Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 28

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

December 28

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 28, 2019.

Zoness

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 19:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Setting not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 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.

Big cocks

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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page at the target does not disambiguate "Big cocks". Perhaps Human penis size? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom as a plausible search term. The entries in the dab page are all proper names in the singular, and I take it that no-one who types this with will be interested in gigantic
    roosters. – Uanfala (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep – Human penis size is already included at the dab page so anyone looking for that can still find it. Given the various Big Cock options listed at the dab, I think we should keep the current target to avoid surprising readers. signed, Rosguill talk 00:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:18, 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.

Concord, Buckinghamshire

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 19:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there isn't a settlement or even "other feature" with the name on the OS maps, however there is Concord House at SP8806. There was a previous RFD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 13#Hazeldean, Buckinghamshire for similar redirects and I assumed they had been deleted until I checked List of places in Buckinghamshire. Vision of Britain also doesn't return anything for this, nor is it in the Domesday Book. While we have a low inclusion bar for redirects I don't think we can have them to a town that might contain many that are unverifiable names, that is to say the plain name "Concord" has no verifiable usage. Google or Books also does't bring up anything. 20th century maps do however show "Concord" but its quite possible that that only applies to a single building. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:55, 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.

South Sudanese English

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 19:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No relevant info at the current target (that's completely the wrong article), or the previous target (

WP:REDLINK incentive for article creation. – Uanfala (talk) 22:52, 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.

Redirects created by Sk1728

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 Redirect Mindy Basser to Jonathan D. Gray, delete others. signed, Rosguill talk 19:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of these people at the target articles. I would suggest deletion per

WP:REDLINK. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:24, 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.

Juul and Alexa PenaVega

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. Neither target seems to have any relationship with the languages the redirects are in, leading to consensus that these both are inappropriate redirects per
WP:FORRED. ~ mazca talk 22:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

No relationship with post-Soviet States. 49.146.12.240 (talk) 16:19, 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.

Liberal consensus

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 keep. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redirects only to specific and quite limited information, would be better expanded to full article. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonpatterns: Isn't it just the same thing as the Washington Consensus about the Bretton Woods system? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After doing some research it looks like the term has a number of uses, one is specific to American politicsm another being Embedded liberalism - which produced Bretton Woods. Therefore, I've a converted the page into and disambiguation page. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:02, 30 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.

K.A.M.

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
(non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Besides being out of line with

MOS:INITIALS, these redirect are partial title matches that could refer to other targets, such as K. A. Mani or K. A. Mathiazhagan. I would suggest deletion due to the ambiguity. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:51, 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.

Starship orbital prototype

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 5#Starship orbital prototype

Tau Neutrino

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 Withdrawn.
(non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Neutrino is not a proper noun and should not be capitalised. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The redirect has existed for over 14 years. It is possible that there are external links that would be broken by deleting the redirect. Keeping it causes no damage to the encyclopedia. There is no reason to delete it. ~ GB fan 13:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – while I agree that it shouldn't be capitalized, this redirect is a
    cheap, harmless {{R from miscapitalisation}}. ComplexRational (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Closed as nominator, tagged with {{R from miscapitalisation}}. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:10, 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.

Electron Neutrinos

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
(non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Incorrect capitalisation, neutrino is not a proper noun. I don't think a redirect from the plural form is useful in this case anyway. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget Keep The redirect has existed for over 10 years. It is possible that there are external links that would be broken by deleting the redirect. Keeping it causes no damage to the encyclopedia. An article name shouldn't be a plural but there is no reason a redirect can't be a plural. There is no reason to delete it. ~ GB fan 13:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC) (Edited) Retarget to Electron neutrino. ~ GB fan 01:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep only for the possibility of preserving links and 70 pageviews in the last year (not a lot, but I've seen far fewer). Redirects are cheap, but I'm not convinced that both incorrect capitalization and pluralization are useful in contrast to only one of them (which would be far more likely). ComplexRational (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to weak retarget to Electron neutrino or delete per Uanfala below and the rest of my comment above. I can't believe I overlooked electron neutrino. trout Self-trout ComplexRational (talk) 00:12, 29 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.

Bill Gowers

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. Nobody's been able to spot any evidence that the current target is ever actually referred to by this name. ~ mazca talk 15:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't mention, and I can find no source, that Timothy Gowers is known as "Bill". I suggest delete since Bill Gowers is potentially ambiguous with Billy Gowers. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – I also can't find anything calling the footballer "Bill Gowers", so it's potentially misleading and not clearly useful. ComplexRational (talk) 17:31, 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.

Second party

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 5#Second party

First-party source

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 5#First-party source

Arıana Grande Býtera

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. It's now been identified as to what language this actually came from, but regardless the consensus here is that this is an inappropriate foreign-language redirect as per
WP:FORRED ~ mazca talk 15:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

this is clearly the official romanized Ариана Гранде Бутера. 49.146.12.240 (talk) 03:31, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_December_28&oldid=955612470"