Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 27, 2019.

Amadeus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 4#Amadeus

Фaхpудин[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 deleted per CSD G7 by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) –Sonicwave talk 22:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED (from Russsian). Also, the ⟨a⟩ and the ⟨p⟩ are Latin. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Apparently I created this redirect in January 2010. I think it was to cater for the Serbian form of the name as given in the article Fahrudin Durak. I agree that it serves no useful purpose. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:50, 28 July 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.

Ф29 phage[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects begin with a Cyrillic ef Ф instead of Greek phi Φ.–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, as an English speaker with a Cyrillic keyboard installed but not a Greek one, I could see myself trying to search for something this way. signed, Rosguill talk 23:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rosguill. The two gyphs are nearly identical (probably are identical in some fonts) and so I can easily see myself picking the wrong one out of a collection of non-Latin symbols, especially if the source is seen without the context of any other symbols that significantly differ between Greek and Cyrillic. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 27 July 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.

2020 democratic[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) 01:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague. I let approved a few similar ones, 2020 dems and 2020 democrats which I felt couldn't realistically refer to anything else, but these are both very unlikely search terms and could potentially refer to other topics, as neither "democratic" nor "dem" are generally used as nicknames for the Democratic Party as a whole. signed, Rosguill talk 19:35, 27 July 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.

Black science man[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) 01:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing to delete. "Black science man" referring to Tyson has been an internet meme for several years, typified by memes such as this. A subreddit called /r/BlackScienceMan featuring these memes has 9,000 subscribers. However, I don't think a meme of this sort can be justified on an encyclopedia. The term is rather offensive on its face, suggesting that Tyson is the only notable black scientist. It's also not (and shouldn't be) mentioned in the article. Ostealthy (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unecyclopedic, and inaccurate, as there are many other black men in science. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This would be a fine redirect to an article with an encyclopaedic mention of the term, but there isn't. Indeed the only other use of this exact phrase on en.wp is User:Bedsidelamp's "profile" at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Guests (an inactive project page whose purpose isn't explained or obvious to me) - and I'm not certain Bedsidelamp is even referencing Tyson. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: too vague and not mentioned in target article, in addition to the above points. –Sonicwave talk 19:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to a redirect to List of African-American inventors and scientists. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Except "science" and "invention" are not exclusive to each other in the least. Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not understand your comment. How is it relevant?
Taking away the redirect does nothing to disabuse people who have read the subreddit of any belief they might have that there are few, if any, African American scientists. Indeed, it might lead them to believe that there are no real African American scientists, if the link disappears. My suggested new target provides a list of notable African American scientists (and inventors, who have similar capabilities) to disprove their scepticism. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:37, 2 August 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.

Kidwelly satanic child rape cult[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 User:GeneralizationsAreBad per G7. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 08:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved Kidwelly satanic child rape cult to Kidwelly sex cult because that is how the case is described by sources. I think we would be justified in deleting the original title, for the same reason as with the Norwich case below: the title is lurid and unencyclopedic. However I did leave it as a redirect and I am nominating it for RfD, in part so as to have a paper trail. MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the Norwich case. Lurid as you say, and if it's not even accurate...WP:TNT can apply to redirects I suppose. ——SerialNumber54129 17:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just plain awful. Liz Read! Talk! 20:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SarahSV (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Miniapolis 23:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Requested that this automatically generated redirect page be speedily deleted using the G7 template. My search for pages containing this title found no relevant results, so it is no longer needed. Despite an assertion here to the contrary, all reliable sources I have seen suggest the page title is accurate. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 01:38, 2 August 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.

March 2019 Seattle Shooting Spree[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) 01:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a valid redirect as it happened in April and wasn't a "spree". Praxidicae (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete regardless of whether or not it can be considered a spree the shooting happened in late April making this a highly unlikely search term.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redirect to an unrelated event. Seattle event itself seems not to qualify as a standalone article per WP:NOTNEWS due to its being a random act of violence and crime. StonyBrook (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not related to the target page (wrong date and location). –Sonicwave talk 20:11, 28 July 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.

Norwich child rape and sadistic abuse ring[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 WP:IAR deleted. There is zero possibility that this discussion will reach any result other than delete, and it serves no useful purpose whatsoever to keep an actively disruptive redirect in place for a week just for the sake of process. If anyone wants to complain about me, WP:ANI and WP:ARC are thataway. ‑ Iridescent 16:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was the original title for the article. It was objected to at AN[1] as being lurid and inappropriate for Wikipedia. The article was moved to a more neutral title. IMO this inappropriate redirect should not be kept. MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutely agree. As the bod who moved the page (twice), I say that this is completely unlikely as a search term and the more so for not being a name that is encountered in the sources. Thanks to MelanieN for picking this up; apologies, I forgot that not being a proper page mover, I would leave this redirect behind. Would it be easier if I just stuck {{db-user}} on it? ——SerialNumber54129 15:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good thought, but it technically doesn't qualify for U1 or G7. I wish it did; I would rather not have this title sitting around for a week while we discuss it. Maybe it can qualify for SNOW at some point. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 27 July 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.

နု[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 11#နု

Neurotypical syndrome[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 11#Neurotypical syndrome

JODIE WELLS[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) 01:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Wells is already a proper redirect and serves the purpose. No need for WP:ALLCAPS here. Not surprisingly, it's view stats are awful [2]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, there was an article at this title for four hours, not a year. It was then redirected two minutes after being moved, where it has remained for over a decade. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and above comment. –Sonicwave talk 23:05, 1 August 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.

Roberto Esquivel Cabrera[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) 01:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debunked record claim (according to the user who removed the target section in May 2017) held by a person who is mentioned nowhere on Wikipedia. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:18, 27 July 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.

Emil Johansson (athlete)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry (except perhaps for Emil Johansson (tug of war), if tug-of-war can be considered to fall within sport of athletics; which in my opinion it does not). There is an incoming link from Athletics at the 2019 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival; a competition whose name suggests that the sprinter is extremely unlikely to pass WP:GNG or WP:NTRACK as yet. I propose deletion, to encourage article creation if and when justified. Narky Blert (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment in US English "athlete" can mean both a person who competes in the sport of athletics, or a sportsperson more generally. We should thus defer to American English speakers regarding whether the tug of war competitor would/could be called an athlete (as a British English speaker I genuinely don't know). Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've only ever seen the qualifier (athlete) on people who've competed in track and field. There is a well-defined array of qualifiers for US competitors in other sports, all the way from e.g. (baseball) to (left-handed pitcher, born 1899). Narky Blert (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't necessarily mean it would be an implausible search term for someone partially but not intimately familiar with Wikipedia's article titling guidelines. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much the exact reasons above are why I created the redirect. Page disambiguators must serve as a way of distinguishing between different topics. Footballers, boxers, tug-of-war competitors and ice hockey players are all athletes, thus the disambiguator is not a suitable one – Emil Johansson (sprinter) is the better redlink target for the track athlete. I've made numerous changes of this type for several years, changing the page handle from "(athlete)" to the specific track discipline when other athletes of the same name exist to ensure we don't confuse readers or editors with ambiguous disambiguation handles. The "(athlete)" handle is only really useful if there are no other biographies for sportspeople of that name (e.g. Sarah Cowley). SFB 23:57, 28 July 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 racist attack on africans in india[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) 01:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typo + 2 miscapitalizations. See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_September_7#List_of_racist_attack_on_Africans_in_India regarding a similar redirect. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and the previous discussion. This was the original title of the article that became the redirect discussed in September last year, I'm not sure why it wasn't picked up at the time. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; not mentioned in the target article. –Sonicwave talk 18:02, 8 August 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.

Apulia First[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 11#Apulia First

Loool[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) 01:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommon variation of LOL, stats confirm that very few users (if any) have found this redirect to be actually helpful. CycloneYoris talk! 06:35, 27 July 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_July_27&oldid=910305660"