Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 7, 2019.

User:TAypo385.5[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 WP:CSD#G7. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some useless redirect for a typo of my ancient username from 2013, back when I was very young and thought enough people would visit my user page that it would be required. No idea why it even exists, I only found it through trawling through my XTools edit history, which I do when I'm bored sometimes.

G7 territory. Thanks, Cosmo - Skynorth/Cosmohey 22:12, 7 March 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.

Anthony Delgado[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Procedural close since this is the WP:Wrong forum (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Users searching for Anthony Delgado are confronted with a redlink. However, there is a disambiguation page listing five men named Antonio Delgado, one of whom, Antonio Delgado (politician), is a U.S. congressman. Since there may be users who are unaware of which name form to use, Anthony Delgado, which has been protected from editing for a number of years, should redirect to the Antonio Delgado disambiguation page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This is the wrong forum, since at RfD we only discuss redirects which have already been created. Requests to create redirects are at WP:AFC/R. While we're here, I'll leave my feelings on the matter though: Someone searching for an "Anthony Delgado" should rightly be confronted with a redlink since there is nobody with an article who goes by that name. None of the people at Antonio Delgado are known as Anthony as far as I can tell. On the other hand, search results would guide anyone who searches this name to Spain national rugby league team or Villeghailhenc-Aragon XIII, where a rugby player with the name is listed, or Arduin, where an illustrator is listed. -- Tavix (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your help in pointing me towards the correct forum. I will post the request there, along with the alternative proposal that if the initial request is not accepted, Anthony Delgado should be nevertheless unprotected so that it can become the main header of a disambiguation page listing the WP:DABMENTIONS you indicated, with a "See also" pointing to Antonio Delgado. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:54, 7 March 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.

Ibrahim Abdullah[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. Redirects from names to lists are appropriate when such lists are exhaustive for a particular criteria, but not when a list consists solely of notable people (i.e. with an article). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name is not mentioned in the list and shouldn't be. If he is notable there should be an article not just a redirect to a list article. ~ GB fan 20:44, 7 March 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.

Rigani[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 15#Rigani

Main namespace[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 16#Main namespace

List of Pokémon (494-495)[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect didn't make the journey back to List of generation V Pokémon when the list was restored. The list contains much more than these two Pokémon and has been at the wrong target for 9 years. It's safe to say this redirect is not being used, so delete it. -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 7 March 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.

Southern Arabs[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, this is a generic phrase meaning simply "Arabs from the south". Which Arabs you would count as southern would therefore depend on where your context happens to be. The range of denotations is too fluid to pinpoint with a dab page or in a definition in an article. – Uanfala (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to South Arabia, the historical region where they live. Narky Blert (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article makes no mention of them, and it's unlikely it ever will as apparently there's no "them". Again, this is a generic phrase whose meaning will vary, even beyond the limits of Arabia (South or not): I've come across uses where the phrase has been applied to Arabs in Egypt. – Uanfala (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Uanfala is right, the term "Southern Arabs" does not refer to South Arabian, or to South Arabia, it refers to "Arabs from the south". --dab (𒁳) 06:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further disambiguate and note the generic term. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 16:03, 7 March 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.

Tim Apple[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 List of nicknames used by Donald Trump. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Created in wake of a recent news item, however, per WP:NOTNEWS, it is not likely to have any long term significance and this exact name is not mentioned in the target, people would be disappointed. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:52, 7 March 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.

Nergling[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 16#Nergling

Th Greaser Dogs[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 Move to The Greaser Dogs. - Nabla (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible. Who is going to misspell the word "the"? The Greaser Dogs already exists, too. Paper Luigi T • C 13:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is an {{R with history}}, it's required for attribution in the target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After an analysis of the history of the CatDog article in January 2008, there was no merge that took place. Therefore, there is no need to preserve the history per WP:MAD. -- Tavix (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible typo, not likely from stylization. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not move this page to The Greaser Dogs over the exising redirect? I'm not convinced that the history is worth preserving, but since the other page has no significant history of its own this seems to be a fairly cheap solution. Otherwise delete, I see no value in preserving an implauable typo. PC78 (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as improbable typo. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to The Greaser Dogs per PC78. Good compromise! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:34, 15 March 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.

Wikipedia:WikiProjects Location Format[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Declined housekeeping speedy. This is the only erroneous pluralization of WikiProject, and so pollutes the search box when WP:WikiProjects is entered. It also has no inbound links, and points to a purely historical page, making it even less likely to be used or useful. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is an old {{R from move}} and we normally keep those to preserve links. The target describes itself as a WikiProject but looks to me as though it's actually an essay on WP:NCGN, which may have been developed later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – useless and gets in the way. The only incoming internal links relate to this RfD. As a low-profile page in WP: namespace, it's unlikely to have any important incoming external links. Certes (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @UnitedStatesian and Certes: remember that whatlinkshere shows only links in current revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia. Links can also exist in past revisions of en.wp pages, pages on other Wikimedia projects and on any other site on the internet. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that, but that is true for everything that is deleted from the encyclopedia, and I have never seen your logic put forward a keep argument at AfD or CfD. The page exited at the redirect location for less than 3 months in 2005 before the error was corrected. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @UnitedStatesian: the argument is not relevant at AfD because there the content is being deleted and so there is nothing for peopel to find (redirects to deleted content are also deleted); categories are qualitatively different to pages in the article namespace - they're not static, are significantly less likely to be the target of incomming links and there is no way to view the contents of a category at any other moment than the present one so use in old revisions is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "oops" in the move summary means it was clearly created in error, which is one of the G6 bullet points. -- Tavix (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Certes, UnitedStatesian, and Tavix; valueless artifact of brief-lived error.  — Scott • talk 14:59, 8 March 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_March_7&oldid=1130260662"