Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 12, 2019.

Hidden Fences[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 25#Hidden Fences

1,000,000 AD[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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely meaningless to create a redirect for a year which is far in the future. There is nothing special about this and it is not linked in any Wikipedia articles. Also, there were only 32 pageviews last year compared to the target which received just under 750,000 pageviews which does not make this redirect useful in anyway. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep perfectly plausible search term with an unambiguous target. There will be no benefit to deletion but it would significantly inconvenience those people who use it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite my earlier vote, this year is not too far into the future and is still a fairly common search term. ComplexRational (talk) 00:27, 13 January 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.

1,000,000,000,000 AD[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. MBisanz talk 01:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely meaningless to create a redirect for a year which is far in the future. There is nothing special about this and it is not linked in any Wikipedia articles. Also, there were only 25 pageviews last year compared to the target which received just under 750,000 pageviews which does not make this redirect useful in anyway. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep perfectly plausible search term with an unambiguous target. There will be no benefit to deletion but it would significantly inconvenience those people who use it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    With only 25 pageviews last year, there won't be any inconvenience by deleting this. 1,000,000,000,000 (number) makes sense as a number but as a year, it doesn't make sense. Pkbwcgs (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Circa 25 people will be inconvenienced by deletion, which would be acceptable if it were misleading (it isn't), it was incorrect (it isn't), there was no information at the target (there is), it was ambiguous (it isn't), or there was some other benefit to deletion (there isn't any). The ratio of views of a redirect to a target is only ever relevant when determining which of multiple possible targets a redirect should point to, but when the target is unambiguous (as here) the only thing that matters is whether people using the redirect are reaching the content they are looking for, which they unquestionably are. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How many of these 25 people were bots, users doing maintenance work or similar? --mfb (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 25 page views over a year proves that it is implausible. There is no discussion of this specific year at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fully refuted this argument in the related discussion below. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 14 January 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.

1,000,000,000 AD[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. MBisanz talk 01:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely meaningless to create a redirect for a year which is far in the future. There is nothing special about this and it is not linked in any Wikipedia articles. Also, there were only 36 pageviews last year compared to the target which received just under 750,000 pageviews which does not make this redirect useful in anyway. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep perfectly plausible search term with an unambiguous target. There will be no benefit to deletion but it would significantly inconvenience those people who use it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 36 page views over a year proves that it is implausible. There is no discussion of this specific year at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fully refuted these two delete arguments in the related discussion below. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 14 January 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.

1,000,000,000,000,000 AD[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. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely meaningless to create a redirect for a year which is far in the future. There is nothing special about this and it is not linked in any Wikipedia articles. Also, there were only 77 pageviews last year compared to the target which received just under 750,000 pageviews which does not make this redirect useful in anyway. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL. ComplexRational (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perfectly plausible search term with an unambiguous target. There will be no benefit to deletion but it would significantly inconvenience those people who use it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: It is not at all plausible by having a redirects that goes more than a trillion years into the future. Very few people used this redirect last year so it wouldn't cause any inconvenience. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    77 page views is not "very few" by any measure, not even the 25-35 of the others you nominated is "very few". The target article goes way further than this (1 trillion is 1012, the article goes to , so someone searching for this will find information at the target, further demonstrating its plausibility. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: Your reason for keeping this redirect is not convincing me. We already have 1,000,000,000,000,000 for the purpose you have explained. Adding "AD" does not make this useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkbwcgs (talk • contribs) 23:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that ~77 people used this redirect last year proves that it is useful - just because we have a similar redirect is not relevant (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rubbish computer: the fact that ~77 people have used this in the last year rather proves that it isn't implausible at all. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 77 page views over a year proves that it is implausible. There is no discussion of this specific year at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've been over this many times before, so I will keep it brief, but inconveniencing ~77 people a year (around 6-7 every month on average) for absolutely no benefit whatsoever to be extremely harmful to the project. Anyone searching for a year this far in the future is not looking for content about that exact year specifically to the exclusion of all others (even 2119 is a redirect to 22nd Century) but for content about that approximate time in the future which is exactly what they will find at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would support the deletion of 2119 for the same reason. Someone searching 2119 is looking for information about that year, and the target does not provide that information. Update: 22nd century in fiction does mention that The story "Under the Lake" is set in 2119. Maybe it would be best to retarget there or perhaps it's okay after all since the "in fiction" is a sub-list of the target. -- Tavix (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of specific value. In typing "1,000,000,000,000,000" one would get to "1,000,000,000" first and the options there. There seems to be no value to the extra increments. --Bejnar (talk) 20:04, 15 January 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.

Eka-quicksilver[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) 01:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obscure name not mentioned in the target article, with no evidence of external usage. ComplexRational (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, I can't find any uses of this that don't originate with Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Double sharp (talk) 03:12, 14 January 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.

Something Strange About Marci[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) 01:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. A quick Google search shows this is an entry in the Goosebumps series, but it's also not mentioned in any of the related pages. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no independent notability, refers to a short story in the More and More Tales to Give You Goosebumps but that does not have an entry, so it doesn't have any useful information to redirect to. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:42, 17 January 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.

Isla de estabilidad[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) 01:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an arbitrary WP:FORRED for a scientific concept, with no clear indication as to why the Spanish title is notable. ComplexRational (talk) 18:28, 12 January 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.

Direct (DJ)[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) 18:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No longer mentioned at the target (why was the article's artist list cleared in the first place?) and I can't find an accurate place to retarget this redirect supposedly about a music artist signed with the label. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the various other discussions regarding DJ redirects to Monstercat that the nominator has nominated during the past 2–3 years. JalenFolf, would you be chance be able to link a few of the discussions which I'm referring as I recall seeing them before? Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 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.

List of aquarium fish (disambiguation)[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) 18:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the target is a disambiguation page. List of aquarium fish by itself already points to the target. This title with the "(disambiguation)" addition is an unlikely entrant, has no significant links, and was created recently, moved to article space on 16 December 2018‎. It is unclear why it was created. --Bejnar (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the target is not a disambiguation page, but it is definitely a navigation page of some sort. --Bejnar (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Almost qualifies under CSD G7. --Bejnar (talk) 19:54, 15 January 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.

Desexualization[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 Wi:desexualize. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are not exclusive to their target. Males can be desexualized as well. Steel1943 (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I originally made these redirects via a request at WP:AFCRD, where the original target was a section in Antisexualism that is now removed per WP:NOR. Somehow, in my absence, the targets were changed to this. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Isn't the primary usage of these terms as a part of feminist and anti-corporate critiques on pornographic-like media? Given that 'Sexualization' needs a lot of work, wouldn't depictions of the broader concept of 'desexualizing society' be included over at that article? Ideally? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sexualization and add {{R from antonym}}. Alternatively, Wiktionary could be in place of this. Note that Desex goes to Castration, but I don't think Desexualize is the same thing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary or delete. None of the topics we have on Wikipedia can accurately capture the breadth of meanings that this word can refer to. Deryck C. 13:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:50, 12 January 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.

Auto accessories[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 25#Auto accessories

Hurricane ida[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 Hurricane Ida. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect, was created when Hurricane Ida (2009) was moved to Hurricane Ida as a primary topic, and should've been deleted in the first place. CycloneYoris talk! 05:44, 12 January 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.

MAKE THE PIE HIGHER[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 Moved. Moved (no rdr left behind) per discussion. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per WP:RCAPS. Phrase is in the target, just not the ALL CAPS VERSION. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:17, 12 January 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.

Quote Schrödinger cat[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) 01:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "Quote" prefix makes these into search-engine-type pages that are not appropriate redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:03, 12 January 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.

Keep America Great![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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have Keep America Great (unpunctuated) pointing to the same target; the version with the punctuation is not needed (and not justified). UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as possible search term. If we keep "Keep America Great", why would we not also keep "Keep America Great!" in case someone includes the punctuation. Redirects are cheap, so let the thing serve a purpose. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Another Believer. Not every combination of search term and punctuation makes a good redirect, but this is a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: redundant to Keep America Great which already exists. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:57, 13 January 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.

Baby Bush[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) 11:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I’m not seeing evidence that this is a currently-user nickname for its target. I’m also not finding references that this was ever used as a nickname. In addition, most results for looking up this phrase on third-party search engines are either for Bush baby or the target of this redirect holding a baby. Steel1943 (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible, as does not appear to be used as a nickname. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redirects don't have to be NPOV, but this term is pretty obscure and doesn't have much in the way of a connection to the former President. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could this be a plausible error for Lil' Bush? --BDD (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: BDD's question deserves a chance to be considered
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In response to BDD's question the answer is "no", not found. except for one comment in an Amazon review, which did not conflate the two. Interestingly, "Shrub", a relatively derogatory nickname for GWB, does not occur on either the Shrub (disambiguation) page, nor on the Bush family page, the two likely places directed to by the hatnote at shrub. --Bejnar (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:19, 14 January 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_January_12&oldid=880551111"