Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 5, 2020.

NetFlicks[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. --BDD (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netflix is a website used for shows and movies. The redirect "NetFlicks" doesn't make any sense. Because for some reason, NetFlicks is very implausible and misleading. NetFlicks may also be confusing and irrelevant. Seventyfiveyears at 23:36, 5 August 2020

  • Delete - Homonym with no significance to Netflix. SerChevalerie (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NetFlicks has identical pronunciation and is closer to the true etymology of the name. It is derived from "Net" as a shortening of Internet and "Flicks", which is an informal word for a film (wikt:flick n2 pluralized), hence films from the Internet. Also note to Seventyfiveyears that you linked to WP:R3—that is only used for redirects that are recently created. NetFlicks has been around since 2006, so that is in no way recently created and thus would not apply even if it did happen to be implausible. -- Tavix (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep considering Flix is derived from the term flicks (as mentioned an informal term for films) its entirely possible that someone could assume the service is spelled NetFlicks. The fact that the terms are phonetically similar also makes the redirect a more plausible search term.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from misspelling}}. It's a plausible search term for someone who's only heard the word. Narky Blert (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible phonetic misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2020 (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.

Utopia (Travis Scott album)[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 Wrong venue. This is not the place to request for speedy deletion. Please refer to WP:CSD and tag the redirect accordingly for it to be speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for speedy deletion. Not mentioned at target and based on pure speculation because of a tweet by Scott.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AshMusique (talk • contribs) 22:09, 5 August 2020 (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.

Jennifer Rubin (Blogger)[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. Pace BDD, who makes a fair point (and redirects are cheap), the capitalisation of Blogger would be idiosyncratic, and anyone looking for Jennifer Rubin is more likely to try Jennifer Rubin than Jennifer Rubin (Blogger). That, combined with the delete arguments and the page history, lands squarely at Delete. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is a remnant of a WP:POINTy page move by a now-blocked editor. Since Jennifer Rubin already exists as a disambiguation page, I see no need for this redirect. Home Lander (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Redirect only created by an editor making a POINT. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - She's a journalist, not a blogger. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Implausible search phrase. - MrX 🖋 00:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "Jennifer Rubin (journalist)" article does not mention Jennifer Rubin being a blogger. Seventyfiveyears at 01:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's unclear how the move would be construed as WP:POINTy. Irrespective of the intentions, however, the Edit Summary is reasonable: "Jennifer Rubin is not a journalist but an opinion columnist. She never went to journalism school and does not do any reporting. Her own Twitter handle and bio identify her as a blogger, not a journalist."
It is true that Rubin did not go to any journalism school, and does not possess a journalism degree.
However, a journalism degree is not a prerequisite to be a journalist. So what is a journalist? According to the [American Press Institute], "Journalism is the activity of gathering, assessing, creating, and presenting news and information." Rubin is clearly not engaged in any of these activities. She is engaged in opining about news, not in reporting news.
Her Twitter handle is [@JRubinBlogger] and her bio is "Conservative opinion writer at @WashingtonPost, MSNBC contributor." No mention of journalism, and rightfully so.
Her Facebook page username is also [JenniferRubinBlogger].
Her [Washington Post] profile says "Jennifer Rubin writes reported opinion for The Washington Post." and her articles go into the [Opinion section] of the Post.
She is a conservative political columnist, an opinion columnist. She identifies as a blogger and as far as I know has never identified herself as a journalist.
"Donald Trump's ascent to the presidency has been littered with surreal moments -- the pre-dawn tweetstorms, the unannounced Kanye visits -- but don't overlook the case of Jennifer Rubin, a conservative blogger at the Washington Post." - [CNN] (Dec 2016)
"The right demanded that one of their own fill it, and attorney and blogger Jennifer Rubin was hired away from Commentary." - [The Atlantic] (Nov 2012)
"Trump calls Washington Post blogger 'a real dummy'" - [Politico] (Jan 2015)
(Plenty more examples (preponderance of references), but I don't want to waste people's time)
Hence the move actually brings the Wikipedia entry in line with her own self-identification as well as the definition from API, the authority in the field (described by The Washington Post as the nation's "most venerable press-management and training organization"). The move is hardly controversial.
Whatever the community consensus is, hopefully everyone will consider the issue coolly and with an open mind, rather than responding with knee-jerk actions based on preconceived notions or the actions of the submitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.41.9 (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even though the disambiguation page says that he's a blogger, i couldn't find any single evidence that he was actually a blogger, so i would recommend a delete. StaleGuy22 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's clear throughout the article that she writes a blog. That's the only qualification needed to be a blogger. She's also a journalist, and of course, blogger and journalist are not mutually exclusive. I've tagged this with {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} due to the capitalization. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2020 (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.

VV Storm[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) 19:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name VV Storm for V533 Carinae is a fake name created by a user who is now banned as a sockpuppet. Please remove this redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nussun05 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not mentioned in target article, (I've just tagged this since it wasn't tagged for deletion). CycloneYoris talk! 22:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence found in article according above me via WP:RDR StaleGuy22 (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2020 (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.

2019–20 Scottish Conservative Party leadership election[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No timetabled part of the election was held in 2019. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 5 August 2020 (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.

Ram Lalla[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 12#Ram Lalla

Eugenia Pierre[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 13#Eugenia Pierre

Suicide or Murder: A Star Was Lost (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 restore article and draftify. signed, Rosguill talk 19:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. There's a substub in the history, but neither the page's merge into Sushant Singh Rajput nor its subsequent removal have been contested. Found this in a routine sweep for R2 candidates, while it was pointing at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput#Del alleged movie content (which is also worth a read). —Cryptic 13:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2020 (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.

Eight thousand one hundred ninety-second note[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8192nd notes are not mentioned at the target. They are, however, at Longest word in English#Agglutinative constructions, but without a source that this note value has ever been used. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • They are in the target article, which says "and so on indefinitely" just after discussing 4096th notes. Personally, I don't see the point of filling WP with re-directs for instances of an infinite series but I would allow them for cases that actually appear in reliable sources. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't have a solid opinion on these at the moment, but I have also found 8192th note, which I'm adding to the discussion. Working on it...done. Regards, SONIC678 16:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I created these redirects in 2013, so some years ago. Now I think I understand policy better, so: since these do not actually appear in any reliable sources so far as I can see, and they have no explicit mention in their target, there is no point to them. (Not to mention that of course it should have been 8192nd note anyway.) Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2020 (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.

Racist Murder of Altab Ali: A Bengali East End Garment Worker Murdered in 1978[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, unlike Murder of Altab Ali which should be redirected to the section. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: The history is apparently about a book with this title. I'd also recommend splitting the content about the murder instead. 04:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • restore article and send to AfD per WP:BLAR. If there is more to be said about the murder than is in the target article (which seems likely) then it should be split out into a Murder of Altab Ali article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note the page history (currently at the shorter title). As a potential closer, it would not stop me from a delete close if there were consensus for it; Thryduulf's proposal is another option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • N.b., While the sources given were erroneous and both removed, the book is real. --BDD (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this would have a very hard time meeting WP:NBOOK, and there's virtually nothing in the page history that we could really work with. I wouldn't object to restoring it and sending it to AfD, but that feels like a waste of time (cf. WP:SNOW, WP:NOTBURO). On the other hand, Murder of Altab Ali seems perfectly fine as a redirect, so I don't know why the nominator struck that suggestion. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What BDD said. The "article" was a no-hoper. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:57, 13 August 2020 (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.

Ismaili–Seljuk conflicts[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both due to their imprecise/inaccurate name: the Ismailis also include the Fatimids, who were also engaged in a conflict with the Seljuks during the mid- to late 11th century Constantine ✍ 12:47, 5 August 2020 (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.

8232[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 delete. I'll consider this a G7, but for the record the redirect was left because the page was accepted via WP:AFC with the wrong title; the redirect was thus left so that the page creator would not be confused upon finding their page had moved. As it's been over a year since then, a G6 would have been perfectly acceptable. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:SURPRISE, I don't see how the number 8232 should redirect to a page on a product that merely contains the number "8232". 8232 is not a Wikipedia-notable number, and the page 8000 (number) does not include 8232 as an entry. It was caused by an AFCH bug (I can't find that archive), but a G6 nom was reverted. Thanks. Eumat114 (Message) 10:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like mover did not click "no redirect" when performing the move. Certainly non intuitive to me. Delete seems reasonable. --Deepfriedokra (talk)11:20, 5 August 2020 (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.

Chuka Minkoku[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chūka Minkoku is the Romaji form of Japanese 中華民国, not in English or native languages of the Republic of China. KONNO Yumeto 05:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. This seems like it could be a plausible search term in the English Wikipedia for someone whose native language was not English, and it seems unambiguous. However, a pageview analysis shows that it has not even 150 views in 5 years. If someone whose native language was Japanese wanted to find the article for Taiwan they could go to the article on the Japanese Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NK1406 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I doubt that we have significant group of native Japanese speakers trying to look up Taiwan on the English language Wikipedia and even if we did these hypothetical users would likely know the English name of the target if they chose to look here and not the Japanese Wikipedia.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wonder why I created the second one of the redirects back in 2006. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2020 (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.

2020 Beirut bombing[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. WP:SNOW, also I note it has gotten 835 pageviews so far. All these viewers are inconvenienced with an extra click. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that the explosion has been caused by a bomb. The discussion at the article talk page suggested to wait until there is more confirmation that this is no bombing, then delete the redirect. That was roughly eight hours ago. There don't seem to be any reliable sources that are suggesting the explosion was intentional. I think it is time to delete the redirect. Renerpho (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest waiting some more before deciding. President Trump suggested that, according to some of the "great generals" of the US, this was likely to be a "bomb of some kind". Ahmadtalk 04:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I actually made a deletion only some seconds after you. What Trump says is nothing, he spouts nonsense all the time, at most his comment can be a minor note sentance in the article, that doesn't make the redirect reasonable.★Trekker (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, outside of speedy deletion candidates discussions last at least seven days so if it is a bomb we will certainly have more evidence than a single statement by Trump by that point.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of whether it was an intentional attack, it is a plausible search term. VQuakr (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. It's a plausible search term, and may remain so whatever the cause turns out to be. Trump isn't the sort of man to allow his mind to be clouded by facts, and what he says will continue to be reported. The article title is correctly factual. Narky Blert (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think it is NPOV to just assume "Trump – bad" in the name of Wikipedia and discredit his statements. He is a top US statesman, and we should consider his classifications. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. His claims have no crediblity based on his history (and in this specific case the Lebanese goverment contradict his statement since they belive it was an accident). Having a powerful position doesn't mean you're reliable in any way, we don't make redirects based on CCP's claimed version of events as far as I know.★Trekker (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search target. As long as it is a highly plausible search target, and it is not very obviously derogatory, there is more good than harm in keeping it. Murder of George Floyd, which redirects to the page "Killing of George Floyd" and has survived an RfD. I'm gonna say that calling it a bombing is plausible (though not necessary accurate) as it has been mentioned by a highly known politician, i.e. Trump. Eumat114 (Message) 10:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now: While it is unknown what the cause of the explosions is yet, I would keep the redirect for now. The redirect name seems reasonable at this moment, given what we do know about the explosion. I may change my mind once more evidence comes in. Thissecretperson (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep as a likely search term. Some people will assume any explosion is a bomb until proven otherwise. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was demonstrably not a bomb, so the idea shouldn't be given controversial credence. The George Floyd example is not comparable as it is still likely the killing will be categorised as murder. Fig (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged the redirect with {{R from incorrect name}}. As unlikely as this seems, if it's somehow proven to have been a bombing, this should, of course, be removed (or perhaps the article moved to this title!). --BDD (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    At least one officer involved has been charged with 2nd degree murder; I think all four have. None has been convicted.[1][2]Calmecac5 (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I was going to say delete per the reasons mentioned above, but the addition of the {{R from incorrect name}} template by BDD seems like a good compromise for now while we wait for more information.NK1406 (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as incorrect but plausible search target. --Slashme (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a search target. The idea was floated by Trump and he is known to be unreliable, despite having access to the best intelligence in the world. However, some people may use the word "bomb" or "attack" in their searches.[3][4]Calmecac5 (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FRINGE and WP:R#KEEP. If the article had a section on these conspiracy theories which is so far WP:UNDUE, a redirect to that section would make sense. —PaleoNeonate – 21:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – even if Trump hadn't suggested that this was a bombing, it seems like a plausible search term as "explosion" and "bombing" are closely related words. The pageview tool shows that the redirect has been visited 320 times already. –Sonicwave talk 00:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ George Floyd's death was 'murder' and the accused officer 'knew what he was doing,' Minneapolis police chief says
  2. ^ Officer charged with murder for shooting Rayshard Brooks
  3. ^ MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow says Trump 'makes stuff up,' blasts 'absolutely atrocious' claim on Lebanese explosion
  4. ^ US defense officials contradict Trump, say no indication of attack in Beirut
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/2020_August_5&oldid=972804848"