Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 16

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

September 16

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 16, 2018.

Federal Law of Radio and Television(

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a redirect created by a page move early 2007 that was probably an error, but I'm not certain enough to unilaterally speedy delete it. The editor who moved it to this title hasn't edited in a decade so isn't available to ask. Federal Law of Radio and Television exists as a redirect to the same target. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2018 (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.

Días contados (fi

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. Unopposed. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was the title of the page for about 1.5 months in 2016, for reasons that are not at all clear from the page history. The title of the article has moved around a few times since creation in 2007, but on 31 August 2016 MiniEstadi1982 moved it from Dias contados to Días contados (film) (i.e. the present title) with the rationale "Spanish spelling", then 2½ days later (after 0 intervening edits by anybody) they moved it again to the nominated redirect title (i.e. removing "lm)") without an edit summary. Baskesc reverted this move on 13 October 2016. The redirect has received only 3 hits this year to date, which is not suggestive of incoming external links. I suggest deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2018 (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.

Dusty Rhodes (a

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a redirect from a move, but the article was only here for about 5 days in 2009 before being moved (and it had only one author during that time). It has received 6 hits this year and 7 last year, but this doesn't strike me as significant given the length of time since the move and the unliklihood of anyone searching for this exact title. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2018 (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.

Charlie Ross (

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose retargetting to Charles Ross (the disambiguation page where people named Charlie Ross are listed). This is a {{R from move}}, with the current target at this title from January to October 2017, but it is obviously ambiguous between several people (Charlie Ross (journalist) and Charlie Ross (singer) also exist). The page view stats are not currently working for this redirect (keeps timing out) so I don't know whether this is significantly used or not - so I'm opposed to deletion until this is known. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2018 (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.

Ludimedia

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 without prejudice against recreation should the name be mentioned and sourced somewhere. We've discovered a tenuous connection between Ludimedia and Ubisoft, but it still hasn't been added anywhere (and I'm not exactly sure what that would look like). -- Tavix (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Ludimedia name is unrelated to the target company, Ubisoft Montpellier. As far as I can tell, it was some sort of production company owned by Gérard Guillemot. However, the name appears in exactly zero reliable sources, making this redirect misleading. Lordtobi (✉) 19:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The name isn't mentioned in the target or any other article. The primary sources identified by AngusWOOF haven't convinced me that Ludimedia should be mentioned in the target: I speak neither French nor corporate-report-speak, but the relationship between the two companies seems quite distant and probably quite insignificant in the history of Ubisoft Montpellier. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spent way too much time on this, got basically nowhere. The gist of the links Angus provided are that Lud( )media was a thing, and it got renamed Ubisoft World Studios SAS. I can find literally nothing on that, except that it certainly seems to be part of some wing of Ubisoft. Ludimedia might've taken over from Ubisoft S.A.RL., but I've got nothing on that. At any rate, it seems related to Ubisoft at some boring corporate level, so basically what Angus said. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:09, 24 September 2018 (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 in music

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 keep. At least until the article is written (presumably quite soon). Some brief content has been added at the target, so per below it seems fine. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect and WP:TOOSOON. The editor whose username is Z0 18:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, there are already announcements of albums coming in 2019, (see 2019 in heavy metal music for example) and it is not a misleading redirect, it’s only a temporary measure. I don’t understand why you wan’t me redirect deleted so much? ~SML • TP 19:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is currently no content related to 2019 at the target article, but if this changed (and it probably isn't too soon for it to do so) then this would be an obvious keep. Alternatively (or additionally) the redirect could be overwritten by this content. Unless one or both of these things happen though the redirect is misleading - but not terribly so. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Category:2019 in music, which looks to be the target with the most relevant content until an article on the subject is written. Keeping it as-is doesn't work, there is nothing on this subject at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP, the fact that, as 2018 wraps up, thing relevant to 2019 will start showing up in the redirect target article as well. It can easily be deleted when the draft is moved into the mainspace. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or keep as a nearly empty stub. The redirect is misleading. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promote the draft. It needs some editing, but then so do lots of other mainspace articles - and more importantly, it points to better-developed subtopic articles about 2019. Deletion or a category redirect are also preferable to the current reader-hostile setup of sending people to a list page which has no information about the topic they're trying to find. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Needs some editing"? It's nothing but a skeleton outline, entirely made out of section titles and bare lists of items that are almost entirely red linked. It's not even remotely close to being ready to be published. Sergecross73 msg me 20:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even once you delete all the redlinks, it has enough blue links to constitute a list. And it's still better than sending people to an article which doesn't even contain the string "2019" in it. It's pretty much never a good idea to redirect the name of a potentially-notable topic, to a list which is only supposed to contain notable entries. The blue link hides the fact that we don't actually have an article about the topic, and increases the risk that it gets added to the target as a WP:CIRCULAR link, leading to even more reader frustration. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we looking at the same draft? If you "delete all the red links, and you've almost got a blank page. It'd be nothing but section titles and about 5-6 wiklinked phrases. It is absolutely not ready to be published to the mainspace. I fail to see how linking to a virtually content-less page is alleviating any "reader frustration". Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Readers who types "2019 in music" into the search box should actually get information about 2019 in music. That can be done through a category redirect, or a short list of the relevant articles, or by deleting this redirect and showing search results. As I stated in my original comment, any of those outcomes would be reasonable. However, you propose to keep sending readers who type "2019 in music" into the search box to a page that has zero information about 2019 in music. I fail to see how that helps anyone. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2018 (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.

Hugo Tacha

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 keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any reference to this individual (assuming it is an individual by the category) in the target. Onel5969 TT me 14:55, 16 September 2018 (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.

Treat Infamy

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rest Assured (a not-Wikipedia-mentioned band) had a (not-Wikipedia-mentioned) song "Treat Infamy" that sampled "Bitter Sweet Symphony" but I don't think that's sufficient for a redirect, especially since it's to a broken section with no mention in the article, and delete would be better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2018 (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.

Higher Ground Productions

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 keep. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 09:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Ground Productions is a production company founded by Barack and Michelle Obama in May 2018, but it isn't mentioned in the target, or in any other article (Canadian Comedy Awards, Martin Luther King Jr. and Canadian humour mention other companies with the same name). I asked a few weeks ago whether some discussion of the company ought to be added to the target, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus to do so (see Talk:Barack Obama#Higher Ground Productions). I think the final point of WP:RDEL applies here, as the company is likely to be notable in its own right (sources include NPR, Vulture, MediaWeek, PJ Media, CBS). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2018 (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.

Gabriel Milland

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, and no particularly strong connection between the two people. There was a minor controversy in 2011 around Gove's hiring of Milland, but he doesn't seem to work for him anymore. Milland isn't mentioned in any other articles, so there are no obvious alternative targets. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2018 (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 commanding officers of the USS Arizona (BB-39)

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. With the caveat that the circumstances here – a community consensus not to have these list articles, and a fairly clear result after a week at RFD – overrides the typical concerns that using RFD after redirection is discouraged as deletion by stealth. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 52#Lists of Commanding Officers. The list article was created after the consensus at WT:SHIPS, but likely in good faith as the author probably wasn't aware of the discussion. All notable officers are now included (with BLP link) in the main target article. This page does not redirect to any list and is simply unneeded. - wolf 08:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reluctant delete. I can't say that I agree with that consensus regarding lists of commanding officers (it seems like encyclopaedic information that people will look for to me, especially for very notable ships like HMS Victory), but I can't deny that it was the consensus of that discussion, and there is no list of commanding officers of this ship. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no such list in the target, or in any other article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the best way to deal with an article that shouldn't exist is WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Converting something into a redirect and then RFD'ing it an hour later is a rather roundabout way of doing things. I'm not opposed to deletion given the consensus against articles of this type and because functionally, having it sitting here for seven days is pretty much equivalent to having it sitting at PROD for seven days. But I'd really strongly discourage such kinds of nominations in the future. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotta agree with 59 here here, this was turned into a redirect and nominated for deletion just over an hour later, and as such I wouldn't feel comfortable closing it here. Had it been a redirect for a chunk of time first, then sure, but as it hasn't, PROD or AfD with the link to the previous discussion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amorymeltzer: - I realize it was a round-about way to deletion (it wasn't intentional) but as "59." also pointed out, this process is equivalent to AfD and PROD. The page had it's seven days, the community discussed it, the consensus is 'delete' and there is no reason to ignore this consensus. There isn't anything so untoward about the deletion proposal that is deserves more of the community's time and the project's resources, (essentially, another kick at the can). It may be unconventional (and not to be repeated by me), but it's still uncontroversial. If for some strange reason someone wishes to contest the deletion, there is always REFUND. Cheers - wolf 02:33, 24 September 2018 (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.

Hauturu/Little Barrier Island

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 Little Barrier Island. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Astonishing redirect that draws undeserved attention to the village stocks. Propose retargeting to Little Barrier Island. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2018 (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.

Harry Patterson

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 keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The British writer, Jack Higgins, was born as Henry Patterson, not Harry Paterson HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 01:18, 16 September 2018 (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/2018_September_16&oldid=1036307125"