Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 6, 2019.

Elmira-Corning, NY Combined Statistical Area[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. Lack of any consensus for a retarget indicates deletion is the best result. RL0919 (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect and not discussed at target.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix. - PaulT+/C 17:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear consensus for a while. What is the best retarget location?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't remember the last time I encountered a statistical-area name that was redirected to one of the principle cities. Standard practice for single-county statistical areas (whether metropolitan, like Ithaca, NY MSA, or micropolitan, like Rock Springs, WY μSA) is to redirect to the county, while standard practice for all CSAs (since by definition they're multi-county) and multi-county MSAs and μSAs is to create separate articles. We don't have any articles that cover this region (the Southern Tier is seven or fourteen counties, far broader than this CSA); nothing that has been proposed is an appropriate target. Deletion makes it obvious that we don't have an article on this topic. Nyttend (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nyttend. A redlink will encourage article creation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not opposed to deletion, though as noted above, there are probably others that need the same treatment. --BDD (talk) 14:32, 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.

Bathroom plant[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) 04:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that this is an alternate name for the target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The term does not refer to any one particular plant. PC78 (talk) 23:06, 6 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.

Rave Dubin[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) 04:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silly misspelling, I don't see it being very useful. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. This is a parody twitter account meant to poke fun at Dave Rubin. I did find this YouTube video mentioning "Rave Dubin" but that was about it. I therefore don't think people are really likely to search for this term. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless said parody warrants a mention in the article I don't see any value in having this redirect. PC78 (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is exceedingly insubstantial. There is no need to perpetuate mere silliness. Bus stop (talk) 04:29, 14 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.

United States Court of Appeals for the Zeroth Circuit[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. Deryck C. 12:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, I don't see any indication that this is a name that is used to refer to the court based on an internet search. signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, if this existed to any usable degree, I would have heard of it. I also find no reliable source making such a reference. The only book I found using such a name was not referring to the DC Circuit, but to a hypothetical nonexistent circuit for a moot court question. bd2412 T 19:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is analogous to things like Windows 9. When you have a series of concepts known by numbers, and either you have a gap in the numbers or you have something known by a name, someone's going to wonder what happened to the missing number or what number the named item has. Someone trying to find the DC Circuit by number will quickly see that there is no United States Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Circuit, so it's reasonable to wonder if it's #0. This is a good deal more relevant for the DC Circuit than for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in my opinion, since the latter isn't as widely known; you don't hear about high-profile lawsuits against acts of Congress being filed in the Federal Circuit like you do in the DC Circuit. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see where you're coming from, but this is just WP:MADEUP. See "United States Court of Appeals for the Zeroth Circuit" -wikipedia, where at least one of the two (!) results is still just drawing from Wikipedia data. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While this is analogous to other construction like it which have articles, those subjects have actual references. Qwirkle (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just being formal about it—see my comment above. --BDD (talk) 14:38, 14 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.

Alliance of the Libertarian Left[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 25#Alliance of the Libertarian Left

Horizontal Polka[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. kingboyk (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slang/euphemism not mentioned at target. A couple (probably non-notable) songs use this phrase as a title. Delete or disambiguate. Plantdrew (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless it's the name of a popular song, but then the redirect would likely already be an article. —PaleoNeonate – 07:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not sure since it's slang for the act and redirects are cheap. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. Not mentioned at the target article here and shouldn't be. It's a real term, but there must be 60 million slang terms and euphemisms for this act; we can't list them all or they would overwhelm the target article. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect This term is not mentioned in the target article. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --kingboyk (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Adding slang, especially sexual slang or other particularly volatile, ephemeral forms, is a Fool's errand. This is for dictionaries, not encyclopedias. Qwirkle (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need redirects, soft or otherwise, for non-encyclopaedic slang. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:32, 7 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_6&oldid=903389633"