Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 30, 2019.

Latinos[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 7#Latinos

Solapur road[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 all 3 in the original nomination, and the additional ones submitted by Vatsmaxed that do not have significant history. Those that do have significant I will instead move without redirect to a title in the "X road, City" form, given the (admittedly small, but unopposed) consensus among the editors that took part. ~ mazca talk 23:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While these roads do pass each of the relevant cities, it's not clear that the roads are actually known by these names, and given that Solapur, Mumbai, and Satara are fairly large cities, they're hardly the only road that these redirects could refer to. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 22:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in Pune city, these roads are actually known by these names for eg Solapur road, but officially these are known as for eg Pune-Solapur Road. Thats the reason I created these above, so that they could be used as redirects. But now I "support deletion" for above (as well as below), due to simple reason that these names refer to different roads causing confusion. For eg in addition to Pune-Solapur road simply called Solapur road in Pune, the roads, Sangli-Solapur, Ahmednagar-Solapur are also called simply as Solapur road in Sangli and Ahmednagar respectively. "In addition to above, some more redirects below need to be deleted". All these road names are also common names in other cities and villages. They are:
Vatsmaxed (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vatsmaxed I see that some of those additional redirects have extensive article histories which were merged; those should be kept unless the likelihood of misleading readers is very high. NDA road, Sus Road, and Paud Road do not have significant histories and can thus be added to this discussion uncontroversially. signed, Rosguill talk 20:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill Agreed with three deletions you suggested above. In my opinion, other redirects should also be deleted, since names like "Shivaji", "Laxmi", "Law College" and "Karve" are fairly common road names across Maharashtra, some (for eg "Laxmi" and "Law College") even across entire country of India. But if deletion is not possible for these redirects according to WP policy, I would suggest these redirects to be moved to say for eg "Laxmi road, Pune", deleting the old redirects. Vatsmaxed (talk)
Added one more redirect "Nagar". Vatsmaxed (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2020 (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.

Federated Electric[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 per G7 signed, Rosguill talk 19:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. If the redirect's creator is correct that this is a notable historical company, it may be more appropriate to delete the redirect per WP:R#DELETE #10 signed, Rosguill talk 22:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Think this was a mistake on my end. Delete supported. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2020 (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.

88100[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 9#88100

Orcan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 7#Orcan

Clone Pilot[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. signed, Rosguill talk 08:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 30 December 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.

Jet Trooper[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. signed, Rosguill talk 08:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Sounds vague otherwise and could even refer to other topics in the Star Wars universe. Steel1943 (talk) 22:02, 30 December 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.

Mandalorian clone[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. signed, Rosguill talk 08:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This specific phrase is not mentioned in the target article, potentially causing confusion for those attempting to look this phrase up as a stand-alone subject ... which is what Wikia is for. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 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.

Galactic Marine[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. signed, Rosguill talk 08:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, and presents a bit of a WP:SURPRISE since this phrase could loosely refer to Doomguy or Space marine. (My original thought was to redirect this to Space marine, but the "M" in the nominated redirect is capitalized, and Galatic marine doesn't exist.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 30 December 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.

Clone assassin[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. signed, Rosguill talk 08:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, and mention may fail WP:NOTWIKIA as a very minor concept in the Star Wars universe. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 30 December 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.

Hork[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 soft redirect to Wikt:hork. -- Tavix (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Other than that, the word seems to have multiple meanings, so having readers redirect to only one subject seems misleading for a word with multiple meanings. Steel1943 (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wiktionary. signed, Rosguill talk 21:26, 6 January 2020 (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.

BiglyBT[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 9#BiglyBT

Hulled corn[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 13#Hulled corn

Spoo (food)[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 no consensus. If editors want to hash out a compromise for a way to save the page's edit history while removing the redirect from mainspace, they can continue this discussion on the relevant talk page, but this discussion as it is currently framed is nowhere near coming to a consensus and is unlikely to do so at this venue. signed, Rosguill talk 08:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in Babylon 5 nor at Civilizations in Babylon 5. Gonnym (talk) 10:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, carries the history of a former FA. Or at least move that somewhere appropriate, do not straight delete. —Kusma (t·c) 10:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pages that use the redirect include Wikipedia:Former featured articles and Wikipedia:Today's featured article oddities. —Kusma (t·c) 10:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, the edit history can be safely deleted since there was consensus to delete the article in the edit history per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spoo (3rd nomination), which happened this year. Steel1943 (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This would then be the only main page FA to become inaccessible to people interested in Wikipedia history. See here for the discussion that led to the undeletion of the history. —Kusma (t·c) 12:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The FA status was removed in February 2008, so considering that it hasn't been a FA for over 10 years, I fail to see how that could be a factor in keeping this redirect, especially given the problem stated by the nominator about how this title is unhelpful as a redirect. In addition, my original vote was going to be "restore and send to WP:AFD" per your "keep" vote, but then I found the WP:AFD I linked above that happened this year. Steel1943 (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (Pinging Czar since the discussion (linked by Kusma) was on their talk page.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not really care where (or in what namespace) the history (including the talk pages) ends up, as long as it is not hidden from non-admins by deletion and can be accessed from Wikipedia:Former featured articles. If you have a better suggestion than spoo (food) for the page title, I am happy to hear it. —Kusma (t·c) 14:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by the stance that the edit history does not need to be retained since there was consensus to delete the article, regardless if it was a former FA or not. I'd imagine that at the least, for example, there have been a good number of GAs that have been deleted over the years, considering that just like most of Wikipedia's policies and procedures, requirements for almost everything has become more strict over the years. IMO, for this redirect and edit history to remain, the nominator's concern needs to be resolved. Steel1943 (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the redirect no longer serves a useful purpose. Is it true that this would be "the only main page FA to become inaccessible"? I doubt this but I don't see how it can be known, if there is evidence. Additionally, I'm unfamiliar with the precedent of this argument and don't particularly see the value to warrant an exception. There are plenty of deleted articles with edit histories of historical importance, but we don't use that as cause for preserving edit histories in another location. The text itself is freely licensed content and can be hosted/preserved elsewhere as needed, e.g., on other wikis. The simple solution here is to find any place in the encyclopedia where "spoo" warrants mention and retargeting there. If that is impossible, then the redirect should be deleted just like any other. czar 02:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the redirect is useless and confusing, as spoo is mentioned nowhere in the target page. There is no reason to preserve the edit history of a page that was deleted per an AfD discussion, even if it used to be a featured article. Not a very active user (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add mention and keep. The subject of a former featured article has to at least be deserving of a mention somewhere. I see a couple places where that can be done, and doing so would seem to resolve the concern echoed above. -- Tavix (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tavix, the question is where? I originally had it target the episode summary, where it was mentioned, but even that was a stretch and when that was removed, it doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere anymore. Do you have a location that doesn't shoehorn a mention where it doesn't belong? czar 17:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget per MJL, who took care of one of the items on my to do list for me. :) -- Tavix (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A simple answer would be to undo the WP:BLARing of A Tragedy of Telepaths, and to point the redirect back there again. It would need some cleanup and a few more references, but I don't know if that would be enough to satisfy the deletionist crew. - Eureka Lott 20:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with those who are uncomfortable with vanishing the former article text in this way; I'm not sure that RfD is really the proper place to handle the question. Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though I stated "delete" above, I agree with this to an extent. From my understanding, the "proper place" would be WP:AFD via a "restore and nominate at WP:AFD" closure of this discussion ... which I was about to advocate for until I saw that an AfD already happened this year and it was closed to "delete". I guess the last option would be to move this content to Draft:Spoo (food) so at the least it is not in the article namespace (where it would be unhelpful as a redirect) or "Talk:" namespace (where it would be incredibly difficult to find and would get lost in the eternities of Wikipedia. [I say that out of experience with my proactive "gnoming" tasks.]) Steel1943 (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per others above. It's worth keeping the history of former featured articles; I'd even be willing to move the content to a subpage of Wikipedia:Former featured articles as a sort of graveyard historical archive for this and other similar pages. I like Eureka Lott's idea above if that ever gets traction. My final thought is if we could transwiki it to a Babylon 5 Wikia somewhere; they may enjoy the content if they don't already have it and that way the content and history actually gets put to better use. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Civilizations in Babylon 5#Centauri Republic. @Czar, Steel1943, and Gonnym: I just added a bit to that section. All I ask is credit for saving a former WP:FA article from deletion if you all change your minds. :P –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:59, 4 January 2020 (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.

Minecraft zombie pigman[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. signed, Rosguill talk 01:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term "zombie pigman" is not explained in the target page, and appears only in the "References" section. Not a very active user (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; useless and redundant.  Nixinova   T   C   23:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Minecraft#Gameplay; is part of the game (cf. [1]) and that is a more specific place for it to target. While this is a less likely search term there's nothing gained from deleting it as it can't mean anything else. 11 pageviews a month shows that it is useful. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 01:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without a mention at the target, the redirect can do nothing except confuse or disappoint those wanting specific information on this term. -- Tavix (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2020 (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.

Zombie pigman[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 no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 08:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term "zombie pigman" is not explained in the target page, and appears only in the "References" section. Not a very active user (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: search results give a few pages that mention the zombie pigman.  Nixinova   T   C   23:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Minecraft#Gameplay; is part of the game (cf. [2]) and that is a more specific place for it to target. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 01:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:15, 30 December 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.

Launch mount landing pad[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 no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 08:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not explained on the article. I suggest deletion of the redirect. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – my sense is keep, as it is a new concept in space launch, and was explicated in the redirect target at one time, as SpaceX announced plans to use this novel approach—landing directly on the launch mount in a specially designed cradle. A year or two later, SpaceX announced that while they still intend to do that long term, they would not do it initially, as they would iteratively develop the landing technology bits needed over time, but that they still intend to do landings on the launch mount long term. Thus, the concept is both novel, and notable, as several reliable secondary sources covered this; and SpaceX has publically stated they still plan to develop such a technology capability.N2e (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But what to do with the redirect itself? Changing it to the article? --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I imagine sourced material just got deleted from the article at some time after SpaceX delayed the work on this aspect of the overall system design
Keep provided that an explanation of the concept is re-inserted in the target article (or in some other article to which this redirect can be pointed), otherwise delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #10. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an established name. Even if it would be then it would be a general name, not limited to a single rocket. A google search for "Launch mount landing pad" finds only "SpaceX plans to construct launch mount, landing pad" and copies of Wikipedia. --mfb (talk) 08:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:15, 30 December 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.

Rio rojo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 13#Rio rojo

Apni Apni Love Story[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 publish the draft which seems to be at least reasonably sourced. There's no strong consensus about what to do with this redirect, but deletion does not seem to be on the table - if there are notability concerns about the article itself, then that can be dealt with separately via an AfD. ~ mazca talk 12:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect. This is a "television project" that redirects to an actress that was associated with it. While it makes sense in the case where an actress who only notable for one project is redirected to the project, I can't see a reason why this project should be redirected to the actress. This redirect laid dormant in WP:AFC/R for quite some time, in all fairness. Utopes (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At the present time, the redirect's title is not mentioned at List of programs broadcast by ARY Digital, and participation in this discussion has not enforced that being the potential resolution. Relisting in hopes of more participation to help form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional retarget to List of programs broadcast by ARY Digital if a good source can be found (it should also state that ARY Digital has or will broadcast this program); otherwise neutral. Glades12 (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC) For convenience, the draft is at Draft:Apni Apni Love Story. 17:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publish Draft:Apni Apni Love Story, which seems to be the most obvious solution. -- Tavix (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2020 (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.

SATCM[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 National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine. -- Tavix (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This initialism doesn't appear to be used by any reliable sources. I would suggest retargeting to National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, which is also known as the State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine (see [3] and [4] for uses of the initialism) signed, Rosguill talk 21:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think because there are more than one possible abbreviations, it would be better to make the page into a disambiguation page.TwinTurbo (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TwinTurbo: Can you name any other uses mentioned on Wikipedia? Glades12 (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Glades12: SATCM is also used to refer to the Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, held by the Antarctic Treaty System.TwinTurbo (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That phrase isn't mentioned in that article (and seems like a minor enough subtopic that it's unlikely that it should be mentioned), so I'm fine with ignoring that use and retargeting to the Chinese Medicine article. I had actually come across this use-case before filing the nomination. signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since consensus at the present time isn't incredibly strong due to the "disambiguation" option presented in the discussion and low participation in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 30 December 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.

Udhay[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. It seems the best solution would be to have an anthoponymy WP:SIA at this title, but no one seems sure of how to do so. Given the appetite for deletion in the interim, I will redlink it. -- Tavix (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, we have another biography on Wikipedia that this could refer to, Udhaya (actor), and many more people with variants of this name mentioned in article body text. I would suggest deletion for now, although it's likely that sources could be found to write an article about this name in abstract. signed, Rosguill talk 18:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: "Udhay" is a diminutive of Udhayanidhi, and the man's official Twitter account itself gives his names as Udhay Stalin. When more articles on men named Udhay will come, this may be converted into a DAB page. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kailash29792 Is Udhay not also a diminutive for Udhaya? signed, Rosguill talk 17:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, and if “Udhay” is not deleted, it may be converted into a DAB page for people named Udhay, Udhaya, Udhayan, Udhayanidhi, etc. who I cannot find here. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I linked to Udhaya (actor) in the nomination statement. I'd be ok with doing a hatnote disambiguation. signed, Rosguill talk 19:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate the redirect cause the above-mentioned problems and ambiguities. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this the same name as Uday? --BDD (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect is ambiguous and I don't think we know for sure that it's is a diminutive. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2020 (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.

Hold(ship)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RDAB; Hold (ship) exists and has the same target as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 30 December 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.

Illegal medical practice[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 Medical malpractice. signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created nine minutes after my creation of a red link in today's current events. It's both about practicing without a license and medical ethics. The underlying CNN article that led to the creation of the redlink says in full: "The court held that the three defendants failed to obtain a doctor's qualification and pursued profit, deliberately violated the relevant national regulations on scientific research and medical management, crossed the bottom line of scientific and medical ethics, and rashly applied gene-editing technology to human-assisted reproductive medicine, and disrupted the medical treatment," Xinhua reported. "The nature of their behavior is serious and has constituted the crime of illegal medical practice." The currect redirect to quackery, in my opinion, falsely suggests that (wanton, non-licensed, profit-driven,... ) genome editing would be pseudoscience. Wakari07 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or retarget to Medical malpractice. Steel1943 (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator of the redirect and I agree with retarget to Medical malpractice. Wakari07 (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wakari07: If you believe the current target is not the most suitable, you can just change it (without even making this nomination). I'd not have any objection on that. My impression (from your statement above) was that you were not expecting the redirect to be created at all, that's why I wondered why it was enclosed in link markers just as I said on my talk page. But maybe I am not understanding you clearly, I did reread the nomination to confirm though. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:47, 31 December 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.

Lana and Lilly Wachowski[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. WP:SNOW, proposals to split the article should be made at Talk:The Wachowskis signed, Rosguill talk 08:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


They have worked as a writing and directing team through most of their professional film careers. However, they do not work together in Work in Progress and Matrix 4. --Sharouser (talk) 13:59, 30 December 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.

Railways of Slovak 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 Withdrawn. It seems that others find this redirect useful. (non-admin closure) buidhe 14:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted as incorrect English, now that it was moved to correct title "Railways of the Slovak Republic". I believe there's a bot that fixes the resulting redlinks, but if not, I volunteer to correct the relevant articles. buidhe 12:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a {{R from move}} and has plenty of incoming links. It's also a highly plausible typo. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects don't have to be entirely correct (see, there are tens of thousands of redirects in Category:Redirects from incorrect names), and this one is perfectly plausible as a search term. Also, it was the article's title for seven years until today, so it's an {{R from move}}, which means that even if it were not plausible we would still have to keep it for a long time so that incoming links (incl. from external websites) don't get broken. – Uanfala (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A large number of redirect are from incorrect spelling/grammar. The point is simple; we want people to find those articles from as many ways as possible. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:51, 31 December 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.

Organisation Schmelt[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. Deleting to encourage article creation is a valid reason for deletion, as documented at WP:R#DELETE criterion #10. Editors who disagree with this rationale are welcome to continue the discussion of its relative merits at WT:R. signed, Rosguill talk 00:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deletion per WP:REDLINK. Organization Schmelt is only mentioned once in the redirected article, and never explained. It confuses rather than enlightens the reader because Organization Schmelt was not only responsible for Nazi camps in occupied Poland but also many in Sudetenland and elsewhere. buidhe 08:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom. It'd encourage article creation. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: de:Organisation Schmelt ends up on a "Dienststelle Schmelt" for d:Q1221129. I'm surprised by the argument [delete to] encourage article creation, all redirects are supposed to do that, starting an article from scratch is harder. Admittedly there is no relevant or helpful edit history in this case. –84.46.52.46 (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it's a bit different when you have an account. Articles made from redirects don't show as an article you created, but I suppose for you that articles from redirects are the only kind of articles that you can create (without going through WP:AFC). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are new insights please update WP:RFD#KEEP stating exactly the opposite in No. 7: The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent unregistered and non-confirmed users from expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit… The AFC procedure with a five months backlog for the worst cases was at four months one year ago, OTOH expanding an existing redirect is straight forward (example). –84.46.53.107 (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for what it's worth, if you posted a note on my talk page (probably linking to this discussion in case I forget I said this), I'd be willing to review any specific article for AFC you have.
    In my experience, New Page Patrollers are probably the most skeptical of articles created from redirects. They're highly likely to be sent to draftspace or reverted back to a redirect. Idk, I'm going to have to think about this... you raise good points. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AfC may have a fairly long backlog, but once an article is accepted through AfC, it is listed at NPP according to its original creation date, not its AfC acceptance date, so the overall time-to-enter-the-encyclopedia will be roughly the same (although an unreviewed NPP article will still be accessible to people searching Wikipedia internally, whereas an AfC article will not). Additionally, I think a concern about redirects is that readers and new editors unfamiliar with how redirects function may not understand how to convert a redirect to an article, whereas it's fairly straightforward to start drafting an article that does not exist. I think part of the reasoning is also that seeing a redlink on another Wikipedia article may encourage people to create an article, whereas a redirect link will look as blue as any other article link. So, redirects are more convenient for experienced editors who choose not to create accounts, but less convenient for experienced editors with accounts and new editors of all stripes, as well as drawing readers' attentions to new subjects that need articles. signed, Rosguill talk 21:17, 6 January 2020 (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.

Mar Morto (sea)[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. As an added note, CSD R3 should not be used for cases of FORRED, as a foreign language's relation to a redirect title may not be obvious and deserves discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED – the Dead Sea has no affinity for Portuguese. It seemingly was intended to disambiguate from the novel Mar Morto, but the language crossover makes this even less plausible, so delete. ComplexRational (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s fairly recent (less than 3 weeks old) and seemly quite unlikely to be of use so I believe WP:R3 may apply.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it meets R3. It might be implausible but it is neither a typo nor a misnomer. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 04:57, 30 December 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.

Border poll[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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDLINK and WP:SURPRISE. We should have an article on border polls in general, such as those held after World War I. buidhe 02:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. @Buidhe: I added Border Poll to this nomination. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There have been many border polls over the years (1920 Schleswig plebiscites being a well-known example). This should either exist as a standalone article or not at all; having it as a redirect to a specific example is not appropriate. Number 57 21:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect is ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2020 (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.

New Year'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 retarget to New Year. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be redirected to New Year or New Year's Eve? Interstellarity (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and New years and New Years redirects to New Year so a case can be made that for consistently retargeting this to New Year is the best option. I also later noticed that this in fact was a redirect to New Years for over a decade before being retargeted to New Year’s Eve earlier this year.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 01:13, 30 December 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_December_30&oldid=936056707"