Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 22

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. Consensus below is that while there's a treasured(?) connection to the movie, it's a phrase used widely outside and without that context, and without being discussed in the target, there's no need to keep it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Pickle fucker → Clerks II  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

not mentioned in the target article — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Really should not be needed here. As I haven't heard being called that.
  is developing 00:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I stumbled on this proposal because I am familiar with the film. That phrase was the source of many sick jokes in the movie and is apparently a favorite with fans, but highly unlikely to be used as a Wikipedia search term. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google results suggest the term is mostly associated with the film, but as long as it isn't mentioned in the article there's no benefit to keeping this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Comment
  User:Matt294069 --DBigXrayᗙ 22:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I agree that it's a plausible search term. That isn't the only pertinent question though: we also have to ask whether the encyclopaedia contains the information that someone who searches for this is looking for. In this case, it doesn't, so there's no viable target for the redirect and no reason to keep the redirect. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• per
  WP:R#KEEP#3 a plausible search term is a reason enough to keep the redirect. I am now changing my !vote to keep based on your confirmation of the same. Thanks --DBigXrayᗙ 22:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• But this case runs directly counter to that criterion. The criterion says: if someone sees the "
  Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article. As far as this redirect is concerned, if someone sees "pickle fucker" mentioned somewhere but doesn't know what it refers to, then he or she will be absolutely none the wiser for having been directed to Clerks II. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I have nothing against DBig's logic here, but I am going to leave my vote as-is because Arms&Hearts has a more convincing argument on search term usage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think this is a reasonable search term. If the issue is that "pickle fucker" is not mentioned in the Clerks II article, that seems easily remedied by editing, not deleting. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh. We're not talking about deleting someone's hard work -- it's a redirect that can be recreated even easier than it can be deleted, should someone someday find the sources determining this phrase makes sense to include in the article. For now, it's just confusing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a Question of rationale. HW is irrelevant here. I have made an arguement for a plausible search term. what is the argument for deletion ? --DBigXrayᗙ 21:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A search for "'pickle fucker' -clerks" returns an awful lot of hits (e.g. beer, song names, etc. If it's not in the article, there's no point keeping this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You are searching with the wrong use of Quotes if you used the same. I typed "Pickle fucker" clerks and got all the correct results. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @DBigXray: Rhododendrites is referring to using the minus function, "-clerks", to find results that don't mention Clerks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And even among those awful lot of results none of the results is as notable as Clerks. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of which one is more notable. It's a matter of it not being in the article, so the only reason there should be a redirect is if it's (a) a plausible search term and (b) extremely unlikely it could refer to anything else. I find (a) meh and (b) untrue, regardless of which is most notable. Imagine one's confusion looking for the beer and finding oneself at the Clerks 2 page, which says nothing about this term. Was the beer in the movie? Was it a sponsor? Was the beer inspired by the movie? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rhododendrites Which beer are you talking about eh ? we here are discussing the Pickle Fucker. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the comment you replied to regarding the search terms (which Arms & Hearts was right about, btw). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The discussion so far actually convinced me that there are a lot of mentions of "pickle fucker" around the internet which aren't particularly inspired by this film. As such, the film isn't really the primary topic of this title and the redirect should be deleted for as long as none of our article mention this exact phrase. Deryck C. 10:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing about the primary topic, Had it been notable primary topic it would have its own article. Here we are only discussing a plausible search term or deleting it. based on the search it does makes sense to redirect it to the most notable search keyword. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 no sources, whether this other drink is a LIIT variant or its own creation remains a question. No prejudice against recreation if such sources can be provided. --BDD (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Long Island Iced Tea  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

Not mentioned in the target article. Was sent to RfD before for the same reason. It was pointed out that the content (which looks to have been unsourced) had been removed and was restored, retaining the redirect. It was removed again a while ago. No reason to retain this. If someone wants to add it and dig up some good sources, no opposition to recreation later. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Really should be needed here, I think that is possible vandalism indeed.
  is developing 00:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - "Adios Mother Fucker" really exists as a variation on
  Long Island Iced Tea -- it's either spreading in popularity, or it's some local fad that nobody else cares about. See e.g. [1], [2]. Over the history of the dispute it looks like some editors have been planning to add this drink to "Variations" at the parent article, which never quite got off the ground, so maybe it really is just a local quirk. In which case this redirect is unnecessary, but unfortunately cocktail notability is not my area of expertise. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete per

WP:NOTJARGON until the variants are notable again to be mentioned. Is this the right spelling of the drink? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete: not mentioned in the target, and probably shouldn't be. Sources are very thin on the ground and
  Adios Motherfucker (without the space) points to the same target. Do you want to add it to the nomination? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:R#DELETE applies here --DBigXrayᗙ 22:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Unless there's a mention of it in the "variants" section, the redirect should be removed since an AMF is not the same as a Long Island Iced Tea. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 03:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not vote, just left a comment, because I did not want to wade into the matter of whether this drink is a notable variant on Long Island Iced Tea. I was undecided on that matter, and still am regardless of a couple more links that do not differ significantly from what I found the first time. I suggest ironing out the "Wikipedia is not for things made up one day" standard mentioned by Arms&Hearts above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Echoing my rationale for voting to keep pickle fucker. If the issue is that the target does not mention what's otherwise a reasonable search term (if that even is an issue...), the answer is editing the target, not deleting the redirect. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (copy and pasted from above, I thought I already voted on this, my bad) Unless there's a mention of it in the "variants" section, the redirect should be removed since an AMF is not the same as a Long Island Iced Tea. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ —Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Deleted per

WP:G5. De728631 (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Shubhanshi Raghuvanshi → Roop - Mard Ka Naya Swaroop  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This seems to be an alias for Shubhanshi Singh whose redirect link was deleted. Article does not describe this actress so there is no useful information to point to. Redirect was created by user that was later blocked for sockpuppet. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting to CSD G5 the 13 or so others, and now this one, as they are all created by a user who was banned for sockpuppet for spamming a bunch of actor redirects like this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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) feminist (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Alabama American band →
  Alabama (American band)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

Variant of name without (). Likely not needed. Home Lander (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as it was recently created. Doing a search would already get to the (American band) as an option. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This strikes me as a plausible enough search term for the band, and not one that could refer to any other Wikipedia article. "Not needed" is, I think, an unconvincing rationale that raises more questions than it answers. I don't think redirects need to be "needed" to be worth keeping, just potentially useful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Arms & Hearts who is correct that we judge redirects on the usefulness for some purpose rather than any perceived need. In this case the redirect is a perfectly plausible and unambiguous search term that simply uses a different disambiguation format than our article title - clearly a very useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep plausible keyword. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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) 14:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• NC Province → North Chungcheong Province  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• SC Province → South Chungcheong Province  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• NG Province → North Gyeongsang Province  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• NJ Province → North Jeolla Province  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These abbreviations aren't used at the target articles, and aren't used in sources referring to the targets either. There don't appear to be any other provinces with the initials NG, and only one with the initials NJ. There are dozens with initials NC or SC, but while some occasionally use those initials in an official context (e.g. NC is the license plate code for

• Comment You forgot at least one entry, Province of South Carolina. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all: not mentioned in their respective targets, and evidently ambiguous. Province of North Carolina, Province of South Carolina and Province of New Jersey seem like the most plausible targets for the NC, SC and NJ redirects respectively, but they're still very infrequently used. The NJ, NC and NG disambiguation pages don't list any provinces, and SC only lists Sichuan. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all The collapse is all the evidence you need for deletion. AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per
  WP:OR--DBigXrayᗙ 23:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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) 14:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Jio DTH → Reliance Industries  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Jio DTH TV → Reliance Industries  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]  (Added by -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

No mention in the target and no mention in related article Jio as well. Should be deleted. Gotitbro (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Jio DTH TV also points to the same target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Both redirects have some content that can be merged or added to an existing article, with Jio probably being the best match. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to
  R from product}} DTH is some sort of direct-to-home service they are trying to launch this year. [4] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]