Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 13, 2017.

1000 in art[edit]

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) 19:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete this redirect and also the ones for the next 400 years, there is no guarantee that there is information about every particular year in the redirect article (by decade); it is arbitrary to have this series of redirects starting in the year 1000; and at most this would be useful if hypothetically the redirect article (by decade) would be organized by year so that we could redirect to the right section in the decade article. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all redirects which contain no information about art in that year. A WP:REDLINK should signify that Wikipedia has no information about art in that year. However, when the target does contain information about that year, it should be kept. I've compiled a list on the talk page of all the redirects I would support deleting. -- Tavix (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2017 (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.
  • Update: I've deleted the years identified on the talk page, and I've recreated the 1000 one since there's something to say about it at the target page. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 encryption terrorism[edit]

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. -- Tavix (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely, recently-created redirect that was the result of the notional merging, but actual effective deletion, of an article containing blatant misinformation (such as UK hospitals being closed for months, something which cannot possibly be true at the moment). There is no evidence of the attack being terrorism, nor any reliable sources characterising it as such. The Anome (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - While it's certainly possible that some kind of group connected to international terrorism was responsible for the attacks (after all, the link between 'terrorism' and 'organized crime' is a hazy one, just look at Dawood Ibrahim), the redirect is clunky and doesn't seem helpful to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2017 (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.

Lybian School of Economics[edit]

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 London School of Economics Gaddafi links. (non-admin closure) feminist 13:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this redirect. I suspect it is a political commentary relating to London School of Economics Gaddafi links, but it is not a good redirect.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:20, 13 May 2017 (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.

5399E694-6CE5-4D6C-8FCE-1D8870FDCBA0[edit]

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. No consensus after relisting. (non-admin closure) feminist 13:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This string of numbers and letters redirects to Control Panel (Windows) but there's no reason that this link would ever be used to get to that article. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a manual. Osarius - Want a chat? 09:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under R2 and tagged as such. Not a plausible redirect considering how unlikely people would search said string. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Narutolovehinta5: You actually tagged it as R3 (which was correct, "recently created implausible redirect") not R2 (which wouldn't have been, "cross-namespace redirects"). Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've asked the redirect be restored and unclosed the discussion, as anyone other than the creator can contest a CSD. This is the internal identifier for the Control Panel, used in some shortcuts and other contexts, in other words a {{R from technical name}}. It seems to be consistent across machines and Windows updates, so ephemerality is not an issue. Redirects are cheap. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google recognises this string for what it is so I would deem it an unlikely but plausible redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:31, 13 May 2017 (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.

Agent: Century 21[edit]

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 as to most; a handful were kept or retargeted; two will be relisted. bd2412 T 21:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]

Here's another batch of problematic film redirects. All of these target a director, actor, etc. that was rumored to be a part of a potential film. The problem, however, is that there is zero mention of such at the target, so anybody who wants to know more about these potential films will end up confused or disappointed. Most of these films are in development hell. They may or may not progress to production, and the director, actors, production studio, etc. could all change before then. Therefore, these redirects should be red, and if any of these enter production, then an article on the film should be created. Until then, these redirects aren't helpful. (raw list available on talk page) -- Tavix (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_13&oldid=1143743285"