Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 9, 2019.

See 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bot creation. Presumably the source used by the bot had a non-standard value in a field parsed by the bot. Plantdrew (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This is the sort of thing that's trivially easy for a human to detect but really quite difficult for a bot. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2019 (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.

Template:Three Men in a Boat[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 17#Template:Three Men in a Boat

Hara (film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 17#Hara (film)

The 4-Hour Workweek: Escape 9-5, Live Anywhere, and Join the New Rich (Expanded and Updated)[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) 14:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I declined a WP:R3 speedy on this, as this is the full title of the latest edition of the book, so not "blatantly implausible" per the CSD criteria. Nevertheless, I don't think anyone's ever going to type this complete title, with brackets, into the search box - they'll get as far as the first four words and find the main article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the full title is always going to be a plausible redirect, especially as there are very many more ways to find Wikipedia articles than typing the title into a search box that has search suggestions. In this case it's most likely going to be used by copy and pasting or by following a link. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Accurate yes, likely to be used no.  — Scott • talk 22:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the "(Expanded and Updated)" edition is not currently covered at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, The 4-Hour Workweek: Escape 9-5, Live Anywhere, and Join the New Rich already exists for the full enough title, no one will want to add (Expanded and Updated) on top of that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:02, 16 April 2019 (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.

Track 3[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) 18:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to make sense- I'm sure many albums have tracks number three. TheKaphox T 10:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Based on A Totally Serious Analysis of Taylor Swift's Genre-Defying 8 Seconds of Static, 'Track 3' the explanation is an iTunes glitch (maybe only affecting Canada?) so it is not implausible. It is however, not useful as there is no mention of this in the article at all. There is also a 2014 short drama by this title (I haven't assessed it for notability), but the most prominent use on en.wp is ISO/IEC 7813#Track 3 but virtually everybody searching for this would be confused to arrive there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless as all albums have one Legacypac (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was removed from the article recently[1]. If mentioned in the article, there can be a redirect or a disambiguation. Most albums have a track number three, but the disambiguation is for the title "Track 3". We don't delete Second Album, and we don't list every artist's second album there. Peter James (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless her single is actually titled "Track 3", this is useless. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:57, 15 April 2019 (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.

Scorpion (comics) Carmilla Black[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Butchered disambiguation, no value as a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2019 (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.

Rocket Raccoon's[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) 18:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that possessives for names are typically deleted unless the target is a business. This is a fictional character so the redirect is of no value. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2019 (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.

Janice Griffith[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. Nomination withdrawn. 24.185.5.61 (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per criterion #10, as "the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." Furthermore, it is exceedingly unlikely that someone searching for this individual would be looking specifically for this Cane Hill controversy. BLP concerns. 24.185.5.61 (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, retarget or create article - Keep per WP:CHEAP, retarget, or create the article. If the article can be created, then it should be created. If there is a better target, then retarget. If not, then keep it where it is. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subject is mentioned in target article, plausible search term. And as Jax 0677 says, if you do not want the redirect, and feel an article would pass notability criteria, feel free to create one. Or find a better target. Onel5969 TT me 12:50, 9 April 2019 (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.

Portal:BodyBuilding[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 WP:G8. -- Tavix (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very implausible search string and inappropriate for linking. Legacypac (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't understand why this is implausible? Redirects exist for far more reasons than just linking. Thryduulf (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the CamelCase is not helpful in this instance for searching, history, or any of the other reasons besides linking that give redirects their utility and in fact is WP:COSTLY. Note this one was a contested speedy. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've seen this capitalization in the wild. The fact that it was created shows that someone found it useful. All in all, a very minor modification, so this one is likely fine. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I find your argument unconvincing and as you are the Admin who went out of their way to reverse a bunch of other Admin accepts of my tagging of recently created implausable portal redirects, I find your vote to be WP:INVOLVED Legacypac (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:INVOLVED involves an admin action. Participating in an RFC isn't an admin action, although closing it would be. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no intention of using my admin tools to close this RFD, especially since I also !voted, which would be an actual violation of WP:INVOLVED. Merely commenting on a matter I have previously used my tools on is okay. As for reversing RHaworth's deletions, while I agree and was planning on accepting most of the G7 requests, my own review of your tags found that many of them were invalid. The G7 authorization by Dreamy Jazz was only for semi-automatically created portals, not the redirects, which they made clear on their talk page when asked to clarify after this whole series of events started. So even if we accept your incorrect statement that everything in portalspace is a portal and ignore Dreamy Jazz's explicit , the redirects still wouldn't fall under the G7 authorization because they weren't semi-automatically created. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2019 (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.

Archrivals of the UCF Knights[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to delete. This redirect is helpful to no one and is most likely a joke referencing the maligned "Civil Conflict", a "rivalry" between UCF and UConn that never really existed Ostealthy (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; seems to be a joke. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ha, ha, very funny, but not appropriate. I'd suggest a retarget to the ConFLiCT article, but UCF actually does have a rival in South Florida. Best to just delete this. Smartyllama (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, interestingly though it dates back to 2006 much earlier than the series.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as creator The reason it dates that far back is that it was a redirect to Connecticut Huskies from UConn Huskies, which just got flipped around at an RM. And as long as they don't let us pagemovers simply delete redirects, we have to move them to another title. I tried a funny title, and I'm glad it made someone laugh. Red Slash 02:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move without redirect to Connecticut Huskies to fix the history. This is a botched round robin move. -- Tavix (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2019 (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.

Portal:Josephites[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A couple weird portal redirects. Not meantioned at the target, not used in linking and not a very likely search term when you know you are looking for the church name. I'm reasonably familiar with the LDS Church and I've never heard these terms before. Legacypac (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2019 (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/2019_April_9&oldid=1138582551"