Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 19, 2018.

Tapeworm[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. --BDD (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The tapeworms once matched the Cestoda but the current taxonomy and phylogeny mean that animals which are not divided into tape-like segments (proglottids) are included in the Cestoda. All the tapeworms are in the Eucestoda, which includes nothing else and is thus a good match for the common name, tapeworm. I propose that we change the redirect from Cestoda to Eucestoda. I'm only bringing this here because Tapeworm is fully protected, presumably because it attracted vandalism; I believe the change proposed here should be seen as uncontroversial. It will remain easy to navigate to Cestoda, via one additional click. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 19 July 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.

La Découverte[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) 14:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion/Retargetting: I believe "La Découverte" refers specifically to "Editions La Découverte," a publishing house without an article. As per the discussion in a previous AfD, I do not believe Editions La Découverte has ever been a part of Éditions Gallimard, and have found no evidence of as much.

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
- - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 16:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This verges on speedy, for recreation of previously-deleted, just at a slightly shorter name variant.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no apparent connection to the target, and no obvious alternative targets. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:57, 25 July 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.

Matthew Axelson[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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. SoWhy 09:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing notable about being killed in action. Seriously, if we created a redirect for every single solider that ever died in action, we'd be a ten million articles overnight. bad precedent John from Idegon (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RPURPOSE. Lack of notability was the reason the AFD ended in delete and redirect. I don't see this as a reason for deletion at WP:R#DEL though. He is mentioned in the target article and it's not an unplausible search term. In fact, that's exactly why redirects from too specific sub-topics exist in the first place. Regards SoWhy 07:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is is mentioned extensively through the article, and while there are a few other places he gets mentioned it's always in the context of this operation. Finally, I see no reason to overturn the consensus of the AfD that resulted in the redirect in the first place. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn - I failed to see the AfD notice. Sorry. John from Idegon (talk) 19:35, 19 July 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.

Yuva JetLines Airways[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) 14:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yuva JetLines Airways and Yuva Jet create a double redirect to List of airlines in India. Apparently, Yuva is an airline in the making that has not reached notability yet. It is not mentioned in the List it redirects to as it is not operational yet. Therefore it should be proper to delete both redirects until the airline has actually come to fruition and is noteworthy for inclusion either way. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I've added the RfD tag to the Yuva Jet redirect and fixed it's nomination above. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Until there is content about this airline somewhere then the redirect is misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' (vote from creator). I started writing the article and realized that perhaps it is too soon for this article since the airline has not yet received NOC from DGCA; hence the redirect. Yuva Jet was originally redirected to Yuva JetLines Airways. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 03:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:TOOSOON Still not open for business, no notable news articles besides random blogs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:45, 23 July 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.

Singlechart[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) 14:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. I was simply looking for the template and typing "Template:singlec" in the search box and this came up. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While redirects from mainspace to reader-facing templates might be appropriate in some cases (e.g. to navigation boxes) this template is not an example of that - it displays no content by default and the target presents only several screens of information directed to editors. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per those above. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:13, 24 July 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_July_19&oldid=1036307262"