Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 25, 2020.

Ilmarin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 4#Ilmarin

Middle-earth Dwarves[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 23:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are all fictional dwarven historical figures from Tolkien. They exist as redirects primarily to populate a family tree. However, since the characters are non-notable, they are not mentioned on the target list. I propose we delete them all.

To see how unimportant these figures are, even in Middle-earth, see an old version of the deleted Middle-earth dwarf characters. BenKuykendall (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not covered in Wikipedia, no purpose for these. Not even alternate uses through retargets. Hog Farm (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If they're not mentioned in the target, readers will get precisely nothing useful out of such redirects. Narky Blert (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete except for Thrór, as he can probably be moved to List of The Hobbit characters, since he is moderately important in the backstory of the book.
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.

Re-recorded song[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 Re-recording (music). -- Tavix (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any sensible article for this to go to. Cover version? But not all rerecorded songs are cover versions - sometimes artists record new versions of their own songs. For the last 13 years this has redirected to synthesizer, which isn't right at all. Is this a concept that needs a page / redirect at all? Popcornduff (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any targets other than cover version which might make a disambiguation page reasonable? I'm not a fan of deletion given how long it's been pointing to the same target so I'm interested in alternatives to deletion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Sound recording and reproduction? Though that article is rather vast and generic and doesn't have anything about the specific phenomenon of songs being rerecorded. Popcornduff (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to whatever suitable target presents itself when this RfD is closed and consensus determined, per Wugapodes, as it's technically a valid thing. Failing that, I would either support adding a reference to the existing target (call it a weak keep) or, failing that, delete (3rd choice), without prejudice to re-creation in future. --Doug Mehus T·C 21:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cover version. As the nom indicates, this is not perfect. Let's be good. Perfect is the enemy of good. ~Kvng (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A re-recorded song isn't necessarily a cover version, nor is the term exclusive to "cover version" either. For example, a song could be "re-recorded" if the first version of a recording is redone before being released commercially, etc. Best to delete this redirect so that Wikipedia's search function can do its job to help readers attempt to find the article which they are trying to locate and not pigeonhole them by redirecting them to any specific article. Steel1943 (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943. signed, Rosguill talk 16:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943 as ambiguous. A re-recording could be also almost anything, from a cover version, to a worked-up version of a demo, to a musician's or band's remake of an earlier recording, to an outtake recorded later than the released version. For just one example in classical music, Glenn Gould recorded Bach's Goldberg Variations twice, in 1955 and 1981, both highly acclaimed. Was the second version a re-recording? arguably, yes - but it's a totally different interpretation. Narky Blert (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Re-recording (music). This is a stub, but seems to discuss exactly the concept at hand. The article could be expanded to contrast with a cover version. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. This could refer to cover versions, or the concept User:BenKuykendall found, or several other things. With no clear priority for the redirect, I say delete. Hog Farm (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Re-recording (music) per BenKuykendall. Until the article is expanded, a hatnote can be added to direct readers to Cover version as needed. signed, Rosguill talk 21:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought I would need to change my !vote, but I kept my retarget target purposely vague and wide open as my !vote and rationale clearly favoured retargeting here—i.e., little rationale for deletion. Nevertheless, I support the target identified by BenKuykendall; nice find! Good work all! Doug Mehus T·C 18:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Re-recording (music) per BenKuykendall. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete - this has no incoming links from article space and almost zero usage in the last 90 days. The original version prior to becoming a redirect was WP:PRODded in 2006 at which time it was redirected to release (music) which at the time was "the event at which an album or single is first released for sale"[1]. Today that would be reissue, which is more of a sales and marketing and possibly an re-mastering or re-engineering than a true re-recording of the song. If it is deleted, the version of 01:09, 23 July 2006 should be considered eligible for restoration upon request. It was basically a dictionary definition of an artist re-recording his own work with a few examples. It would quickly fail or be sent to WP:Draft space if it went to WP:AfD today. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having said that, davidwr makes a strong case for a weak deletion as it does have very little usage (less than 24 pageviews in the preceding 12 months). Combine that with no incoming links other than the creator's talk page, that's also compelling. The thing I come back to, though, and why I still favour retargeting, is that soft deletion would just mean it could be easily recreated. Per WP:NOTBURO, perhaps we should just save that step and retarget? If the earlier deleted article davidwr identified is undeleted, it would be Draft: namespace first; if and when it's notable, it can be moved by an administrator or page mover over this redirect, so that's probably moot now that I think about it. As to the low pageviews, no prejudice against revisiting this in a year's time, and potentially deleting it on a second nomination, if still low usage, to encourage article creation. This will be a tough close (probably best for an administrator to close this)! Doug Mehus T·C 19:18, 4 February 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.

Complete Single Collection[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 Complete Singles Collection. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather generic term for an anthology album and does not unambiguously refer to the current target. I would suggest deletion so that the internal search engine can do its work. signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was my thinking as well. signed, Rosguill talk 01:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. Could possibly disambiguate in the future, but at present, deletion is the best route. Doug Mehus T·C 16:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:51, 25 January 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.

Hedgehog flavoured[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. On a strict nosecount, this would appear to be an evenly split result. However, after analyzing the arguments, there is consensus here that those editors arguing to "keep" this redirect have the stronger and correct argument in that it is (a) mentioned in the target article and, thus, (b) a very plausible search term. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 15:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. Third party search engines turn up results for some sort of defunct brand of potato chips, so may want to delete this per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Nothing in the target article. No meaningful coverage found to add. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mentioned in the article (since 20 minutes ago), with three good-looking citations. Narky Blert (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The target article now covers the matter and so the issue is moot. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:08, 25 January 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.

Ethnic groups in locations[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 the redirects that Eureka Lott and BDD found targets for and delete the rest. I try to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK closure wherever possible, and I think this is a good example of this: any redirects that someone singled out to keep will be kept, without prejudice against speedy individual renomination where there may be genuine disagreement. For those redirects begin deleted, this is also without prejudice against recreation as an article (like always) or to a target where there is discussion on the group. -- Tavix (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these redirects should be deleted to encourage article creation, as the current targets have relatively little to say about the locations in these various redirects. signed, Rosguill talk 23:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we can retarget Chinese Americans in Atlanta and Indians in Atlanta to Demographics of Atlanta, and African Americans in Washington, D.C. to Demographics of Washington, D.C.. - Eureka Lott 00:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I recall that a few years back, I had participated in some discussions like this one, but I cannot recall what the redirects were named, so I cannot find the discussions. I do recall though that Tavix was involved in them, I believe. Maybe Tavix recalls the names of the redirects more than I do so that the consensus formed in the previous discussions can be known. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Steel1943: Are you thinking of the Hinduism redirects? That one was bunch of redirects from "Hinduism in location" to a target that did not explicitly discuss Hinduism in that location. The first discussion was a trainwreck, but smaller batches yielded consensus to delete unless a suitable target was found or content was added. -- Tavix (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Tavix: Yep, that was it, and the consensus there seems to make sense for any "(person or person concept) in (geographic area)" redirect. I may not get around to sorting through these, but it seems that at the least, EurekaLott's comment falls in line with this. Steel1943 (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete History of Mexican Americans in California and History of African Americans in St. Louis at the least: These redirects seem to be slightly different than the rest of the redirects in the nomination, and are overly-precise to a point where I cannot foresee there being a proper target for them. Steel1943 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to make this an official trainwreck. I found decent places to retarget several of these. A few have acceptable locations to retarget:
I'm genuinely conflicted about the Memphis and New Orleans ones. Both are very significant centers of African-American culture and population, such that retargeting to the city articles could well serve readers. There's a WP:REDLINK case to be made, though it can be inherently difficult to write about what's historically a majority population (e.g., German Americans in Wisconsin).
To make things even more confusing, I still favor deleting the following, but there's just barely enough coverage that I think it's worth other editors doing a look-over:
I agree that the others should be deleted due to lack of substantive coverage anywhere. With respect to Eureka Lott, I don't think Demographics of Atlanta does the job for Chinese or Indian populations. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting following reversal of attempted article creations at two of the redirects in this discussion. Thoughts on the attempts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jalen Folf (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What?? No, any building out of these into articles should always be encouraged. --BDD (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, subject to these all showing very low usage (less than 6 pageviews per month in each of the previous 12 months) and there being no attribution history to preserve. No prejudice against someone re-creating select redirects where there is usage, or to creating applicable articles, though. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider closing those with consensus and relist the rest. I don't see a global consensus, and I barely see anything like a consensus on individual items. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to a "no consensus/keep", "insufficient consensus but redirecting anyway without prejudice to reversal", or "soft delete/no prejudice against re-creating" for those pages with no attribution history and no non-discussion-related incoming redirects. No real opinion one way or the other as to what the best targets should be on individual items. Some of the terms may be notable enough to be article-worthy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:53, 4 February 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.

FOSOROM[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. 00:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that this is supposed to refer to "Former Soviet Republic of Moldavia", but I don't see any evidence of usage of this acronym. Delete unless a justification is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A search turned up precisely zilch. FWIW, a search for Фосором turned up nothing either. Nom's suggestion looks plausible - that this is an invented acronym along the lines of FYROM, which was a real thing. Narky Blert (talk) 20:59, 25 January 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.

25th Takavar Seperate Brigade of Pasveh[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 23:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling, should be separate. Don't know if the pageview count is enough to keep. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:07, 25 January 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.

Gamil Zirak[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 23:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article, and likely outside of the scope of the targeted list. The other two mentions I can find are a DAB page entry and a mention at Khuzdul, but the mention at Khuzdul is only in the context of a linguistics example. Nothing helpful there, and no history that would need to be saved per WP:ATT. Hog Farm (talk) 05:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not covered anywhere on the project. Lets be sure to clean up the DAB after this is resolved. BenKuykendall (talk) 20:16, 25 January 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.

Ashera[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 Asherah. signed, Rosguill talk 23:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not covered at the target article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some previous discussion at WikiProject Cats. There was once some content at Ashera which was merged to Savannah cat [2], which explains the redirect, but it has since been removed from the target article. There are some indications the subject is a hoax/scam. There's been some minor news coverage, but there's not arisen a consensus, apparently, that the topic isn't just WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia, much less that it's notable, so neither an article nor a redir seem sustainable at this time. PS: It could possibly be retargeted to Asherah as an alternative spelling, if it's actually attested as one, or maybe even as a misspelling. I would be fine with that outcome. PS: If it is redlinked again, please WP:REFUND the merged-away version to User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Ashera_cat; if it comes up again with more sources, it would be good to not lose the original material and sources, nor the edit history.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Asherah and tag with R from misspelling. Hog Farm (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Asherah as R from other/misspelling; I don't feel strongly about which; it's an uncommon alternative. I found some New Age-type sources which I wouldn't give the time of day to; but also this book, by id:Daniel Hillel who has had a solid academic career (his Hebrew biography has more detail), published by Columbia University Press. Narky Blert (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete per SMcCandlish can use WP:REFUND to restore the revisions and material. Per WP:NOTBURO, since he's asked for it, I would support move to User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Ashera cat without leaving a redirect. Doug Mehus T·C 15:36, 25 January 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.
  • Comment I do support, weakishly this RfD outcome, but since this closed as "retarget," I'm pinging SMcCandlish in case he wanted to restore a previous diff to his userspace. Doug Mehus T·C 18:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_25&oldid=941696091"