Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 25, 2019.

Cambodia at the Southeast Asian Games[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 10#Cambodia at the Southeast Asian Games

Carlyn[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A mononym for the name of one of the members of the band, there appear to be at least a few biographies of people with the name on Wikipedia (Carlyn Chisholm, Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen, Carlyn Kruger. I would suggest either disambiguation, or redirecting to Caroline (as well as the addition of Carlyns to that article) signed, Rosguill talk 20:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate as there is no primary topic. Another option is to redirect ot Carlin (name) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per both of the above. Thanks to AngusWOOF for creating the draft page. - Eureka Lott 05:05, 1 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.

Coptic philosophy[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 Move Philosophy in Coptic over the redirect. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "Copt", nor "orthodox" (as in Oriental Orthodox, the group of churches that Coptic Christianity belongs to) are mentioned in the target, which leads me to believe that this is an error. I would suggest either deletion or redirecting to Copts or Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. signed, Rosguill talk 20:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Coptic disambiguation. They're probably looking for Copts, but in case they are looking for the other churches that have the word Coptic in it, then this gives the reader options. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Coptic Church points to Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and that target already has a hat note to the other Coptic church--I'd argue that it's a clear primary topic (and especially for the philosophy redirect in particular, as presumably the Coptic Catholic Church's philosophy is roughly the same as the rest of the Catholic church). Coptic Christianity points to Copts, but honestly I think that's a worse target, redirecting from a clear search for a religious institution to an ethnic group feels weird. signed, Rosguill talk 18:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rosguill and AngusWOOF: I have created Philosophy in Coptic as a better redirect target. We could perhaps move that article to this namespace (swap titles). To me, "Coptic philosophy", if it suggests anything at all, suggests either a distinct tradition/school of philosophy among Copts or else just the literary tradition of philosophy written in the Coptic language. Best I can tell, the former does not exist and the latter just barely—but the Coptic Encyclopedia has an article on it. Srnec (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this new article should be swapped with the redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 14:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with that too. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:09, 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.

Military career of Napoleon the Great[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 10#Military career of Napoleon the Great

Snout-vent length[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 10#Snout-vent length

Case Farms[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 Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio. -- Tavix (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, most ghits appear to be for a North Carolina poultry company that is almost certainly notable per [1]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I doubt that Case Farms is notable; an Internet search shows rather little in-depth coverage of the company besides the subject's website and the article linked by the nominator. For that reason, I currently oppose converting this redirect to an article, but am otherwise neutral. Geolodus (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification on lack of coverage: besides the New Yorker article, there's one from ProPublica that a few other sources wrote off of, but that's about it. To add, the New Yorker wrote their article in collaboration with ProPublica (see [2]). Two or three reliable sources is not enough for an independent Wikipedia article. Geolodus (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio per AngusWOOF's comment below. Seems plausible. Geolodus (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:35, 25 September 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.

Template:Holophoner Award[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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect of a barnstar(?) Magioladitis (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leftover from a page move in 2007. How do you know it isn't being used? Seems pretty harmless. PC78 (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unused (no incoming links and 5 pageviews last year) template-space redirect from a misspelling (Holophoner versus Holophonor). -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:47, 29 September 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.

Template:CM[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 Template:Cm. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially confusing, especially when Template:Cm exists. I understand that this exists to prevent typos when typing "cn", but it would make more sense for this to redirect to Template:Cm. InvalidOS (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Template:Cm --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nominator. Simply seems more logical than having a typo as the primary redirect. Geolodus (talk) 19:48, 25 September 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.

Pyþon[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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry. 'Python' is a word of Greek origin; I can see no need for a redirect with an Icelandic thorn in the middle of it. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The thorn is commonly transliterated as th (as in thinking), but someone with enough linguistic knowledge to know that would certainly also know that Python is not a name of Germanic origin and thus not spell it with the thorn. Weak delete. Geolodus (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; not used and not likely to be used. ComplexRational (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's not doing anything harmful by being there. It's where you would expect to go if you typed "python" with a thorn. I don't think my reasoning is too strong, but it's something. InvalidOS (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's also where you'd expect 'Pyθon' to point, but we don't have ðat. Narky Blert (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily delete per nom. English did not borrow such words until 1066. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a made-up neologism that is unused (no incoming links, virtually no pageviews before this nomination) and contains no useful page history. CSD R3 could apply, in my opinion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that established consensus? If so, where/when was that decided? As of now (i.e., pending your response), I would comfortably apply R3 to any redirect less than 1 year old. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is (and R3 is a rather subjective criterion anyway), but wouldn't call 6+ months ago recent. Plenty of external links could have been made in that time. Geolodus (talk) 05:42, 1 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.

Mocirlele River (Sugag)[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 restore and retarget. -- Tavix (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication in the short target article of why this redirect points here. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I found this stream on a detailed hiking map: it is about 3 km long, and flows into the small river Șugag south of the village Dobra. I have found no mention of this stream apart from Wikipedia and clones. Therefore, it does not meet the guidelines WP:Notability (significant coverage in reliable sources) and WP:GEOLAND (Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist.). I added this stream as a tributary to the infobox of the Șugag River article, so at least the redirect is less surprising now. Markussep Talk 10:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:02, 25 September 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.

Moraru River (Plostina)[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 restore and retarget. Notability concerns may be handled at WP:AFD. -- Tavix (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication in the short target article of why this redirect points here. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three. I found this stream on a detailed hiking map (as "Morarul"): it is about 1.5 km long, and flows into the small stream Ploștina (a tributary of the Cracăul Alb) south of the village Mitocu Bălan. I have found no mention of this stream apart from Wikipedia and clones. Therefore, it does not meet the guidelines WP:Notability (significant coverage in reliable sources) and WP:GEOLAND (Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist.). Markussep Talk 09:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:01, 25 September 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.

Moara Dracului River (Hogea)[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 restore and retarget. -- Tavix (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication in the short target article of why this redirect points here. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:01, 25 September 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.

Moara Dracului River (Falcau)[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 restore and retarget. Notability concerns may be handled at WP:AFD. -- Tavix (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication in the short target article of why this redirect points here. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. I found this stream on a detailed hiking map: it is about 2 km long, and flows into the small stream Falcău (a tributary of the Calul) west of the village Poieni. I have found no mention of this stream apart from Wikipedia and clones. Therefore, it does not meet the guidelines WP:Notability (significant coverage in reliable sources) and WP:GEOLAND (Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist.). Markussep Talk 09:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:01, 25 September 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.

Paraul Varului[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 restore/retarget per Steel1943, with the exception of Paraul Varului which will be deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pârâul Varului. -- Tavix (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More unexplained redirects concerning Romanian rivers. There is no indication in the target articles why these redirects target those pages. Note that Pârâul Mărului also exists. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...Afterwards, and articles that are restored can be nominated for WP:AFD if need be, and then the redirects would follow suit and be deleted per WP:G8. The way it stands though, a lot of these redirects are {{R with history}}s or {{R from merge}}s and were WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT-ed in a way that made them troublesome redirects since they are not mentioned at their current targets. Steel1943 (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:55, 25 September 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.

Template:Cyclone[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 Template:Cyclones. -- Tavix (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. It does not follow the standard convention for redirects of Wikiproject banners Magioladitis (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:47, 1 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.

Template:Catbox WPMusInst[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. It does not follow the standard convention for redirects of Wikiproject banners Magioladitis (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: implausible redirect. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as an unused (no significant links, virtually no pageviews), non-standard project banner redirect. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:59, 29 September 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.

Template:Biathlon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. It does not follow the standard convention for redirects of Wikiproject banners Magioladitis (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: implausible redirect. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as an unused (no significant links, virtually no pageviews), non-standard project banner redirect. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:01, 29 September 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.

Template:Beverage[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. It does not follow the standard convention for redirects of Wikiproject banners Magioladitis (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: implausible redirect. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as an unused (virtually no pageviews), non-standard project banner redirect. The redirect does have a lot of incoming links right now, but it appears they are generated by this nomination, because old versions of the WikiProject's newsletters transclude the current version of Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Article alerts. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:03, 29 September 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.

Template:Wpchr[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No evidence that was ever used en masse Magioladitis (talk) 07:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: implausible redirect. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as an unused (no significant links, virtually no pageviews), non-standard project banner redirect. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:04, 29 September 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.

Magical beast (Dungeons & Dragons)[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) 18:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 04:53, 25 September 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.

Jugoslawia[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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED, Polish is not a relevant language to Yugoslavia. signed, Rosguill talk 18:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HA! some people may not know that there is a polish wikipedia and so look up jugoslawia here. Barracuda41 (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is explicitly addressed by the content of WP:FORRED, which you should read. signed, Rosguill talk 23:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:34, 25 September 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.

Tree crop[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 by restoring the page as it stood before redirection. It will need disambiguation cleanup, however. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Tree crop" is not mentioned in the article and is a potentially ambiguous term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: It's not clear to me that that publication is about forestry. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Disambiguate Forestry is strongly associated with managing trees for timber production. Tree crop is a term usually associated with trees managed for uses other than timber production (edible fruits, rubber, etc.). Orchard is more relevant to the concept of tree crops than forestry, but is not the only article on Wikipedia associated with tree crops (Plantation is another). Tree crop was a disambiguation page from 2010 until 2019. Plantdrew (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC) (edit) I suggested deletion as possibility because I believe an article could be written on tree crops. Plantdrew (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore disambiguation from 2010. Entries can be scrutinized if they have the variants of "tree crop" in them. That would then be good enough to retain. For example, Tree farm has the term "forest crop" Plantation has "forest plantation" and "tree plantation". Forestry article doesn't have "crop" listed anywhere. Agroforestry involves planting trees as crops as well as other plants as crops, usually next to each other. Lots of external news articles and papers that use the term "tree crop" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:34, 25 September 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.

Alfa Romeo 169[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. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate for deletion. No such car existed, it was an expected name and an expected car. Redirect remained as a remnant of a deleted article. YBSOne (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the name existed even if the car never got made. Clarity is not helped by someone having removed with whole explanation of the 169 history from the target without explanation and shortly after the merger, but that's hardly the fault of the redirect. Lithopsian (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the name was invented by expecting journalists, no concept car was made only a lot of media-created renderings, 169 name has nothing to do with 166 existing car. Same goes for the expected succesor for the 147 the Alfa Romeo 149. It is just a fake name that circulated in the press. YBSOne (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Google searches: Your search - site:fiatgroup.com "alfa romeo 169" - did not match any documents. No results found for site:fiatspa.com "alfa romeo 169". No results found for site:alfaromeo.com "alfa romeo 169". No results found for site:alfaromeo.it "alfa romeo 169". YBSOne (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:33, 25 September 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.

Imperial feminism[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 Intersectionality. --BDD (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial feminism and state feminism are sufficiently different topics that this redirect is unhelpful and potentially confusing, and adding discussion of the former to an article on the latter would not be appropriate. Whereas state feminism refers to "feminism created or approved by the government of a state or nation", imperial feminism carries a specific association with imperialism, and (as far as I can tell from a brief survey of the literature) also Eurocentrism, a white saviour mentality and the exclusion of intersectional perspectives. "Imperial feminism" is mentioned in a handful of other articles, but none strike me as more suitable targets. The tenth point of WP:RDEL also applies, as imperial feminism is certainly notable in its own right. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until converted into an article. From what you say, it sounds like adding an article would be a good idea, probably with cross-linking, even if it's a stub. However, it sounds like an international extension of state feminism, so the redirect seems appropriate until the article is created. Thus, the seventh point of WP:RKEEP applies. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per feminist. Best solution is targeting a place where the term is discussed, second best is to delete in favor of a red link given the differences between imperial and state feminism. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:51, 25 September 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.

Pop-trap[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. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article re-directs to a genre that would seemingly be related but the term is never used there or explored there. It appears to be a genre that is not commonly used and should not be linked this way. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a lengthy section that discusses it here Trap_music#Influence_and_cross-pollination. We shouldn't delete a genre redirect that is used by mainstream sources like The Seattle Times [3], Rolling Stone [4] - edit warring over info box genres is common, so we stick to what the sources say. Dartslilly (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except there are no sources that describe what this genre means or what differentiates it. Currently, the re-direct links to Trap as an EDM style, not the article you linked too. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources. I prefer to fix the article than to delete the redirect. Based on some of the better quality and more detailed sources you ask for the hi-hat of trap music crosses over with multiple genres (pop, EDM and hip hop) [5]. Dartslilly (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To follow-up, I am not doubting that there is a crossover between genres, but using this term and linking it like this is inappropriate as the term is not used in the trap article so it comes off as wishy-washy. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)i[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.

Heimr[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 10#Heimr

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_25&oldid=920617251"