Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 3, 2021.

List of past Emmerdale characters (1972–1999)[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 21:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Term "past" is not used for fictional characters as agreed by WP:SOAPS. Redirect gets no traffic/use and has no purpose since it's an implausible search term and linked nowhere. – DarkGlow • 20:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note this redirect has a very extensive history and before deletion (if that is the consensus) it is important that any required history merges are identified and completed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:57, 3 August 2021 (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.

126.com[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 or no consensus (depending on the redirect, but the result is the same). I will go ahead and restore the edit that Cunard discovered in order to resolve the lack of mention concerns. -- Tavix (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target; mentions elswhere appear to consist exclusively of citations and compatibility notes for email clients. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 163.com which is discussed at the target with various WP:RS in support, and is well-known as part of the company's branding. No opinion on the others Delete the others as not significant enough to be mentioned. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC) updated 01:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; it appears I confused something. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     08:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 163.com, discussed at the target and a plausible search term. Neutral on the others. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as all are plausible search terms. In this edit, Omikroergosum (talk · contribs) (who created 126.com and 188.com) added:

    E-mail Services: Largest provider of free e-mail services in China with more than 940 million users as of 2017, in addition to 163.com, the company also runs 188.com, 126.com and more.[1]

    References

    1. ^ https://wccftech.com/netease-q2-results-revenue-grows-to-2-billion-games-generate-1-4bn/ NetEase Q2 2017: Revenue Grows to $2 Billion, Games Generate $1.4bn], Chris Wray, WCCFTECH, Aug 10, 2017
    This information has since been removed. I would support restoring this information, possibly with a better source. NetEase's website at http://tech.163.com/special/00093ID1/nd60specList_43.html confirms that it owns these domains: "网易旗下六大电子邮箱（126.com、163.com、188.com、vip.163.com、yeah.net、netease.com）注册用户总数已突破2.8亿". The Google Translate of this text is: "The total number of registered users of NetEase’s six major e-mail addresses (126.com, 163.com, 188.com, vip.163.com, yeah.net, netease.com) has exceeded 280 million". Even without mention of these domains in the article, I would still support retention since they are all plausible redirects of NetEase's domains to its article.

    Cunard (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be a consensus to keep at least the first redirect, but no clear consensus yet on the other two.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:55, 3 August 2021 (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.

Fever Games[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 12#Fever Games

The Spectrum & Daily News[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 The Spectrum (Utah). MBisanz talk 21:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Mentions elsewhere all appear to be in citations. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:53, 3 August 2021 (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.

Sunnydale Syndrome[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 12#Sunnydale Syndrome

Daventry Parkway Project[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 for now, with no prejudice against recreating should a sourced mention somewhere stick. -- Tavix (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The redirect is part of a wp:ADVOCACY attempt to use Wikipedia as a platform by a non-notable campaign to establish a new railway station and new line for Daventry in England. See history of the target article (diff) and of the Daventry article (diff) John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that WP:Articles for deletion/Sustainable Transport Northamptonshire and the reasons give by bonadea's to reject Draft:Sustainable Transport Midlands are relevant to this RfD submission. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have added a citation needed at the target for the line that mentions the advocacy group and the proposed project. Jay (Talk) 06:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jay: Sorry but, before having seen your note here but after you moved the non-citing 'citation' (at (Weedon railway station), I deleted the line for the self-styled 'group' per WP:advocacy and WP:notnotable, because your (correct) edit means that it has never had a valid citation since it was first inserted. This is the threshold level of political commitment we should require unless we are to accept as valid every bedroom fantasy. But feel free to revert if my edit may be considered prejudicial. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is short, cited paragraph about this at Weedon Bec#Geography that notes support from the district council. That level of mention seems entirely appropriate for the article about the station too, so I suggest mentioning there and then keeping the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: I would have been more impressed if the first citation at the Weedon Bec article had not been WP:SELFPUBLISHed [I have deleted the sentence, it was redundant in the article anyway] and if the text nominally supported by the second citation had actually been been an honest reflection of that citation. [I have corrected, charitably.] Until today, there was some text asserting the existence of a campaign to reopen Weedon as "Daventry Parkway" but the claimed supporting citation failed verification. (This morning, Jay [re]moved the citation and then I removed the unsupported text – see above.) So yes, the redirect should certainly stand if there is some reliably-sourced text at the station article to receive it. Right now there isn't and Google can't find anything that passes the selfpublish and primary source test. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have seen mentions of it, probably in published works, so Keep as redirects are cheap . Mallaeta (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mallaeta:, even one citation would be good. Yes, redirects are cheap but to which target article? Why? I wouldn't normally bother about something so trivial except that the proponents have been littering multiple articles with advocacy material and have had two AFCs declined. Leaving the redirect is just an invitation to resume when attention has moved on. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if perhaps the reference you recall was actually to Long Buckby? It is about 4.5 mi (7.2 km) from central Daventry and de facto its parkway station (and the obvious reason why another station is most unlikely to be funded). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I've found a 2014 book reference to "Daventry Parkway" (without the Project), which pre-supposes a HS2 station at Brackley (which is not going to happen):
      • Sociable cities : the 21st-century reinvention of the garden city. Routledge. p. 212. The station locations would be critical (figure 11.16). Leaving the HS2 main London-Birmingham line at Brackley, the line runs west of Daventry. The first stop, Daventry Parkway, would occupy the site of the former Braunston Willoughby station at a key location in the western extension of Daventry - which should be named Daintree, the original Shakespearean pronunciation on the A45 north-west of the town centre, with rapid transit access, via the extension, to the town centre. It would then follow the original Great Central Line northward [etc] {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help). (Willoughby is 4.9 miles from Daventry.)
    • So I guess there might be a case for a correctly named redirection article that points to Braunston and Willoughby railway station where a sentence might cite Hall's concept. (I'm unconvinced but would not oppose.) I also found a reference in a a Daventry District Council planning document (Daventry District Settlements and Countryside Local Plan – Responses to Regulation 19 Consultation (Plan Order)) that dismisses the idea. There are other mentions in blogs etc, none by anyone notable. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of largest towns in England without a railway station#Daventry where the nom has added details of the Daventry Parkway station proposal. Jay (Talk) 15:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jay: No, that is a misreading. "Daventry Parkway" [sic] is just about notable, "Daventry Parkway Project" is not – it is a teenage fantasy with no traction whatever. It has zero mention outside the self-published sources. My (cited) addition to the "List of largest" is about the Parkway, not about the imaginary "project". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the absence of a Daventry Parkway proposal, I thought the current redirect would suffice, but if the uppercase P of Project makes it refer to the experimental project with limited reach, then Delete for now. Jay (Talk) 19:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duggan, Jack (2020-09-29). "Bold new plan to improve public transport in Northamptonshire put together by 14-year-old schoolboy". Northampton Chronicle and Echo.

    Calling this "self-published" is an error. Neither the publisher nor the byline are the proponent of the scheme.

    That said, I have no idea where and how this minor factoid fits into Wikipedia. It's less well documented than the Weedon and Daventry Railway Company (incorporated in 1868 by Act of Parliament) and the Daventry and Weedon Railway Company (of 1872), both of which apparently (if I am not mis-reading the sources) belong in Weedon–Marton Junction line, and both of which better-documented (in history books) attempts at a railway line are not in Wikipedia at all yet.

    Uncle G (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Uncle G: Yes, you are absolutely correct that the Northampton Chronicle is not a self-published source and is certainly reliable enough for this purpose. However, the story in the Chronicle says nothing whatever about a Parkway Project. It just says that this 14-year old kid would like to see his local station (on the West Coast Main Line) reopened as "Daventry Parkway". As already said above, "Daventry Parkway" is just (barely) notable enough to have a redirect (to List of largest towns in England without a railway station#Daventry) but there is no notable (or even credible) 'Project'. If no local source has given it any credence, why should we? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2021 (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.

New York Emmy Awards[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 12#New York Emmy Awards

No (Vim 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "no", "vim" or songs at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 3 August 2021 (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.

Leucoleftism[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism with no evidence of use elsewhere, delete unless evidence of usage can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 3 August 2021 (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.

University of Lahn[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mention of "Lahn" at the target or its linked deWiki counterpart; searching online, the closest relevant result was University of Marburg, (Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg An Der Lahn), a separately notable institution. It's not clear to me that it is ever referred to that way, so I'm currently leaning towards deletion of this redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 3 August 2021 (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.

German Blimpways[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. ✗plicit 00:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, zero results on GScholar and no relevant results in an internet search. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, I likewise found zero results on an academic search engine I use, could be a poor translation from Deutsch but the redirect is definitely spurious in lieu of solid info. Carguychris (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, noting that the creator has a history of questionable German aerospace redirects. @Otis the Texan: This is six redirects now that no one's found evidence for, all in the same topic area, plus two about the German language. Are these terms you've seen used elsewhere? If so, where? If not, you should probably stop creating redirects like these. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 11:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Otis the Texan's past creation of a redirect for the comical mistranslation "Deutschlandese Airways" strongly suggests that "German Blimpways" is a hoax and a joke, just a less obvious one. Carguychris (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, some of these stretch AGF pretty thin. Still, they haven't edited for a few weeks, and I will reserve judgment till they're active again and can answer these questions. Otis, if you're reading this in the future and this RfD has already closed, feel free to post on my talk page with your answer to why you created these. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:27, 9 August 2021 (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.

Bill Hanks[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. ✗plicit 00:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, no evidence of use online. The edit summary for the redirect's creation is Redirect based of wife's surname. Although never referred by this surname such redirects are still plausible as people do search people on Wikipedia by spouse's surname like Amber Depp for Amber Heard. I think this is a flawed argument, because a) men taking their wives' surname is extremely uncommon in the US and is a much less likely search term than "Woman's Name + Husband's Surname" and b) Bill Cosby is far more well-known than his wife, further reducing the likelihood that someone would search for him by his wife's name. I think deletion is the way to go here. signed, Rosguill talk 19:55, 3 August 2021 (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.

Yaron Cohen[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. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete per WP:DEADNAME: "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists". If this should be kept, I have no idea what the word "redirects" should exclude. 93.172.226.66 (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can find no evidence she was notable prior to transitioning. Reliable source coverage uses her stage name, and the other name present in the article. Star Mississippi 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I feel like this should be a speedy delete criterion. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2021 (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.

Guitar-rock[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 Rock music. ✗plicit 00:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar rock refers to rock music with guitars, which is a much broader category than just pop rock. Rock music is probably the most appropriate existing target, although deletion may also be appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 19:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to rock music per nom, the term "guitar rock" is used in many different contexts and can't be reliably tied to any particular style. Carguychris (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2021 (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.

Russian Occupied China[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. ✗plicit 00:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese irredentist term, not currently in use anywhere in Wikipedia and gramatically incorrect. Super Ψ Dro 16:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was prepared to !vote keep on the premise that this could be a valid {{R from non-neutral term}}, but I can't find any evidence of use of this phrase even in Chinese irredentist contexts; the few results I found use it as a descriptive term for territory actively occupied during military conflicts between Russia and China, which isn't coterminous with Outer Manchuria. signed, Rosguill talk 20:18, 3 August 2021 (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.

Bennett Government[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 Thirty-sixth government of Israel. ✗plicit 00:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be turned into a disambiguation page as the Thirty-sixth government of Israel is also called the "Bennett–Lapid government" —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 06:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Thirty-sixth government of Israel and disambiguate there with a hatnote pointing to the old target. An internet search suggests that the Israeli government has rapidly established itself as the primary topic for this term, although there is plenty of historical use to justify the prior target. signed, Rosguill talk 20:24, 3 August 2021 (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.

Arnaldo Hernandez variants[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. ✗plicit 08:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate spelling deleted last year at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_2#Arnaldo_Hernandez. Briefly played in the Mexican League since then, but has since been released; I'm not sure that there's a good list or anywhere else to point this. Hog Farm Talk 05:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Not notable, not likely to become notable, no article history needing th be saved. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2021 (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.

Rafael DePaula variants[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. ✗plicit 08:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has washed out of the minor leagues, and does not seem to be in the Padres, Braves, or any other teams' systems, so shouldn't be at these lists. Hog Farm Talk 04:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Not notable, not likely to become notable, no article history needing th be saved. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no suitable target. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:03, 5 August 2021 (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/2021_August_3&oldid=1038993216"