Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 4, 2019.

Star fox wii[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 15#Star fox wii

Dinosaur Planet (Game)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 15#Dinosaur Planet (Game)

Warpstone (Star Fox)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 15#Warpstone (Star Fox)

G-diffuser[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 F-Zero. Per PC78 (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fancruft, not mentioned on the page. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to F-Zero where it does get a mention. PC78 (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that if it's a minor aspect of more than one game series, it would be better to leave it up to the search function to have people see where it is mentioned instead of sending people to a place they may not want to go.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the only article where it is mentioned so there is no advantage in deleting the redirect for that reason PC78 (talk) 22:37, 4 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.

Solar (Star Fox series)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 15#Solar (Star Fox series)

Cornerian Army[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) 05:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Corneria is already a redirect, but this is unlikely as a redirect, fancrufty and unnecessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:34, 4 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.

Aparoid Homeworld[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) 05:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aparoid already redirects to Star Fox: Assault, but this is unlikely as a redirect and not necessary at all. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:32, 4 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.

E. Michael Jones[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted by El C per criterion G4 (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually am not sure if this should be deleted, and want to bring it here for discussion: This redirect points at a "notable professors" section for a college. However, this subject's article was deleted at AfD in April, which raises the question of whether this professor is actually notable enough to be included in the target (as an AfD discussion determined that Jones is not WikiNotable, although it's not clear if they considered coverage published by advocacy groups in their assessment, [1], [2]).

If the subject is notable enough to stay listed at the target article, then I think this redirect is appropriate. Otherwise, the target should be edited and this redirect should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 18:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commment we don't blank votes either, even if they are our own. We strike them through to show an accurate record of the deletion discussion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notable faculty refers to faculty that meets Wikipedia's notability standards, with both an AFD and a further deletion review determined Jones did not meet. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Consensus was to delete at Afd. Arguments about notability and google search results just don't hold. Mike33 - t@lk 01:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
You only get one vote. Most mentions in both are mostly passing and of dubious reliability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My only one vote becomes stronger. Best, Tobias Epos (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My only one vote becomes stronger. Best, Tobias Epos Tobias Epos (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ☃ —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although entries in an embedded list are not required to be notable as a general rule, it appears that the editors of this article have implicitly agreed to use notability as the criterion for inclusion in this particular embedded list. It's a reasonable criterion and this person does not seem to have met that standard. ElKevbo (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commment …and this person seems to have surpassed that standard.--Tobias Epos (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the subject explicitly failed to meet that standard when the article about him was deleted. ElKevbo (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. The subject either failed to meet that standard or surpassed it. "O ElKevbo, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called 'knowledge'." (1 Timothy 6:20) Tobias Epos (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not entirely sure if this is the right place to bring up this topic but I have a concern regarding Tobias Epos response to this discussion. Specifically his initial response to Roseguill's notification on his taslk page about the redirect being up for deletion. I particularly don't care about the Jimmy Wales part, if you think he's a jerk that's your opinion, but the posting of the the article Israeli Foundation Awards $1 Million Prize to Wikipedia Founder and Others heavily implies that he believes that the decision to delete the redirect is part of some greater "Jewish Conspiracy" when I asked him about why he posted it he did not reply and instead blanked his talk page. I find this behavior incredibly concerning, as there is no place for anti-Semitism or any other form of discrimination on Wikipedia. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. What do you mean with "anti-Semitism"? Wikipedia:Notability (people) does not use this term, but says: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Tobias Epos (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not commenting about notability of the subject. I am talking about your behavior as an editor, specifically an edit that you have made in response to this redirect being up for discussion for deletion. You have still yet to explain yourself. GPL93 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this discussion is sprawling out in a few different directions. It seems like we have three separate issues:
  1. Is it appropriate to have a redirect to (and a listing at) a Notable alumni section for EMJ if he has been deemed to not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines?
  2. Does EMJ actually not meet notability guidelines?
  3. Tobias Epos's behavior in responding to this nomination and in this discussion.
I think that based on the discussion, we seem to essentially have reached a consensus that the answer to 1 is No (i.e. delete). The answer to 2, should editors choose to pursue it, should probably be determined through a formal deletion review. The appropriate venue for 3 is user talk pages followed by WP:ANI if issues cannot be resolved. signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The discussion to delete the previous article was a close call - 5 votes to 4. The party that wanted to keep the article wanted to do so because Jones is "a prolific author", "international commentator", "intellectual". The other party, one user namely, XOR'easter, argued against that Jones is "a prolific author", quoting several reviews of some of his books. I got an impression that his main point was to prove that Jones's "collective body of work" is not seen as "significant or well-known". XOR'easter may prove me wrong. He failed to prove that Jones isn't international commentator or an intellectual. Being a commentator or an intellectual doesn't require form a person to publish several books or his books to be reviewed by other scholars.
Wikipedia defines an intellectual as: "An intellectual is a person who engages in critical thinking, research, and reflection about society, proposes solutions for its normative problems and gains authority as a public figure." Jones certainly fits into this category, and as such he was a commentator on several TV stations, YouTube channels, and was invited to speak in different countries, and therefore can be described as "international commentator".
Another objection of the party that supported the deletion of the article stated that the previous article failed to meet the WP:Notability criteria.To this I object. The google search gives 172,000 results.
So let's make a comparison. Other Catholic intellectuals and activists have less google results, when you type their name. For example Michael Voris has 149,000 results, Christopher Ferrara has 30,700 results, and Juli Loesch has 5,590 results.
The conclusion would be, if we would take the argument that Jones doesn't meet the WP:Notability criteria as valid, that Wikipedia should delete all articles about persons who's search results are equal to or fall below 172,000.
I think that I have covered the main and only two arguments for the deletation of the article about Jones: the value of his written work and his notability.
For the first argument, I claim that it doesn't substantiate the reason for deletion. Regardless of the quality of his work, he can still be described as an intellectual, and is an international commentator and well-known public figure, especially in the Catholic circles.
For the second argument, I claim that it is not valid, as I have demonstrated that Jones indeed meets the WP:Notability criteria. If he doesn't (and he does) Wikipedia would need to delete many more pages.

--Governor Sheng (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRV would be the proper venue to make those arguments. ElKevbo (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I striked my vote. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
XOR'easter referred to sources accessible only by subscription, authored by subjects notably unknown: Michael Tolan (JSTOR 899038), Leslie W. Tentler (JSTOR 25026822), Leland S. Person Jr. (JSTOR 29532898).
"In The Bacchae, as brilliantly explicated by E. Michael Jones, Euripides showed exactly how unsafe sex is when disconnected from the moral order. When Dionysus visits Thebes, he entices King Penthius to view secretly the women dancing naked on the mountainside in Dionysian revelries. Because Penthius succumbs to his desire to see 'their wild obscenities', the political order is toppled, and the queen mother, Agave, one of the bacchants, ends up with the severed head of her son Penthius in her lap — an eerie premonition of abortion." Reilly, Robert R. (March 13, 2013). "What would the Greeks have thought of gay marriage?". LifeSiteNews. Archived from the original on July 12, 2019. Retrieved July 12, 2019.
"Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." Tobias Epos (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC) 16:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
XOR'easter also said that this is not the place to relitigate the original deletion discussion. That discussion already deemed the available sources inadequate for establishing notability, and one unreliable source in addition does not a case make. XOR'easter (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article completely, in order to make it more in line with WP:Notability. --Governor Sheng (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Governor Sheng: Thank you for your courageous act.
Just "one unreliable source in addition":
"A traditionalist critique of the American Catholic Church and birth control, as well as liberal culture is found in E. Michael Jones, John Cardinal Krol and the Cultural Revolution (South Bend, Indiana 1995), especially 227–301." Critchlow, Donald T. (2001). "Chapter 4: The Backlash: Roman Catholics, Contraceptives, Abortion, and Sterilization". Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America (footnote 17) (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 266. ISBN 978-0-19-802153-7.
@XOR'easter: A faux pas by another notability? Tobias Epos (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The new article text did not establish notability any more than the deleted article did. Circumventing the consensus of the Wikipedia community by appealing to a "discussion" in which no one participated is not "courageous". XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I took this over to ANI in the hope that the drama board could bring closure to the interminable affair. By the time I started typing a notice of that over here, the page E. Michael Jonas was deleted and salted. I guess we can close this discussion now. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 14 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.

Church Of The Third Revelation[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) 05:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline fancruft, not mentioned in the target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 4 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.

Cwc19[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) 05:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague...searching online has results "Cricket World Cup 2019" for the first page and no mention of Congress Working Committee(s) signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 4 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.

P:POK[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 15#P:POK

Hoosier Portal[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) 05:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded and unused cross-namespace redirect. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:45, 4 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.

P:medicine and similar[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) 05:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused WP:PNS that aren't correctly formatted (ie. P:Medicine). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:43, 4 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.

What does Shayan mean[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) 05:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A question rather than a proper redirect. noq (talk) 17:38, 4 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.

Lylat system[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 15#Lylat system

Portal:BEP[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 15#Portal:BEP

Sector X[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) 05:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a fairly common sci-fi term that would cause confusion redirecting here. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:37, 4 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.

Orbital Gate[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) 05:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Overly vague to refer to this series in particular. Seems like it would be a common sci-fi term and would cause confusion. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, too vague to be useful. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:32, 8 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.

Katina (Star Fox planet)[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) 05:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not mentioned in the article, and very fancrufty. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:32, 4 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.

Imaginary Number Project[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) 21:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too vague and easily confused to be a viable redirect. Violates WP:INUNIVERSE. (TALK) 13:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ZXCVBNM; too confusing. Matt Deres (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I was thinking this might be some math website, like Pi Project, although the latter would now refer to Raspberry Pi. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:02, 5 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.

The 3 Incidents[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) 21:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too vague to be a viable redirect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:32, 4 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 Front Mission 3 characters[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) 21:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One lacks the "of", the other is miscapitalized. Given that a list article no longer exists, they are unlikely redirects. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No such character list on the article, would disappoint. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:03, 5 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.

Front Mission History[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) 21:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unclear whether it refers to in-universe or real life history; either way, it wouldn't be capitalized. Unnecessary redirect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:13, 4 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.

Muhammad Hussain Shaheed[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 (non-admin closure) — the Man in Question (in question) 16:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page with no matching entry (I checked all the articles). There is a man called Muhammad Hussain Shaheed: a Pakistani general (see Soon Valley), who prima facie meets WP:NSOLDIER. I propose deletion to encourage article creation. Narky Blert (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Shaheed means "martyr", and is used kind of like "saint". For example, Muhammad Hussain Janjua is a shaheed (as said explicitly in his article), sometimes called "Muhammad Hussain Shaheed" in that context. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the Man in Question (who has also given me the info needed to turn the ambiguous link in Soon Valley into a redlink). Narky Blert (talk) 13:04, 9 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.

Cultural enrichment[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 15#Cultural enrichment

Narunga[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 disambiguate. Be bold! (non-admin closure) — the Man in Question (in question) 14:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should be a disambiguation page, because Narunga is also an alternative spelling for Narungga. (Also, the page redirected to doesn't show this spelling, but I'll edit it myself now.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:42, 4 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.

Resident Evil: Begins[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) 20:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in it's targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it's currently unclear whether that name will be used. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's too soon for this and deletion can quickly be reversed if it does in fact become the title of the next film.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 16:55, 4 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 Front Mission 2089-II characters[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 Front Mission 2089-II#Characters. (non-admin closure) ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such list in the targeted article, so the redirect serves no purpose. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:14, 4 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.

Sansuu[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) 20:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English redirect that does not appear in the target article and seems to be from a language not related to the etymology of "Arithmetic". Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 06:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sansuu in English, 100%English, not other any language. Sansuu mean Arithmetic, not 算術 or さんじゅつ. The term "sansuu" are pure English, not any other symbol and other text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmht45tgree3d (talk • contribs) 06:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; doesn't appear to be related to the fundamental concept of arithmetic, and it's 100% not English. If ja:wp has something comparable to our WP:FORRED, they would delete a redirect from ja:Arithmetic to ja:算術 because the English word "Arithmetic" is unrelated to the concept of arithmetic. This is a basic human concept (since the earliest humans, it's been understood that 1+1=2, for example), not something that is particularly related to one culture or one language. Nyttend (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't redirect 算術 since it is not English, but "sansuu" yes, like "Deguo"(Germany) or "Xibanya"(Spain), it is English since it is written within A-Z or a-z. "Pingguo" can refer to "apple". Since riyu pinyin "sansuu" are written in English text, it is not about WP:FORRED problemHmht45tgree3d (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Xibanya and Deguo are nonexistent pages, neither de:Deguo nor es:Xibanya exists either, and Pingguo is a redirect to Pingguo County, a locality in southern China. "Sansuu" is not an English term used for "arithmetic" or for a sub-topic: it's a foreign-language term covered by WP:FORRED. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sansuu is in English as it written within A-Z or a-z, not anything other than English alphabet.Hmht45tgree3d (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That would mean that all basic ASCII titles (except those using numbers and punctuation) would be considered English and exempt from WP:FORRED. You may note that FORRED gives Klimaatverandering as a bad example of a foreign-language redirect, and it's been deleted because of FORRED (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 3#Klimaatverandering), even though it's only characters used in the English alphabet. Nyttend (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To be clear, Hmht45tgree3d, when we say it is not English, we're not talking about the script, we're talking about the language. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:22, 7 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_4&oldid=1166717290"