Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 13, 2021.

[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 Advocacy. There is no consensus to delete, with retargeting to Advocacy being the most-supported alternative to deletion. It edges out Lobbying due to concerns that lobbying may be too distinct. With -1 votes, disambiguation wins the wooden spoon for being the least supported option. -- Tavix (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See related nomination below. Procedural nomination to keep these on the same day; still thinking about how to !vote. Not going to nominate Paid advocacy on wikipedia, per Hog Farm's points below. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A little more clarity on the proposed target would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - why do we have two separate articles on advocacy and lobbying? I don't see how they're separate topics. As for this discussion, it was evidently only made to keep it together with a separate discussion which after the relist it is no longer together with; no action was proposed by the nominator and the only other comment so far is an unclear proposal (we can't retarget to two articles). I suggest this be closed, and if anyone has a fully-fledged opinion on doing something different with this redirect, they can re-nominate it with a fulsome rationale. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to head off the inevitable softball proposal, oppose disambiguation. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in the absence of alternative targets in the nomination both at the earlier RfD and here. Advocacy is too broad and Lobbyist is different from advocacy. Jay (Talk) 16:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Advocacy or delete. There isn't a great target; if we had to pick one, Advocacy is probably the most relevant. The current target is too Wikipedia-specific and likely to cause surprise/confusion. Also it barely talks about advocacy (as opposed to more general conflicts of interest). Lobbying is a reasonable suggestion, as it has more of a connotation of being paid than advocacy does, but it's distinct from advocacy in other ways too. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the current target is too Wikipedia specific, no one is going to search for plain old Advocacy this way, and Lobbying isn't quite the same thing. There may even be an article to be written here. signed, Rosguill talk 05:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Advocacy. I agree with everyone that the current target is too Wikipedia-specific, but given how often the term is used on Wikipedia it is a very plausible search term (the stats tool isn't working for me currently so I can't put figures on this) so we can and should do better for searchers than a red link. There is nothing inherently different about advocacy and paid advocacy (the exchange of currency doesn't change the fundamental nature of the thing) so advocacy is the clear best target, the hatnote to Wikipedia space is sufficient for those who are looking for information about advocacy in a Wikipedia context. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rosguill. Advocacy is tempting as a target, but really doesn't discuss the idea of paid advocacy, except obliquely in linking to Lobbying. I agree that lobbying is a bit too specific and/or distinct from the broader idea, though. --BDD (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way does paid advocacy need discussing separately from advocacy? Outside of a Wikipedia context there really isn't much to say beyond some people get paid to advocate things and so money may be a motivation rather than (or in addition to) belief, with a link to lobbying for that specific subset of advocacy. Heck even in a Wikipedia context the meaningful distinction is very significantly more between advocacy and not-advocacy than between unpaid advocacy and paid advocacy. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You may have misunderstood me. I don't mean to say paid advocacy needs to have a separate article. My thought is more that paid advocacy is a subtopic of advocacy. It's very likely that a reader using this search term knows about the general concept, and could find it without this redirect. Thus, the redirect suggests specific information we don't have. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Lobbying as the most suitable target of the possibilities (this is a likely enough search term; it is the most likely meaning; and likely search terms don't always need to be mentioned directly in the target); with a hatnote to Advocacy. I'm not opposed to the opposite proposition (retarget to advocacy with hatnote to lobbying), but I think this one is better. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make article or redirect to Advocacy or Lobbying. The 'paid' part should be a distinct thing, either in a section of Advocacy or something else, but not a redirect to Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. SWinxy (talk) 22:22, 15 October 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.

Herati-Kabul War[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 10:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, no results on GScholar, delete unless a justification can be provided. N.b. the initial editor was blocked for repeated fabrications. signed, Rosguill talk 18:07, 13 September 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.

O.B.O Clothing Line Ltd.[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 24#O.B.O Clothing Line Ltd.

GB News Programs[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 05:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Current use is WP:ASTONISH. It links to a Filipino sketch comedy which is known, presumably by fans only, as "GB". This sketch show appears to have many sketches, some of which take the form of news programs. This tenuous link is in comparison to GB News, an actual news channel, which does have programs, which could very rationally be considered to be "GB News Programs". I highly doubt that there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "GB News Programs", based on how tenuous the current use is, and how young GB News is as a channel, so I favour deletion. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to GB News. While GB News is young, I really doubt anyone is typing this in to find the current target; if not for the existence of a better target, this would be an easily delete as implausible. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A redirect to GB News isn't suitable for 2 errors: capitalisation and American spelling. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Shhhnotsoloud --Lenticel (talk) 03:06, 15 September 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.

Park Street District, Columbus, Ohio[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 Procedural close, article moved back to article space and sent to AfD. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect from the article namespace to the draft namespace and should as such normally be deleted per WP:R2. However, I see that the target page was residing in the article namespace for many years and then an editor moved the page to the draft namespace, so I'm unsure if the redirect should be deleted or if the target should be moved back to the article namespace. Stefan2 (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Right now, the redirect's target is a subject with little recognition. The article stood almost entirely as an advertisement for unnotable businesses there, and none of the references define the subject - the "district" doesn't actually exist as far as I can tell from references and other reading. ɱ (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But shouldn't that be decided at AfD instead of boldly moving the article to a place where it would eventually be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G13? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubation in draftspace is intended for recently-created articles, not ones that are more than six years old. WP:DRAFTIFY explicitly says that "it is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion." Move article back to mainspace and send to AFD, if desired. - Eureka Lott 17:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert move, per Eureka. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:14, 13 September 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.

Packing House Corner, Delaware[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 Route 54 (Maryland–Delaware)#Major intersections. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete: the article was deleted as a non--notable crossroads, and I don't see how redirecting to the enclosing county is helpful. Mangoe (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to get rid of such a red link is to de-link the name. Looking at the state place names list, I seriously have to doubt its merits, but it also would have the problem, assuming it only listed notable places, that the redirect wouldn't take a reader to a place with any information. Mangoe (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a way to turn off links, so I did for this case. I’m indifferent at this point to whether this gets deleted or not. The reason I created articles for many of these places in Delaware that are simply road intersections usually named “X Corner” or “X Crossroads” was to rid road articles of redlinks. However, I think redirecting many of these non notable places in Delaware to the list article with limited information is a good idea, someone curious about the existence of such a community can be taken to the list with all the information there, which usually isn’t much. Dough4872 01:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Route 54 (Maryland–Delaware)#Major intersections. Pretty much the only thing we can say about this location is that it's an intersection, and it is listed as such there. It has been used in a DOT map, so I am comfortable keeping it in some form because of that. A reference at Route 54 to that map for attestation purposes would help. I do agree with the above that it's a bad idea to redirect this somewhere it isn't mentioned, so both the current target and List of places in Delaware are bad ideas. -- Tavix (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:07, 13 September 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.

Powell Gammill[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 12:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Powell Gammill apparently ran in 2004, 2006, 2010, 2012, and 2014 as well, in addition to his 2008 run. So, I don't think this should redirect to the 2008 elections page but whether it should be redirected or deleted or what have you, I don't know. —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 08:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is bit like non-notable actors who have appeared in several films: a redirect to one of them inhibits Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:58, 14 September 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.

F****[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 20#F****

Argo ( Sword Art Online )[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 04:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

These redirects all share another WP:UNNATURAL format, one with two additional spaces padding out the disambiguators' words. With the exception of the Arbitration and Conciliation one, they were left over when the targets were moved to more policy-compliant titles, and they don't seem to get very many pageviews per year. Delete them unless someone can provide a justification. Regards, SONIC678 03:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. Unnatural formatting for parenthetical disambiguation. Ensure correctly formatted equivalent redirects exist, if desired, but these merit deletion as they are inappropriate to link and are unlikely search terms. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We do not need to give every possible mistyped version of a term a redirect. These malformed redirects simply clutter the search results. ―Susmuffin Talk 04:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. None of these are special stylizations for the spacing AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. No real reason to keep any of them. UNNATURAL, etc. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 00:32, 14 September 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.

Gerald Little[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 20#Gerald Little

Uncivil[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 Incivility. ✗plicit 01:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A 2017 radio show seems unlikely to be the primary topic for this term. Suggest retargeting to incivility * Pppery * it has begun... 00:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to incivility per nom, with hatnote to current target. I've created Uncivil (podcast) to point to the current target. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Incivility: This is the obvious main target. ―Susmuffin Talk 04:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Incivility per above, and add a hatnote to the current target. The radio show may be what comes first to certain people's minds, but stuff like that isn't always the primary topic. Regards, SONIC678 13:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to incivility per above. I created the original redirect but in hindsight, a disambiguator like "(podcast)", as Tamzin created, would have been better. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 00:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Incivility per above --Lenticel (talk) 03:07, 15 September 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.

Allen Lloyd Jones[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 01:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence this is a pseudonym for the target; article indicates the subject's full name is Allen Neal Jones. Delete unless a justification can be provided. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is not his name. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No mention of Lloyd in any of the main article so it's not a family member either. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AJ Styles' full name is Allen Neal Jones, not Allen Lloyd Jones. And I'd also like to think that such a name does not exist among the list of Styles' pseudonyms. Hansen SebastianTalk 17:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:56, 16 September 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_September_13&oldid=1099731553"