Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 29, 2019.

Douluo Dalu[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) 01:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely possible that this is the latinization of a Chinese term relevant to the subject, but I failed to find this term from looking through the target article. signed, Rosguill talk 23:45, 29 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.

Alexander-the-great[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 11#Alexander-the-great

WikiProject watchers[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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This recently created redirect does not meet the high bar required for Mainspace-to-Projectspace redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No basis for having a CNR for this fairly obscure project page. PC78 (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per UnitedStatesian and PC78. I don't really oppose the existence of cross-namespace redirects in most cases, but this is definitely one that is not worth keeping due to how obscure its target is; someone searching for a page like that would almost certainly know to add "Wikipedia:" to the beginning of their query anyway. Geolodus (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obscure CNR.  Nixinova  T  C  01:52, 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.

The Flood[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 Flood (disambiguation). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editors insist the page should be targeted to Genesis flood narrative. I personally believe it has no primary topic and should be targeted to Flood (disambiguation) as it was in the past. I would like to gather consensus on where it should point. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to DAB per Google which shows mainly the 2019 film, though probably recentism, considering there are quite a few other uses of "The Flood" I think redirecting to the DAB pages makes most sense. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambiguation page per nominator and Crouch, Swale. If I exclude "film" from my search results my top results are the songs by Take That and Katie Melua, a UK Environment Agency information page, Answers in Genesis, The Flame in the Flood, a flood prevention trade show and the UK government flood information warning service. No primary topic there. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 29 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.

Perry Young[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 convert to disambiguation page. Consensus is that WP:RM is more appropriate venue to determine a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, if needed. In the meantime, this should be a disambiguation page. Note that WP:RFD states: "If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here ..." —Bagumba (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the original article to Perry Young (basketball) so that I could move Draft:Perry Young (aviator) into mainspace. However, my request for this page to be deleted was rejected. WP:RM doesn't allow for draft moves, so here I am. IMO a pioneering African-American aviator with a New York Times obituary,[1] and articles in various magazines[2][3] and newspapers[4] is more notable than a journeyman NBA player who played (but did not start) in one undistinguished season, with no press coverage to speak of. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was the one who declined the speedy deletion request (sorry about that). My recommendation was to take the request to WP:RM. I still believe that would be the more appropriate venue as the underlying issue is page moving, not deletion. WP:RM will take care of any necessary redirect deletion. --kingboyk (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The aviator draft certainly is better sourced and more thorough than the basketball player, but that’s not a reason to make it the default “Perry Young.” I have no doubt that the aviator is notable, but neither Perry Young is a household name. The basketball player received coverage when he was active - which was before online newspapers existed. I will go get some sources from newspapers.com, but I don’t believe it is clear the aviator should be “Perry Young” instead of “Perry Young (aviator)” and converting the main name to a DAB page for the 2 articles. Rikster2 (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Clarityfiend: OK, then you should move Draft:Perry Young (aviator) to Perry Young (aviator), not Perry Young, in the mean time. Then, you can start a WP:RM discussion on the talk page. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like the best way to go to me, also leaving Perry Young as a DAB page in the meantime rather than a redirect. Actually, it looks like the move has already happened. --kingboyk (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I accepted the draft as Perry Young (aviator), so I could move on to other things. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:51, 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.

Template:R other[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 11#Template:R other

Wikipedia:FOLK[edit]

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

Portal:Lesotho[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 has already been deleted. kingboyk (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target is too broad. A reader specifically interested in the tiny small nation of Lesotho is not likely to find much relevant content in the broader Portal:Africa. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 29 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.

Portal:Kosovo[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 has already been deleted. kingboyk (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target is too broad. A reader specifically interested in the small limited-recognition Kosovo is not likely to find much relevant content in the broader Portal:Europe. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 29 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.

Province redirects to Portal:Pakistan[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. The author is requesting deletion (ongoing). kingboyk (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target is too broad.

These redirects were created all created by User:Buaidh, after the deletion at MFD of these portals. This was unhelpful, because Portal:Pakistan has little material directly related to each of Pakistan's provinces.

These redirects don't help reduce redlinks; instead they create pointless bluelinks. Links to portals are nearly all generated by templates such as {{Portal}} or {{Portal bar}}, which generate a link only if the target exists. So without a redirect from Portal:Sindh, the code {{Portal|Pakistan|Sindh}} produces one link, to Portal:Pakistan. {{Portal|Pakistan|Sindh}} But with the redirect, it produces a link to both Portal:Pakistan and Portal:Sindh ... but since the latter is a redirect, that's two adjacent links to the same page, one of them mislabelled. This a timewasting nuisance for readers.

Many templates for category headers etc use a #ifexist to deternmine whether to link to a particular portal. If the portal exists, they don't know whether it is a real portal or just a redirect, so they too will produce duplicate links. I created {{ExistNotRedirect}} to try to workaround this, but I found it tedious to deploy it widely, and it's much simpler to just delete these useless redirects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 29 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.

Singapore ePrix[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. Feel free to recreate if a suitable target emerges. -- Tavix (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This ePrix has never existed. This redirect is therefore a highly improbable search term and taking the searcher to 2016-17 Formula E season makes no sense anyway as the target article gives no additional details about any Singapore ePrix SSSB (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The 2019–20 Formula E season#Calendar includes a Singapore race on 14 December. The official website has that slot as TBC [5][6]. It is a very plausible search term, given the first page of Google hits found stories about forthcoming Singapore e-Prix from June 2016, June 2018 and May 2019 (although the last is paywalled beyond the lead). The issue is that we don't have anywhere great to point it yet unfortunately. I'm leaning delete but haven't made my mind up yet. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: then WP:RFD#DELETE criteria #10 would surly apply? SSSB (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that I'm not sure there is enough information out there to write an article that was more than just reporting lots of speculation. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The 2019–20 Formula E season#Calendar no longer includes a Singapore ePrix. It was removed in this edit by Reiver93 with an edit summary of Unsourced, there's been talk of a Singapore ePrix but nothing official yet. SSSB (talk) 19:02, 30 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.

Portal:Canary Islands[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 has already been deleted. kingboyk (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target is too broad. A reader specifically interested in the Canary Islands is not likely to find much relevant content in the broader Portal:Spain.

The effect of a redirect like this is to cause the #ifexist tests in many templates to falsely advertise the existence of a portal of this title, when they would otherwise omit any link. It's better to have no link than to mislead in this way.

Note that Portal:Canary Islands only ever existed as an automated spam portal created by @The Transhumanist (TTH). There's no need to memorialise spam with a redirect. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 29 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.

Portal:Catalonia[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 has already been deleted. kingboyk (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target is too broad. A reader specifically interested in Catalonia is not likely to find much relevant content in the broader Portal:Spain.

The effect of a redirect like this is to cause the #ifexist tests in many templates to falsely advertise the existence of a portal of this title, when they would otherwise omit any link. It's better to have no link than to mislead in this way.

There is also an NPOV issue. Catalonia is divided roughly 50:50 over independence from Spain. Redirecting Catalonia to Spain looks like a partiaan stance on that debate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 29 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.

Portal:Zimbabwe[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. kingboyk (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target is too broad. A reader specifically interested in Zimbabwe is not likely to find much relevant content in the broader Portal:Africa.

The effect of a redirect like this is to cause the #ifexist tests in many templates to falsely advertise the existence of a portal of this title, when they would otherwise omit any link. It's better to have no link than to mislead in this way. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 29 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.

Portal:Angola[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 has already been deleted. kingboyk (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target is too broad. A reader specifically interested in Angola is not likely to find much relevant content in the broader Portal:Africa.

The effect of a redirect like this is to cause the #ifexist tests in many templates to falsely advertise the existence of a portal of this title, when they would otherwise omit any link. It's better to have no link than to mislead in this way. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 29 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.

Portal:San Marino[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. kingboyk (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target is too broad. A reader specifically interested in the tiny microstate of San Marino is not likely to find much relevant content in the broader Portal:Europe. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 29 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.

Portal:Liechtenstein[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 has already been deleted. kingboyk (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target is too broad. A reader specifically interested in the tiny principality of Liechtenstein is not likely to find much of use in the broader Portal:Europe. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 29 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.

Portal:Mongolia[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. kingboyk (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target is too broad. A reader specifically interested in Mongolia is not likely to find much of use in the vastly broader Portal:Asia. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 29 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.

Portal:Myanmar[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. kingboyk (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target is too broad. A reader specifically interested in Myanmar is not likely to find much of use in the broader Portal:Asia. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 29 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.

Portal:Rivers State[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. kingboyk (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:EGG. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 29 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.

State redirects to Portal: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 speedy delete. The author is requesting deletion (ongoing). kingboyk (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target is too broad.

These redirects were created all created by User:Buaidh, after the deletion at MFD of these portals. This was unhelpful, because Portal:India has little material directly related to each of India's states and union territories.

These redirects don't help reduce redlinks; instead they create pointless bluelinks. Links to portals are nearly all generated by templates such as {{Portal}} or {{Portal bar}}, which generate a link only if the target exists. So without a redirect from Portal:Himachal Pradesh, the code {{Portal|India}} produces one link, to Portal:India. {{Portal|India}} But with the redirect, it produces a link to both Portal:India and Portal:Himachal Pradesh ... but since the latter is a redirect, that's two adjacent links to the same page, one of them mislabelled. This a timewasting nuisance for readers.

Many templates for category headers etc use a #ifexist to determine whether to link to a particular portal. If the portal exists, they don't know whether it is a real portal or just a redirect, so they too will produce duplicate links. I created {{ExistNotRedirect}} to try to workaround this, but I found it tedious to deploy it widely, and it's much simpler to just delete these useless redirects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 29 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.

Portal:Lombardy[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 has already been deleted. kingboyk (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target is too broad. A reader specifically interested in Lombardy is unlikely to find much of use in the vastly broader Portal:Italy.

The portal was automated spam created by @The Transhumanist (TTH). It existed for only a few months before being deleted at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Second batch of mass-created portals based on a single navbox. There's no benefit too anyone in immortalising every piece of spam with a redirect. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 29 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.

Portal:Veneto[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. kingboyk (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target is too broad. A reader specifically interested in Veneto is not likely to find much of use in the vastly broader Portal:Italy. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 29 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.

State redirects to Portal:Mexico[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. The author is requesting deletion (ongoing). kingboyk (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target is too broad.

These redirects were created all created by User:Buaidh, after the deletion at MFD of these portals. This was unhelpful, because the Portal:Mexico has little material directly related to each of the 31 states.

I checked a sample of 6 of these redirects, and in each case the deleted portal had only ever existed as a piece of automated portalspam created by @The Transhumanist (TTH), and was deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox. It seems perverse to immortalise pages which only ever existed as spam.

These redirects don't help reduce redlinks; instead they create pointless bluelinks. Links to portals are nearly all generated by templates such as {{Portal}} or {{Portal bar}}, which generate a link only if the target exists. So without a redirect from Portal:Tabasco, the code {{Portal|Mexico|Tabasco}} produces one link, to Portal:Mexico . {{Portal|Mexico|Tabasco}} But with the redirect, it produces a link to both Portal:Mexico and Portal:Tabasco ... but since the latter is a redirect, that's two adjacent links to the same page, one of them mislabelled. This a timewasting nuisance for readers.

Many templates for category headers etc use a #ifexist to deternmine whether to link to a particular portal. If the portal exists, they don't know whether it is a real portal or just a redirect, so they too will produce duplicate links. I created {{ExistNotRedirect}} to try to workaround this, but I found it tedious to deploy it widely, and it's much simpler to just delete these useless redirects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:26, 29 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.

Frances Ann Denny Drake[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 Procedural close - now a stub Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Different Frances Drake (6 November 1797 – 1 September 1875) per Britannica. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notable actress ("leading tragic actress in America") per Britannica, started a terrible stub including another encyclopedia source. Please help expanding. —Kusma (t·c) 15:10, 29 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.

Emirate redirects to Portal:United Arab Emirates[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. The author is requesting deletion (ongoing). kingboyk (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target is too broad.

These redirects were created all created by User:Buaidh, after the deletion at MFD of these portals (they were all either abandoned, or automated portalspam). This was unhelpful, because the Portal:United Arab Emirates has little material directly related to each of these emirates.

These redirects don't help reduce redlinks; instead they create pointless bluelinks. Links to portals are nearly all generated by templates such as {{Portal}} or {{Portal bar}}, which generate a link only if the target exists. So without a redirect from Portal:Sharjah, the code {{Portal|United Arab Emirates|Sharjah}} produces one link, to Portal:United Arab Emirates . {{Portal|United Arab Emirates|Sharjah}} But with the redirect, it produces a link to both Portal:United Arab Emirates and Portal:Sharjah ... but since the latter is a redirect, that's two adjacent links to the same page, one of them mislabelled. This a timewasting nuisance for readers.

Many templates for category headers etc use a #ifexist to determine whether to link to a particular portal. If the portal exists, they don't know whether it is a real portal or just a redirect, so they too will produce duplicate links. I created {{ExistNotRedirect}} to try to work around this, but I found it tedious to deploy it widely, and it's much simpler to just delete these useless redirects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 29 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.

U.S. State redirects to Portal:United States[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. The author is requesting deletion (ongoing). kingboyk (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target is too broad.

These redirects were created all created by User:Buaidh, after the deletion at MFD of these portals for relatively minor states. This was unhelpful, because the Portal:United States has very little material directly related to each of these states.

These redirects don't help reduce redlinks; instead they create pointless bluelinks. Links to portals are nearly all generated by templates such as {{Portal}}, which generate a link only if the target exists. So without a redirect from Portal:Idaho, the code {{Portal|United States}} produces one link, to Portal:United States. {{Portal|United States}} But with the redirect, it produces a link to both Portal:United States and Portal:Idaho ... but since the latter is a redirect, that's two adjacent links to the same page, one of them mislabelled. This a timewasting nuisance for readers.

Many templates for category headers etc use a #ifexist to determine whether to link to a particular portal. If the portal exists, they don't know whether it is a real portal or just a redirect, so they too will produce duplicate links. I created {{ExistNotRedirect}} to try to workaround this, but it's tedious trying to deploy it in all use cases, and it would be much simpler to just delete these useless redirects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:04, 29 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.

Template:Drishyam character map[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) 01:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a character map template anymore. In fact, character map templates should not even exist. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This redirect currently has transclusions that need to be bypassed prior to this redirect being deleted or retargeted. Steel1943 (talk) 01:09, 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.

Portal:Tokelau[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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target is too broad. There is no mention of Tokelau in either the curent target Portal:New Zealand or the previous target Portal:Oceania. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy via G7: nominator is the creator of this redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:BrownHairedGirl is a very experienced admin so I can only assume that if she did not specifically request speedy deletion she prefers the issue to be discussed or believes the page to be ineligible (this revision might be a blocker). --kingboyk (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, @kingboyk, I am not the only substantive editor of the page, so AIUI WP:G7 doesn't apply. Sorry, @UnitedStatesian; I too would like to see it gone quickly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Youd expect the NZ portal to just be about the country and not its wierd territory dependencies.  Nixinova  T  C  01:56, 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.

Vico (pedophile)[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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable title for this redirect; per discussion at ANI, [7] we shouldn’t tag anyone this way in an article title - not even if the person actually is a convicted sex offender. MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, possibly speedily per WP:BLP. The target was convicted of sexual abuse of children, not of paedophilia (not everybody who sexually abuses a child is a paedophile, not everybody who is a paedophile sexually abuses children). Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as the nomination so states. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not have enough notability as a name/term to justify its non-neutrality, not to mention its inflammatory nature. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely known under this title. –Davey2010Talk 13:14, 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.

Swirly faced paedophile[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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable title for this redirect; per discussion at ANI, [8] we shouldn’t tag anyone this way in an article title - not even if the person actually is a convicted sex offender. MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, possibly speedily per WP:BLP. The target was convicted of sexual abuse of children, not of paedophilia (not everybody who sexually abuses a child is a paedophile, not everybody who is a paedophile sexually abuses children). Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The title of the redirect is rather obscure, to say the least. Setting aside the issues of labelling and stigma, it isn't very useful at all; and might, if proliferated, actually hinder the proper functioning of the encyclopedia. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I think "swirly faced" is not inappropriate given that this was how he disguised his identity and that the unswirling done to identify him was a big part of the news stories. It's only the "paedophile" part that I have issue with. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I created this at a time when the police had published photos of a "swirly faced paedophile" all over the world. I accept that his name is now known and that he is less likely to be known by an insulting term like that. Also, Wikipedia's standards have changed since then. Richard Cavell (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not have enough notability as a name/term to justify its non-neutrality, not to mention its inflammatory nature. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not likely known under this title. –Davey2010Talk 13:12, 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.

Angela Allen (paedophile)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 12#Angela Allen (paedophile)

Carl Beech (paedophile)[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 Speedily deleted as an attack page by Writ Keeper Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable title for this redirect; per discussion at ANI, [9] we shouldn’t tag anyone this way in an article title - not even if the person actually is a convicted sex offender. Carl Beech isn’t even a paedophile; he is a person who was convicted for false claims about paedophilia. MelanieN (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely false. Beech is both a false accuser and a paedophile. His case is therefore particularity notable, as he was guilty of the same types of crimes of which he was falsely accusing so many other people.Shakehandsman (talk) 05:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (although it has already been speedy'd?) Carl Beech did admit to child pornography offences in addition to also being convicted for making false allegations against others but I still agree with MelanieN that this is still not an appropriate redirect. LM2000 (talk) 05:38, 29 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.

Alan Webster (paedophile)[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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable title for this redirect; per discussion at ANI, [10] we shouldn’t tag anyone this way in an article title - not even if the person actually is a convicted sex offender. MelanieN (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possibly speedily per WP:BLP. I can't immediately find any sober, reliable sources that describe Webster as a paedophile (which is not the same thing as a child rapist or child sexual abuser, which he is described as). Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not have enough notability as a name/term to justify its non-neutrality, not to mention its inflammatory nature. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom - Should never have been created in the first place. –Davey2010Talk 13:03, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_29&oldid=910647519"