Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 27, 2019.

AEW[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:SNOW Keep. Requested on my talk by starship.paint, but regardless it's SNOWing here.

No closing comment on changing links, except to say that it's probably best not to do so for the very link currently under discussion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose redirect to All Elite Wrestling as primary topic based on vastly superior page views. - starship.paint (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • All Elite Wrestling averaged 13,802 views per day [1] from day before article start of 31 December 2018 to 26 May 2019 and was in the top 1000 most viewed pages for April 2019.
  • Airborne early warning and control averaged 518 views per day [2] from 1 July 2015 (no older records) to 3 November 2018 (before All Elite Wrestling was applied as a trademark).
  • Even at All Elite Wrestling's lowest daily viewership (4,049 views on first day of creation 1 January 2019) - it's still more than twice of the highest daily viewership of Airborne early warning and control (1,701 views on 14 April 2018). starship.paint (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oknazevad, STATicVapor, Aldis90, NiD.29, and Enochlau: - creators of the redirect / disambiguation or the people who responded to my previous BOLD edit to redirect. starship.paint (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – This is what the majority of readers will be looking for. It at least needs to be the disambiguation page. StaticVapor message me! 01:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is far too soon. AEW is a well-established term in aeronautics. The current destination on AEW&C is a relative neologism incorporating two separate topics, while the wrestling usage has current popularity as much because because it is new as anything else. A propsal to merge AEW (disambiguation) in here might stand more chance, but even that is still too soon. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now per Steelpillow. While I expect that the change might need to be made eventually, only three days after the wrestling promotion's first ever event is too soon to determine definitively, as the recent stream of news related to it likely inflating the readership, and longer-term significance can't yet be established. I'm wary of changing a well-established redirect of a technical term with such short term results. oknazevad (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steelpillow and Oknazevad: - assuming the exact same continued popularity, after how long would it be the right time? starship.paint (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The right time is when somebody goes, "heck, it's high time this was updated, the wrestling usage is more than a mere local US thing now and has been in use so long it has eclipsed the much older worldwide usage - and I have the stats to prove it." Until then, it should stay as is. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk)
  • Oppose no need to change a well established and widely known usage for something new and little known. MilborneOne (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The wrestling usage fails to meet the criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which emphasises primacy of both usage and long-term significance. It is far too early to determine the latter. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you say it's early, do you have a concept of when would it be the right time? starship.paint (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we're comparing a concept first implemented in 1945 with a series of events backed by a company founded less than 6 months ago. I can't see how the usage criterion could justifiably override the long-term significance within less than a decade or so! Rosbif73 (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Thanks for clarifying Rosbif73. starship.paint (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The question the OP hasn't addressed is the actually important one: how many people are typing "AEW" into the search bar, looking for the article on the wrestling promotion? Raw pageviews of articles don't really tell us much, since most readers are likely hitting the articles via google (especially pop culture stuff). A better way to evaluate this is to look at how many people are hitting the dab page. There was a large spike in pageviews for the AEW (disambiguation) page in January 2019, coinciding with when the organization was announced, but that spike has since dropped off significantly. Given the stability of page views over the long term, we can safely assume the increased volume comes from the wrestling promotion, but, the drop off suggests that those concerned with WP:RECENTISM have a valid point. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Parsecboy: - this isn't an argument against you, just a question. I recently linked the All Elite Wrestling page directly on Airborne early warning and control. As such, if viewers are not going to the disambiguation page, there would be no longer be any way to determine how many people are typing "AEW" into the search bar, looking for the article on the wrestling promotion, right? starship.paint (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but you did that today; it would have no relevance to the steep drop off since January. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Parsecboy: - yes, I did. As I said, I wasn't arguing against your point. I am actually referring to future views. starship.paint (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose AEW has put on one show, it could easily be WP:RECENTISM if the promotion were to vanish at this point. I think its best to move the disambiguation page to AEW, for now. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, period. This is supposedly an encyclopedia-in-the-making, not a supermarket checkout line magazine. A long-term technical subject with scholarly research should always trump advertising ephemera. Qwirkle (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's hardly a good argument. Whilst I agree oppose, saying that no matter what, a technical subject should defeat a company is ridiculous. If All Elite Wrestling had the notability of the WWE, then it would make complete sense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Were one to have an article about a company, that is. At the moment the article is advertising ephemera, and likely to remain so for at least a few years. Qwirkle (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Looking at wikipolicy on the subject of Primary Topic, we have "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". At this time I don't see that a wrestling team ticks the boxes for having the greater enduring notability across the English-speaking world nor the educational value. This wrestling group is too recent to show up significantly in google ngrams and the current flurry of pageviews may be down to the initial rush of interest. The situation may change of course, and it might become primary topics, or it might be that there is no primary topic. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Long term historical use definitely seems to me like the aviation designation has more importance. One could say that in the future the wrestling usage may be more common, but that leans towards WP:CRYSTALBALL for me. To me its seems like the All Elite Wrestling usage reflects a more current event and not long term usage. It is said that far more people searching AEW will look for wrestling instead of aviation, but seems hard to prove. Before today I have never heard of "All Elite wrestling", and it seems local to the US while "Airborne early warning" is a military concept that is known worldwide. This all is suggesting to me that a change is not needed. Redalert2fan (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that User:Galatz is delinking articles from AEW related to aviation while this discussion is still open and after I reverted back pointing out it this discussion was still open is now edit warring to de-link the term. MilborneOne (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I have already explained to you, piping the link over linking to the redirect is perfectly valid, regardless of the outcome of here. It does not meet the criteria in WP:DONOTFIXIT so it is a valid edit. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While piping links is valid, my understanding is that linking to a redirect is preferred, if available. Only reason I've heard of is that it uses less space on Wiki's servers. I'm not a computer guy, so I don't know if this is valid, just what the big guys told me. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We simply should follow what the sources say. starship.paint (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken says the MoS. And altering links during a discussion could look an attempt to fix the stats. It would certainly change the "what links here" which could be relevant to editors understanding of the extent of the usage of the term being redirected. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, nobody has quoted the stats with regarding to what links there. Secondly, the usage of the term being redirected must be the correct usage. If your source says AEW&C, or Airborne early warning or AWACS, but editors link AEW, that would be incorrect. starship.paint (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that propose of the change User:Starship.paint has also started changing or removing links related to AEW related aircraft/military articles while this discussion is still open. MilborneOne (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's the matter? This is all a separate matter from this discussion. The thing is, you have a problem with your articles. If the sources say AEW&C, the article should link it as AEW&C, not AEW. If the sources say airborne early warning (AEW), the article should say airborne early warning (AEW), not just AEW. If the source said airborne early warning and control but the article wrote AEW, I would change it to airborne early warning and control. If your articles have unsourced parts, they will be questioned or removed. It's as simple as that. starship.paint (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for many of the reasons already stated. Looks to me like we have a consensus.
Comment @Steelpillow: AEW&C is actually an older term dating from the 1950s. AWAC is more current. Not that this impacts your argument, though.--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. Thanks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:33, 30 May 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.

Tera Yaar Hoon Main[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) 03:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear why this redirect exists. It may just be the title of the target in another language, but I wasn't able to actually conclude that based on the target and provided sources. signed, Rosguill talk 23:16, 27 May 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.

Oregonship[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. Source provided justifying the redirect, withdrawing nomination (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 00:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, or its sources. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Rosguill, see The Oregon Encyclopedia: "The largest Kaiser shipyard in the Northwest was the Oregon Shipbuilding Company, often shortened to Oregonship, ...". This abbreviation is also frequently employed in the Kaiser Shipyards' in-house publication, The Bo's'n's Whistle. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lord Bolingbroke, that looks good enough. Withdrawing discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:57, 27 May 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 television shows[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) 04:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not included in target list signed, Rosguill talk 22:47, 27 May 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[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) 04:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Not included in the target, no indication that any of these actors meets WP:LSC. signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 27 May 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.

Nom nom[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 Nom (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An internet search for this phrase returns rather generic eating-related results, and according to the article, Cookie Monster's catchphrase is "Om nom nom nom" signed, Rosguill talk 22:41, 27 May 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.

Kæmpernes Arena[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. Sources provided justifying redirect, withdrawing nomination. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 01:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target or the Danish-language article, I'm wondering if this was a mistake that should be retargeted to another stadium which is known by that name. If no valid target is found, then deletion is the way to go. signed, Rosguill talk 22:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you had looked at the de-wiki, you would have seen the name mentioned including references. The name have now been added to the article. Satisfied? Froztbyte (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Froztbyte yep, thanks for providing the source, withdrawing nomination. signed, Rosguill talk 01:52, 28 May 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.

Ghadhasaru and Mahakali Lake[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) 04:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion as a WP:XY resulting from a page split. —Ketil Trout (<><!) 22:17, 27 May 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.

Relativity drive[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 5#Relativity drive

Impossible Space Drive[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) 04:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommon term to refer to a fringe science concept. – SJ + 21:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Actually plenty of use of this exact phrase in sources (usually headlines) to refer to this topic. It's correct and unambiguous so there is no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As pointed out above, plenty of media outlets refer to the drive in this way. That says nothing about the viability of the drive, though, so bear that in mind. This issue has been discussed before by me and another editor who confronted this notion, but they eventually agreed on the current variant. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅? 20:26, 28 May 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.

Impossible Drive[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) 04:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a common term for a fringe science concept. When used, 'impossible' is in scare quotes. – SJ + 21:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not the most common term for it, but that's not relevant as there are plenty of examples of uses in sources using this name to refer to the concept. Thryduulf (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is a case of simple grammatical misunderstanding on your part. The quotes wrapping 'impossible drive' are to indicate that the content inside is a common nickname. Related example: Josep 'Pep' Guardiola. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅? 20:33, 28 May 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.

K. Malik Shabazz[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) 04:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. If we believe the Pro Wrestling Wikia this wrestler used this name for a short while in 2002 (during a stint with Xtreme Pro Wrestling that isn't mentioned in the target either), however I can't find a reliable source that would support this and, since the redirect was created in 2005 and the name has at times been listed in the article's infobox, there's a risk of citogenesis. Even if a reliable source verifying the association could be found, I'm not sure the name would need to be listed in the article (WP:INDISCRIMINATE, though listing every name a person has used does seem to be commonplace in wrestling biographies), and the redirect is needlessly confusing as long as the name doesn't appear in the article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is no evidence that he ever used this name. Keep Evidently, he did wrestle under that name. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - these [3] [4] [5] are primary sources by the pro-wrestling company XPW saying K. Malik Shabaz wrestled for them. The first source says that he is Ron Killings. These have been added to the article. This [6] XPW page calls him K Malik Shabazz. starship.paint (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Starship.paint updating the article to include the name. StaticVapor message me! 16:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [7] this which is a WP:RS lists him as having wrestled as K-Malik Shabazz. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:40, 29 May 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.

Susan Baker (professor)[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 Susan Baker (disambiguation). (The proposal to move Susan Baker (disambiguation) to Susan Baker can be discussed and/or determined at a different venue.) (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Baker (professor) has been moved to a WP:NATURAL disambiguation, Susan Pardee Baker. Susan Baker is also a professor, so using academic status to disambiguate in this case is not distinct enough. Vycl1994 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 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.

Janice Griffith[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) 16:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect should be deleted. The target section was deleted over a month ago for BLP reasons [8]. It hasn't been added back and there has been no opposition to the deletion I'm aware of so I assume it's a case of WP:Silence confirming the deletion was proper. This means the article makes no mention of the named person as they are otherwise not significantly relevant to the subject. I checked the history and it seems it was formerly redirecting to Janice (given name) but there's no mention of anyone with a remotely similar name there. So this redirect currently has no logical target. Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, remnant of a non-notable subject. bd2412 T 16:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is coverage of another incident at Dan Bilzerian and she is mentioned in a few other articles, but I think a red link would be appropriate in this case. PC78 (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In retrospect searching for her name on wikipedia is something I forgot to do. Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 28 May 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.

Ma (momma)[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) 04:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, inappropriate use of a disambiguator. Unlike Ma (mama), this redirect has received no use since its creation. signed, Rosguill talk 01:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Rosguill's reasoning. Any editor searching is going to come upon the much more likely mama term.Onel5969 TT me 11:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was created a month ago, and has been used three times. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at page statistics, all uses appear to have been on the day that I opened this discussion or after, so I'm fairly certain that most (or all) of those page hits are from us trying to assess the redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 17:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any benefit to deletion. Note there are (at least?) two other similar redirects Ma (mom) and Ma (mother), in addition to Ma (mama) and Ma (momma) listed in the nomination. It isn't like this one sticks out significantly more than the others; it is just less common. (One other possibility would be to add both Ma (mom) and Ma (mother) to the nomination for the same reasons.) I should also note that Ma (mommy), Ma (mummy), and Ma (mum) do not exist. - PaulT+/C 19:54, 20 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) 10:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No real reason given for deletion. Momma is a legitimate alternate spelling of mama and is a potentially useful search term. It is no more worthy of deletion than the other redirects cited by Pstanora. And as the saying goes, redirects are cheap. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MelanieN and Psantora. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 28 May 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.

Organ isue in Kosovo[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) 04:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Organ issue" is already an implausible thing to search for, and the misspelling makes this even more of a stretch. Reyk YO! 08:47, 27 May 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.

Owlery[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 Owl. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are a real thing. This redirect should be a redlink to encourage creation, since I don't think there's a better viable target. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:25, 27 May 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.

Chamber of the Silent[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) 04:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the intent here was. There is nothing with this name. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No idea what this is about. It's not mentioned at the target article, and a Google search [9] finds six hits, none of them related to Hogwarts or any other likely target here. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fanon is not canon. ―Susmuffin Talk 07:43, 30 May 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.

Truth potion[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) 04:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague, this is a widely used fictional concept that is not unique to one series. Truth potion could redirect to Truth serum, but that article is strictly about the real world version and doesn't cover fiction, so I believe a redlink would be better. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete we should probably have an article or section about the concept as used in fiction, but until we do this isn't a helpful redirect and "truth potion" seems to be used to describe non-fictional things only very rarely. Thryduulf (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now This is a trope that appears in many different fictional works. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:51, 29 May 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 mirror of ERISED:Harry Potter[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) 04:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miscapitalised in two instances, incorrect and unnecessary disambiguation, and missing a space. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an implausible redirect page. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (CTU) 9102 yaM 92 ,85:61 (klat)SOdilavnI .yrassecennu dna sselesu s'tI ?tcerider sith deen ew od yhW - ETELED
    • Not backwards: DELETE - Why do we need this redirect? It's useless and unnecessary. InvalidOS (talk) 16:58, 29 May 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.

Dirty sexual intercourse[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) 04:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Delete Plantdrew (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fun, but useless for search and "dirty" not relevant to that article. —PaleoNeonate – 07:08, 27 May 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.

Receiving partner[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) 16:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target article focuses on heterosexual penis in vagina sex, but this title implies a broader concept. Delete or disambiguate. Plantdrew (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the Sexual penetration article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Additional comment: I'm no longer sure that we sould redirect to the Sexual penetration article. I mean, the Sexual intercourse article does address other sex acts, including in the lead and in different sections. And the Sexual penetration article currently doesn't address any sex act that the Sexual intercourse article does not. It does, however, currently have a focus on sexual assualt, which isn't surprising since Google (both regular Google and Google Books) shows that the term is very much associated with sexual assualt. And since "partner" indicates consent...while sexual assault concerns lack of consent, I'm just not sure about redirecting this "term" to the Sexual penetration article. Probably best to delete it. It doesn't have any traction in the sexual literature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is too vague and a redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:22, 27 May 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.

Inserting partner[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) 16:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target article focuses on heterosexual penis in vagina sex, but this title implies a broader concept. Delete or disambiguate. Plantdrew (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the Sexual penetration article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Additional comment: I'm no longer sure that we sould redirect to the Sexual penetration article. I mean, the Sexual intercourse article does address other sex acts, including in the lead and in different sections. And the Sexual penetration article currently doesn't address any sex act that the Sexual intercourse article does not. It does, however, currently have a focus on sexual assualt, which isn't surprising since Google (both regular Google and Google Books) shows that the term is very much associated with sexual assualt. And since "partner" indicates consent...while sexual assault concerns lack of consent, I'm just not sure about redirecting this "term" to the Sexual penetration article. Probably best to delete it. It doesn't have any traction in the sexual literature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is too vague and a redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to sexual penetration. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to sexual penetration per the above. bd2412 T 16:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that this phrase has any affinity/exclusivity to sexual intercourse or subtopics at all. Steel1943 (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again, this term is too vague. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:17, 28 May 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.

Twosome[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) 04:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Redirect to threesome with some kind of hatnote, or just delete? Plantdrew (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment maybe retarget to couple? WordNet: "n 1: two items of the same kind [syn: {couple} ..." "n 2: a pair who associate with one another". —PaleoNeonate – 07:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe redirect to the Couple article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is too vague and a redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too vague and general; unhelpful redirect. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This term could mean anything from a sex act to two people who have a platonic partnership. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:18, 28 May 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.

Neuken[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) 04:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a Dutch term, not mentioned at target. Delete or redirect to Wiktionary Plantdrew (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or we may as well have many more such as baiser, necker, chode, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 07:26, 27 May 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.

Horizontal Polka[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 6#Horizontal Polka

Sex diet[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) 04:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Plantdrew (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If I search for it, most results are about diets claiming to improve sexual activity quality. On the other hand, Special:Permalink/759223623 confirms that it was a bold merge, but was about using sexual activity to increase health and apparently promotional. Perhaps that retargetting to human sexual activity would be a solution... —PaleoNeonate – 07:23, 27 May 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.

Sleeping together[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) 04:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Euphemism that doesn't absolutely imply sexual intercourse. Not linked in article space. Delete. Plantdrew (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nominator. —PaleoNeonate – 07:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC) - striked as I found Flyer22 Reborn's comment convincing and am ambivalent.[reply]

  • Should probably be kept. It's mentioned in the Definitions section of the article and is the type of wording that WP:EUPHEMISM suggests we avoid. We can avoid its use while still having a home for it. "Sleep together" or "slept together" commonly means "had sex." But if wanting to point to a broader target, we could redirect it to the Human sexual activity article. I won't mind much if it's deleted, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to Human sexual activity. This term seems to have affinity to humans. Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and keep the current target. The proposed target "Human sexual activity" is more specific about actual activities, while the term "sleeping together" is more generic. (OK, I have to tell this one: the judge asks "Yes or no, sir, did you sleep with this woman"? The witness replies "Not a wink, your Honor!" Sorry.) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This term is mentioned in the target article. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:32, 28 May 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.

Grogan Stump[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) 04:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An extremely minor character who was never mentioned in the books (?). Has a single mention at Grogan which should be removed. Also nominating another that has no mention in Wikipedia. These are characters that are only mentioned in supplementary material and do not have a presence in the main series. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:40, 27 May 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.

Making babies[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 Human reproduction. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to human reproduction? Plantdrew (talk) 05:39, 27 May 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.

Penile sex[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) 04:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Various sex acts involve penises; anal sex, fellatio, vaginal intercourse, docking (sex). Penile sex is not a common phrase/sex term. Delete or disambiguate. Plantdrew (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Penile sex" (although not a common term) usually does refer to penile-vaginal sex (which is also commonly termed sexual intercourse) in the literature. But for broader use, one can redirect it to the Human sexual activity article. Or it might be best to delete it since it's not a common term. On a side note: The Sexual intercourse article does address other sex acts, including in the lead and in different sections. Mainly those other sex acts are anal and oral sex because of what the literature focuses on. What the literature focuses on is also why the article leans more toward penile-vaginal sex, as indicated by the Definitions section and the Prevalence section. But, yes, something like docking is not termed "sexual intercourse" in the literature. And there are a number of non-penetrative sex acts that usually are not, or are never, termed "sexual intercourse." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:25, 28 May 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.

Dirty sex[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) 04:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? This seems to be a random targetting of a search term to a Wikipedia article. Delete as non-specific. Plantdrew (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - like for dirty sexual intercourse. —PaleoNeonate – 07:33, 27 May 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_May_27&oldid=900607980"