Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 7[edit]

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

SonicToon[edit]

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

Fbi2018[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous redirect created by a user now indefinitely blocked over their repeated creation of such redirects. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, as an ambiguous redirect and implausible search term. I assume the idea is that the TV series started in 2018, but there are multiple fictional (e.g. 11th season of The X-Files) and real-world topics connecting the FBI and 2018. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:57, 13 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.

Tpota[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous redirect created by a user now indefinitely blocked over their repeated creation of such redirects. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:20, 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.

Fernandinho (footballer, born 1985)[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 Fernandinho. (non-admin closure) Zerach (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are two footballer of the same name that born in 1985. Thus, the redirect should target Fernandinho (disambiguation) instead. Matthew hk (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. --BDD (talk) 19:38, 8 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.

Great Alliance[edit]

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

Emergency Unit (Hong Kong)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 17#Emergency Unit (Hong Kong)

Like Nastya Vlog[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, broadly speaking. As noted, rezendeevil is no longer mentioned in the list, but has been converted to an article. "✿ Kids Diana Show" has also been converted to an article. "Like Nastya Vlog" and "Vegetta777" will be retargeted to their respective articles at Like Nastya and VEGETTA777, respectively. Bottom line, no deletions here. --BDD (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It serves zero purpose simply redirecting to the top list, especially since the target is no more than a list that provides no details about what this channel is nor any further details that a reader would actually be looking for. With 34 mil on YouTube it seems notable, but it really should have its own article in that case. I feel it would even serve better as a redlink until something is written. Gaioa (T C L) 18:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the list contains quite much information about the channels, such as subscriber count, network, primary language and content category of the channel. Definitely useful for both linking and searching. Not a very active user (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those details hardly counts as "information" in the WP sense and as of WP:NOTDIR. Such loose details might be valuable to simply define what the term refers to, but it won't work for a user. If a user enters any of these channel names in the search box, they definitely knows what the entity is and wants to find specific information rather than simply "it's a famous YT channel". I would definitely be willing to write proper articles on the subjects, but expecting the target to be providing encyc-sufficient information is just wrong. Gaioa (T C L) 16:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, provided they're still listed in the most subscribed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except Rezendeevil – which no longer appears in the list – per the above users. LifeofTau 00:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Like Nastya Vlog to Like Nastya. No opinion on the rest. Steel1943 (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The nominator has since converted two of the listed redirects into articles. As they are no longer redirects, those pages will not be subject to the result of this RfD. Two of the other redirects have been retargeted by the nominator. Cocomelon and Badabun have not been altered. LifeofTau 15:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC); edited 00:46, 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.

Tacoma[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) 14:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was a disambiguation page up until August; when it was made to redirect to the city. Presumably the rationale was that the city is the primary topic, even though per WP:USPLACE it retains the state qualifier, as established in a recent move request. Since the earlier move wasn't discussed, I think the most logical thing is to put the disambiguation page back at Tacoma. If users can search for the base name or the full city+state name and end up at the city either way, then the full city+state title looks like unnecessary disambiguation. What do others think? Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the comments below, I'm persuaded that we should keep the redirect as-is for the sake of consistency. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Soumya-8974: that would result in a WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the typical situation for large American cities that are primary topics, but aren't among the AP Stylebook exceptions identified in WP:USPLACE. See Tallahassee, Tampa, Topeka, Tucson, and Tulsa, for example—and those are just a few that start with T. - Eureka Lott 20:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There are literally thousands of U.S. city pages that are disambiguated in the title per WP:USPLACE that nevertheless have primary topic for their base name. Literally thousands. Tacoma can and should follow that pattern as it is by FAR the most notable thing listed on that DAB page. Red Slash 03:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As an addendum, yes, yes it is unnecessary disambiguation and the city's article should just be at Tacoma. But unfortunately that's not an option currently due to USPLACE. Red Slash 03:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the primary topic for the term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the primary topic by population and the recent video game doesn't appear to be much of a contender of PT#2. If not the DAB should be moved to the base name per WP:MALPLACED. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 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.

Innisfail Evening Advocate[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. Deryck C. 14:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. No referral to this title in the article The Banner talk 13:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Was the name of the newspaper Innisfail Evening Advocate or just Evening Advocate? Either way, this seems like a plausible search term, but it would make a difference for purposes of wikilinking. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Black Falcon: - (The) Evening Advocate Bogger (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm... I was not expecting that and am not sure what to make of it in the context of this discussion. :) Thanks for confirming, though. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a likely search term. It is common for Australian newspapers to be referred to informally as PlaceName Title as the titles are rarely unique, e.g. Adelaide Advertiser instead of "The Advertiser", Mackay Mercury instead of "Daily Mercury", Toowoomba Chronicle instead of "The Chronicle" are all examples of this. They are all common names. Here are a number of uses of "Innisfail Evening Advocate" to illustrate the point [1] Kerry (talk) 08:58, 16 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.

Decision 2000[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 16#Decision 2000

Steven Universe: Future[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) 14:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was corrected and deleted, now for some odd reason was recreated. Unnecessary and redundant to Steven Universe Future. [2] Please re-delete. 1989 (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate spellings aren't bad, and often such redirects help with navigation. See {{R from alternative punctuation}}. -- /Alex/21 10:13, 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.

Afsheen[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 Afshin. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion - Musical performer Afsheen (sytlized as AFSHeeN), also known as song-writer Afshin Salmani, is not Dutch DJ Quintino, so the re-direct of an artist and songwriter to another artist and songwriter who shares one song between them is a bad redirect. A hyperlink to another artist who has collaborated once does not provide any meaningful information about the artist, so anyone clicking the link will not expand their knowledge. A Wikipedia search of the song-writer name finds at least six songs with articles that he is credited on, so dead-ending the search with another musician fails the searcher. Mburrell (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Afshin as alternative spelling. The singer can be listed with association to DJ Quintino if notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget to Afshin per AngusWOOF above. I really just don't see the problem with this existing. There are plenty of redirects that point to one article where they're mentioned while they're mentioned on multiple. This being a "bad" redirect is a matter of opinion, not fact, and believing that we should only create a redirect when there's plenty of discussion of a topic at the target article when that's rarely if ever the case is failing to recognise that redirects are both WP:CHEAP and not always for one purpose. Taking issue with this one redirect I made when there are thousands more like it created by users across the Wikipedia spectrum is both pointless and frivolous. Ss112 06:10, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_October_7&oldid=921720131"