Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 6[edit]

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

Ninh Thuận, Bạc Liêu[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. It seems that this discussion and the related discussion on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 11 are converging on the established rule of thumb that redirects from a minor place name to a wider geographical area are only helpful if the destination article mentions the minor locality. Deryck C. 11:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These redirects have the same issue as the ones I listed in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 11, Thạch Phúc section Cn5900 (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: there's no reason to delete these redirects. The fact that the villages don't exist anymore makes no difference. If anyone does come across a reference to any of them and wants to find out, the redirect will take them to the appropriate district article. Where's the harm in that? I would add that whoever (rightly) converted these tiny articles to redirects should have first added the information to the district article, not just thrown it away. That would be a useful task - deleting all traces is not. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colonies Chris:, I replied to you in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 11. In fact, I've tried to fixed some of them by converting them into disambiguation pages. Some of those villages ceased to exist, but there are still many other villages with the same name in other provinces of Vietnam. These links are, however, cannot be fixed in that way, so I came to the decision of deleting them.
As I explained in October 11's discussion, these villages were first divided from larger villages (and the most important part is, the smaller village names are came up by the government, they just named the villages very randomly by picking the first character of the original village and combine it with another random character for example). They only existed for 8 years, and ceased to exist for 32 years now. That should be enough for no one to remember them. I should also stated that there are many other provinces having the same issue of Ca Mau Province about dividing villages, and merged them back. But as far as I'm concerned, this redirect issues only occur here.
Currently Vietnam has 11,156 commune-level subdivisions, and the number of articles on created is only about 400. There are still thousands of such "present-day" stub-articles to be created. So those redirects, which no one will ever remember (and which was also created by mistake and not carefully reviewed) should be left behind. Cn5900 (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, these seem like redirects that should exist. Guettarda (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda even in Vietnamese Wikipedia don't have them. So why should they exist here? Cn5900 (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the original stub articles were wrong to state or imply that the villages currently existed, but that's not relevant to these redirects; the villages did in fact exist, though only for a limited period, so these redirects are valid and potentially useful. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Colonies Chris, let's talk about the reality here. You may think it's "potentially" useful, potientially means "might be". But you need to look at the reality here. Just try to search all sources to see what history you can find on those villages, and then tell me how useful they are? Since I've already done that so I know for sure, they are useless Cn5900 (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colonies Chris: also what about the other provinces which the author hasn't accidentally created stubs about former villages yet and resulting in them being turned to redirects like these. Clearly they won't have any, but this one has too many, I just want to be fair here Cn5900 (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if these are former villages, and no villages with these names exist today, then it is safe to keep the redirects. However, if villages currently exist with these names then it would be inappropriate to redirect to this district, they should instead redirect to the more appropriate current district and/or include the {{R with possibilities}} template. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively, reverse the moves that Cn5900 made that got us into this mess in the first place, restore the underlying history that was merged/redirected in 2015 by Inwind, and retarget the diacriticless versions to each respective article. This will satisfy those below who are wanting deletion based on "not mentioned" grounds. -- Tavix (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike the other discussion, these villages aren't listed in the district article. Keeping them without mention risks user confusion. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Đông Phú, Bạc Liêu and Dong Phu, Bac Lieu were not tagged until today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'm not thrilled with the inconsistency, but if we don't have any coverage of these places, the redirects aren't helpful. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the premise of common sense. How many English-speaking people are going to be looking up Vietnamese prefectures and districts, crucially, with the diacritical marks? I don't see how these would be particularly useful. Doug Mehus T·C 21:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per BDD (topics not covered at the target article) and Doug Mehus. I am also concerned about the fact that we do not really know if any of these redirects are correct. I suppose this goes back to the issue of the topics not being covered at the target article, where they could at least be sourced/cited. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:42, 19 November 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.

Turophobia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mentioned in the article that it redirects to. There's a slim chance it ever will be, or have its own article; I can't find any reliable medical sources that discuss "turophobia" (pathological fear of cheese). ... discospinster talk 21:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Enwiki has no information about "turophobia" (and neither does wikt). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: turophobia was deleted on Wiktionary due to lack of verification; see here for details. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:49, 11 November 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.

Yonii[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NN artist with in passing mentions in other articles, List of German people of Moroccan descent, Bausa discography, Capo (rapper) and Xatar. Having a predetermined redirect is not helpful to readers Richhoncho (talk) 19:14, 6 November 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.

WDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWD[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per G7 by Justlettersandnumbers. -- Tavix (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WD40 repeat isn't literally "WD" repeated 40 times, and no one is going to be searching for this 80-character long title. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral This is silly, but redirects are cheap. What else would this refer to? PrussianOwl (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I probably should've just nominated it under CSD R3. Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers should be deleted. --Ahecht (TALK
      PAGE      ) 19:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirects are costly. Redirects are often hijacked because few are watching them and as the nom points out, no one needs to type in this many characters to find what they're looking for. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No benefit to readers or searchers. Redirects will be costly if we fill up with pointless and unnecessary redirects. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a very unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Was pinged, I'll just have it G7'd. I don't know why I thought this would be a good idea. InvalidOS (talk) 16:38, 7 November 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.

Querfront[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is this lemma mentioned nor does the linked section exist in the given target. Hildeoc (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a few articles mention this term and we don't have a single place explaining what it means. Reveal search results. Deryck C. 14:31, 15 November 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.

Geroge Davis is innocent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo, as well as somewhat non-neutral title Reyk YO! 14:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible on the basis of the typo alone. The song title "George Davis Is Innocent" (see George Davis (robber)#Celebrity support) could be an appropriate redirect, but not this. -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There was a "George Davis is Innocent" campaign, mentioned in the article, so this is a reasonable search term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note the typo in this redirect. While the correctly spelled redirect could be created, we should also consider that someone searching for that phrase could be looking for either the celebrity campaign or the actual song (mentioned at Tell Us the Truth), so it may be best (per WP:XY) to let the reader decide through Search results. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:52, 6 November 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.

Blut & Kasse[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 15#Blut & Kasse

Lugash[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 disambiguate. Deryck C. 14:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Lugash in target article. Pinging @Izno: who made the redirect. There's also a character named Lugash in the Simpsons for the record. ミラP 23:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No opinion for me. I think this should have been sent to AFD though if deletion is appropriate (which your rationale usually indicates), since the redirect was bold on my part. --Izno (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article per WP:BLAR and hatnote to the Simpson's character, which looks to resolve the nominator's concern. -- Tavix (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: The article is unsourced and should not be restored. I'd prefer a disambig. ミラP 02:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I misunderstood you then. I was under the impression that a dab wouldn't work due to it not being mentioned (cf. WP:DABMENTION). Turns out it's mentioned in several other articles, most notably (AFAICT) The Return of the Pink Panther. I'd support a disambiguation and have drafted one below the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:24, 6 November 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.

Thank Goodness It's Friday[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 and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget the first to Thank God It's Friday, a disambiguation page. There is no mention of this in any form (nor "TGIF") at the target page. Although the redirect is old, there are only three internal links, each piped as "TGIF" (confusingly, since TGIF is also a disambiguation page): in the lede of T.G.I.S.; in Love on Arrival § Content where it is immediately followed with the statement (although here, it means "Thank God I found" you); and in POETS day § See also. It appears from the history that this has been retargeted as a result of a double redirect, although that doesn't really explain the piped links.

"TGIFF" seems to be neither linked nor mentioned at all, and so perhaps would be better just deleted. 94.21.219.224 (talk) 15:29, 6 November 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.

Tom Baldwin (journalist)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target; according to DAB page Thomas Baldwin (which links to it) he was an advisor under EM's shadow gov. Running through the options:

  1. Create article, if notable (I did find much in way of GNG in my search)
  2. Some redirect to Ed Miliband with a line at the target article - but then "journalist" is not the best parenthetical, so probably move somewhere
  3. Some TB redirect to People's Vote, since that Twitter bio (assuming it's him) says he's its dircom, again adding a line at the target and changing the parenthetical
  4. Delete redirect (my preference based on the mess above; it's not clear to me that advisor of a shadow gov is more significant than dircom of PV)

TigraanClick here to contact me 14:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC) TigraanClick here to contact me 14:29, 6 November 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.

I forbid[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 15#I forbid

Wine merchant[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 13#Wine merchant

Rasta City[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a helpful redirect: it was created with the justification temporary redirect to rastafari (draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rasta_City. It's not clear what that has to do with creating a redirect, but at any rate, the creating editor has been blocked for unrelated reasons and I see no reason to keep this redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 03:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The topic is not covered at the target article, so the redirect is not helpful to readers. The page's creation seems to reflect an assumption that page titles need to be held or reserved while an article is being drafted, which is not the case. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:11, 11 November 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_November_6&oldid=927272804"