Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 4, 2019.

Wikipedia:BoxOsand[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 default to keep. Opinion is split as to whether this is a plausible (joke?) redirect for the sandbox, and the value of keeping a redirect with a long history in the Wikipedia namespace for archival purposes. Deryck C. 11:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. Not a very active user (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm rather confused by the tortured history of this redirect but it certainly isn't a useful shorthand for the sandbox. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historical, and interesting. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    Please no more WP:ILIKEIT. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as {{R with old history}}. This redirect is from 2004 when meatball, c2, and other wikis were still active. Because their software autolinked CamalCase words (like Wikipedia did until ~2002) links like this allowed external linking to Wikipedia in the same way that our software allows external linking to their wikis, e.g. meatball:WikiPedia. Archives of those wikis may point to this redirect, and other websites from that time period may link to this redirect as well. It's hard for us to detect those things, and it is better to keep this useless-if-humorous redirect than risk causing link rot in historical archives. Wug·a·po·des​ 08:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:OLDARTICLE, "Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Take, for example, Gaius Flavius Antoninus, a hoax article that lasted for more than eight years before getting discovered and deleted. Having survived a long time on Wikipedia does not guarantee the article a permanent spot. The article may have achieved its age either because its lack of notability was not discovered until recently, or because the collective interpretation of our inclusion criteria has evolved. Consensus can change, and an article that was once accepted under Wikipedia's guidelines or just by de facto practice could be put up for deletion." The same thing may apply to the redirects. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't AFD. Redirects, especially those in project namespace, are not subject to notability criteria. I'm not saying simply keep it because of it's age, I'm saying that because of its age and history, the possibility that deletion could break things is very high, which is why we have WP:RKEEP #4 "Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them." Wug·a·po·des​ 16:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per nom. I do not care the age of any redirects in my common sense. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This dates to May 2004, and that portion of the sandbox archives appears to be missing, but if I had to bet, I'd wager this was the result of vandalism or page move experimentation that was quickly reverted. (The convoluted history is due to bot activity following other moves or redirctions of the sandbox.) Page views have been minimal. - Eureka Lott 15:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this redirect was helping users find useful content, I'd be willing to give it the benefit of the doubt—but it A) merely points to the sandbox, and B) has averaged under one page view per month over the past several years. - Eureka Lott 20:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wugapodes. Looks like a good example of Chesterton's fence; the reasons to get rid of it are not strong, and the possibility that it may have archival value should outweigh them. Chubbles (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems reasonable.---PATH SLOPU 13:50, 5 October 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.

Heny Higgins[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 16#Heny Higgins

Suede knot[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. Thanks User:Codrinb for explaining the circumstances of this redirect's creation and agreeing to the proposed deletion. Deryck C. 14:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this redirect may have been made in error. An image on the target article includes the caption that includes the phrase "suede knot". Nowhere else in the article, however, is a "suede knot" mentioned, nor is anything similar mentioned in the linked deWiki article. Scholar and internet searches for "suede knot" turn up nothing. My guess is that the original introduction of this term into the article was a typo, and I would thus argue that this redirect should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 19:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I made it in error. I thought is a synonym to Suebian knot. It was mentioned with this name in Battle of Adamclisi and Bastarnae.Codrin.B (talk) 17:36, 15 October 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.

Russian-Iranian military intervention in Syria[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. The consensus is that, after several page moves and splits, this redirect title has overstayed its welcome. Deryck C. 11:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is relic from like four page moves back, target article does not mention Iran and is completely about the Russian role in the conflict. No relevant incoming links, so not useful either. Deletion seems like the obvious choice but retargeting so its actually useful is another possibility. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think it's better to delete this rather than retarget because International military intervention against ISIL is not quite the same thing—Iran also fought non-ISIL groups (rebels). — UnladenSwallow (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per UnladenSwallow. The Russian and Iranian military interventions in Syria followed distinct paths, and any existing target article would oversimplify the nature of each intervention. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:47, 6 October 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.

Unification Church/Elijah[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 11:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up: the target page has a lot of junk-looking redirects. What it doesn't have is any sort of discussion about Elijah in the church's theology. BDD (talk) 18:43, 4 October 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.

African Sorghum Beer[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 12#African Sorghum Beer

Boris J[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, default to delete. These redirects were created recently and challenged within a few weeks of creation, so the lack of consensus to keep the redirects - and the fact that these titles are ambiguous with a precarious primary topic - means that the default outcome should be to reject the creation of these redirects. Deryck C. 14:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search terms that could make it more difficult to find other people named Boris. Virtually no usage history. Yes, at this moment Boris Johnson is far and away the most well-known Boris J or prime minister in the English-speaking world, but once he's out of office that could very easily change. signed, Rosguill talk 20:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. As of right now, Boris Johnson is the most well-known Boris who is a prime minister or whose surname begins with J. This is a plausible redirect, and I believe there is a disambiguation at Boris. No need to compromise what is best in the current situation for speculation into the future. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 21:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on Boris J. Rosguill is right that it probably makes it harder to find other people named Boris, but looking at the Boris disambiguation page, he's the only Boris J on there. I don't think we lose much either way. Keep Boris (prime minister) for the reasons that AnUnamedUser gives as Boris Johnson is definitely the primary topic for prime ministers named Boris. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Boris (given name) has a Boris Jordan. signed, Rosguill talk 07:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wugapodes and Rosguill: See: @realDonaldTrump (August 25, 2019). "Leaving now to have breakfast with Boris J" (Tweet) – via Twitter. AlbanGeller (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill: Weird that these lists weren't synced; I've updated Boris to transclude the list from Boris (given name). W/r/t Boris J, there's a case to be made that Boris Johnson is primary here. See page view comparison with Johnson consistently receiving 100x more views than Jordan over the past year. But Rosguill's point about making it harder to find other Borises (see also WP:XY) is also reasonable given the periodic spikes Jordan receives. I'm still neutral on the Boris J redirect, but if it's kept then {{Redirect|Boris J|the American billionaire|Boris Jordan}} should be placed at Boris Johnson. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The list on the dab page is not supposed to be synced with the list on the name page. MOS:DABNAME: Persons who have the ambiguous term as surname or given name should be listed in the main disambiguation list of the disambiguation page only if they are frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g., Elvis, Shakespeare). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:41, 4 October 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.

Laicization[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 16#Laicization

Andrea Sachs[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 The Devil Wears Prada (novel)#Characters. Deryck C. 11:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should this redirect point to the film or the novel? feminist (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 4 October 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.

Boy next door (stock character)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 16#Boy next door (stock character)

Seetee[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. Mention of this title and its relevance to the topic was added during the RfD. In the absence of opposition to this change, this redirect is kept, but we can reopen the discussion in the future if future editors decide that it won't be appropriate to mention "seetee" in an article about antimatter. Deryck C. 11:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[A] word sometimes used in science-fiction, according to the creator. But it is not mentioned at the target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 4 October 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.

PnP (professional wrestling)[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. Never mind, another redirect created right after spelled it out more clearly. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, and there's no obvious semantic link between the redirect and the target. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:01, 4 October 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.

Thalapathi (2018 film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 16#Thalapathi (2018 film)

Yes-Gerard Illovz[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 16#Yes-Gerard Illovz

Hurrricane hunters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 14:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo, was created back in 2005 by an IP for unknown reasons. I suggest deletion or a retarget to Hurricane hunters. CycloneYoris talk! 15:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it. NoahTalk 22:22, 5 October 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.

Akhuwat (Microfinance)[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 without prejudice against article creation. Deryck C. 14:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. From an internet search, it seems like this is the name of a microfinance program, which would make this redirect of minimal use. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the links which talks about Akhuwat (Microfinance). All of them are very reliable references. I wanted to create full article but because of time, I created a link. Let me know if reliability of links is a question [1], [2], [3], [4]. Secondly, there is already a list of Microfinance bank at List_of_banks_in_Pakistan and I have added the section Microfinance Bank section. --Spasage (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This establishes that Akhuwat is a microfinance institution. What hasn't been established is why this is a useful redirect, as someone following this redirect has to already know that Akhuwat is related to microfinance, and will learn no additional information from reading the target. signed, Rosguill talk 21:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Better option is to create an article.--Spasage (talk) 17:46, 7 October 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.

Spider-Man (Marvel Comics)[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) 15:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the redirect page says, this is a redirect from needless disambiguation. There isn't a Spider-Man from any other publisher on Wikipedia. There is only one incoming link, from an archived talk page from eleven years ago. Delete this. JIP | Talk 09:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This seems harmless to me, particularly in light of the existence of various "Spider-Man" media. bd2412 T 23:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless and unambiguous. "Redirect from unnecessary disambiguation" is not a valid reason to delete. PC78 (talk) 17:58, 6 October 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.

Hawkeye (2020 TV series)[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) 22:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The series is set to premiere in late 2021, hence the already-created redirect Hawkeye (2021 TV series), meaning that this redirect is factually incorrect; it is not set to premiere in 2020. -- /Alex/21 04:46, 4 October 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_October_4&oldid=921569095"