Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 16, 2019.

Black Christmas (2019 film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect could, should, and will become its own article. However, it currently just points to a section in the original film's page. In addition, there is currently a draft for this article in the Draft space and without this redirect in the way, it will allow more editors to discover the draft and make it easier to move it from Draft space into Main space once the draft is considered of acceptable quality. So I'm requesting the redirect be deleted. TheSameGuy (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure what the standards of this is but sure it seems to make sense.★Trekker (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until such time as the draft is ready for mainspace. Until then this redirect leads to relevant content. Deleting it now won't help anyone. PC78 (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Already in valid use as a redirect on half a dozen articles. The current Rfd template breaks that redirect so the sooner this is sorted the better. I've added a {{R with possibilities}} which links to the draft, allowing it to be more easily found and edited. Grutness...wha? 07:08, 19 June 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.

Combat skills[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) 22:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overly vague search term, could plausibly refer to almost any combat-related article signed, Rosguill talk 21:00, 16 June 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.

Political factions of the Joseon Dynasty[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 Political factions in Joseon dynasty. I'm essentially "withdraw"-ing this discussion, given the discovery of the proposed target. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing/inaccurate redirect, considering that the reader will not find what they are looking for since the target is a "faction", whereas the searcher of this redirect would be expecting to find a list of "factions". In addition, what is odd is that this redirect has incoming links, and there is no guarantee that the incoming links are intended for this target; this makes me assume that there is either a valid retarget option for this redirect and/or it needs to be converted to an article or deleted per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 17:59, 16 June 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.

Sarim[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 Discussion moved to Talk:Sarim#Requested move 17 June 2019 since this is actually a move request. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be a primary topic here. Suggest removing the redirect and replacing with the disambiguation page. Paul_012 (talk) 16:09, 16 June 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.

Nuea[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 25#Nuea

Bowling shoe[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/withdrawn by nom. PC78 (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling shoes aren't discussed in the target or any other article, so someone who searches for one of these is left none the wiser. Given the existence of articles for many other types of shoe, the tenth point of WP:RDEL might apply. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There was information in the article when the redirect was created. It seems to have been removed with this edit in 2015 by Dpmuk with the summary "Way too much emphasis on ten-pen bowling for an article on bowling in general. This section belongs in the ten pin bowling article if anywhere"). The information was not present in the Ten pin bowling article at that time and I've not found evidence it was merged in later. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could the section on bowling shoes from that removed content form the basis of a standalone article? Just a thought. Failing that there is at least a brief mention at Bowling alley. PC78 (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or the section that was removed could just be restored... see below for my currently overly invested view on this redirect. Not having something on Wikipedia on bowling shoes is just silly. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I’m currently bowling as I type for the first time in a decade. I looked this up as a reader. In my view a redirect to bowling, even if the shoes are not discussed, is better than nothing. We would look ridiculous if it just went to a blank page saying the article doesn’t exist. In short, keep because Tony the reader who is currently bowling and knows enough about Wikipedia to comment here finds it useful. If I find it useful others likely will. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've restored the equipment section. I cut out a bit of the specific ten-pin equipment that was removed in that edit so it has a better chance of sticking in such a broad article, leaving balls, pins (which I've rewritten from Bowling pin to incorporate the various types of pins), and shoes. -- Tavix (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Tavix. I'm happy to withdraw this if there's no objections from anyone else. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:41, 20 June 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.

Kap He Chom Khrueang Khao Wan[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) 22:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonable redirect. The Kap He Chon Khrueang Khao Wan is a huge poem that mentions dozens of food dishes. It is unreasonable to redirect it to just one of them. Paul_012 (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. Unreasonable indeed. Big surprise. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mr. Guye. Normally in situations like this, I would vote to disambiguate, but here a disambiguation page would be ludicrous. Plus it’s an unreasonable search term in my opinion. James-the-Charizard (talk) 02:18, 19 June 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.

Ahmed Hassan (actor)[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) 22:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect (which is in use) to a list article which contains nothing relevant. There is no actor on the DAB page Ahmed Hassan. I propose deletion to encourage article creation, if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 10:20, 16 June 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.

GitHub Atom[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deletion of this redirect because no other articles link to this redirect and one uses this name (there are no relevant Google search results). The most recent contributor Brian Kendig approves of this deletion. Anton.bersh (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Developed by GitHub, and named "atom". Seems like a plausible redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' per Steel1943. I'm not sure what google query the nominator was using, but when I search for GitHub Atom as an exact phrase I see only results related to the target. The lack of links from articles on en.wp is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible redirect, especially since the main article is disambiguated. — Newslinger talk 22:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't add a redirect for every "[Companyname] [Productname]", and there's nothing special about "Github Atom". Neither the first page of Google search results on that name, nor the Atom home page itself, have any specific references to "Github Atom". - Brian Kendig (talk) 14:36, 17 June 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.

Sack of Florence[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 25#Sack of Florence

Kill on sight[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) 22:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure this term is used for more things than just bot-enforced Usenet bans. . .  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, that is, this redirect should be killed on sight, on this site. And, per nom, it has many possible meanings besides this one. --A D Monroe III(talk) 14:05, 17 June 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.

Newspaper.com[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 25#Newspaper.com

Personified Fear[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) 22:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personified Fear appears to refer to a glitch on the PS1, but the article doesn't say anything about it. I think this is better off as a redlink. signed, Rosguill talk 02:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Check for notability, if it’s notable, I say keep and create a section for it, if it’s not very notable, then I say delete. James-the-Charizard (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Searching online, I see a Medium post, some Youtube videos, and fandom wiki articles. So it's probably not notable. signed, Rosguill talk 00:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then I vote to delete for lack of notability. James-the-Charizard (talk) 01:19, 17 June 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.

Photo finishing[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not included in given target. See WP:R#PLA. Hildeoc (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:58, 16 June 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.

C.F. Hanon[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. ST47 (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see a valid reason that this should point to the French musician. C.L. Hanon, perhaps, but not C.F.. Does not appear to be a plausible typo. Onel5969 TT me 19:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Onel5969. I am the author of the redirect and I see your point. I created it when editing the page Adam Rafferty which refers to Rafferty's work: Rafferty, Adam. "How to Develop Virtuoso Technique for Jazz Guitar - based on "The Virtuoso Pianist" by C.F. Hanon".
I have written to Rafferty asking if he meant CL Hanon and await a reply. Regards DadaNeem (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Onel5969: I've merged these two into a single discussion, hope you don't mind! PC78 (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for doing that, PC78 - wasn't sure how to do it, so thanks for taking care of it for me. And DadaNeem - thanks for looking into the matter. Just reviewed a whole bunch of your redirects, and these were the only two I found issue with. I simply couldn't see a connection. Onel5969 TT me 22:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the interest everybody. I got a reply from Adam Rafferty that indicates he made a typo in his book title. Before that gets corrected I suggest we delete the C.F. Hanon redirects. As Hanon redirects to Charles-Louis Hanon I've edited the Adam Rafferty page that way. An especial thanks to Onel5969 TT me for finding my mistake and checking out the rest as well! Best DadaNeem (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The existence of this error in the Rafferty work makes it plausible: someone might encounter that work and decide to look up C.F. Hanon. WP:RDELETE#2 refers to a similar situation (a source calls Andrew Smith "Adam Smith" by mistake) and advocates deleting it lest confusion result with the real Adam Smith, but I think that's less likely with initials, and we don't appear to have any actual C.F. Hanons with whom to confuse this person. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend. I quite often create redirects from typos, misspellings or misnomers that appear in books (though as yet none that appear in books' titles): Lauren Persus Hickok, John Jones Hooper, Emmeline Stuart Worthey, Theodore Schulz, Ernestine Ross, etc. (I usually leave a note in the edit summary indicating where I found the error so as to avoid any confusion on the part of other editors.) I think it's reasonable to imagine that someone reading the book might come here for more information and be well served by redirects like these. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:03, 16 June 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.

Justin Smollett[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion at Talk:Jussie Smollett#Government name. There are no sources verifying that this is his real name, and was subsequently removed from the article. Since this is not his real name, keeping the redirect would only cause confusion Mysticair667537 (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Even if Justin is not his real name, it has been reported as his real name in the past, so it's plausible as a redirect. It can be tagged as {{R from incorrect name}} if it's been confirmed as incorrect. -- Tavix (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. We have plenty of redirects for erroneous names if people are likely to use them by mistake; it would be silly to delete Geroge Bush merely because nobody has that name. And that's just a typo, which nobody will use intentionally; the discussion at talk demonstrates that people are likely to look for this fellow under the name of "Justin". Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, from Talk:Jussie Smollett: "BIRTH NAME – PLEASE READ: The use of primary sources in general, and the California Birth Index and FamilySearch in particular, to source claims that the given name of this subject at birth was anything other than their current name is precluded by the Biographies of living persons policy (BLP), specifically WP:BLPPRIMARY." This redirect is an unsourced BLP violation. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is reported in at least one reliable source: the BBC News that the subject's "real name" is Justin, The Washington Times consistently names him has "Justin Smullet" but notes he is better known as "Jussie Smullet" (the consensus at RSN seems to be that the Washington Times is borderline reliable). Raw Story use Justin in the headline and Jussie in the article. There are also tons of unreliable sources that use the name Justin - that they are unreliable is irrelevant for the purposes of this redirect, what matters is that it is very plausible someone will search for him using "Justin" and they should be taken directly to the article about the person they are definitely looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix and Thryduulf. Tbhotch's delete !vote is unconvincing as it rests on the belief that the existence of this redirect constitutes a claim that his given name is Justin — however it doesn't, anymore than (to use Nyttend's example) the existence of Geroge Bush constitutes a claim that that is or was the name of the presidents or other individuals by that name. We have thousands of Redirects from incorrect names, which obviously do not claim to be the real name (or a real name) of the topic they point to; this is no different. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:09, 16 June 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 from tpyo[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joke redirect. Nardog (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I would normally be against having template redirects from typos, but this is one word that I believe we should be allowed to misspell. Besides, the typo is only visible in edit mode, so it doesn't affect any reader-facing parts of the encyclopedia. – Uanfala (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for same reasons as Uanfala. --Pokechu22 (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not want to encourage inside jokes in the "live" part of the encyclopedia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, half per humour, half per WP:CHEAP. It's also actually in use. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is mostly that this use does not seem to have been humourous, but rather unintentional. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Headbomb. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, it is misspellt - Nabla (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Headbomb and Uanfala. There is no actual benefit to the encyclopaedia from deleting this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible misspelling, per Uanfala. James-the-Charizard (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Although I don't think humour is a valid reason to keep, it doesn't seem that implausible to me. PC78 (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep harmless, and a plausible misspelling. signed, Rosguill talk 02:24, 23 June 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_June_16&oldid=903464823"