Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 24

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

December 24

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 24, 2019.

Remaining redirects with "langauge"

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. I was holding off here since I closed the previous discussion and thus might be seen as
WP:INVOLVED. If I were voting, I could see the merits of both sides; I'm not on any sort of crusade against these. But with a clear outcome and many other RfD-regular admins voting here, I think this falls to me. As always, contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

This is a follow-up to

Langauge, these are all the redirects remaining with this typo (they were not part of the previous nomination: they had slipped through the cracks as I didn't use a completely thorough method for tracking them down). Of these redirects, the first and the last were created in error, the rest were intentionally created with the typo. There's no history worth preserving and no incoming links from articles remaining . – Uanfala (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's rationale that they are positively harmful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Harmful to keep, and while the discussion linked for consensus is quite interesting, I support deleting for consistency. ~riley (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:45, 24 December 2019 (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.

WPJ:Music

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 23:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per

WP:PANDORA is a useful deletion argument, the creation of new pseudo-namespaces ought to be one. Wug·a·po·des​ 23:35, 24 December 2019 (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.

Yaviah

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 31#Yaviah

Drug bust

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. A good amount of support for both deletion or some sort of retarget, but consensus definitely leaned towards the former. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not mentioned at the target page.

talk) 08:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to
    alternative to deletion, we could do a "soft redirect" to wikt:bust, possibly to a section "Etymology 2" where it is mentioned. This would be until such time as someone wants to create an article. --Doug Mehus T·C 02:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Retarget to
    Prohibition of drugs#Methods of law enforcement as the best alternative. I don't support deletion or soft redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete I think
    WP:REDLINKing it is the best option. As SMcCandlish points out, this is a topic we should have coverage on. Ideally that coverage should be at Drug bust rather than scattered across sections of multiple overview articles. However because the information is scattered across the encyclopedia, there are a number of potential targets, none of which are great. For that reason, readers looking for information on this term would probably be served better by search results. The redlink will also encourage article creation which is ultimately the best solution. I understand why retargeting is attractive, but in this instance I think a red link is the best course. Wug·a·po·des​ 10:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Mildly involved relist to not have this be the only open discussion on the RfD page for the 16th. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 24 December 2019 (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.

Nats Cumco

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 18:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Started out as a stub, then got redirected, but the redirect target now has no mention of it, and neither has any other article on wikipedia. – Uanfala (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2019 (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.

Loudoun, Tennesse

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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has two spelling errors, making it much less plausible than if there only were one. I can't find any instances where "Loudoun" refers to the town, and one will most likely be able to complete a search than need a redirect with the last 'e' missing. ComplexRational (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is - common misspelling (and British variation). The city is named for Fort Loudoun, which uses the British variation. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Bneu, did you intend for this redirect to have just one "e" at the end of Tennessee? If not, just move the redirect to
    Loudoun, Tennessee. BrineStans (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per
    Loudoun, Tennessee needs to be created, someone else can do that since that does not require this redirect be deleted for that to happen. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per above; no need to delete. I have created Loudoun, Tennessee and I note that Loudoun County, Tennessee was created back in 2013, with the admin who created it saying that it is a very plausible misspelling that would benefit from a redirect. Happy New Year! // J947 (c) 21:20, 31 December 2019 (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.

Doikk Nats

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 18:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target article is about a town in the Space Wars universe, and the redirects stand for the name of one of the members of the music band that plays in one of the bars in that town. This member was mentioned in this former article, but that article got merged in 2018 and the detailed content about the band didn't make it past. No relevant content anywhere at the moment (notwithstanding an entry in the gargantuan

List of Star Wars cast members). Mos Eisley has a number of similar incoming redirects, but I'll leave dealing with them to somebody else. – Uanfala (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2019 (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.

Full-time work

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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I just created these redirects, but then I discovered the article Full-time equivalent. I'm not sure where these redirects should target, and I'm also not sure if a disambiguation page is necessary. (If no one comments, I guess my default stance is "keep and add a hatnote at target".) Steel1943 (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator comment: Also of note: Full-time exists and is a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, clear primary topic over the wonky little-known meaning in government bean-counting. BD2412 T 17:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is Per BD2412, it seems to most typically refer to a full-time job.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. a hatnote to Full-time equivalent won't hurt--Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2019 (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.

Marja's

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 13:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page from the possessive case. Not needed; it can never be validly linked; delete. Narky Blert (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2019 (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.

[email protected]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 31#[email protected]

Majoritarian socialism

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 31#Majoritarian socialism

Battle of Vega Real

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 31#Battle of Vega Real

Sentinel High Schoool

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 13:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in name, I don't see any value in keeping this redirect. Nothing links to it (logo and a school article had linked to this but have been updated) except a bot archive page and an IP talk page for vandalism. Steven (Editor) (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleeete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was the article's title when it was created in 2009, and it remained there for nearly a year. The redirect still gets occasional use, spiking earlier this year with an average of 15 views per month in the first quarter. - Eureka Lott 19:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its a stub and in need of attention but referenced and within scope. ClemRutter (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ClemRutter: your comment appears to apply to the target article and not to the redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect is being proposed for deletion here, not the target article. Glades12 (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep as a potential typo and could have incoming links from outside of Wiikiipeediiaa. Happy Festivities! // J947 (c) 03:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleete. Anyone who types as far as 'Sentinel High Schoo' in the search box will find what they want. No reason to keep an unhelpful misspelling, no matter how longstanding.Narky Blert (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, considering that 1) This reditect is not in the "File:" namespace, the only namespace where we should be concerned about external links, 2)
    WP:COSTLY, regardless how long the target article was sitting at it. Steel1943 (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Not really a useful redirect. BD2412 T 17:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I wouldn't be sad to see this go, but there's good practical reasons to keep. External links are one, but my concern is duplicate articles. It's a hard typo to spot which is maybe why the article was created there in the first place, and why it took a year to move it. If there are external links, deleting the page would break them which is bad, but worse still is that people may actually create an article there thinking we don't have one. We'd then need to delete or merge that one, ultimately creating more work. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The redirect has low user traffic. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary although honestly it would have been a better use of editor time to not open this discussion and let sleeeping dogs lie. signed, Rosguill talk 07:57, 25 December 2019 (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.

H4TH

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 13:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a known or used shortcut for this album (plus there's also an EP with the same title), so an unlikely search term. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not likely to be known, understood, or used as a search term. Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep per
    WP:CHEAP, since there is no higher use for either term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2019 (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.

Full-time and part-time work

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 13:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page is entirely about part-time work, ergo this redirect has no relevance and should be deleted. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:41, 24 December 2019 (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/2019_December_24&oldid=933898518"