Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 22, 2018.

Mondho III[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) 22:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this is supposed to be a fictional Star Wars planet. Not only is it not mentioned at the target article, it doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere on the entire internet. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ghoel[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) 22:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very minor Star Wars character that is not mentioned at the target article, nor anywhere else. In the extremely unlikely event that someone searches for this character, they will be better served by a redlink. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ben Vigoda[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. There's typically a good case to just restore the content and send to AfD, but per below, given the creator was blocked for UPE, I think it's fine not to in this case. If someone wants the content just let me know. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s unclear what this redirect is supposed to mean at the target. 66.87.149.136 (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, bad redirect. I would normally suggest for the article to be restored, but since it was created by a blocked paid editor/sockpuppet then deletion would be preferable. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

'68 FORD MUSTANG GT CS[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) 19:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RCAPS. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

"Children's Hospital Medical Center"[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. Deryck C. 16:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlikely punctuation for search. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it is also ambiguous with, at least, with institutions of this exact name in Boston, Massachusetts and Akron, Ohio. Likely other places too and many more with similar names (e.g. one spelled "Centre" in Sydney, Australia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Podjacking[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 29#Podjacking

Indian Bull Terrier[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Procedural close. Deleted by bot under criterion WP:CSD#G8 when it was a redirect to Gull Terr when the latter page was deleted as a copyright violation. No prejudice against recreation to a page that exists. If you are unable to create pages then a request may be made at WP:AFC/R. Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Indian Bull Terrier should be re-targeted to Gull Terrier as it the name dog is also known by. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleted by someone, as it's now a redlink. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend (talk) Then I believe it should be redirected to Gull Terrier as a search word. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to do that, without asking permission. Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

What is the meaning of patrick[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. Deryck C. 16:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page was created as a duplicate article, tagged for deletion, then redirected. IMHO it should have been deleted. Otherwise, we should allow thousands of similar redirects, which would not in the end be helpful. – Fayenatic London 11:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In most cases where an article is boldly redirected it is not then appropriate to nominate the redirect for deletion (instead revert to the article and nominate that at AfD). However in this case the article would have been speedy deleted (A10) so this is not an inappropriate filing. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (now). I'm the administrator who declined the A10 request. This particular redirect seemed reasonable enough to keep around. There are also times when I will leave a redirect, at least temporarily, as a subtle way of telling a new editor that we already have one article on the topic and don't need a second. That said, I have no objection to deleting it now. —C.Fred (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Patrick (fictional character)[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. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anthroponymy#Lists_of_people_sharing_a_common_name stalled, and theres consensus here to keep this, so until there's evidence consensus has changed, closing this as such. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Patrick (fictional character) was first created as a redirect to a specific fictional character that was later redirected to Patrick (given name) as that article included lists of real and fictional people with that name. I have now deleted those lists following precedents against lists of people sharing a common name, see Talk:Patrick (given name). There is therefore no longer a suitable target for these redirects. – Fayenatic London 11:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tweaked a typo in your link. Nyttend (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Patrick (fictional character), possibly redirect The Spongebob character "reasonably well known" by his first name, so deletion is inappropriate. Where the redirect should go depends on the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, should one exist. Paradoctor (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Patrick (fictional character). It's a reasonable search term, especially given the Spongebob situation. It needs retargeted back to the article on Patrick—or he needs listed at Patrick and the redirect retargeted there. —C.Fred (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And it took me a bit of searcing to find Patrick Star. That's all the more reason to keep a redirect as a pointer to the article or a dab page. —C.Fred (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (fictional character). If only one of the characters in the target section existed, (fictional character) would be a good redirect to that character's article, so since there are several good potential targets for that title, it's an optimal situation for a disambiguation page. Nyttend (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have split Sir Patrick and Patrick (fictional character). These redirects are different enough to require separate discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Patrick Star and hatnote. He seems to primary among fictional characters. His last name is not well known because he is usually referred to simply as "Patrick". -- Tavix (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (fictional character) pointing to dab "in fiction" section. The closing credits for Spongebob show and video games have shown Patrick Star or Patrick. [2] That there's a Thomas & Friends character that goes by Patrick means there could be some confusion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sir Patrick[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sir Patrick was a stub about a very minor fictional character that was later redirected to Patrick (given name) as that article included lists of real and fictional people with that name. I have now deleted those lists following precedents against lists of people sharing a common name, see Talk:Patrick (given name). There is therefore no longer a suitable target for these redirects. – Fayenatic London 11:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tweaked a typo in your link. Nyttend (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sir Patrick for the same reason, since Sir Patrick Moore and Sir Patrick Delaney-Podmore both appear on the disambiguation page, and they're in completely separate sections, so you shouldn't target it at a specific section. Nyttend (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have split the RfDs for Sir Patrick and Patrick (fictional character). These redirects are different enough to require separate discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now unless someone wishes to disambiguate to help filter out the noise. The current set-up is fine for now, but if anybody at Patrick (surname) is a sir, then we would need to reconsider. -- Tavix (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've looked at every British person listed at Patrick (surname) and none of them are Sirs. It would be very unusual for someone to be referred to as Sir Surname though - the convention is "Sir Firstname" or "Lord Lastname and/or Title". Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wrath Version 2[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. Deryck C. 16:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what "Version 2" refers to, considering that this title doesn’t seem as though it was created as the result of a history merge. Steel1943 (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom but not speedily (as the redirect has only just been moved away from this title). Googling for this phrase returns a variety of results most prominent Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and various bible verses, particularly Book of proverbs 20:2 (which we don't have an article specifically about) - none of them useful search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are indeed two iterations of this character but neither is referred to as "Version 2". —Xezbeth (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Parable due to destruction of the window[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. Deryck C. 16:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

implausible search term MB 05:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can't find any evidence of this exact term other than this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; this may have been created to resolve a redlink, but it's unlikely to be used again, so it would have been more appropriate to just change the article that included the red link. – Fayenatic London 10:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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_November_22&oldid=1036307944"