Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 20, 2020.

Bombastic Bag Man[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) 15:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and there's no history whatsoever to retain. I assume this is some minor fictional character. If it is added to the article, then this redirect can be re-created. For now, it's not needed. (Sidebar: I think Steel1943 must be a comic book aficionado, given the sort of redirects he tends to bring to RfD.) --Doug Mehus T·C 23:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (...Eh, not really. I just tend to have a good eye for "straining" various targets of their questionable redirects.) Steel1943 (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and with caveat for re-creation as above. Loopy30 (talk) 13:11, 25 January 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.

Doc Brown (Family Guy)[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) 15:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of a Doc Brown on the destination page, and the disambiguation in the title means that anyone navigating to it already knew that is has something to do with Family Guy, so this redirect isn't helping anyone find information. Largoplazo (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, without prejudice, of course, to re-adding in the future if the target article mentions this character. --Doug Mehus T·C 21:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is the same Doc Brown character as that of Back to the Future. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:33, 23 January 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.

Azerbaijan men's national under-18 basketball team[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) 15:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects should be deleted. The target articles contains no information about under-18 teams. Maiō T. (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. Checked history for them all; no history whatsoever. These are just long, cumbersome, and obscure redirects. If not mentioned in the targets, great. However, I'd say delete as implausible, long, and cumbersome search terms anyway. Doug Mehus T·C 01:22, 21 January 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.

Wireless AV kit[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) 14:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion. No mention of wireless anything at current target. Unable to find a sutible alternate target. Uncertain what subject this is referring to. "Wireless AV" is a likely search term but there doesn't appear to be any Wikipedia coverage of this topic. ~Kvng (talk) 19:09, 20 January 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.

Lewis+hamilton[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) 14:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, this is just plain silly.
SSSB (talk) 18:58, 20 January 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.

Quality measure[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) 14:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lemma as such not even mentioned in given target (contrary to WP:R#PLA). Hildeoc (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ambiguous verging on meaningless. The quality of just about everything can be measured, objectively or subjectively, quantitatively or qualitatively. Narky Blert (talk) 18:52, 20 January 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.

Hindko numerals[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) 14:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current target is the provisional outcome of this recent RfD. The reasoning is that Hindko is assumed to use variants of the Shahmukhi writing system, and presumably numbers in Hindko should be written using the conventions of Shahmukhi. But we don't have any content about either numerals in Shahmukhi, or writing (of any sort) in Hindko. At the very least, redirecting there runs afoul of WP:OR.
Pinging participants in last discussion: Kautilya3, Dmehus, MJL and Rosguill. – Uanfala (talk) 17:08, 20 January 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.

Holländische Griff[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) 14:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted as it is a foreign redirect that redirects to a topic that is unrelated to the redirect's language (which is German, according to Google Translate). -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 01:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • REGARDING Grounds for Deletion of Redirect for German translation.
While I have little expectation that I could successfully argue for allowing current foreign termss for the Dutch Reach to be accepted, I will try! The term Dutch Reach originated in in 2016 and has been actively adopted & promoted as the hollandische Griff or variants in at least five major German cities. But the English entry for Dutch Reach is the authoritative article on the subject. International interest in the method has been rapid, widespread & deemed a life saving countermeasure little known outside of some parts of northern europe until now. It has been the subject of media discussion in over 40 countries & 30 languages. Making it searchable via the web is important & valuable as it was hithertofore a nameless technique which prevented its recognition, recognition by road safety authorities or the general public. Hence Wikipedia en. can provide a valuable public safety service enabling people who may only see or hear a non-english translated version and would not otherwise not be able to search and discover fuller and more reputable information on the subject.
There must be other instances when the English version of a subject has critical value for human welfare. Making it easier for such assets to be shared across languages & borders will be more rapid and effective if foreign language REDIRECTS are allowed. This will also enhance the likelihood that Wikipedia communities will invigorate the sharing of information and creation of parallel entries in other languages.
Another advantage is that if foreign language REDIRECTS in major languages are permitted, then minor language users who are bilingual with competence in say, German but not in English, would be able to access the English knowledge having discovered this further resource. In the case of the Dutch Reach, as it is a new term, the translation of it in foreign languages is unsettled as yet and it will take some time for each language community to settle on a preferred term. This is definitely the case in English as the far hand method has at least 5 alternative namings now. Likewise in German, Spanish, Hindi, French etc. So it is a international public service to be able to funnel these variants to a primary source, in this case, Wikipedia en. Dutch Reach.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Mcha6677 (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcha6677 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're making a general argument that would need to be considered, I believe, at the level of the existing guidelines rather than in the context of this one instance to which the guidelines apply. If you'd like to present these considerations to spur discussion in the interest of altering the current guidelines, the place to do that is at Wikipedia talk:Redirects from foreign languages. Largoplazo (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 13:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Two editors have cited Wikipedia:Redirects from foreign languages as rationale. Narky Blert (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, that does sort of masquerade like it's presenting a rationale for deletion. It's sort of hard to figure out how to address such "arguments" when they're based on obviously preposterous premises, and largely don't follow logically from those premises anyways. For instance, the assertion "The only reason a native English speaker would look up a foreign-language term would be to determine what it means." is clearly false, and the policy page it links to (NOT#DICTIONARY) pretty directly contradicts the point it's trying to make. Frankly, responding to an "argument" that's either so poorly considered feels a lot like feeding the trolls - anyone acting in good faith who given even a modicum of consideration to the issue couldn't arrive at the conclusion that this supports deletion. WilyD 15:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Comments like this make me feel like I'm back in 2015 again. First of all, WilyD, welcome back from your almost 4-year break from editing Wikipedia regularly; I guess you've been back for a few months, but this is probably the first time you came across my radar. (Even though the following I'm about to say is going to clearly disagree with your previous comment, it's always refreshing to see old faces return who never really caused the encyclopedia great harm.) I suppose I have to restate a point I made all those years ago, but probably in different words: Just because you don't consider a statement to be a rationale does not invalidate any statement made before yours. For example, in this discussion: The target of "WP:FORRED", though it may be located on an essay, was created due to a precedence of other editors finding similar problems with related redirects. So, from what I see, it is clearly a rationale that supports the deletion of specific types of redirects, regardless of whether or not you acknowledge it as so. (Interesting enough, when I reviewed the page that I linked above [Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7], it seems that you were also trying to invalidate WP:FORRED as a rationale on that page as well ... over four years ago.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest of all possible keeps per WilyD as there have been 40 pageviews in the past 30 days—some of which is no doubt from this RfD. This should be without prejudice, as is always the case but bears repeating since it's often forgotten consensus can literally change in an hour, to nom re-nominating for deletion with an enhanced deletion rationale, and then I'd likely support deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 15:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There've been 37 page views since the page was created only one week ago, of which 24 were that day and 5 the day after. Largoplazo (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the term not being substantiated at the target article. Without the term mentioned at the target, searchers may end up confused why they are at the target when all they wanted was specific information on "Holländische Griff". -- Tavix (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. Steel1943 (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:FORRED squarely applies. Largoplazo (talk) 00:14, 21 January 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.

NIcholas Biddle (naval officer)[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) 14:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is capitalization typo error with no incoming links. Unlikely anyone would intentionally use it as a search term. Senator2029 “Talk” 07:06, 20 January 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.

Zorua and Zoroark[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 move draft over the redirect, hearing no objections, with a year since the last discussion and clear work done since then. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To make space for move of an article, currently at Draft:Zorua and Zoroark. Previously there's been a discussion about it which resulted in no move, but article has been expanded since then. Article was previously a regular article which has since then been converted to a redirect without discussion. As a note, there are c. 50 articles on individual Pokémon, and there is certainly no hard policy on redirect if the subject is independently notable. Juxlos (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard: As I noticed you reverted the speedy notice (and then reverted it, and then again). Juxlos (talk) 06:19, 20 January 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.

Nass Court Hotel, etc[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) 14:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per the recent related RfD discussion, a number of entirely inappropriate, improbable and pointless redirects (created seemingly purely to avoid "red links" on this article) should all be deleted. Specifically:

  • Bourjoi -> Irish pub is inappropriate (linking the name of a pub [closed well over a decade ago] as if it were an eponymous example of a pub or Irish pub is akin to "blue-linking" every pub everywhere to the "pub" article)
  • Nass Court Hotel -> List of companies of Ireland equally inappropriate (again, akin blue-linking every company ever/everywhere to the "company" article)
  • Taboo Navan -> List of companies of Ireland equally inappropriate (same deal. Pointlessly confusing and bizarre Easter Egg where the target makes no mention of the subject....)

Simple/TLDR version: No mention(s) at target(s) Guliolopez (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per my two comments in that earlier RfD discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. If enwiki has no information about the subjects then redlinks are better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:17, 20 January 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.

2019 Xi Jinping visit to Nepal[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 List of international trips made by Xi Jinping#2019. There is consensus that the current target, Nepal, is unsuitable, and, so, the proposed target by CAPTAIN MEDUSA and concurred in by BDD is very reasonable. Feel free to add any additional rcat(s) post-close. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 19:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target. – Uanfala (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. SSSB (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Retarget to List of international trips made by Xi Jinping. SSSB (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, this is quite the stretch. Nobody would sensibly need a redirect to the Nepal article when searching for something as specific as this. PK650 (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of international trips made by Xi Jinping. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 08:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article does indeed have a list entry for Xi Jinping's 2019 visit to Nepal, but it doesn't say anything more than the fact that it was a state visit and that it occurred on such-and-such date. It also lists about a hundred other such visits by Xi Jinping, and we don't have redirects for any of them. – Uanfala (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are about 45,750 redirects to list entries. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The issue is not that this will be a redirect to a list, but that it will be a redirect to a list that doesn't really contain any more information on the topic than is already encapsulated in the redirect's title (so a reader who's typed out such a specific phrase as "2019 Xi Jinping visit to Nepal" won't learn much beyond what they already know). There has to be some minimum standard of content and informativeness for the target of a redirect, and some minimum level of specificity beyond which we don't create redirects. – Uanfala (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is the whole point of redirects to list entries. This redirect type is normally used when there is not enough information to write a whole article about a subject, and yet readers can still find useful information about it and similar topics from the list article ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of international trips made by Xi Jinping#2019. Hopefully there will be something more to say about the visit at some point. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 27 January 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_January_20&oldid=1045396581"