Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 18, 2020.

Invest 99-L[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 Invest (meteorology)#Designation. (non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless redirect; practically every hurricane season has at least one Invest 99-L. ANDROS1337TALK 03:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My thought is that the number of going to the the Invest 99-L page is going to be extremely low and that most who are doing so would be looking for specific storm information rather than information for Invests in general. With most seasons having an Invest 99-L, it's impractical to redirect to a particular season, and I don't think the redirect to [[Invest (meteorology)#Designation) will be helpful. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pageviews for this redirect have been rather decent, and not extremely low as you're suggesting. This appears to be an {{R with history}}, so deletion should be avoided. Retargeting to the Invest article is the only plausible solution I can think of. CycloneYoris talk! 01:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per CycloneYoris. That target seems the most useful for those people who are using this redirect - and there are people who do. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 19 September 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.

Sharon Bell[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 18:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name not found in article, and therefore not useful search term. Name is probably in one of three references, but the reader is more likely just to curse than to read the three references to look for the name. Redirect was viewed 160 times in calendar 2019, which is less than once every two days (and we don't know whether any of those searches were useful). Recommend deletion of redirect.

No idea without reading the sources whether she was killed or wounded.

There is a draft Draft:Sharon Bell for someone else. A decision has not yet been made whether to accept the draft. If it is accepted, a hatnote can be put at the top of the new article, but what can be said about someone who isn't mentioned in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is a large number of redirects [1] from people's names (or of the form Jane Doe (terrorism victim)) that redirect to this article, which are presumably people who were killed/wounded. Without meaning to be insensitive, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and unless specifically mentioned in the article all these redirects should be deleted. A redirect of a person's name to an article that does not mention the person can be ambiguous (there are lots of Sharon Bells in the world), and is confusing. Let's decide this one, then RfD the remainder if necessary. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:44, 19 September 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.

Dogtown, Los Angeles, California[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 Dogtown, California. -- Tavix (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Dogtown was actually west of Downtown about a century ago. There's no area in Venice called Dogtown. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possibly retarget to Dogtown, California, a disambiguation page? I'm not sure to what extent any of these could be considered LA. --BDD (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but retarget. The existence of two notable films, Dogtown and Z-Boys and Lords of Dogtown, about culture in the Santa Monica/Venice area, indicate this is still a significant informal placename. I have added content to Santa Monica neighborhoods#Ocean Park Neighborhood that might make that section a suitable redirect target. Ibadibam (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Dogtown, California. I've added @Ibadibam:'s helpful links to the See also. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Dogtown is the area of Venice known as Oakwood. The LA Weekly refers to it as "the no man's land between Venice and Santa Monica that generations of skate rats would come to revere as Dogtown" [2]. Here is a history of it called "A Tale of Two Venices: Before There Was Dogtown, There Was Oakwood" [3]. Westjet magazine also has an article about Dogtown, Los Angeles called "Skateboarding Culture in Dogtown, Los Angeles" [4] The name is still referenced in Venice today, with Dogtown Station Lofts (700 Main St, Venice, CA 90291), Dogtown Studios (326 Sunset Ave, Venice, CA 90291) and Dogtown Media (228 Main St #4, Venice, CA 90291). Hopefully someone can add Dogtown to the Venice wikipedia page. It deserves recognition. Phatblackmama (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it fair to characterize Dogtown as comprising both Oakwood in Venice and Ocean Park in Santa Monica? Ibadibam (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like a consensus against delete is forming, but it's not yet clear whether we should keep the current target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:26, 18 September 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.

Evolutionary socialism[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 Eduard Bernstein#Opinions. -- Tavix (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects should point to the same target. Note that {{Social democracy sidebar}} also includes a redirect labeled "Evolutionary socialism", which is in fact a piped link to Eduard_Bernstein#Opinions. My understanding is that the term was either coined or at least is strongly associated with Eduard Bernstein, so matching that piped link seems like the best solution. signed, Rosguill talk 16:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Eduard Bernstein#Opinions, since the other mentions seem to be referring back to that. It doesn't have much more substantial discussion than the current targets, though. An article would be ideal, but this seems like the best solution for now. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 29 September 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.

Refugee sponsorship[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) 18:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refugee sponsorship is likely notable in its own right, but currently redirects to an article about a specific Canadian program. I think that providing internal search results for this term would be more appropriate in the absence of an article holistically about this topic. While the current target article includes some discussion of policies in the UK and US, sponsorship programs exist in other countries as well (off the top of my head, Germany, and likely many others; virtually any country that accepts refugees is going to have some sort of sponsorship program). signed, Rosguill talk 15:45, 18 September 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.

Applying machine learning at scale[edit]

 Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 26#Applying machine learning at scale

English newspapers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 25#English newspapers

Sex worker activists[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 Sex workers' rights. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better if this was retargeted to Sex workers' rights which describes the activities of sex worker activists, rather than the current cross-namespace redirect to a category which is naturally an incomplete list. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:31, 18 September 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.

Quandt family[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 25#Quandt family

Swifties[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 List of fandom names. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no information on Swift's article regarding her fanbase and their nickname. Sources present on the target article do not talk about her fanbase in significance. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:19, 18 September 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.

Carlson Hotels[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current target, Carlson (company), no longer run hotel, and it seem the content was axed or trim for past operation. Moreover, Carlson (company) and Carlson Hotels are similar.

However, by legal person sense, Carlson Hotels, Inc. is the former name of the same legal person as Radisson Hospitality, Inc. , aka Radisson Hotel Group. Also, that article has relatively more in-depth coverage for the company as Carlson Hotels.

So, retarget or not? Matthew hk (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It sounds like it is Radisson Hotel Group. ---Moyogo/ (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is nothing wrong with the current arrangement which adequately describes the company's involvement with hotels and provides clear links. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shhhnotsoloud. I also fail to see anything wrong with its current target. CycloneYoris talk! 04:01, 25 September 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.

Draft:Dora the explorer[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created as a two-line unencyclopedic draft and then redirected to the main article. Given that no content from the two-line draft seems to have migrated to the mainspace article, and the fact that terms with the draft prefix aren't particularly plausible search terms, I think we're better off without this. Hog Farm Bacon 15:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SRE. No benefit comes from deleting this redirect. A7V2 (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Draft:Dora the Explorer (without creating a second redirect) so the draft's capialization is correct and matches the target. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO, that would be an absolutely pointless and bureaucratic move – we don't need correctness in redirects, and this would destroy any old links that point to the current redirect. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 19:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it was not a redirect-from-move and there is no attribution requirement to keep it. It has very few page-views according to the "stats" link above, usually 0-2 a month. Now, that may be deceptive if only "actual" page views are counted, not "redirect-through" page-views. There's no need for a "placeholder redirect" at Draft:Dora the Explorer since anyone creating the page will see this: "Note: There is a Wikipedia article named Dora the Explorer (diff)" davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:11, 18 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_18&oldid=981456684"