Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 7

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

February 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 7, 2020.

List of schools in Turkey

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) 22:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned explicitly in the target article. It's a modestly plausible search term, if readers/patrons/users know, and are familiar with, our article titling conventions. More importantly, though, it's ambiguous in that it could be referring to high schools, elementary schools, colleges, or universities, as applicable, in Turkey, so I'm recommending that we delete to encourage article creation per WP:RFDd10. Failing that, we could dabify with an initial list of two articles, and others to be added as found, created, and/or needed, of List of high schools in Turkey and List of universities in Turkey. Doug Mehus T·C 22:24, 7 February 2020 (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.

List of schools in Yalova

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) 22:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned explicitly in the target article. It's only a very modestly plausible search term, if readers/patrons/users know, and are familiar with, our article titling conventions. More importantly, though, it's ambiguous in that it could be referring to high schools, elementary schools, colleges, or universities, as applicable, in Yanova, so I'm recommending that we delete to encourage article creation per WP:RFDd10. Failing that, we could move this redirect without leaving a redirect to List of high schools in Yalova or Yalova high schools, but those may be even more implausible redirects, and we're looking at ~12 pageviews in the past 12 months. Doug Mehus T·C 22:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's common to have such lists in articles for localities, though Yalova doesn't have one right now. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, could be a strong case for
WP:R#D10, eh? Doug Mehus T·C 21:27, 12 February 2020 (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.

Round World version of the Silmarillion

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) 22:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No "Round World version" is mentioned in the article. Redirects this specific are only helpful if we have content about the specific topic, which we don't appear to. Hog Farm (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete exactly per nom. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned in the article. (It's actually a thing, see this non-
    WP:RS source. No prejudice against recreation if properly-sourced info is added to the article.) Narky Blert (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2020 (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.

North–South Schism

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) 22:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, a Google scholar search returns examples from a very wide variety of different conflicts and phenomena. Disambiguation may be possible, but given the number of possible entries I'm leaning toward suggesting deletion at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 21:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, let the search function do it's work here. Just from a quick recollection of only American History, this could plausibly refer to an historical incident in the
    War Between the States. When you include all worldwide entries, it would likely be too long for dabification. Hog Farm (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Hog Farm's analysis; to which I'll add Bishops' Wars - which were north-south, and a schism. Narky Blert (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although if it refers to Germany, it clearly should redirect to the Aldi equator :) —Kusma (t·c) 20:11, 8 February 2020 (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.

TripADeal

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) 22:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:01, 7 February 2020 (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.

Eric "Ric" Dalby

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 retarget/nomination withdrawn. With zero inlinks and only 5 pageviews in the preceding twelve month period, this redirect is of extremely marginal utility, at best, so there's a decent case for deletion per
(non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 11:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Similar to the below redirect,

WP:RFD#d10. Doug Mehus T·C 20:58, 7 February 2020 (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.

Eric Dalby

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 retarget/nomination withdrawn. Although this redirect has had ~450 pageviews in the preceding twelve month period, which is, arguably, decent enough for the purposes of assessing utility per the reason for deletion
(non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 11:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Patrolling recent

AfD closures that closed as delete and this redirect is a double redirect to a former list that closed as "redirect." That list, in turn, was redirected to a related topic/article where this (presumably) minor fictional character is not mentioned. Thus, similar to the Middle-earth redirects that @Hog Farm and Chiswick Chap: have been nominating, I'm recommending deletion per WP:RFDd10 to encourage article creation. It's a waste of a redirect for a common personal name, without a parenthetical dab qualifier, to redirect to an article where it is not mentioned. Even if it was mentioned, for such a minor fictional character, it's still a waste. I looked if this could be speedied, but it doesn't appear so, so here we are. Doug Mehus T·C 20:52, 7 February 2020 (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.

Las Vegas Rampage

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) 22:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is not a valid search term and there are no known references for this team to ever be called such a thing.

WP:GNG, so this redirect would be wrong if the sale goes through. Yosemiter (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@Yosemiter: Am I wrong to think that this source: [[1]] says that the deal is approved? SportsFan007 (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
made-up name for a potential team as a plausible Wikipedia redirect, which is what this section is for discussing. The name "Las Vegas Rampage" needs a source. Yosemiter (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2020 (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.

Slavs in Germany

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 15#Slavs in Germany

Dan Baldwin

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 14#Dan Baldwin

Marie Bell (Q73737651)

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 by
(non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 01:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

MWright96 (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because the string of numbers is not mentioned in the article, but @MWright96:, what's your reason for deletion? None was given. Hog Farm (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hog Farm: The redirect was created by myself accidentally and is impractical for the encyclopedia and the ordinary reader due to the Wikidata number value in parentheses. MWright96 (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks like
        WP:R3 might apply here - implausible and both the redirect and the moved page were created recently. I'll tag it for that. Hog Farm (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Speedy delete per
    WP:CSD#G7, Hog Farm. I've added G7, which applies to redirects as well, as I think it'll be deleted on that basis. --Doug Mehus T·C 21:14, 7 February 2020 (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.

INTV (Baru)

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'm indeed salting due to the persistent edit warring that's occurred here. --BDD (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intellivision is not an Indonesian creation. Result of page move vandalism and never reverted. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenFolf: Why is this even a discussion? Why was its {{db-foreign|source=id:INTV|help=off}} tag deleted? That's what should be on it, at least, and probably others. This can't possibly be controversial, so why not just quit this thread and do a speedy delete? — Smuckola(talk) 17:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt to prevent any more attempts to turn it into an article written in Indonesian with nothing resembling
    WP:RS citations, which has happened 12 times since May 2019. Narky Blert (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2020 (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.

Human biodiversity

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 no consensus , with the most popular positions being "keep" and "convert to
WP:BCA". I would suggest that editors interested in the BCA proposal should write a draft and then resume discussion on the talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 22:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

There is a disagreement about where this redirect should lead. Per Talk:Human genetic variation#Remove “human biodiversity” redirect, there are three likely proposals:

  • Human genetic variation - Some academic sources do use this or similar terms to describe genetic variation among people. The specific term is not currently used in this article, except as the title of one citation (a book written by Jonathan M. Marks).
  • Scientific racism - "Human biodiversity", and specifically the "human biodiversity movement", are described by many sources euphemisms for scientific racism. The phrase "human biodiversity" is not used in this article at all.
  • Steve Sailer - The most common usage of this term was coined by Sailer. That usage is explained in the lead of that article.

Marks, who originated the term, has written specifically about how the term has been co-opted by racists as a pseudoscientific wash for specific views: here, for example, also mentioned in this book

On the talk page, Google Scholar results were mentioned. Some do use this term in place of variation. A substantial share of Google Scholar results are specifically referring to the name of Marks' book, and at least some are also specifically in the context of racism. Other discussed sources supporting "human genetic variation" have included an essay on Quillete. This is not a reliable outlet, per

WP:FRINGE. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Retarget to Steve Sailer as per the reasoning above, since this is currently the only article (of the three listed) explaining the meaning of the term, and is thus the least misleading.klmr (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(After further discussion I would now prefer converting to
WP:BCA.) klmr (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
It is worth noting that there are currently
Human biodiversity, all in the context of the pseudoscience meaning, so having a redirect to mainstream science without explanation is all the more misleading. klmr (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
human biodiversity (“HBD”) milieu.", sourced only to an archive of Steve Sailer's own AOL website listing a roster of discussion group members. This seems like an unreliably-sourced and over-editorialized attempt to smear Cochran. It should be removed. The Hopkins article states "Bombardieri's report of Summers’ speech set off a national discussion of gender discrimination, academic freedom, and human biodiversity, and contributed to Summers’ resignation as the President of Harvard." I think here "human biodiversity" is simply a synonym for "human genetic variation", no? Jweiss11 (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Jweiss11: “I think here "human biodiversity" is simply a synonym for "human genetic variation", no?” — Unequivocally not. It refers precisely to the racist pseudoscience (though adherents of HBD obviously pretend that it’s mainstream science). Anyway, this is really not the correct avenue to discuss this. If you’re interested I refer you to the literature on the subject, e.g. Angela Saini’s Superior: The Return of Race Science. klmr (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
klmr, note that I have removed the sentence in question from Gregory Cochran article as it was totally inappropriate given the source and the editorializing. Not convinced on your interpretation of the usage on Nancy Hopkins article. Note that the passage in question is unsourced. I have not read Angela Saini's book, but I have heard about it before. I did read this review last year which calls into question, rather convincingly, its neutrality and authoritativeness. Why is this not the correct avenue to discuss this? You introduced it and it seems key to the issue at hand, how we should handle the term "human biodiversity" on Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:FRINGE. This whole discussion around the redirect is tainted by this issue, since the repeated claims by you and other Wikipedians that HBD predominantly refers to human genetics is simply false and unfounded. The only evidence for this claim is found outside of mainstream genetics (and, specifically, is made by proponents of HBD, who would obviously dispute claims of being on the fringe). Actual publications in mainstream genetics do not support it. Speaking as a geneticist, the current situation of the redirect is both frustrating absurd because it is such a crass and obvious violation of core Wikipedia guidelines. klmr (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Klmr: is Saini a geneticist? Was her book vetted by experts in the field? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear.
explicitly unreliable outlet like Quillette is, at best, completely unpersuasive, and at worst demonstrates an alarming misunderstanding of Wikipedia's approach to reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Grayfell: So that means Saini is not a geneticist, nor was her book vetted by experts in field, I take it. Meanwhile the review in the "unreliable" Quillette was written by two individuals who have doctorates in fields related to human biology (sociology and psychology). Jweiss11 (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This ain't the gotcha you seem to think it is. The book's author and publisher have fact-checkers, editorial oversight, and a positive reputation for accuracy, and is therefore a
WP:RS. Quillette doesn't, and neither of those authors could be bothered to find a real publisher for this opinion. This is why we prefer reliable sources, instead of fringe ones like Quillette, or Noah Carl and Bo Winegard. If you want to make up your mind based on a fringe source, please do not expect this to be persuasive to other Wikipedia editors. Grayfell (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm afraid Quillette does indeed have fact-checkers, editorial oversight, and a positive reputation for accuracy, if you venture outside of a community that is pre-determined to hate it. That's why reputable, non-fringe academics, journalists, and political candidates like
Steve Pinker, Jerry Coyne, Lee Jussim, Michael Shellenberger, Andrew Yang, and many others have chosen to be published there. Jweiss11 (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Jweiss11: “Was her book vetted by experts in the field?” — Yes. And it has furthermore seen wide support by prominent geneticists across the political spectrum. klmr (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m skeptical of this claim. Which geneticists and what is their political affiliation affiliation? Jweiss11 (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve noticed that your scepticism in this conversation is highly selective and one-sided. At any rate, actually reading the aforementioned book, which after all references relevant source material, might help. It’s easy enough to ascertain that the viewpoint espoused in Saini’s book is essentially shared by the wider human genetics community, for example from book reviews in Nature and scholarly genetics societies. In fact, the largest scholarly society of human genetics found it necessary to issue a statement that makes essentially the same argument in short form, and using the same sources, as Saini’s book. This society itself incidentally has a rather sordid history of racism and is furthermore a rather conservative body so that statement is a big deal. The society’s statement was mirrored by other genetics societies (e.g its European equivalent). These statements may not speak for all their members but — especially given the lack of push-back — they indubitably speak for the vast majority. As an aside, the issuance of such joint statements in science is rare: consensus is usually not explicitly demonstrated, but is established by the lack of opposition inside the field. For outsiders this is often not readily apparent. In the same vein, you simply won’t find list of signatures of researchers that explicitly support a given interpretation or publication. I’m not about to go hunting for published endorsements by scientists just to satisfy your curiosity (but here’s one). I happen to know of conservative researchers endorsing Saini’s book by pure coincidence, but lack of this coincidental knowledge should not be an argument against its acceptance. But it has long since become clear that no argument will convince you. These links are for the benefit of other people following this discussion. klmr (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect to Human genetic variation. Extensive academic literature on this subject -- just because a fringe personality (Sailer) also uses the term a lot does not mean he has become the field now. See talk page for further discussion and citations. --MaximumIdeas (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The term's usage as a euphemism for scientific racism is explained in the lede of Steve Sailer. Jonathan M. Marks coined the term, but per Marks, Sailer popularized it and is often credited with coining it. This is explained at that article and nowhere else on Wikipedia that I am aware of. Grayfell (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BCA is only slightly favoured over keeping the redirect targeted to human genetic variation. We should, arguably, be encouraging article creation, so it would seem that those arguing for conversion have a slightly stronger argument, but it would be perhaps helpful if one of those (such as @Grayfell and Narky Blert
:) arguing in favour of the BCA could, perhaps, draft a very preliminary BCA below the redirect. In the meantime, let's relist this discussion to generate a stronger consensus in either of the two directions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 15:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with
    consensus can change, there's no evidence that's changed, certainly not in favour of the two leading directions here.Doug Mehus T·C 16:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Convert to a
    WP:BCA article per above but involve the Talk:Human genetic variation in the discussion of what to include in said broad-concept article. Seems like a harmless enough result afterall, so I'm going to support with that caveat, since no one else has replied. Doug Mehus T·C 21:33, 12 February 2020 (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.

River running

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 18#River running

Customs and Immigration

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 14#Customs and Immigration

Die Jungen Zillertaler

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) 22:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't mention the target anymore, pointless redirect to the chart article. 2600:6C4E:580:A:8D1E:ED18:683C:F4A2 (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2020 (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/2020_February_7&oldid=941463023"