Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 22, 2020.

Penta-1-Ol[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 21:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this redirect is nonsensical and should be deleted. The correct Pentan-1-ol exists and targets the same page. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don’t understand why this redirect is considered nonsensical. The only difference I see (compared to the Pentan-1-ol) is the capitalized O. CycloneYoris talk! 06:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris: The redirect is missing an "n": Penta vs Pentan. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you’re right! I completely overlooked that. Delete per nom’s comment below. CycloneYoris talk! 20:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The n is important, as the root is derived from the parent compound pentane. To me, this is a very unlikely to be useful as a search term (deletion reason #8). Mdewman6 (talk) 19:17, 23 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.

Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 2#Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station

Kids' Fun Festival[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) 18:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is one of those search terms that is just far too ambiguous to be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 22 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.

Be mean[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) 12:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely search term, not synonymous with the target. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Mdewman6 (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to DNCE (album)#Track listing, where this term is mentioned. "Be mean" is technically a DNCE song. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Retargeting is probably harmless, but since Be Mean exists, case-insensitive searches will still get there. Anyone specifically looking for a topic with this capitalization probably isn't looking for the song. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 30 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.

Mukhuli[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 30#Mukhuli

Template:Deccan Chargers Roster[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 21:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unused template redirect that redirects to a related, but separate team list. Spike 'em (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete even though they're based in the same city, they are not the same team- Sunrisers Hyderabad were a new team formed after Deccan Chargers were permanently banned from the IPL. Thus, completely misleading redirect, so should be deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:58, 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.

Wikipedia:Topic bans[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. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest retargeting to Wikipedia:Banning policy#Topic ban, where WP:TBAN redirects. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. Few links are extant. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:44, 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.

Jin'Ha[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) 18:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Appears to have been merged to the target List of Star Wars species (F–J) in 2006, then removed in this edit, possibly due to it being totally unsourced. Given that the content is no longer included at any page, and was poor quality to begin with, I think we can safely delete the redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 15:52, 22 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.

Drishyam (Tamil language 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 keep. signed, Rosguill talk 19:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was never the name of the film. Also, there are no incoming links. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is history here. In 2014 Bovineboy2008 moved the stub at this title to Drishyam (2015 film) and then, 1 minute later redirected it to Papanasam (film), which appears to have been a duplicate article about the same film. In 2015, Drishyam(2015) was moved to Drishyam (2015 film), over the redirect, by Anthony Appleyard - that article is a Hindi-language remake of the same Malayalam film. I'll add a hatnote to the Tamil film to that article. As the current target is "a shot-for-shot remake of [the] 2013 Malayalam film Drishyam." this is a plausible search term for someone looking for the Tamil version. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's Tamil and a shot-for-shot remake of Drishyam. I've tagged with {{R from incorrect name}}, but this is a very easy keep. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 30 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.

Ser Amantio di Nicolao[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 30#Ser Amantio di Nicolao

Extinct cultures[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 with no prejudice against AfD signed, Rosguill talk 21:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find "culture" and "sovereign state" interchangeable or equivalent to each other. Furthermore, the page was a former stub article made two years ago. Either a different target, or deletion. --George Ho (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert to stub article about extinct cultures. I agree that the change to a redirect to List of former sovereign states is not a proper choice for this article. I don't doubt there is, at the very least, a useful list that could be made from that title. The original article was not a great attempt at trying to gather into one page the causes of cultural extinction, which may be too complicated and varied a topic for a single encyclopedia article, but a brief introduction followed by a list of links to cultures that have gone extinct might be useful. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert per WikiDan61 and WP:BLAR. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why there doesn't seem to be an article on the topic, the way there is one, for example, on Language death; somewhat related articles are Societal collapse and Cultural assimilation, though neither is an eligible target. This is not my topic area, so I don't know if an article should be created, but if it is, then please let it be one that does justice to the topic. Restoring a stub sourced to a dictionary entry and two Buzzfeed-style articles is out of the question. The redirect can be either deleted, or retargeted to Category:Historical ethnic groups, which appears to be the smallest category that encompasses all extinct cultures. – Uanfala (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redirect should absolutely not be deleted. If you think that a redlink would be better than the stub then revert to the stub and nominate it at AfD. RfD should not be used to delete article content. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • RfD is routinely used to delete redirects with article content in their histories, subject to constraints of quality and recency. Still, if there is consensus for a redlink and against deletion, then draftification or userfication are viable options. – Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it really? The only times that RfD is, in my extensive experience, used to delete article content is when there has been either a discussion about that article content that result in a consensus against it being an article, or where the content would be speedily deleted as an article. Neither applies here and so, per long precedent and deletion policy, the article content needs to be discussed at AfD if it is to be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to stub article per WikiDan61 and Thryduulf and maybe nominate this at AfD. I wanted to find a plausible target for this but there doesn’t seem to be any. CycloneYoris talk! 20:49, 23 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.

Water world[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This currently redirects to a disambiguation page with alternative capitalization where there is only one entry concerning this specific capitalization, Ocean world. I wonder if it may be better to just redirect directly to that page. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is a more plausible search term for several entries on that dab page (e.g. those called "Waterworld") than it is for Ocean world. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. In fact, this capitalization is one of the terms in the first line, so it's perfectly plausible. Regards, SONIC678 21:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are many "Waterworld" entries on the target page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cannot presume which Water World they're looking for, and not convinced it would be ocean world. I would guess most people would be looking for one of the waterparks, not the scientific term suggested by the OP. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:00, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_22&oldid=981458512"