Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 15

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

January 15

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 15, 2016.

Arlene Ackerman (reverend)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 23#Arlene Ackerman (reverend)

Unglue.it

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 without prejudice against article creation. Deryck C. 22:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unglue.it is run by Free Ebook Foundation, and not by Open Book Publishers. I cant see any reason why Open Book Publishers is an appropriate target. Unfortunately I cant find a better redirect target as Free Ebook Foundation and its members dont individually appear to be notable. Unglue.it could be notable, but it would require a lot of effort to research/create an article which passes notability policies. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redlink it. I think the notability of the parent entity is plausible and deleting this redirect might encourage the creation of the article. Rossami (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to
    Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association article in a section, but it isn't described there.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    user:Godsy, targeting to a List/Comparison article creates a circular problem -- those types of pages usually require an existing article to determine whether an item should be included in the list/comparison, and editors look for non-blue links as a simple proxy for 'no existing notable'. That is the case with this comparison; see Talk:Comparison of crowdfunding services/Archive 1#Weed table of non-notable sites? and other discussion threads. If this is retargeted to the comparison page, it fails the conditions of the comparison page, and will be delisted from the comparison page, and then we need a new RfD. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    redlinks and non-links, though bad redirects such as this can slip through the cracks displaying as blue) was "a bad idea".—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page notice for the comparison article suggests only notable subjects should be included there. I haven't gone through the list to see if this is otherwise adhered to. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to do the legwork on this, aren't I? Alright. Of 96 list entries total, 94 have standalone articles, thus meeting the inclusion criterion. 1 is a redirect to a section of another page (a bio of the site's founder). 1 redirects to a parent company, with some discussion of that particular subsidiary. Since it fails the enforced list inclusion criterion, I oppose retargeting it to Comparison of crowdfunding services. That's probably going to mean a delete, with Free Ebook Foundation red. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. Thanks for doing the legwork. -- Tavix (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2016 (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:HITANDRUN

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 close; nomination by banned user. Feel free to renominate or ask me to re-open if any legitimate editor should have concerns about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect from the Wikipedia namespace to a user's essay is being used by that user to give a false credibility to his actions when he reverts edits that he simply does not like. See for example [1], [2], [3]. I thus believe it should be deleted. 192.121.113.79 (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's a valid question to raise, but I don't think this is the right forum. In that case there was clear dissent to allowing the target to be seen as a prevailing opinion by associating it with project space; a significant number of users opined that it contradicts established policy. We don't have any such opinion to evaluate here, and this wouldn't be the right place to develop one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another way: as long as we haven't established that the target is problematic (hasn't been asked), then as a redirect, this points where it should. It could possibly be retargeted to the same target as
WP:RFD#K5). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2016 (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:TFAP

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 request granted as unopposed. Since the redirect has only noise-level hits before the RfD began, there should be no problems with breaking this existing shortcut. Deryck C. 22:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retargeting to

✈ 17:40, 15 January 2016 (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.

Last Queen of England

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. Deryck C. 22:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the current Queen being Queen of England, if you do a google search for "Last Queen of England" the predominant result is a mystery novel written by Steve Robinson. DrKay (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:PRESERVE both apply here. Someone looking for the person who was the final female ruler of England upon its dissolution will find her at the target, and someone confused and trying to find either the current or most recently previous female ruler of the UK can find it by the hatnotes; there's no reason to give these users a dead end. (You might also argue that a confused reader searching "last queen of england" is looking for George VI or Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, if we're being either very literal or honest about common errors.) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. If this was a common search term, I think I could go along with it, but with abyssal stats (less than half a hit a day), I really don't think it's worth that risk, especially since I believe that the "colloquial" use is more common than you are describing. -- Tavix (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment England has been dissolved? I think I should have been told. (Mind you, there have been a lot of floods there lately...) Si Trew (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to
    Queen of England which details the last queen of the Kingdom of England before Union (either regnant or consort), as well as the current Queen (and thus temporally last), and the last Queen-consort (the Queen Mother), through the various lists listed -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2016 (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.

Argentine Ethnography

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. Deryck C. 14:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Target page moved to "Ethnic groups of Argentina". Ethnography is not a synonym for its actual topic. Carwil (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2016 (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.

Ridley Tsui

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) 17:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Target page is inappropriate since while Tsui did don the suit to perform as Smoke, the page contains no information about him and it would be inappropriate to make it biographical for him in any way, since it's not about him to start with. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and to encourage article creation. It seems that this actor starred in a lot of movies so it's unfair to simply point his name to just one of them --Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2016 (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.

My anus is bleeding

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. Deryck C. 22:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All jokes aside, delete as an unlikely search term. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft: The animated shorts are notable as a whole yes but I am not sure about quotes from the shorts. I didn't see any mention in the article about any of these terms, if this is kept the three you mentioned might want to redirect to Internet meme. At least have something in place that is not in-universe info that explains them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a quote per se, but the name of the scene. It's not a meme either. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to think about this is as a movement of an entire piece. For example,
La primavera (concerto) as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep as {{
    ✈ 18:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Oh, wow. I didn't know about that Rcat. Its corresponding category should really be treated as a maintenance category. Something that can't be moved to one of its subcats (i.e., incorrect names and misspellings) is almost always going to be a problem. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2016 (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/2016_January_15&oldid=1138580944"