Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 9, 2019.

Deaf supremacy[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) 03:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, no history of use. Searching online, I found a few scattered results on forums, but nothing in RS. Searching Google Scholar, I found no exact matches for the search string. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't sound very neutral, either. 85.76.1.1 (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL. Non-neutral redirects are acceptable if they are attested in reliable sources, but per the nom and my own google search, this term does not seem used in reliable sources. Therefore delete. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-neutral. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:02, 14 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.

Iraq and Syria[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 20#Iraq and Syria

Sakuga[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 20#Sakuga

Corendon Airlines Flight 733[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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. With content added to the target article, this RFD is now moot. Peacock (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This specific flight number isn't mentioned at the target article. Peacock (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and mention by creating an "accidents and incidents" section (eg: 1, 2, 3) to the Corendon Airlines article using this revision before the article was boldly redirected by WilliamJE. I agree that the redirect in its current state is invalid because no information about this Flight can be found at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. The incident is notable as it is a hull loss, probably not notable enough for a standalone article, but I'll add it now. SportingFlyer T·C 07:23, 10 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:Bus&Econ[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused for a long time now. It does not follow the standard convention for redirects of Wikiproject banners Magioladitis (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was asked to comment here. redirects are WP:CHEAP. What is this standard convention that this is violating?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No transclusions and minimal pageviews (14 during 2018). WikiProject templates should be clearly named, and this one is named like a content template. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I agree with TonyTheTiger above that redirects are cheap, and so I'm not opposed to keeping. But I do think Black Falcon's point that it's not titled in a way that makes it obviously a WikiProject banner is problematic (I was confused by "bus", thinking at first that it referred to the vehicle). There's no transclusions, and external links to a redirected template are unlikely, so I see no harm in deleting. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:38, 10 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.

Venu Isc[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. MBisanz talk 03:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the value of this redirect. Nobody looking for Venu, a cinematographer, is likely to know that he is a member of the Indian Society of Cinematographers and search for those postnominals. Also, it would be ISC not Isc. I have gone through and swapped out links to Venu Isc with Venu (cinematographer). Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only 10 news articles exist at Google News with this wording:
One says "...for Venu Isc-directed Carbon." This is arguably poor journalism, since Isc is not his name. It would be the equivalent of calling the American film director "Tarantino Dga"
One appears only in an article's comment section.[1]
Two articles (one is a repeat) call him "Venu(ISC)" [2][3][4], i.e. not the wording used in the redirect.
Two only have the wording as article keywords[5] i.e. he is not referred to that way in the article
Two articles that have this wording are just republishing the signatories on an appeal,[6][7] are just the republishing of the signatories on an appeal document Meaning he would have signed his own name that way.
Same deal with the interview example, where he probably noted that the ISC should be added, because that's what his society requires him to do. But it is not a pairing that is in wide usage, making it a pretty improbable redirect. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So those are post-nominals for their occupation Indian_cinematographers#The_Indian_Society_of_Cinematographers like Casting Society of America or Producers Guild of America. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:14, 9 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.

List of Animated Feature Film[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 20#List of Animated Feature Film

Triphosphene[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. MBisanz talk 03:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Triphosphene is a different chemical, which would have formula P3F3, that is not mentioned anywhere except in {{Hydrides by group}}. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave the redirect alone. People have troubles with spelling of organophosphorus compounds (e.g. phosphorus vs phosphorous and phosphine, phosphane, and phosphene). Phosphene might mean (to some people) the phosphorus equivalent to a nitrene, i.e. a phosphinidine. Diphosphenes are a well developed class RP=PR. Triphosphenes, well are just very obscure, as a quick check of ChemAbs shows (6 refs, mostly theory). Wikipedia chemistry is well managed project, so we dont need a lot of help. We allow mispellings to help guide imperfect readers to more likely target articles, like triphosphane (also pretty obscure). Those are my views. --Smokefoot (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; while "Triphosphene" may have a similar spelling to "Triphosphane", these are entirely different chemicals and people searching for the target of "Triphosphene" are surely to be extremely confused to realize that they both point towards the same subject. This redirect meets WP:R#DELETE entry 2, for the redirect and the destination are two completely different compounds, and could cause confusion from those searching for information about Triphosphene. While the redirect's creator certainly acted in good faith here, the redirect is not fit for Wikipedia, regardless of the notability of the compound of Triphosphene. Utopes (talk) 04:31, 16 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.

Skeletron Prime[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) 03:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target page. Was nominated for speedy deletion before being turned into redirect. Not a very active user (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator; there is no mention of this boss in the target page, so the redirect is purely misleading. I will change my !vote to a "weak keep" if a reliable source can be found for a mention of this in the target (I found none during a web search, so it seems unlikely). Geolodus (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Google search indicates that this is a boss in Terraria, but someone looking for this term may want the Terraria wiki article instead of the current target anyways. –Sonicwave talk 00:18, 12 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.

Battle of south guangxi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 20#Battle of south guangxi

Eminem – Soul Intent[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 first three and keep the last two. -- Tavix (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly formatted redirects that are unlikely to be used. There already exists two redirects: Soul Intent (band) and Soul Intent (group). Both show up instantly in the search engine. The last redirect Soul intent (band) is a incorrectly capitalized duplicate of Soul Intent (band) Mysticair667537 (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/question: @Mysticair667537: Why did you nominate Draft:New Jacks, but not New Jacks? Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first three as novel/uncommon forms. Keep the last two. WP:RDRAFT says we should keep ones like "Draft:New Jacks", and "Soul intent (band)" just has a single capitalization error. (If there were a standalone Soul Intent article, we might debate whether it should be (group) or (band), but the latter is clearly at least acceptable as a search term.) --BDD (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: @BDD: I still think the last two should be deleted as "Draft:New Jacks" is no longer useful, as it does not show up in the search engine and "Soul intent (band)" is just a duplicate with an incorrect capitalization. If you search it in the search engine, both redirects will show up with the same name with the only difference being the incorrect capitalization, which causes confusion. Mysticair667537 (talk) 14:17, 24 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_9&oldid=919215046"