Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 21, 2021.

"A. George Baker"[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 23:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with below. 2 minutes this time. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to copy and paste this, but there's no need for page titles in quotes unless the MoS specifically calls for it.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 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.

"Anny Robert"[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 23:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with below. 17 minutes this time. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to copy and paste this, but there's no need for page titles in quotes unless the MoS specifically calls for it.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 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.

"Elaine M. Catley"[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 23:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As below; 23 minutes this time. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to copy and paste this, but there's no need for page titles in quotes unless the MoS specifically calls for it.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 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.

"Foos Gas Engine Company"[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 23:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with below. 3 minutes this time. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to copy and paste this, but there's no need for page titles in quotes unless the MoS specifically calls for it.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 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.

"Florence Ilott"[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 23:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with to below. Also zero minutes. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to copy and paste this, but there's no need for page titles in quotes unless the MoS specifically calls for it.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 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.

"Choi Chan In"[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 23:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similar to below. This one took zero minutes to be moved to the correct title. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to copy and paste this, but there's no need for page titles in quotes unless the MoS specifically calls for it.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 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.

"Brian L. Ott"[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 23:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would certainly be WP:COSTLY to have redirects with every title enclosed in quotation marks, especially those moved to the correct title 11 minutes after creation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to copy and paste this, but there's no need for page titles in quotes unless the MoS specifically calls for it.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I simply can't see this as being worth keeping at all. Not helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:11, 22 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.

Abhinn Sharma[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 23:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After the article was deleted as non-notable following an AfD, the original creator recreated the page a week later, this time as a Redirect. Although User:Noq listed it at RfD the following week, they withdrew the nomination the next day. I am re-nominating as non-notable subject who is both a film director and producer. While the direction credit is at the current target, as a producer he is mentioned at Mitran Nu Shaunk Hathyaran Da, and so it's not fair to point to one over the other, and suggest to delete. Jay (Talk) 14:51, 21 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.

Disadvantages of alternative energy[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 Renewable energy debate. ✗plicit 23:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody talks about "alternative energy" nowadays Chidgk1 (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: This was once a redirect to a section of the alternative energy article, which no longer exists. It seems that this redirect page is now obsolete. Jarble (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A searcher would be confused by this redirect, as there is no mention of any "disadvantages" in the target article. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Renewable energy debate, considering that Alternative energy redirects to Renewable energy. Renewable energy controversies redirects to it as well. Jay (Talk) 18:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Renewable energy debate per Jay. A surprising 317 articles link to "alternative energy" so the term does seem to be in circulation. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- there is not a reasonable search situation for this, unless you are deliberately promoting misinformation on renewable energy. @Clayoquot: I think that there are so many links suggests that we need to do a bit of cleanup, not reinforce a clearly antiquated and politicizing linguistic choice, Sadads (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, uses like this are just not plain, publicly accessible language instead it infers a huge amount of context. I have fixed about 10 of these so far, and they all have either an assumption of deep conventional vs alternative understanding, or assume a lot of politics at the moment in time (some of the "alternative" energy wordings are used in opposition to nuclear which is not exactly the meaning that is suggested with the current redirect), Sadads (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Renewable energy debate per Jay. The wording isn't quite right, but as we know redirects don't have to be NPOV or even strictly accurate per se. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Renewable energy debate as it discusses disadvantages of various renewable/alternative energy technologies. Redirects don't need to be neutral, and we certainly shouldn't try to hinder someone from finding what they are looking for. A7V2 (talk) 08:46, 23 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.

Is the life we really want[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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 and WP:CSD#G6. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo (missing an entire word) for Is This the Life We Really Want?. This was created by me in error - my mistake! Popcornfud (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Popcornfud: for future reference, you can nominate a page you created for speedy deletion by placing {{db-G7}} on it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 21 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.

2/0[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 3#2/0

Alpha (computer)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 28#Alpha (computer)

Indian gaming[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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since Indian could mean Native American in some parts of the world and relating to India in others - I don't see how there can be a PT here. I created a dab and was reverted with "Clear PT" edit summary, so bringing here for further discussion. MB 19:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate (just to clarify my position}. MB 01:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect to Native American gaming, as it has been for 17 years. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is determined by usage in reliable sources, not by whether you can imagine any other meaning for the phrase. Search any reliable sources for this phrase and you will find that 100% of the references relate to Native American gaming, and 0% relate to Gambling in India. Toohool (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Internet searching is heavily influenced by your geographical location. I doubt that you have been able to determine what the results would be when searching from India. We need to take a global perspective. MB 21:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MB: I'm talking about searches of reliable sources, such as Google Books or news archives. But even with a Google search, if you set your location to anywhere that's neutral to the topic, like the United Kingdom, the vast majority of the results will relate to Native American gambling. Anyway, since you are the one asking to replace a long-standing status quo, what is your evidence to support your argument about how the phrase is used by reliable sources from the global perspective? Toohool (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for an example, even on Amazon's India site, a book search for "indian gaming" gives about 100 results and every single one of them pertains to Native American gambling. Toohool (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From a neutral location 2nd Google result I get is the Wikipedia article and fifth "How to build a Indian Gaming PC" and "India Gaming Conference 2021" and "A guide to gaming in India - Reddit" are also on the first result page Chidgk1 (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add a hatnote to Gambling in India. Gambling in India doesn't mention gaming, so a DAB will not be valid. Jay (Talk) 20:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gambling and gaming are synonyms, so that is perfectly obvious. MB 21:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it perfectly obvious? For me, gaming is more about video gaming or online gaming. For Wikipedia, Gaming has no primary topic. Jay (Talk) 06:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Look in a dictionary. Gaming = gambling is either the first or second definition. It's a very common usage of the word and has been used that way for centuries. MB 21:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, Gambling is not the primary topic for gaming. No mention at Wikt:gaming as well, but it mentions Wikt:game of chance which has gambling as the See also. Jay (Talk) 10:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The current target article is entirely about gambling, so it seems reasonable to equate the two terms for the purposes of hatting/dabbing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you propose a DAB when Gambling in India does not have a mention of "gaming"? Jay (Talk) 20:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: There are at least two possible targets for this redirect. ―Susmuffin Talk 19:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Susmuffin: The existence of multiple conceivable targets is not sufficient to justify a disambiguation page. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Toohool (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that we can treat "gaming" and "gambling" as synonymous here, especially given that the Native American gaming article is about gambling. Now, I put Toohool's statement to the test, and I'll concede that even when I try to refine my Google results to be less U.S-oriented, I still mostly get stuff about American Indians... but there is quite a lot about the Republic of India. See https://www.google.com/search?q=%22indian+gaming%22+india. I think a case could be made to DAB or to hatnote, and I question anyone acting like this is an obvious call either way. That said, since two-item DABs are best avoided, I think we should keep with hatnote. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:PTOPIC: topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely...to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. If a reader is not many times more likely to be looking for one, then there is no PT and the term should be a two-entry dab. MB 17:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Both parts of the phrase is ambiguous: Indian can be Native American or from India, and gaming can be gambling (Gambling in India) or video games (Video games in India). -- Tavix (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (+) 16:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, and I note a draft has already been created below the deletion tag. signed, Rosguill talk 04:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though a draft has already been created, there is still some slight discrepancy in this discussion which needs to be resolved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering there are multiple disambig votes, I had a question at Talk:Indian gaming trying to understand how this can be a disambig. Jay (Talk) 11:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need a mention in the article if it's a very well-known synonym (and yes, gaming is a very well-known synonym for gambling). For example, the word "mad" doesn't appear in the article for Anger at all, but there is a link to that article on the disambiguation page for Mad. Mlb96 (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point me to the guideline or understanding of this? And thanks for the alternate example, I don't find that appropriate too. "mad" shouldn't be pointing to Anger, but rather to some article about American-English, or mad can be a redirect to anger and have its entry at the DAB page. Jay (Talk) 09:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no particular guideline here, it's just accepted common practice. Here are some more examples: Food is linked on the disambiguation pages for Chow and Grub, despite neither of those words appearing in the article. Mlb96 (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's common practice, and not subject to verifiability, it is problematic. In the absence of a mention at the proposed disambig target, who decides that gaming is a very well-known synonym for gambling (in India, not universally)? I have started a discussion at WT:Disambiguation#Synonym disambiguations and mention. Jay (Talk) 05:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate As a non-American non-Indian I would not expect this to go to a Native American topic Chidgk1 (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate As with chips or Georgia, the primary topic here changes depending on one's location. Therefore, it should be disambiguated. Mlb96 (talk) 01:48, 22 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.

2015 Oklahoma Sooners women's soccer team[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. With information added about the program in general to the target article, the encyclopedia is approved, though it may be some time before we have coverage of this specific season. --BDD (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article; with Oklahoma Sooners women's soccer not existing, I don't think there's a good place to point this. Hog Farm Talk 05:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that just makes the case for expanding the Oklahoma Sooners article, not for deleting this redirect. It takes the reader to the right general area - deleting it and thereby creating a redlink wouldn't be an improvement. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Colonies Chris: - I don't see any reason why it should remain pointing at the current target, as our article for the overall Sooners program doesn't mention individual seasons and probably shouldn't for ones like this one where it looks like they were a middle-of-the-road team. Would 2015 Big 12 Conference women's soccer season be a better target? It at least gives the conference tournament finish, the home stadium, and the final record. Hog Farm Talk 14:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But that would be a circular link. All the similar links in that article are redirects to non-season-specific articles (or subsections); e.g. 2015 TCU Horned Frogs women's soccer team redirects to TCU Horned Frogs#Women's soccer, 2015 Texas Tech Red Raiders women's soccer team redirects to Texas Tech Red Raiders women's soccer. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's not a standard search term, so redirect pointless. I agree that adding a section on women's soccer and pointing the Oklahoma Sooners women's soccer redirect there is sensible. GiantSnowman 16:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a likely search term but it's used in two articles, so it should stay - just like the other redirects I mentioned above. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "not a standard search term", GiantSnowman. If we had an article on the 2015 season of this team, I expect this would be its title exactly (compare, for example, 2020 North Carolina Tar Heels women's soccer team). I don't disagree with your conclusion, given the lack of content on this season. --BDD (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who is searching for these terms? GiantSnowman 07:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I'm too much a creature of RfD, where we'd usually say "plausible/likely search term". I thought you were suggesting this was somehow malformed. Thanks for the explanation. --BDD (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a brief section on women's soccer to the target article. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:29, 4 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 05:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oklahoma Sooners women's soccer should first become a standalone article, and year-wise teams can branch out from there. 2015 TCU Horned Frogs women's soccer team and 2015 Texas Tech Red Raiders women's soccer team can be nominated next for deletion, for consistency. Jay (Talk) 19:30, 21 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.

2 nm[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 30#2 nm

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_21&oldid=1047993533"