Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 7, 2018.

Позовна заява[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. The target is not exclusive or has affinity to any specific language. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - English Wikipedia = English words, Simple as that really. –Davey2010Talk 22:43, 8 April 2018 (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.

Modest means[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why this redirect targets its current target. In fact, it's unclear what the redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2018 (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.

Poor, Poverty[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term due to the use of a comma to separate the two words, a redirect (Poor) to the target article, and the target article (Poverty). Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2018 (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.

Poverty and Pauperism[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. Hate to do this to something from '06 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY. Pauperism is a separate subject/article. Steel1943 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2018 (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.

Poverty in developing countries[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. Would be good redirects were there a useful section. Alas... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a subtopic of the target that is not either explained or properly identified in the target article. So, in the current state, delete per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2018 (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.

More impoverished[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what "more" refers to, considering that Impoverished exists, and currently targets the same article as this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2018 (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.

List of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films (by year)[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. Primefac (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed extended list of redirects

Propose deleting all the redirects. It seems unlikely somone would search for these lists by using the expanded form of the LGBT initialism. The LGBT initialism is common enough that it doesn't need to be stated in expanded form. Since this comprises so many redirects, I will make a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies instead of notifying individual page authors, because tracking down this quantity of editors is too time consuming. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 21:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems like the redirects are there because that's where they used to be named. Checking the "what links here" for the redirects shows there are pages that still use the old wikilinks; the redirect ensures they still end up at the current article. It seems like if these do get removed, either a lot of links will need to be changed (not only in articles, but in people's userpages, archives, etc.) or they'll just end up being broken. Is there an issue with having the redirects just to ensure wikilinks made before the name changes still work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umimmak (talk • contribs) 11:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't just seem like that, that is indeed the case! But, most of the user page links are auto-generated links of the form "New articles fitting X and Y criteria", (many times being "New articles related to LGBT studies"), and many of these user pages are archives of these search results. If you look at individual user pages, some links have become dead anyway, so I don't see that as an excuse not to delete useless redirects, especially since the deletion message will link to this RfD if someone stumbles upon one of the old links.
All of the article-space redirect links have been corrected (all of of them were already piped with the shorter "LGBT", supporting this case). Thank you for this comment though; I didn't think to mention all the links when I made the RfD (though I was aware of them), but it's a good thing to keep in mind for future RfD's. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 14:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per {{R from move}}. The lists were at these titles for several years and deletion would risk breaking links, both internally and externally. -- Tavix (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix - A few of the redirects are currently being used ..... Theoretically one could change the wikilinks on articles however that IMHO would be POINTY, No harm being kwpt although I agree they should have that template added. –Davey2010Talk 22:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Davey and Tavix. No harm keeping them, and they may be the target of external links. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:24, 9 April 2018 (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.

International Institute of Information Technology, Nuzvid[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. Unopposed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect. As far as I can tell "International Institute of Information Technology, Nuzvid" is an imaginary institute that never exited, bordering a hoax. Suggesting a connection to Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies, Nuzvid is misleading. WP:G3 was rejected so going here. Muhandes (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2018 (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.

Illogicality[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, delete, delete, and retarget to Logic and rationality#Illogicality, respectively. As far as the target goes, I think Logic and rationality#Illogicality edged out Wiktionary after reading the discussion a couple times. I had considered "no consensus", but I agree they should have the same target. That being said, I'll add a link to Wiktionary should someone want the word in a more general sense. -- Tavix (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda odd for these to be sending readers to three different targets. Not sure what to do. Wiktionary redirect seems like the worst option out of the three; Wikipedia lemmas should point to encyclopedia content except in unusual cases. Logic and rationality#Illogicality sounds like a good target in theory, but the section is short & very narrowly focused on a particular definition of "illogicality". Logic uses the word "illogic" once without defining it. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Just to note "Illogicality" gets roughly 40+ views a day[1] and "Illogical" gets between 10-20 views a day[2] so "Illogical" should be kept per the fact it's serving a purpose and the other being REDIRECTSARECHEAP. –Davey2010Talk 00:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Ivanvector said No need for these, Neelix or not, but Illogical might find some love. Not certain a philophical target will help much, expanded or otherwise. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The middle two, per X1. Keep "Illogicality" and "Illogical" as they are valid potential search terms.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: None of these redirects were created by Neelix. ToThAc (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2018 (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.

Neil Scott[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old redirect. There is no reason anyone would search or link by the subject's first and middle name. We have a plausably notable submssion at for someone named Neil Scott that this redirect would block from accepting without a DAB. Even if the draft is not accepted, we deleted scores of similar Neelix redirects as inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Legacypac For what it's worth, if you do wish to move to mainspace, this redirect could be speedy deleted to allow it ({{db-move}}). If you're moving the draft now, speedy delete, otherwise regular delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revising above, without the draft going to mainspace, it's a keep as he performed under the name Neil Scott in the 1960s, making this redirect plausible. If the draft goes to mainspace, obviously it should have the Neil Scott title, with a hatnote to Bogart. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep (as this is a highly notable record company executive,) until such time as draft topic if found notable, if/when that happens then create hat per Oiyarbepsy. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Draft has not been fully assessed yet. Either way this should be removed. Thanks for the help. Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He used the name "Neil Scott" - it's in the article - and under that name had a 1961 single "Bobby". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2018 (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.

Richest/Richness[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 15#Richest/Richness

Invincibility (video gaming)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a redirect, it is unclear whether it refers to "God mode", or to invincibility frames, or even to temporary powerups that grant invincibility such as the star in Mario. It is confusing and unnecessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:46, 7 April 2018 (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.

RPG Job/Class List[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect, unnecessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: You should read through WP:CSD, since it will expedite deletion of some pages, like the above that I've nominated for criteria R3. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 22:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Strikethroughed 06:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
E to the Pi times i I turned down the speedy delete nomination since R3 only applies to recent redirects. This has been around since 2007. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oiyarbepsy: Good catch. When I earlier quickly read that CSD, and the "recently-created" part of the criteria was not in bold. I have revised the CSD so the vital prerequisite for that criteria is now in bold. Sorry to waste your time. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 22:52, 7 April 2018 (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.

Kaavalkaaran (2010 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This name has to stop showing up in Wikipedia search bar whenever I type "Kaavalkaaran" while searching for the 1967 film, the only film with that name. Besides, the makers of the old film didn't give permission to the makers of the new film for using their film's title. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I thought that redirects tagged with {{R from incorrect name}} aren't suppose to appear in search suggestions. Is this a technical issue? --Paul_012 (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've added a link to the previous RfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete incorrect. Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep here. It's tenuous, but as pointed out in the old RfD, and as mentioned in the article itself and supported by two sources, this was the initial title in development. That's a reasonable enough claim to use the title for a redirect. Regarding the date, the soundtrack album was indeed released in 2010, so again, it seems reasonable that someone might think the film and the album were the same year. As I said, tenuous, but I maintain the previous RfD had it right. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:02, 15 April 2018 (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.

Andy Mabbett[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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously - you are the subject of the redirect - your opinion is hardly impartial. So Delete as vanity. Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is not logical or necessary. Does not meet notability -- a fan publication is not equal to notability. I fail to understand why this redirect exists. Puffery and fancruft. BrillLyle (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brill Lyle has just been blocked for three days on Wikidata after I and others complained about her behaviour there, It's hard to see how this is not an act of retaliation. One of the other's complaints was "BrillLyle has a history of using the deletion process as a tool of harassment". I'll be taking this to WP:ANI. And speedy keep, obviously. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let us be VERY clear that I am not the only one blocked here. Andy is blocked for 31 hours from editing as well see: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3APigsonthewing Also, let's be very clear that I am not the subject of multiple ANI conflicts. That prize goes to Andy.
Which is not really the point now is it, Andy? The fact is this redirect is puffery and fancruft. This redirect should not exist. Notability of even a redirect needs to be established as necessary. This is not the way Wikipedia redirects should work. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Andy Mabbett was one of the main editors of the publication, so it is a reasonable search term. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Examine the publication. It's a fan publication. Andy started the page. This is at minimum a COI and a case of a Wikipedia editor promoting themselves personally. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I honestly don't understand the deletion rationale here. If we have content about someone, then it makes sense to have a redirect from their name to the article which carries that content. If you don't think the publication itself is notable, then surely the approach is to nominate that for deletion rather than nominating redirects to it? If you don't think the editor is notable, that's fine - we'd only require notability for Mr Mabbett if we had an article about him, but not for mention in an article about a different topic, and not for a redirect. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If I was looking for information about Mabbett as a person as opposed to as a Wikipedia editor, then this redirect would be useful, and I fail to see the problem with it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep someone could close it as SK1 even - no valid rationale for deletion as in WP:RFD#Delete - N doesn't apply to redirects. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so long as we have the article the redirect is appropriate. I do, however, question the notability of the publication. I see several sources but, on first inspection, none look like they could be called independent, third party reliable sources. I am also am concerned that, while there are four publishers all of the positions in the infobox read Andy Mabbett et. al.. Seeing a Wikipedia editor's name five times in ~160 word article, of which the same editor is a major contributor raises some red flags to me. When that same editor is listed as an author on 8 of the articles 14 sources those flags turn to flashing lights and blaring klaxons. I'd AfD it but I do not have the resources for a good WP:BEFORE or the patience to perform one right now. Jbh Talk 18:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep by all means nominate the article itself but no reason to nominate a redirect? Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. Given obvious lack of notability, its hard to see how this is anything other than vanity. TammyBri (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)this is this editor's only contribution to Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Indef. blocked as a sock-puppet. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jbh etc. Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obvious COI and yet no clear breach of it. OTOH, WP:SOCKPUPPET seems to be being thoroughly ignored here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I also don't understand the rationale. If the publication is notable, a redirect from the editor is what I would expect. --Muhandes (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - No valid reason for deletion - Whilst one could say POTW shouldn't of created that redirect either way we have an article on his (and others) magazines so keep. –Davey2010Talk 22:10, 7 April 2018 (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.

Accidental death[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 Articled. Draft moved over redirect, nothing to see here, move along ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm, accidental deaths happen everywhere, not just in England and Wales. And even if the person is looking for info on accidental death in those countries, all you have is a passing mention hidden in a list of other legal death declarations. As far as I can tell, we don't have an article on accidental deaths, and a red link is far better than this barely relevant link to a country-specific law for a universal concept. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. Raymond1922 (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:REDLINK.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete what was the creator thinking? People die all over the world by accident. Legacypac (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, the creator created a redirect to accident, a better target, but still not one I like. Another editor changed it to its current target, and even reverted a third editor to enforce it. All three have been notified of this discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My strong delete would have left a redlink to encourage article creation. A good article has been created in Draft so yes, strong delete in favor of the Draft, or that draft could be pasted over the title here by it's author and the draft deleted. Legacypac (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2018 (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/2018_April_7&oldid=1036305859"