people with that firstname or surname so I suggest incorporating that into a disambiguation page listing the airport, the duke (google suggests it's a common abbreviation but almost always only in informal contexts) and a wiktionary link (wikt:doy). DoY and DOY could then redirect to Doy as {{R from ambiguous}}. Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig for all variants. Not clear any of these is primary topic. also add wiktionary for doy. I added some more acronyms to the list such as Department of Youth, Duchess of York, and Day of Year. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per above --Lenticel (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support the creation of a disambiguation page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:23, 20 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.

Fake President[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 deleted, WP:G10. Again, no explanation needed. -- Tavix (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not... totally sure this needs a lengthy explanation. TimothyJosephWood 19:33, 16 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.

History of the Jews in in Tajikistan[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) 16:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as implausible typo - double 'in' in title. Loopy30 (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - agree with Loopy30... very implausible. Onel5969 TT me 19:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a {{R from move}} but the article (which it previously was) was only at this title for 31 minutes in 2008 so the chances of incoming links that would be broken are tiny. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to implausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 06:35, 19 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.

Flashing Lights (Kygo album)[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#G5. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant hoax. - TheMagnificentist 17:24, 16 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.

boners.com[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. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 04:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no reason for boners.com to redirect to rotten.com. The rotten.com article does not mention “boners.com,” and the URL www.boners.com is not an existing website or redirect, at least not anymore. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 13:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There used to be a section about Boners.com in the article, but it was removed without comment by an IP [1] a few years ago. I've left a message at Talk:Rotten.com about this, linking to this discussion. If the content is restored then the redirect should obviously be kept, but if it isn't then deletion seems best. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, because the section no longer exists, I’d say that the redirect page should be deleted. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 20:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point is that as the section was removed without explanation by an ip user we should give the editors of the article chance to decide whether it should be restored or not before judging the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • You’re correct. I have re-added the section, if that’s all right. 70.103.123.8 removed the section with no explanation, and the article remained like that for four years, which seems pretty silly to me. I don’t think it’s worth discussing; 70.103.123.8 provided no edit summary, and he or she will probably not reply. ―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 21:14, 16 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.

Donald Trump rape case[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 those without "child" to Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, delete the others. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPVIO: disparaging title, pointing to a "Jane Doe" rape case which was a campaign smear, withdrawn and removed from the target article in February 2017 following an RfC. — JFG talk 04:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The redirect should be retargeted to Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Smear or not, the allegation was made, and received some measure of coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia does cover noteworthy false allegations, and short of a confession by one side or the other, there is no way of knowing whether this one was false. In this case, of course, a complaint sworn out and and filed in a court of law (in several, if I recall correctly), but never served. The allegation itself was never adjudicated, and withdrawal of a lawsuit while maintaining the truth of the underlying claims, as happened here, does not itself disprove the claims. Therefore, there remains a rape allegation which has never been withdrawn, and which was reported in reliable sources. There is, it should be noted, at least one other allegations of rape at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, so the redirect is appropriate whether the instance with the thirteen-year-old girl is included or not. bd2412 T 04:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's several other similar redirects to the same target, including Donald Trump child rape case, Donald Trump child rape claim,Donald Trump rape claim, Trump child rape case, Trump child rape claim, Trump rape case, and Trump rape claim. -- Tavix (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the time that these were created, the information was covered in the target article. Note that all of them properly refer to a "claim" or a "case", not merely to a "rape". bd2412 T 04:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Retarget all that don't include the word "child" per bd2412, as there are allegations of rape, supported by reliable sources, covered in that article. WP:RNEUTRAL is relevant here. (I'll add them all to this nomination). Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all those that do include the world "child" because there is no mention of "child rape" or similar in either article, and so (even ignoring BLP issues) someone searching for information about the claims will be disappointed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was at some point discussion of a specific "child rape" allegation in the article. I am surprised that it has been removed, as there were reliable sources for the proposition that the allegation had been made. bd2412 T 17:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I've got no opinion about whether the information should be in the article, but while it is not we shouldn't have redirects implying that it is. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all of them that don't mention the word "child" to Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, as stated above, although I'm not quite sure what to do with the rest. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Neither article's talk page mentions child rape at any point. On the other hand, the legal affairs article does at one point cite this HuffPo araticle regarding that specific allegation. Not sure what to make of that. Just thought it might be of interest. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 19:22, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_16&oldid=1143889665"