Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 19[edit]

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

True Love (The feeling)[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) 00:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some spam from 2009 that should have been deleted instead of redirected. Let's take care of it now. -- Tavix (talk) 20:13, 19 March 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.

The Promise (2017 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 retarget to The Promise (2016 film). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deleting, as not in target. Paul_012 (talk) 17:47, 19 March 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.

Black Rose (magazine)[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 Black rose (symbolism)#Anarchism. Tough call, since this was not the majority opinion. I factored in that the retarget proposal came in after the two "hard" delete votes, that we're generally encouraged to choose alternatives to deletion (cf. WP:ATD), and the sentiment, agreed to by both sides, that perhaps we won't have much more to say about the topic any time soon. --BDD (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. The target lists only notable periodicals (in keeping with WP:CSC), so I think deleting this is preferable to adding it to the target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is a real publication that's published works by notable individuals. However, it appears to have a rather limited readership and is pretty obscure. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this was a one-sentence stub for a couple years but has been a redirect for nearly 10. It was merged to the list here but I think that formatted link is insufficiently creative to require attribution, and has since been copyedited out of the list. A trickle of page hits suggest it might be useful if there was information at the target, but since there's not, delete per WP:REDLINK. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps worthy of a retarget to Black rose (symbolism) and a quick mention there? per Coffee ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I feel that the proposed retarget is a bit obscure, if only just. It may be surprising to be looking for a magazine, and end up in the midst of an article on a symbol. Perhaps it's also because I'm not a fan of WP:IPC, which is what the majority of the content at Black rose (symbolism) seems to be composed of. -- Tavix (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's reasonable, I think WP:SURPRISE is a good argument. I'll only counter that, given the age of the publication and apparent dearth of surviving online references to it, most anyone ending up at at Black Rose (magazine) likely has never heard of it and is unlikely to find anything help by googling Black Rose (magazine), so this would only be useful. That is, we ain't got much, but we got it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Amory; maybe the article on black rose symbolism isn't that good but it does provide the most information we have Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:57, 31 March 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]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 30#Kaavalkaaran (2010 film)

The Imagined Village (book)[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) 00:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The book The Imagined Village exists but enwiki does not have an article about it or the author Georgina Boyes. The redirect currently targets an article about another author in which the book is mentioned. This is misleading and interferes with Search: it is better to have a redlink to encourage article creation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to create redlink for the author. If it were David Harker (literary critic), then it can point to the detailed criticism section for Sharp, but Boyes is just listed as one of the critics of Sharp so not as important to note. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:11, 21 March 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.

Reproof[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 withdrawn by nominator. [That would be me.] (non-admin closure) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Widefox changed this to a Wiktionary redirect back when the old disambig had only one entry left, but in my view it should have been deleted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Policy for these types of redirects is at WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary which refers to usage directions at Template:Wiktionary redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the conditions listed at the template is that people are searching for this word. Daily pageviews are merely 2-5 per day, which is very much within bot territory. There were several days of zero visits before this RfD nom. So, I would say that people are not searching for this word and it does not meet the criteria listed. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Low pageviews argument works both ways - it's not that important to many either way. This argument somewhat ignores the purpose that the soft redirect which prevents deletion/recreation of a dictdef, it is likely to be recreated if deleted as it's linked (and can/will be linked) in articles as a more obscure word. Widefox; talk 21:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oiyarbepsy pageviews average 4 per day (last 90 days) 180/month overall. [1] Widefox; talk 21:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the disambiguation entry for Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline#Reproof, add the song on HalfNoise (EP) and whatever other WP:DABMENTIONs can be found, and add {{wiktionary}} link. Wiktionary redirects interfere with searching (because of how they make the search box work when you just press enter instead of waiting for the pop-up) and should be used sparingly. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a dab (see bad old version [2]): 1. Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline#Reproof looks like a use of a dictionary definition wikt:reproof (I've linked it to highlight this) which isn't a valid WP:DABMENTION. We don't have dab entries for dictionary items (e.g. "the" dab page doesn't link to every use of the word "the"). 2. I've nominated the album HalfNoise for deletion. Widefox; talk 21:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: My wikt link in Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline was reverted. Further discussion on that is at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_congregational_discipline#Reprove. Widefox; talk 21:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the least maintenance the better. It's still giving years on. Widefox; talk 21:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Snow keep either:
  1. checkY as wikt softredirect: seems to be in line with WP:SOFTSISP and highlights we shouldn't invest more time in this bad redirect/dict def/bad dab. As for wikt soft redirect vs deletion, it's meant to It prevents future clean-up issues which may happen if deleted.
  2. checkY as dab [3]: if changed back to a dab it has 1 valid entry 1. song from likely non-notable album (can argue either way about valid dabmention or below "reasonably likely" as dabs and WP:D aren't an index covering everything), and dictionary hits as WP:DABMENTIONs. The album (and possibly the artist) doesn't seem to pass WP:NALBUM. So as a dab it looks mainly a dictdef to me and doesn't pass WP:TWODABS. Widefox; talk 21:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC) updated - as a dab it looks OK now Widefox; talk 00:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the disambiguation entry - usage by Jehovah's Witnesses has a more specific meaning and is not merely synonymous with the 'dictionary definition'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's 1 valid entry which fails WP:TWODABS. (the counterargument to this being specific to Jehovah's Witnesses is at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_congregational_discipline#Reprove) Widefox; talk 21:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - converted to a dab  Done I've found enough entries now for a dab even if the album is deleted, and converted back to a dab. User:Oiyarbepsy care to withdraw as it's a snow keep either way. Widefox; talk 00:29, 20 March 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.

Computer camp[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. There's not much content anyway, as it turns out. This is clearly keep, but it definitely seems worth having a conversation about whether tech camp should just itself redirect to summer camp#Tech camps or be expanded. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect goes to a page for a company in the UK. It is clear from context on other pages that "computer camp" is used in a generic way as opposed to referencing this singular company Ehgarrick (talk) 01:00, 19 March 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.

〦[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 Suzhou numerals per WP:SNOW. -- Tavix (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This character, to my knowledge, has no meaning whatsoever. It surely doesn't mean the number 6 or anything close. Goveganplease (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - According to [4], and a google search, it does seem to mean what it's redirected to. - Happysailor (Talk) 00:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a Suzhou numeral. Timmyshin (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I fixed the nomination and copied the comments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/〦. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to Suzhou numerals, like 〡, 〢, 〣, 〤, 〧, 〨 and 〩 (1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9) are targeted – much more useful as it will help anyone who comes across them by pointing to the article that describes them. The missing one 〥 redirects to 5; depending how this is decided that one probably needs retargeting too.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget as per JohnBlackburne. I have confirmed the meaning of the symbol. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to its original target Suzhou numerals per above. Redirects are supposed to point lemmas to a page which explains them, not just "translate" them without explanation. 6 does not even mention this term, but Suzhou numerals explains it perfectly. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Suzhou numerals where the meaning is explained. It was the nominator who changed it to 6 [5] so I don't know why they waste our time by claiming it has no meaning. They also changed 〥 from Suzhou numerals to 5 (now changed back). PrimeHunter (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep/Redirect I am terribly sorry, I thought the character was absolute rubbish at first. I had no idea any meaning was attached to it. The character can be reverted back to the Numeral's page.Goveganplease (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your reconsideration of it. I think we can consider this a withdrawn nomination then, if someone uninvolved wants to take care of it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:16, 19 March 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.

Inexorable[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally a redirect to Inevitable, which earned it a speedy delete nomination as a Neelix redirect. However, Patar knight declined the speedy and turned it into the soft redirect we see today. This is not a helpful redirect in any way, and the search results would be more helpful to a reader. Propose delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why would the search results would be more helpful to a reader when there are no articles in the results that are directly about the term? Apart from one song from an album, everything else in the search results are nothing more than isolated instances of usage of the term. I'm inclined to keep the soft redirect unless there is a more compelling reason for deletion. older ≠ wiser 03:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Your argument that search results are more useful has no basis. No one will search for just inexorable unless they are looking for the dictionary definition.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete searchers may be looking for something with the word "inexorable" in the title, or something that becomes notable in the future, or they may just want to see a bunch of examples of how the word is used, or whatever. We should assume that readers know the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia; and for those who don't, search results are still more helpful than a soft redirect because they include an actual excerpt of the Wiktionary entry without any further need to click. Also, soft redirects make the user experience unpredictable and should be used sparingly: the appearance of a term in the search box popup should be a reliable indicator that we actually have encyclopedic content on it. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above — no helpful search results, so this is useful. The advantage of a soft redirect is that it doesn't disrupt the user too much, but gives them the option. I would, however, be in favor of deleting the related Inexorably and Inexorability. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 00:08, 19 March 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.

Istiwaiyyah[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) 18:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on what exact area this name refers to, but from what I can figure out, it is clearly not a synonym for the modern country of South Sudan (although it may be a portion of that country). Is there an appropriate target for these names? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Britannica seems to say that this was a name for a province of Sudan (AKA Equatoria) until the 1970s. I have no idea of the current status of the Arabic name, since the Equatoria article doesn't mention it. -- Perey (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Perey's findings, this might be a potential article (WP:REDLINK). --Lenticel (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lenticel that's not what Perey said. Perey thinks it might be a synonym for Equatoria, which would suggest that a redirect is the correct action. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • My bad, Retarget to Equatoria if refs are found. Otherwise delete due to lack of good targets --Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 23 March 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.

Jubian Republic[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this name doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia. Not even a Google Books search shows anything connecting this name to South Sudan. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find a source either: I suspect it may be a translation related to Juba which isn't common in English. After a few days' frenetic activity in 2016, the original author seems to have gone off the radar. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it was apparently an actual proposed name for the nation in 2011. I'd say keep; not much reason to delete. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Paintspot: Do you have a source for this? -- Tavix (talk) 17:08, 20 March 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.

Sarah Royden[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. Has been used (awkwardly close paraphrase, I might add) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

0 page views in the last 30 days. Royden isn't mentioned in the target. Roydon is, but isn't on the DAB page. "Royden" could be a former name or a misspelling. Delete as implausible and/or misleading. Narky Blert (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The edit summary said "redir from maiden name" so it could be a misspelling but I don't see a good reason to delete unless there is likely confusion with someone else. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that it was her maiden name. Even if it was, what evidence is there that the Roydens were a notable family? I see none. Narky Blert (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Plausible misspelling of Roydon which is her assumed family name, according to Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [6] It's a weak one though as most searches will not go by her maiden name as evidenced by the search stats. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per AngusWOOF I am now weak keep, if someone else called "Sarah Royden" gets a WP article then they can use the title with a hat, but as it shows up in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography then I would say that it should stay. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Roydon shows up in that dictionary not Royden. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:33, 22 March 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.

Mark Nypoaj[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally an article about a governor of one of the provinces of Sudan (before South Sudan was a country), which was unwisely redirect to Southern Sudan, which then became South Sudan with that country's independence. The article is the page history has little to offer. Recommend delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The little content that was found in this one-sentence article, which existed for a brief period in 2009, suggests the person could be notable, but there's virtually no information on the web, at least not with this spelling. – Uanfala (talk) 02:05, 19 March 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_March_19&oldid=1036305845"