Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 5, 2019.

Ekmaniana hemithrinax[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) 21:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverses order of species and genus name. Not a plausible search term Plantdrew (talk) 23:45, 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.

Brazilian locations with Spanish titles[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) 21:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect from the Spanish translations of these titles is unnecessary for locations in Brazil per WP:FORRED. signed, Rosguill talk 20:44, 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.

Other races[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. Was deleted due to request by author. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Too vague to be useful. Even if we assume that race has to refer to Race (human categorization), "other races" doesn't necessarily refer to minority groups. signed, Rosguill talk 20:42, 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.

Wally pipp's revenge[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) 21:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the connection (AML eventually killed Lou Gehrig, the baseball player who replaced Wally Pipp on the Yankees), I don't see any mention of this at the target or searching online, and no indication that this is a term that is in use at all. signed, Rosguill talk 20:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like a joke. Theoretically could be in use in some community, but without any written references, that can't be assumed. — the Man in Question (in question) 13:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dark humor that doesn't really come off as either well-used or funny. Nate • (chatter) 00:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 17 years as an ALS researcher, never heard the slightest mention of this. PaulWicks (talk) 12:37, 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.

Mathew Inns[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) 20:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem like a particularly plausible typo to me, but maybe I'm missing something. signed, Rosguill talk 20:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A Google search brings up various people with that name, but nothing for the comedian Mat Ewins. Doesn't seem plausible to me. PC78 (talk) 10:31, 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.

Dramatic arts[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. All keep consensus. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88(talk) 01:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind a rather poor redirect, as its lemma as such is not even mentioned once within the given target. Hildeoc (talk) 19:36, 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.

Portal:AR[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) 20:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ambiguous target. I am leaving it off so you can guess: is it Portal:Arkansas (US postal code)? Portal:Argentina (internet TLD)? Portal:Animal rights? Portal:Australian roads? No, silly, it is Portal:Ancient Rome! UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:10, 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.

Interwiki links[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) 20:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not have cross-wiki article soft redirects. GZWDer (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree. Redlinks provide greater encouragement of article creation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just came across one of these and was very surprised. --Gonnym (talk) 12:37, 6 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.

Aaj Kal[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 Liz per criterion G4. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect page was deleted as per the discussion on May 31. But User:Krimuk2.0 has created this redirect again. Joseph 💬 10:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! Incorrect. I did not create it. YAP123456 did. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:07, 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.

DTNS[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) 18:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect doesn't seem to have an anchor or reference in the target page, and needs a redirect for another page (Royal District Nursing Service (South Australia). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Redirect is for initials of subject's podcast; it seems like most of the details aren't in the subject's article, so releasing the redirect may be for the best here as the rd creator. Nate • (chatter) 00:54, 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.

Clippers[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. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clipper (disambiguation) or create a new "Clippers" DAB page since there are quite a few others at intitle:"Clippers". The sailboat is primary in the category namespace for the plural at Category:Clippers. While the LA team do get more views than a selection the ship and tools are full matches for "Clippers", its just a WP NC that we use the singular for articles but objects are frequently pluralized in the world at large. While the term "Clippers" for the LA team is just an abbreviation. By PT#2 the LA team clearly isn't primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the LA Clippers are a clear primary topic for the plural form "Clippers". All historic terms prefer the singular, and the other teams named "Clippers" are much less prominent. signed, Rosguill talk 18:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    But the historic terms are known as "Clippers" even if WP titles them in the singular, with "Clippers" just being an abbreviation, prominence of the team against the objects is irrelevant since the team would usually be searched for with "Los Angeles Clippers". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Editors may be interested in the related move discussion at Talk:Ravens#Requested_move_10_May_2019 (in which Clippers came up as an example). I looked at around a dozen examples of plural names of major sports teams, and found a fairly even split between names that redirect to the singular ptopic (e.g. Dolphins -> Dolphin), and ones that went to a dab page in spite of the existence of a singular ptopic (e.g. Kings, Pistons). Clippers was the only example I saw that was a primary redirect to the sports team. So there's an argument for making the proposed move for consistency. But then Clipper is a fairly obscure ptopic compared to Dolphin, Titan, King, Piston, etc. Colin M (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The ship may be obscure but the tools such as Hedge clipper, Nail clipper and Hair clipper aren't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, though how much that influences how to handle this case depends on to what degree you think of those as WP:PARTIAL matches. It might be prudent to put this request on hold until the move request at Talk:Clipper (disambiguation) is resolved. Colin M (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't the various tools called that to disambiguate from one and other but are otherwise called just "clipper(s)". When I put "Clippers" into a Google Image search I get (yes commercial) results for hair clippers at the top. In other words a "clipper" is a tool used for cutting things and we have articles on hair, hedge and nail clippers but its possible that an article on the tool clippers in general could be written. Unless there's a desire to point the plural "Clippers" to what ever is at "Clipper" (that is to say point it at the ship if that's at the base name and the DAB if not) then it won't affect this RFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The connection between this and the RM is that both are affected by the question of whether to count Nail clipper, Hedge clipper, and Hair clipper as being on equal footing with Clipper (ship) as candidate targets for someone searching for "clipper". Nail clipper and Hair clipper are the two pages with the next highest views after Clipper (ship), so if we treat them as mere partial title matches, the argument that Clipper (ship) doesn't get a high enough share of views to qualify as PTOPIC by usage is significantly diminished.
    Once again, our Googles are speaking different languages. When I search google image search for "clippers" the first page of images is all related to the basketball team (same with the first page of results for a web search). When I do a google image search for "clipper", I get one image of a hair clipper (halfway down the first page of results), and 23 images of lighters. Colin M (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think its a bit late to put this on hold anyway but having the discussions at the same time may be helpful in that ideas from both can be added to the other discussion.
    Indeed apart from the commercial results at the top of a Google Image search all the results are for sports teams (presumably the LA team). Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the stats alone, LA Clippers would seem to be primary with respect to usage. But there are two other factors to consider:
  1. Readers searching for the basketball team (or the other two lesser-known Clippers sports teams) will always use the plural form. Readers searching for the ship will rarely use the plural form. Readers searching for hair, nail, or hedge clippers will use some mix of singular and plural (though the corresponding article titles are all singular).
  2. Clippers is an abbreviation of Los Angeles Clippers, but is the full name of the ship (albeit pluralized). Crouch, Swale evinces a theory in which "clipper(s)" is also the full name when referring to hair, nail, and hedge clippers (and that the qualifiers "hair", "nail", and "hedge" are just extra, optional words that may be added to disambiguate). I don't agree. "Clipper(s)" can be used as a shorthand to refer to hair clippers or nail clippers or hedge clippers, if it's clear from context which kind is being talked about. "Clippers" by itself could also refer to the whole class of things that clip (including hair, nail, and hedge clippers), though it doesn't seem like that'd come up much.
Point 1 adds to the argument for keeping. Point 2 adds to the argument for moving, but I don't find it very compelling. The basketball team is commonly referred to as just the "Clippers", and it's easy to imagine someone who wants to read about them using that as a search term. It's harder for me to imagine someone searching for "Clippers" and expecting to find information about the type of ship, or the devices for cutting hair/nails/hedges. If I want information about nail clippers, I'm going to search for "nail clippers". Colin M (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Readers searching for the sports teams will likely use the full name when searching. Also although nail clippers its self might be a PTM for "clippers" as noted the tools in general aren't and as ThoughtIdRetired noted it is usually in the plural form possibly coming close to Scissors. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Readers searching for the sports teams will likely use the full name when searching. Not so for the major sports leagues in North America. Their names are generally the city name followed by the team mascot name, e.g. Los Angeles Lakers or Boston Celtics. Many would refer to them without the city name e.g. Lakers, Celtics. This in in contrast to football/soccer teams around the world e.g. Manchester City F.C. or Juventus F.C..—Bagumba (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lakers and Celtics appear to be unambiguous (at least they don't have an article at the singular form) and it was claimed at Talk:Hearts (card game)#Primary topic that Heart of Midlothian F.C. is often called just "Hearts" but as can be seen at Talk:Hearts#Requested move 16 March 2019 I only stated that the team was a minor contender for plain "Hearts" although because of the number of other well known things called "Hearts" I didn't think the plural should redirect to the organ (but if it was only between the organ and FC I would definitely support the organ being primary) and as noted the organ isn't commonly known in the plural form while the tools (and presumably ship) are. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that it was incorrect to say for North America teams that Readers searching for the sports teams will likely use the full name when searching.. That's unrelated to Heart of Midlothian F.C. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But couldn't that argument also be made for Heart of Midlothian F.C. to? even if many people call the team just "Clippers" in every day speech etc they're surely more likely to include "Los Angeles" or "LA" in the search box? How is Heart of Midlothian F.C. significantly different to Los Angeles Clippers? Surely both are colloquially known by their shorter name but people on WP would likely use the full name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be flippant, it's just that I have no knowledge about Heart of Midlothian F.C., so I care not to comment about it. But I have first-hand knowledge about N.A. teams, and it is quite common to drop the city name. Nobody would argue that Jets should redirect to New York Jets, but Clipper gets 1/10 the views of Los Angeles Clippers. See this recent article in The New York Times. There's 3 mentions of "Los Angeles Clippers" out of about 30 instances "Clippers". It is quite common for a non-fan to know some team mascot names but not know what city they play in. If I Google "Clippers", the top hits are for the LA team.—Bagumba (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Clipper (disambiguation) - Fails WP:RPURPOSE because editors should never use a wikilink like Clippers to refer to a sports team in article prose, nor for any of the many other very common meanings of the word - its lazy editing and bad writing to do so. -- Netoholic @ 11:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What? There are lots of redirects that should never be linked from articles. Common misspellings are one obvious example. Colin M (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Readers would enter "Clippers" looking for the team. As for editors, you would formally refer to the full name (Los Angeles Clippers) on first mention, and rarely link again, even to Clippers, per MOS:REPEATLINK. Then there's the crowd that never follows WP:NOTBROKEN and would anyways change [[Clippers]] to [[Los Angles Clippers|Clippers]].—Bagumba (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Not the primary topic in Columbus and Baltimore, so not primary on a US national or worldwide basis. Topic with greater long-term significance is the people who sail clippers (from which the sports teams derive their names); an argument may be made that this could redirect to Clipper as an {{R from plural}}. wbm1058 (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dubious claims about primary topic, given that the Columbus Clippers and Baltimore Clippers are both minor league teams, while the LA Clippers are from the second largest US city and in the second most popular sports league in North America. As for page views, the LA team average 4000/day; Columbus, 400; Baltimore, 30. Clipper (the ship) gets 400 daily views. As for significance, both Los Angeles Clippers and Clipper are listed in Encylopedia Brittanica.—Bagumba (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Both "Clipper" and "Clippers" are ambiguous on Brittanica; their articles are titled Clipper ship and Los Angeles Clippers. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also point out the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 8#Category:Wool clippers where it appears that the category, Category:Clippers was assumed to be about the tools, not ships. Even if the article isn't moved I still think we should disambigaute that category and include Category:Los Angeles Clippers on the DAB (and any others). Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Clipper (disambiguation) as clippers is often used as the default name (à la scissors, trousers, etc.) for hair clipper, nail clipper, hedge clipper, and similar tools that have been around a lot longer than the sports team. Second choice would be to disambiguate. I concur that readers specifically looking for the team are more likely to search with a term like "LA Clippers". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Clipper (disambiguation) as nail clippers and hedge clippers are still widely used, as with Warriors, Kings, Blues, as opposed to Lakers, Celtics or Yankees. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Talk:Clipper (disambiguation)#Requested move 26 June 2019 has been closed as no consensus but I still support redirecting "Clippers" to Clipper (disambiguation) not to Clipper even though the latter would match the singular since it seems like this is one of the cases where the plural is more ambiguous, especially given that it seems that the tools are more commonly known in the plural form. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Clipper (disambiguation). Speaking of which, I am probably due for a haircut via hair clippers. Steel1943 (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Clipper (disambiguation) - there is no primary topic.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that The Clippers also redirects to the LA team, I think based on the 2 "keep" !votes that even if we retarget "Clippers" to the DAB page, "The Clippers" should continue to target the LA team and the hatnote to the DAB page can be kept. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at Los Angeles Clippers. With all due respect to the hair clipper and lawn clipper arguments, I honestly rarely hear people refer to them as generic clippers, referring usually to the specific type instead, while U.S. sports teams are often referred to without specifying their city. Also the recent page views of Clippers, spiking by +200 in the last couple of days, which coincides with breaking news of the basketball team acquiring Kawhi Leonard and Paul George, reinforces my belief that the team is the proper target. There's also the stats that Colin M presented above.—Bagumba (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's funny, even winning an NBA championship for Toronto wasn't enough to make Raptors primary, despite the page views. But, Kawhi moves to LA, and that's enough justification to support PT even though he hasn't yet played in a game for them? WP:RECENTISM. wbm1058 (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Funnier: your straw man. Is this a Raptors redirect?—Bagumba (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, Raptors is a {{R from ambiguous term}} and {{R from plural}} redirect which has never redirected to Toronto Raptors. Editors have attempted to claim primary topic for "dromaeosaurs" of Jurassic Park fame (the basis of the basketball team's name) and "the best hostel wing at IIT Bombay". Raptor (bird) has a weak claim given that it is a lesser-used alternative term for bird of prey. Given that the feathered dinosaurs are even further in the past and more forgotten than Clipper ships (until the film franchise resurrected them), and the NBA team is even more dominant in page views (though Dromaeosauridae did pass them for one day at the end of June), Toronto has a stronger claim to PT for their NBA team than LA, yet I haven't seen anybody lobbying for that.
        • I honestly rarely hear people refer to them as generic clippers, referring usually to the specific type instead, while U.S. sports teams are often referred to without specifying their city. I suppose especially in LA where "Los Angeles" is ambiguous between the Clippers and the Lakers. But what you're missing is the context, where "Clippers" is almost always used in the context of basketball. "The Clippers extended their winning streak to six games with their win at Chicago" (neither minor league team plays road games in that city). But imagine Lester Holt announcing on the evening news, "The Clippers' chartered jet made an emergency landing in Phoenix after an engine failed, but no one on board was hurt. You're saying that there would be no need to say "Los Angeles" or "NBA team" in a generic use like that? After a week, the "Kawhi spike" has already reverted back to the norm. wbm1058 (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Given that the feathered dinosaurs are even further in the past and more forgotten than Clipper ships ... Toronto has a stronger claim to PT ... Still on that Raptors straw man? Incidentally, you should heed your admonishment of RECENTISM with that logic.—Bagumba (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're saying that there would be no need to say "Los Angeles" or "NBA team" in a generic use like that? Redirects aid in searches. They are not meant to imply the full name should not be used upon first mention in formal writing. You surely are not saying that Obama, Merkel or Reagan should not be redirects because we would introduce them by their full name also?—Bagumba (talk) 07:50, 17 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.

Xbox compatible[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 24#Xbox compatible

C33H40N4O6[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) 18:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C33H40N4O6 was created by mistake: formula of Phycocyanobilin is …H38… not …H40…. There is no molecule in enWiki with formula C33H40N4O6. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If there is no Wikipedia article for any chemical compound that matches this molecular formula, the redirect should be deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirect is now tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:52, 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.

Pakistani actors and actresses[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all except Sabeena Farooq. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
rest of the list (117 more)
Discussion (Pakistani actors and actresses)[edit]

This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 16#Ahmed Hassan (actor) as well as a series of nominations starting with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 15#Maryam Noor. Same rationale applies: these people are not mentioned at the respective targets, nor would they because it is a list of notable people only. -- Tavix (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All but the first redirect were not tagged. I'm tagging them now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Redirects for BLP's should not exist if the redirect target is a simple list, especially if many aren't included in the list article. Ajf773 (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot. The target pages are useless to anyone seeking information about these people. PC78 (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:LISTPEOPLE "In other cases, editors choose even more stringent requirements, such as already having an article written (not just qualifying for one), or being notable specifically for reasons related to membership in this group. This is commonly used to control the size of lists that could otherwise run to hundreds or thousands of people, such as the List of American film actresses." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although the list includes all the non notable actors but one of them Sabeena Farooq is a notable actress and i made her article so i am requesting removed Sabeena from this list. 196.62.187.50 (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's no longer a redirect, so done! — the Man in Question (in question) 13:38, 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.

Chinese and Japanese names of the United States[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 15#Chinese and Japanese names of the United States

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_5&oldid=1138582698"