Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 18, 2017.

Czech speak[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 26#Czech speak

Counties and Important Towns in West Virginia[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 02:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Coverage is spread across List of cities in West Virginia and List of towns in West Virginia. I suppose this title could redirect more specifically, to West Virginia#Important cities and towns, which lists those other two pages in a hatnote, but how likely is someone to search for a title as specific as "Cities and Important Towns ..." to begin with? Not "cities and towns", not "important cities and towns", but "cities and important towns"? Largoplazo (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Importance is subjective, and I agree with Largoplazo's assessment regarding the unusual syntax of this title. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "Important Towns" part of the title is what's not passing my judgement, as importance is subjective and not very descriptive. ToThAc (talk) 14:50, 19 October 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.

Unshō[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 6#Unshō

Komplement dvojke[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 02:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this mathematical operation has no especial affinity for Croatian. Gorobay (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree, there's no particular relationship between Croatian and twos-complements. Largoplazo (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, that's funny: I'm the one who replaced the article in Croatian with a redirect, back in 2013. I wouldn't have done that if it had happened today, though I'm surprised that even then I didn't have it deleted under WP:CSD A10. Largoplazo (talk) 17:40, 18 October 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.

Legal and not punishable crime[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) 18:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides this phrase being an oxymoron, it is not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The expression was in the article for some time up til this revision. Appears to be based on a non-English language phrase. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Tavix, given the update, do you think this needs further action? Even though the redirect was legitimate when created, with the present state of the target article it doesn't seem likely to be kept. – Uanfala 10:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think this needs further action because I agree with your analysis, but in the interest of fairness I'm going to back out of my closure and relist. The worst thing that could happen is this sits in the logs for another week without discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the merits of Rich Farmbrough's findings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the information Rich found was removed for the use of "irrelevant and unreliable sources" and not just for being "incoherent...and bizarre". I agree with the user: Scribd was considered spam and was reported to WP:SPAM back in 2007. It's just an unreliable source. Even then, this redirect is just as bizarre as the information that was removed. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 00:40, 27 October 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.

Karma Fields[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 Juliette Lewis#Music. (non-admin closure) feminist 10:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear indication as to what Karma Fields is in this redirect. I suggest deleting it. GoAnimateFan199Pro (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Juliette Lewis#Music. The redirect refers to the electronic music artist that featured Kerli on one of his songs, which is listed in the current target. Lewis was featured on another song of the artist, where that article has more clarification as to what the term refers to. If this were an AfD, I'd say WP:BEFORE was not used here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable music artist briefly mentioned. This is another one of those Monstercat artists that aren't notable for the Monstercat article. The single "stickup" isn't even notable for its own article or for her discography. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Juliette Lewis#Music. Billboard, a highly influential music magazine, covers the song "Stickup." (link) The news website Your EDM also covers the song. (link) And googling "Karma Fields" brings up numerous results from news websites such as Billboard, Your EDM, Earmilk, The Creators Project, Lessthan3, Death and Taxes, Vice, NEST HQ, and UKF that specifically cover the Monstercat artist Karma Fields. Embryo Yall (talk) 08:04, 25 October 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.

Liberal Republican[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 Liberal Republican Party. (non-admin closure) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 02:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there is a hatnote, but targeting this to an article about usage in the United States can be seen as systemic bias towards the U.S., hence it should instead point to Liberal Republican Party as there is already a link to the current target there. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • support Liberal Republican Party was an active party around 1872. the Rockefeller Republicans were never organized. all ran on the regular Republican ticket. In international terms a look at google books shows 90+% of the usage is American, re either 1872 or Rockefeller. Rjensen (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Also systemic bias towards modern history. Taking a quick look at "what links here" I found Matthew H. Carpenter: "He also feuded with Liberal Republican senators Charles Sumner and Carl Schurz over many issues. These 19th century politicians could hardly be considered as "Rockefeller Republicans". Nelson Rockefeller was born in 1908. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Liberal Republican Party per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. It should be obvious enough already. ToThAc (talk) 17:16, 25 October 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.

Anaheim Ducks Power Players[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 soft delete. It appears over a month has passed without anyone expressing a desire to see this kept as is. --BDD (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Power Players" is not mentioned at the target, so there's no indication as to what this might mean. -- Tavix (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This was moved from a stub article to a redirect in September 18. It looks like the cheerleading squad for the Ducks, also known as Ice Girls [1]. Could be a potential article as with Boston Bruins Ice Girls, or it could be just be relegated to a mention on the team's article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:56, 18 October 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.

Red Dead Revolver 3[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) 18:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial title not in secondary sources. Lordtobi (✉) 06:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, given that Red Dead Redemption was essentially considered the sequel to Red Dead Revolver, meaning that "Red Dead Revolver 3" would be a misnomer to refer to the second "Red Dead Redemption". Steel1943 (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Using a redirect with "3" in the context of a game with "2" strikes me as implausible.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Red Dead 3 without leaving a redirect. This would keep the franchise consistent. Assuming the installment is still a Revolver when Revolver 2 isn't even listed is too much. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Striking vote. Revolver 3 is major crystal naming then. Red Dead 3 was mentioned unofficially in this Polygon article [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:55, 18 October 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.

Malcolm X tea[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In his autobiography, Malcolm X mentioned that he used nutmeg to get high, saying that stirring the nutmeg into a glass of cold water (and presumably drinking the water) had a similar effect to smoking marijuana. There are two paragraphs on a single page in a 500-page book that mention nutmeg, and neither mentions tea. Malcolm X isn't mentioned on the target page. Nobody appears to be using this as a search term. I recommend deletion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional comment: While our redirect is rarely used, evidently the phrase "Malcolm X tea" gets many Google hits. The top hits come from the Urban Dictionary and reddit, but even articles in The Guardian and The New York Times mention Malcolm X in association with the psychoactive effects of nutmeg. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Malcolm X tea" isn't another name for nutmeg. It's more or less a descriptive phrase that could be worded in any number of ways, and it's not clear that this particular wording is a particularly likely search term. "Tea" is somewhat misleading. "Tea" usually means hot water infusions of tea plant leaves, or sometimes other plants (herbal teas) or chilled infusions of tea leaves (ice tea). "Tea" is not usually understood to be cold water infusions of miscellaneous plants. Plantdrew (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if cold infusions of water with plants was typically considered to be tea i wouldn’t consider a single mention in a 500 page book reading the use of nutmeg in this manner enough to make this a plausible search term.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not slang for all the drug variants when it is not discussed in the Autobiography of Malcolm X article or Malcolm X's article or in the Nutmeg article, the last of which does have a section Nutmeg#Psychoactivity_and_toxicity AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:53, 19 October 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.

Unjust crime[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 October 25#Unjust crime

Criminal-Reform[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) 18:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this redirect does not seem to be discussed in the target article. However, I would not be surprised if there is a good retargeting option for this redirect, disregarding the dash and the second word being capitalized. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would move it to "Criminal reform" as that's how the phrase is shown in news articles, without the hyphen. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ambiguous whether it's about reforming criminals themselves (as in the phrase "reformed criminal"; see rehabilitation (penology)) or about reforming criminal law or sentencing or whatnot, and the title is not suitable for disambiguation given the odd capitalisation and hyphenation and the fact that we don't seem to have any great targets even for a properly formatted version of this title. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:15, 27 October 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.

Template:ARABI[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) 15:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was systematically misused either inside of or instead of the proper {{lang-ar}} and {{lang}}. Abjiklam (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it seems to be a useful shortcut for Script/Arabic, unless most folks are using the Script/Arabic version? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{Script/Arabic}} is not meant to be used widely. From its talk page, it was meant for the case when the letters of the Arabic script themselves are the topic, regardless of the languages that use them. Wherever possible, the templates for the languages should be used instead to keep the text properly tagged (see Semantic Web), and both language and script templates should definitely not be hardcoded into every article like the creator of these redirects did ({{lang-ar|{{Arabi|[text here]}}}}). These two redirects unfortunately promoted the misuse of {{Script/Arabic}}. Abjiklam (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've recently had to spend quite some time sorting out the mess with the lang-xxx codes for the Punjabi varieties, which was ulimately due to a few innocent edits by the same user who created these redirects, who was well-intentioned, but apparently failed to appreciate that the xx bit in the lang-xx family of templates is an ISO 639 language code, and not something that wikipedia editors are free to make up as they go along. So I'd rather not give them the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not quite sure I understand what specifically is going on here. Isn't {{Arabi}} in a sense analogous to the ubiquitous {{Nastaliq}}? What is the difference that I'm failing to spot, Abjiklam? – Uanfala 22:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I actually object to {{nastaliq}} being added everywhere too ;) The thing is, if these templates are needed to properly format the languages, they should be inserted direclty into lang-xx, not manually inserted in every article which makes maintenance very painful and makes for an inconsistent look throughout Wikipedia. Now about {{arabi}} specifically, it forces a bigger font size to everyone across all platform, which is actually not needed in many cases. Abjiklam (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Abjiklam, the issues you're describing seem to be with the template {{Script/Arabic}}, not just these specific redirects, correct? -- Tavix (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is with this redirect leading people to misunderstand what the template is about, right? – Uanfala 13:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is my concern. The creation of the redirects was directly followed by misuse of the template. Since the template is meant to be used sparingly, a redirect is not needed, especially if it leads to misuse. Abjiklam (talk) 18:28, 30 October 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.

Counterfactual outcome[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 Impact evaluation#Counterfactual evaluation designs. -- Tavix (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not mentioned in the article DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Impact_evaluation#Counterfactual_evaluation_designs, where it is discussed. Counterfactual outcomes are discussed in the field of epidemiology, but the proposed target more specifically discusses counterfactual outcomes in context. --Mark viking (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks a lot DGG for inviting to discuss. I found that I created that page in May last year. Now I do not remember exactly why I had created that article. I found this article important about it. It is some complex concept like Confounding I do remember. Epidemiology is a better article to redirect it to in my opinion. However when I am seeing information related to Impact evaluation, I am utterly confused now, let me confess it. I doubt if WP should have an article titled Impact Evaluation. It should be part of a big article 'Monitoring and Evaluation'. Under Evaluation, there will be many kinds of evaluations. One will be impact evaluation, other will be outcome evaluation etc. The current article on Impact Evaluation is nicely written in my opinion, only it needs to be structured properly. Thanks a lot again for suggesting to comment here. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Currenly I am not able to see any link between Monitoring and evaluation and Impact evaluation. Impact evaluation should be sub category of Monitoring and Evaluation. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I've never run across this term that supposedly is related to epidemiology. I create a lot of content on epidemiology. It looks like a neologism. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 23:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a WP:INVOLVED relist to clear the October 5 page. An uninvolved closer may asses consensus at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:49, 18 October 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.

KP4[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) 22:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be kept, both Prism (Katy Perry album) (fourth album by Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson) and Witness (Katy Perry album) (fourth album under the stage name Katy Perry) are valid targets. feminist 14:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Witness (Katy Perry album). Google searches make it clear that this is the primary topic for "KP4" as this was the name it was almost universally known as prior to the title being publicly released, although hatnotes to the previous album and Killer toxin Kp4 family should be added. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Killer toxin Kp4 family as this is actually something that is officially referred to as such. As for the Witness album, that was just an fanmade name used to describe the it before the title was revealed (though using that description for it is misleading as it incorrectly implied that is her fourth album when it's actually her fifth), not something that was ever official or even tentative. Something of the sort for the album is better for fansites like Katy Perry Wikia. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify as Katy Perry's album has gotten some buzz in mainstream news like TMZ: [3] [4] so it should attract some searches. There should also be a note about KP4 standing for key programme 4 as used in multiple businesses and governments. [5] [6] Also Klebsiella pneumoniae or K. pneumoniae (KP4) [7] and the Killer protein 4 toxin. [8] There's also usage of the kp4 term in amateur radio in Puerto Rico.[9] [10] Amateur radio licensing in the United States#Call signs KP4 is also a type of pancreatic cancer cell line, although that is not mentioned in the article [11] and also K-index (KP index of KP4) for atmosphere stuff like Aurora Borealis [12] It's also used in random industrial parts, but those aren't really notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC) updated 21:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If source credibility makes any difference, then neither TMZ or PopCrush (what you linked) are valid as both are horrid references known to often have questionable-at-best claims. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well there's officialcharts.com [13], Bustle [14], Digital Spy [15], Teen Vogue [16] might be slightly better but still shows the same result, that it was used as a hashtag. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SNUGGUMS: source credibility is irrelevant here, as that doesn't impact at all on how likely a search term is to be used. Indeed TMZ using it is an indication that it is a very plausible search term as that source is very widely read and covers topics that people are likely to be searching Wikipedia for. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've created a dab page at KP4 (disambiguation) with the two albums, the killer fungus and the radio call sign. I don't understand the other things AngusWOOF has found to write short entries for them, but obviously anyone can add them. If the consensus is to dabify this can be moved over the redirect, but I still think Witness (Katy Perry album) is the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the other uses are probably not that notable. A lot of them stem about just using KP and some number, so I added KP (disambiguation) at the bottom, especially the designations for the Auroras and the cancer cell line. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added verbiage on KP4 to the Promotion section for Witness. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS has reverted my edit, so it's no longer in the article at the moment. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a WP:INVOLVED relist to clear the October 4 page. An uninvolved closer may asses consensus at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move KP4 (disambiguation) to this title, as all of the subjects commonly titled KP4 are equally obscure. ToThAc (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to allow KP4 (disambiguation) to be moved to the title per ToThAc. Katy Perry certainly isn't the primary topic in this case, neither are the two suggested albums. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 02:31, 26 October 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.

Hinduism in Algeria[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. Ruslik_Zero 20:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion of Hinduism at target except a general statement it is neglegable in North Africa. The refined by section target goes to a nonexistant section. Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Religion in Algeria, where there is a religious demographic breakdown that includes "other". The Indian government also claims that there are about 2500 of their nationals working in Algeria. [17] ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Religion in Algeria says that "other" includes Jews and Christians, but no where does it imply that the figure includes Hindus. -- Tavix (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous discussions. Even with Patar knight's findings no relevant content could be added to the proposed target. – Uanfala 23:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I have an innate loathing for these "X in Y" articles thrown up with no better reason than that we Need! An! Article! About! X! In! Every! Political! Division!, whether or not the subject functionally exists there (Scouting in the Vatican City being the all-time offender), and they're not a whole lot less obnoxious as redirects. Indeed, no doubt it's possible to find a handful of Hindus in a nation of 40 million people, the same way that no doubt you could find Mormons, Zoroastrians, Satanists, Odinists and a thriving (if tiny) congregation of banana peel worshipers. Absurd as an article and implausible as a redirect term. Ravenswing 11:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Patar knight. The relevant information in the target is right there in the lead - less than 1% of the population are Hindus. Claims that the article doesn't say this are stretching the English language beyond credulity. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead does not say anything about Hindus, the 1% figure you cited includes Christians and Jews. There is nothing in the article about Hinduism in Algeria and it is a disservice to Wikipedia for you to assume there's information when there is not. If anybody is stretching, it's you. -- Tavix (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lets look at what the page actually says: "Islam (Official: Sunni) 99%; Other (includes Christian and Jewish) 1%". Now anyone searching for a topic like "Hinduism in $Country" is going to know that Hinduism is not Islam, and that 99% + 1% = 100%. The "Other" figure must therefore include all religions that are not Islam. That the 1% also includes Christians and Jews means that Hindus are less than 1%. If the statistic was just for Christians and Jews it would be labelled "Christians and Jews" not "Other" or "Includes Christians and Jews". The stretching of the English language is yours when you assert that "includes" means "exclusively composed of". As for WP:OR - "Routine calculations do not count as original research." Basic arithmetic is an explicit example of a routine calculation. 99+1=100 is basic arithmatic. "Hinduism is not Islam" is a statement that "needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed." Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what I'm reading is that you still don't have any evidence that there may be Hinduism in Algeria. These math problems have absolutely nothing to do with Hinduism in Algeria. I am not claiming that the 1% is entirely composed of Christians and Jews, it's what can be deduced from the information we know. We do not know the "other" includes Hinduism. You cannot assume that. What is relevant, however, is the fact that there is absolutly no information about Hinduism at the target, and it will remain that way until and unless someone finds evidence of Hinduism in Algeria from a reliable source and edits that article to include it. Until then, your silly assertions are absolutely baseless and ridiculous, as always. -- Tavix (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article presents evidence that Hinduism in Algeria accounts for less than 1% of the population. That could be anything from 0% to 0.9999999%, but all values within that range are less than 1%. We do know that the figure for Hinduism is included in the "Other" category because the percentages total 100 (this is a combination of a fact that does not need to be attributed (Hindusim is not Islam) and basic mathematics (see Percentage)). That Hinduism accounts for less than 1% of the population of Algeria is unarguably information about Hinduism in Algeria. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop patronizing me with the math, I know how percentages work. That is not confirmed information proving the existence on Hinduism in Algeria no matter how you frame it. If there is Hinduism in Algeria, it needs to be supported with a reliable source confirming so (there is confirmation that figure includes Jews and Christians, but not Hindus). If there is not Hinduism in Algeria, the redirect shouldn't exist because it's misleading (unless there's reliable information explaining why Hinduism may not exist in Algeria, for example). Either way, that leads to a "delete" with the current information we have. We do know that the figure for Hinduism is included in the "Other" category because the percentages total 100. That is another assumption (see rounding). -- Tavix (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if plain English dosn't work ("Other" = everything that is not in another category), and basic maths doesn't work (percentages total 100%, 0% is less than 1%), and simple logic doesn't work (If 99% of the population are Islam, and Jews and Christians total maximum 1% then Hindus must be <1%) and basic comprehension doesn't work (that less than 1% of the population of Algeria are Hindus is information about Hinduism in Algeria) and explicit references to policies don't work (stating the obvious is not OR) and explicit sources (see below) don't work, then we might as well just replace RfD with WP:ASKTAVIX. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankfully it's not WP:ASKTHRYDUULF, otherwise we'd have a whole host of misleading redirects laying around! You were simply making a assumption, but Wikipedia requires WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verification. If there is Hinduism in Algeria, we need a reliable source explicitly stating that. Luckilly, Angus found a source so you don't have to assume any longer. -- Tavix (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's the ARDA on Algeria [18] showing 0.0% along with other religious groups. Can you place this in the article? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Angus. That's a smoking gun that Hinduism either doesn't exist at all or is statistically insignificant. Either way, that reaffirms my "delete" vote. We could update the statistics at Religion in Algeria to use this source, but the only religions that should be included would be Muslim, Agnostic, Christian, Baha'i, Buddhist, Chinese Universalist, Jewish and Atheist. -- Tavix (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that the ARDA data is from a 2010 report so if there are newer sources, feel free to post. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current source used is from 2012, so it is a bit newer. It isn't as detailed as your source though... -- Tavix (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's meaningful to include in the article mentions of any religions that are virtually absent from the country, unless this absence is in some way significant and there are sources discussing it. – Uanfala 10:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's see if one more relist can break this deadlock between retargeting the redirect and deleting it altogether.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think “deadlock” is a fair assessment of this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Ravenswing. It should stop being our mission in life to get some page of ours to show up on every possible search. There's really nothing of substance to say about Hinduism in Algeria, and we say just about the nothing, and we should just do without this redirect. Mangoe (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, actively misleading redirect. In the highly unlikely event someone searches for this they are only going to be annoyed at finding nothing in the target article. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:34, 19 October 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_October_18&oldid=1144235397"