Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 8, 2019.

IHeartRadio Canada[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. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created from a disputed page move, which this move discussion reverted by way of consensus in favour of the reversion. As part of that discussion, there was the view that Bell Media Radio was definitely the common name for the Canadian radio station owner whereas IHeartRadio Canada was the radio network name, licensed to Bell Media Radio by IHeartMedia. So, I propose retargeting this redirect to IHeartRadio#Canada, the streaming radio network which lists, by country, each of the country-specific licensees as there is potential for the Canadian section of that article to be further expanded. I'm also going to friendly ping @Bearcat: in this nomination given his editorial expertise in radio stations globally. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:20, 8 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.

Lillian Gay[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, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the maiden name of Mr. Johnson's mother, who does not appear to be a wiki-notable person. I am uncertain whether to retarget to Lillian Gay Berry or to delete. ("Gay" is apparently Prof. Berry's middle name, not a maiden name; her parents also used the surname "Berry", and it doesn't appear she ever married.) Cheers, gnu57 02:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • We shouldn't retarget to the professor unless there's evidence she went by "Lillian Gay" alone. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:01, 8 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.

Dei[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 21#Dei

Matricule[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. General consensus that this is the only prominent use of the word in English-language sources, so is at least somewhat appropriate to have this redirect in the absence of a better target. I will also, as suggested, add a hatnote to the linked section suggesting Wiktionary just to deal with any confused other users. ~ mazca talk 14:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seem matricule is a generic word , not just refer to matricule number of Belgian football. It seem FFF also used that terminology too (see this link [1]). In Italy, they called it matricola .

However, it seem unlikely to create an entry for the word as it would be the function of wiktionary. So? Matthew hk (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found a partial match in en-wiki. 1st Polish Light Cavalry Regiment of the Imperial Guard#Registre-Matricule. Matthew hk (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. fr:Matricule is a DAB page with no English equivalent (but with an appalling tangle of links to pages in other languages), and the word certainly refers to things other than the current target. Our readers would be better served by finding nothing at all rather than a link to what may well be the wrong meaning for them.
I note for completeness that wikt:matricule exists. I do not suggest it as a target; I have a marked aversion against soft redirects which wind up outside English Wikipedia. Narky Blert (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The French word clearly derived from Matricula BTW. The Belgian football club registration number clearly not the primary topic outside wikipedia. It seem a relic that wiki editors introduced a slang to wikipedia and hijacked as primary topic. Matthew hk (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See also https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/french-english/matricule. Matthew hk (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear that the Belgian football club numbering isn't the primary topic in French. What's not as clear is if there's a problem with the existing situation here. As it's not an English word (according to the OED), are there competing uses that would make the current target inaccurate? - Eureka Lott 15:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It can just AWB all the entry to registration number or matricule (registration) number without any actually problem. Or very oddly, you add a hatnote in the section Football in Belgium#Matricule numbers, stating there are other meaning for the foreign word "matricule". Please see Wiktionary instead. Matthew hk (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All links are from Belgian football, it is clearly a primary topic. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – "Matricule" is a generic French word denoting an official registration number, especially for a person serving in the police or in the armed forces. That football clubs also use this term is anecdotal, and not worthy of a primary-topic redirect. — JFG talk 20:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as PRIMARYTOPIC. GiantSnowman 21:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was a bit surprised, but this does seem to be the primary topic of the term in English. It's entirely possible for foreign words to have different meaning in English; Foosball is a good example. Outside of Wikipedia, I see very few other uses outside of translation dictionaries. There's apparently a racehorse with this name. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 20 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.

Tik Tik Tik (2017 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did not release in 2017. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PC78 (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The teaser and the soundtrack were both released in 2017, so this is a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is "redirect litter" from WP:Crystal ball speculation and it's something I view as a problem that has festered for too long. We've gotta get more used to deleting this stuff and stop hoarding redirects over imagined value. There seems to be this bias to keep stuff once it's created even if it should have never been created in the first place. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there was a screening or notable film festival debut, this isn't helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:19, 12 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.

Trade dispute[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. Currently, as noted in the nomination, the page redirects to Strike action, which involves employer/employee disputes. International labour disputes can be related to trade disputes, but as several editors and the nominator noted, trade disputes also involve disputes between nations over goods and other services. An editor suggested concurring with BDD's suggestion to retarget to Trade war, with a hatnote to Labor dispute, but the subsequent responses to that all indicated that there is no clear indication Trade war is the primary topic. There was also a discussion as to whether Trade war and Trade dispute are, in fact, the same thing, for which there does not seem to be a clear answer. However, an IP editor pointed to MOS:DABSEEALSO that would see Trade war could be added as a see also reference. This seems to be the safest approach that satisfy all the concerns expressed by either retargeting or disambiguating. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 19:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, it redirects to an article about labour strike. But I believe the term "trade dispute" can also be interpreted as a dispute between two or more countries over trade of goods. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 06:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per nominator. The first page of google results is almost evenly split between the two meanings. Thryduulf (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Trade war. I think these are closer synonyms. We can hatnote to the broader article Labor dispute. A strike is a very specific thing that can occur during a dispute. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Trade war and then hatnote to Labor dispute per BDD. --Lenticel (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate the original name of most laws in the UK English-speaking world which deal with industrial conflict are often called "Trade Disputes" acts. Trade dispute as a matter of international trade has become more frequently used following the introduction of GATT and then the WTO. Important to note that a trade war and a trade dispute are quite different things; the former is actually relatively rare, the latter very common. The closest most appropriate link at present would probably be International trade law which has a section on disputes. --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that "a trade war and a trade dispute are quite different things". Perhaps by some specialist definitions, but in general usage, there are going to be many cases like 2019 Japan–South Korea trade dispute where "trade dispute" is used somewhat euphemistically since "trade war" sounds so harsh. That said, I'm second-guessing myself a bit and wondering if disambiguation really is the way to go here. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the current occupant of the White House might have something to do with popularizing usage of "trade war", but trade disputes are a pretty mundane and common feature of international trade: see "Since 1995, WTO members have referred 590 disputes to the Dispute Settlement Body." The WTO is not the only body to resolve international trade disputes, there's also various ISDS mechanisms, see UNCTAD's Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator which produces 983 case results. Trade wars are the repeated use of retalitory measures between states in dispute over trade; instances of this are far, far less common. I don't think that's a "specialist" understanding, it's an encyclopedic explanation. :) My preference would be disambiguation, but if not that, then pointing to International_trade_law#Dispute_settlement would be more accurate than trade war.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate for some target describing worker/management conflicts (maybe labor dispute as mentioned above) and some target describing international trade disputes. These two topics appear roughly equally likely to be what is meant by this phrase (per Thryduulf's comment about search results), and of the two incoming links there's one intended for each meaning. Ancillary issues (such as whether trade war should be mentioned in the main body of the dab page or just as a MOS:DABSEEALSO; or whether the extremely obscure WP:DABMENTION-ed horse at Lagunette#Breeding record is also worth including on the dab page) don't change the main point here: we've got two topics and no clear primary by long-term significance. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:12, 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) 19:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab to trade war and labor dispute only; strike action is a subtopic of labor dispute. — JFG talk 20:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Both meanings are common and neither is WP:PTOPIC. Let's point our readers to a DAB page which will by its existence explain the ambiguity. 'Trade' can equally mean labour (as in tradesman) or buying and selling.
An internal trade dispute may lead to further actions such as strikes and lockouts, but those are independent possible consequences of a preexisting trade dispute, not trade disputes as such. Narky Blert (talk) 22:46, 12 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.

Hindudesh[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. Ruslik_Zero 11:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target; I'm not sure this redirect is appropriate. From internet searches, it seems that some Hindu nationalists have argued that this should be used as a name for India [2]. It's not clear, however, that this term is similar enough to Hindustan to justify a redirect there despite the lack of mention. signed, Rosguill talk 23:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: -desh means "country" in some Indo-Aryan languages. I don't know if that justifies the existence of these redirects, but it should probably be noted. Geolodus (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rosguill, the term is attested and per Geolodus it is meaningful (c.f. Bangladesh, "The country of Bengal"). It seems to be a synonym or alternative language redirect. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The post fix -stan means land, same meaning -desh has. Crashed greek (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention at Names for India and retarget there, otherwise delete. "Hindudesh" appears (based on what I gather from Google Books and the news article mentioned by the nominator) to be a highly politicised neologism, at least in English; "Hindustan" in contrast is a long-standing term, and one to which the promoters of the term "Hindudesh" seem to object (due to the Islamic associations of the -stan part). That suggests that equating the two terms is a bad idea and that the current target is an inappropriate place to add coverage of this term. Given that the term is not covered anywhere else in Wikipedia or even Wiktionary, we have nowhere to send a reader seeking information about this term unless someone adds a section at Names for India. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think retargeting to Names for India is now my preferred choice; even if we don't have any coverage there currently (although I think it would be pretty easy to add some given that we've already found sources), redirecting there is less likely to lead a reader to incorrectly infer that Hindudesh and Hindustan are perfect synonyms in terms of their connotations, while still establishing that it is a name for India/the Indian subcontinent. signed, Rosguill talk 17:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There isn't a single use of this on Wikipedia right now, so this is really putting the cart before the horse. If the name becomes prominent enough to be used somewhere, then we can talk about a redirect. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: neologism, heavily loaded with ideology, not discussed anywhere on wikipedia. – Uanfala (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; what usage there seems to be of this in English is often politically trying to refer to the whole of India. Hence, the options we have for targets are (a) the current target, which seems linguistically valid but is not really used in that way in English; (b) India itself, which seems to be tacit endorsement of a very questionable stance if the dispute isn't discussed there, or (c) some page that actually discusses the debate, which does not appear to currently exist. I don't think there's a correct target for it at the moment, so there should be no redirect for now. ~ mazca talk 10:55, 26 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.

Phuoc Tay[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 deleted by Deryck Chan in this RfD. I regret that when I struck the two items here that were part of (yet) another RfD, I didn't notice that the rest were too! Perhaps a clean slate in this area will be beneficial. --BDD (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirects are not pointing correctly at intended articles Cn5900 (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reverse moves. You moved these pages to create the current set up. If these moves are not correct, they need to be reversed and a fresh article/dab set up without overwriting previous content. -- Tavix (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phong Hưng was listed twice, and was part of another ongoing RfD that has since closed. It should be considered removed from this discussion. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm baffled by the nomination statement, which implies there are correct articles for these to point to, but that they should nonetheless be deleted. Still, I can't find coverage of the remaining two localities on the encyclopedia. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's what happened: (ping User:BDD)
    1. There used to be articles at Phong Hiệp and Phước Tây, each describing a small village in Vietnam. The only citation in each article was a generic link to a Vietnamese government database.
    2. In 2015, User:Inwind redirected both titles to their wider administrative divisions containing them, with the edit summary "village does not exists any more".
    3. In October 2019, User:Cn5900 put RfD tags on each redirect.
    4. Cn5900 then moved each page to their current titles on the same day, leaving a redirect behind.
    5. Cn5900 then converted Cam Phước Tây into an article that talks about a different village from the article that used to be at Phước Tây
    6. Cn5900 also converted Long Hiệp into a disambiguation page that doesn't have anything to do with Phong Hiệp
    7. Cn5900 put RfD tags on the two redirects that were left behind.
  • So here's my proposed course of action:
    1. Trout slap Cn5900 for messing up the page histories by moving the pages. One should have simply created new pages at Long Hiệp and Cam Phước Tây.
    2. Histsplit Long Hiệp and Cam Phước Tây into two independent pages each.
    3. Delete Phong Hiệp (including the page history that got moved to Long Hiệp) since Special:Search/"Phong Hiệp"~ shows that there is no remaining coverage about this abolished village on the English Wikipedia.
    4. Delete Phước Tây (including the page history that got moved to Cam Phước Tây) since Special:Search/"Phước Tây"~ reveals only partial title matches (Tân Phước Tây, Cam Phước Tây). There is no remaining coverage about the abolished village of Phước Tây either.
    5. Merge Cam Phước Tây into Cam Lâm District. If all you can say about a village is that it exists and you can look this name up in a database of place names, the village should be mentioned in an article about a wider geographical area, not as a standalone article. Deryck C. 14:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm mostly comfortable with this course of action, WP:GEOLAND suggests even the stubbiest of articles on Phong Hiệp and Phước Tây would be acceptable (if the villages have been abolished, that strongly suggests they had legal recognition). It may well make more sense to discuss them in context of a larger jurisdiction. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 8 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.

Jan Hernandez[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) 16:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

non notable baseball player who is a free agent and thus no longer listed at target article Spanneraol (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete When I originally created the redirect and content about Hernandez he was coming off a AA All-Star performance and he looked like he qualified as a noteworthy Phillies minor leaguer, but now that he's an FA and not notable enough for an independent article the redirect clearly needs to be deleted. If it's ok I've saved the content on a Google doc in case he does pop up somewhere else and meets a notability standard. best, GPL93 (talk) 19:40, 8 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.

152a[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 26#152a

Level Playing Field[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 21#Level Playing Field

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is[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 Wikipedia:Introduction. A reasonable rationale provided by the nominator, which was that the redirects Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is point to Wikipedia:Introduction. Given that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is is the same as the first of those other two redirects, save for the lowercase i, they should all point to the same page, which should be as the nominator proposed, to Wikipedia:Introduction. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 20:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page points to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is point to Wikipedia:Introduction. As these redirects all ask the same question, they should all be targeting the same page. — Searingjet (talk//contribs) 18:29, 8 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.

Bardi (folklore)[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 no consensus. A combination of a well-intentioned but malformed nomination and a good-faith content dispute over a mention in the article means nothing useful has come from this discussion. No prejudice against a renomination in future if further concerns exist. ~ mazca talk 21:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bardi (folklore) - can someone please have a look at this? I thought it was a speedy delete, but apparently not... It doesn't seem to lead anywhere that references the term. change here (It's also got confused with another completely separate tangle of "Bardi" names that I was trying to get sorted; I just came across this one incidentally.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • This nomination was a bit malformed. @Laterthanyouthink: I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#How to list a redirect for discussion. Geolodus (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: This is in response to the CSD template I received from Laterthanyouthink. The redirect was created in June 2009 after I completed a Copyvio investigation, which determined the original article page had been copied from pantheon.org (which is now a blacklisted site), and therefore deleted the page. Only admins can see the deleted history but it was little more than a sentence and a source. The reference on the Bardi page at that time was to this 2005 book by Özhan Öztürk, and back in 2009 the Turkish Folklore page also included a list of linked terms such as Bardi with the same reference. I see that the most recent edit to Turkish Folklore a few months ago was a blanket deletion of all of those terms. Before continuing with deletion, it may be a good idea to check whether deletion of the terms was correct and/or whether the reference source is legitimate and reliable. (The book appears to be available to be checked in many university libraries.) — CactusWriter (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, sorry, Geolodus - I was tired and in a rush at the time, just wanted to get it noted. Bookmarked for next time. The chances of someone finding and being able to read Turkish and find the reference in that book seem somewhat remote though, CactusWriter - wouldn't it make more sense to get rid of the redirect until such time as someone finds something more concrete, and in English, and adds it to the Turkish folklore article? As it is, it doesn't convey any reliably useful info. Googling only returns Wikipedia copies, including a strange "book", which says it's edited by "Wikipedians" here. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your diligence, but I don't agree that your process makes sense in this case. The history at Turkish Folklore shows the recent removal of the list was a blanket deletion including of sourced multiple bluelinks and outside refs. Because there was no discussion nor even an edit summary, we don't know if this blanking was valid. It may be without merit. Therefore, as a first step, I have restored the entire list, and I have included cite needed tags on the topics without any inline link. As a second step, it is not difficult to first ask for help from an editor who reads Turkish. There are many here on Wikipedia, including participants in Wikiproject Turkey. I think these are reasonable steps of WP:BEFORE. Because this list has existed with those sources for ten years, at this point there doesn't appear to be a need to rush for speedy deletion here. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks CactusWriter - I'm happy to leave it at that (not having time to delve deeper into the topic myself at the moment). At least that way it is represented in the article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:45, 10 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 Fucked Your Mom[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. Consensus that this is an unhelpful redirect that's not mentioned in the target due to an abundant lack of any coverage of this parody of it. ~ mazca talk 21:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the title of a parody of this pop song on YouTube with ~30k views. No incoming links and not mentioned in the target, but approx. 1000 views since 2015. My !vote is delete. Cheers, gnu57 05:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete implausible redirect when there's no mention of this on the target page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but doesn't it out go without saying, as the nom, your !vote is to delete? ; )--Doug Mehus (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if you agree that the page should be deleted, but disagree with the nominator's given reason? Either way, let's keep the discussion on topic. Geolodus (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Confused Geolodus (1) I am on topic and (2) I was referring to the nom's putting delete in their nomination. By nominating for deletion, it is implied their !vote is to delete unless otherwise stated (i.e., someone is moving to retarget a redirect, then the nom has to specify what they want done), no? --Doug Mehus (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, given that this is "redirects for discussion", not "redirects for deletion". If, for example, the nom said "not mentioned in the target" without any other qualifier, there are a few solutions that would satisfy that, including: deletion (obviously), discussion of the term added to the target, or a retarget somewhere it's mentioned. -- Tavix (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tavix, thank you for clarifying. I've retracted my comments. --Doug Mehus (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I never denied either of those things. An example of "disagreeing with the given reason" is when the nominator states that an article should be deleted in order to censor Wikipedia (obviously against policy), but you want it to be deleted because the topic is non-notable. Geolodus (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Geolodus I don't think I said you denied either of those (unclear what "those things" are). Nevertheless, I apologize for any confusion. Also, for clarity, I did not disagree with the nom's rationale. In fact, I supported the nom's rationale in whole in this case. Finally, I've retracted the comment to which we're discussing. --Doug Mehus (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading without a mention at the target. As Internet searches turn up next to nothing besides unrelated porn sites, I cannot even find unreliable coverage of this parody video, and adding a mention of it would not be feasible for this reason. Geolodus (talk) 06:00, 9 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.

UNICE: Universal Network of Intelligent Conscious Energy[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 Speedily deleted as G8, redirect to a deleted or non-existent page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, nominated along with Michael E. Arth. WMSR (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • This nomination seems unnecessary; if the target article is deleted, any redirects to it can be speedily deleted per G8. Geolodus (talk) 06:02, 9 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.

Draft:⯿[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. Cross-namespace redirect with no compelling reasons offered for its continued existence. ~ mazca talk 21:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely a redirect from Unicode character, draft namespace. 180.183.71.47 (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also U+2BFF. 180.183.71.47 (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Does the rule on no cross-namespace redirects apply to the Draft/Main namespace? If so, then my !vote is to delete as per that. If not, my !vote is to be indifferent. That is, I will support the prevailing consensus at close. --Doug Mehus (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Doug Mehus T·C 21:36, 17 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.

P:CT[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) 16:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect that likely either should be retargeted to Portal:Connecticut or deleted. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Portal:Connecticut. That's the most likely reason people would search for that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shhhnotsoloud and, secondarily, the nom. I don't think we should prejudge or presume what should be the intended target. --Doug Mehus T·C 01:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. The Connecticut portal appears sufficiently inactive that I'd hate to presuppose any actual use of this redirect to point to that specifically. ~ mazca talk 21:38, 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.

Horace James Seymour-Conway[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) 14:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While there is a Seymour-Conway family related to the subject, I found no evidence that he used this name, which is linked nowhere in WP. ミラP 01:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; in the absence of any actual usage in sources of this name, it appears misleading to suggest it's a synonym - and generally unhelpful otherwise. ~ mazca talk 21:36, 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.

East Central zone[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) 00:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of mostly recently created redirects that are similarly vague and unhelpful to the similar ones deleted two years ago. I can see why they were created: the target article is about a group of languages that's sometimes called "Central Zone" Indo-Aryan, and it's got two subgroups: "East Hindi" and "West Hindi", so it's conceivable that someone could attempt to refer to them like that. But I don't think these phrases are actually in use (I suspect the related Wikipedia article at Hindi belt is the only text that uses them), and they're vague: they can refer to anything and everything that can be seen as having east/west central zones – just try searching on the web, and even on Wikipedia.
The only exception is the first redirect, which echoes a term used in multitree; but if compatibility with this database is sought, then the redirect ought to be moved to the actual term used there: Indo-Aryan East Central zone. – Uanfala (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only realistic benefit would be to editors, who could link to the language article with these abbreviated labels. But that's not the purpose of rd's. Who knows what someone putting 'east central zone' into the search window is actually looking for. Very likely not the Indic languages. Though, following that logic, we should be allowed to have dab pages with only a single link, which AFAIK we're not, for cases like this. — kwami (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These redirects are likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If it were Eastern Central Zone Hindi or explained in detail at the article, then maybe keep but otherwise it could be any location or in East Central or West Central or the time zones [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:46, 12 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_8&oldid=928191434"