Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 5, 2018.

Windermere, Cumbria[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 17#Windermere, Cumbria

British Rail Class 37 37025[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 consensus is that this redirect is worth preserving, both per WP:MAD and from the fact that the target article has information about the whereabouts of locomotive 37025. @Thryduulf: I'm not sure how you want to refine this, since multiple sections of the article refer to 37025? Deryck C. 13:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know this has been nominated for deletion 10 years ago and closed as kept. However, I am nominating it again as it seems to be a pointless redirect just for one specific locomotive. Only five page views in the last 30 days and I don't think we need this redirect at all. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a {{R from merge}}. The information from the former article at this title is now at British Rail Class 37#Preservation, and the edit history needs to be preserved per WP:MAD. Page views are irrelevant. -- Tavix (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix: The edit history is literally this before it was redirected. What is special about one locomotive? Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per the edit summary: content has been merged with the table of preserved locomotive. Since content was merged (and was not subsequently removed), it is required to be preserved for copyright purposes. -- Tavix (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine to the section where that locomotive is mentioned per {{R from merge}} and per the page view data, which shows more hits than I would have expected for a redirect like this (and here I speak as an editor familiar with UK railway topics as well as an RfD regular). Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mentioned in the target, not confusing or misleading, not notable in its own right. Page views are not really relevant in determining the utility of a redirect, or any other page – topics that lots of people are interested in are not any more worthy or encyclopaedic than topics that fewer people are interested in. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:43, 6 September 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.

User:C933103/Everipedia[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 deleted per U1. -- Tavix (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion of redirect as the only contributor C933103 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 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.

Catholic Psychedelic Synth Folk[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 delete by Cullen328 (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G3. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Psychedelic Synth Folk. Editor wanted a redirect when he realised that keeping the article would be unlikely. Redirect was not supported and AfD ended in delete. Editor also added info on this supposed genre to the target (Psychedelic folk), where it was switly reverted by others as unreliable. Target has no information on the term "catholic psf", so redirect is useless. Fram (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hoax nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. a merge and redirect was discussed in the AfD and rejected. There is no mention of this topic in the target article and addition of such was quickly removed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I started a discussion on ANI regarding this user: Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents#User hoaxing, creating bad redirect funplussmart (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, attempting this under re-creation of topic following recent AFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It can't be deleted under G4 even if there was a consensus for deleting the article at AFD, a redirect is not a repost of a full article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not substantially different from the original article since it's a hoax, so pick one. G3, G4. Same outcome. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chrissymad: A redirect is not "substantially similar" to an article in any way so G4 does not apply. The only time G4 can apply to a redirect is when a redirect is recreated to the same target after a redirect has been deleted in a deletion discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, sorry, was worth a shot. Still should be speedy delete if possible under A7 (no indication of importance) or A11 (made up) but since it's a redirect that might also not go through. It appears to be someone's name for a youtube channel or playlists. Otherwise slow delete is okay. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further viewing, it seems to be some kind of made-up genre for the music attributed to singer Emily Bindiger [1] [2], but not anything covered by reliable sources AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The A speedy deletion criteria do not apply to redirects - only the R and G critera. G3 hoax might be applicable, but it sounds more likely that it is something that does exist but is completely non-notable in which case slow delete is really the only option we have. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a hoax and g4. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:25, 5 September 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.

فصلاء[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. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED GZWDer (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it's the scientific name of Arthrobacter in Arabic language, and I think it's compatible with WP:R. Also, we need the history of this page in T203544 --Alaa :)..! 08:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. There appears to be no connection between this species of bacteria and the Arabic language or anywhere Arabic is commonly spoken. I have to say I don't understand what that phab ticket has to do with edit history, but if the edit history is required and a history merge is not possible/desirable then the history should be moved to a title that does not imply searchers can find information about this bacteria in Arabic on the English Wikipedia (those searching this word in search engines should be directed to the Arabic Wikipedia). Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#D8, which is the portion of the redirect policy covered by unrelated foreign-language redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 13:54, 13 September 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.

Coinify[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 since it's currently not listed. If there is consensus to include Coinify at Talk:List of bitcoin companies#Coinify, feel free to recreate or restore. -- Tavix (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blockchain related company does not appear to meeting NCORP. Has only ever existed as a redirect to a list. Current practice is to only list notable companies at List of bitcoin companies and right now this is a circular redirect from that page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - As long as coinify remains within List of bitcoin companies, this redirect is completely reasonable. Whether or not it should be included there is a matter for Talk:List of bitcoin companies. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while Coinify is listed at the target, the circular redirect is best resolved by unlinking its entry on the list. Whether it should be on the list is a content decision that should be discussed on the talk page and is completely outside the scope of RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I admit I'm a novice at RfD but it felt like this was a valid nomination as being promotional. I don't think there would be any issue with removing it from the table of List of Bitcoin companies (and if there was I would be happy to discuss it) but I just wanted to point out the true rationale for this nomination which perhaps I obscured in the details. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional provided it can meet the inclusion criteria specified by the list's Talk page: "I propose: "for-profit companies notable within the cryptocurrency industry". For companies that don't have their own articles, at least 2 significant mentions from reliable, independent industry news sources would be acceptable for listing. Still out of scope would be not-for-profit organizations, and individual products." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether the entry does or does not meet the list criteria, and what those criteria should be, are matters for the article talk page not RfD. While the company is mentioned on the list, RfD has to treat it like there is consensus for that mention. Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some lists are lists of things that are not in themselves notable, while others are lists of notable topics with articles. There seems to be a consensus that List of bitcoin companies ought to be the latter (the broader criteria quoted by AngusWOOF was a 2015 proposal that didn't receive much discussion, and which doesn't seem to match the current consensus, articulated most recently in the talk page discussion about this company). This strikes me as sensible – no doubt there are an unreasonable number of non-notable companies working in this field, an increased risk of advertising, etc. So long as that consensus exists, redirecting the name of any company to that list (regardless of whether the company is listed) defeats the point of having it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not on list. It would belong on the list if it rated an article, but then this wouldn't be a redirect - David Gerard (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to get consensus on what the list editors want as conditions for all entries. Whatever they had listed before wasn't clear enough so that Coinify could potentially be on the list per WP:LSC where not all entries require articles, unless they decide WP:CSC all entries require articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:27, 7 September 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.

Civil society organisation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 17#Civil society organisation

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_September_5&oldid=1146028060"