Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 24

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

May 24

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 24, 2019.

Supercoin

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) 00:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible conflict with SuperCoin, a cryptocurrency, and Le Supercoin, a pub in Paris, both of which appear likely to be notable based on a superficial internet search. The best long term solution in my opinion would be to create stubs for any notable alternative targets and turn the current redirect into a dab page. signed, Rosguill talk 23:44, 24 May 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.

Luke (Danish band)

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. Article content has been restored and is now listed at AfD; see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke (Danish band). PC78 (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following a BLANKANDREDIRECT, this page with history now redirects to a dab with no relevant entry. Certes (talk) 20:21, 24 May 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.

Memory trace

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) 20:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase isn't mentioned in the target. It's mentioned in several other articles, but I'm not sure that any would be a more suitable target. There is also a Freudian sense of the phrase (more commonly translated as "mnemic trace") that isn't mentioned anywhere in the encyclopaedia as far as I can see. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak disambiguate or broad concept article. My first thought is to wonder about a dab as several of those articles use the term in ways that are possibly what the searcher is looking for but none define it - Decay theory and Multiple trace theory possibly come the closest, but as they are (by by superficial reading of the articles) competing theories neither would make a better target than the other. However as none of the articles on page could reasonably be called "Memory trace" it may not survive to call it a disambiguation page. There is no entry wikt:memory trace, so a soft redirect (another thought I had) isn't possible. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete but certainly not opposed to a disambiguation page or article if someone wants to try it. I don't see this happening like it sometimes does at RfD where we can just put something together right now, and in the meantime, the redirect won't be helpful to readers. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:00, 24 May 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.

Bodyblock

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 disambiguate. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current redirect is inherently useless as the target page merely contains a list of other lists. This appears to be a fairly minor Transformers character whose sole mention on Wikipedia is at Transformers: Generations#Scout Class, but the name could reasonably refer to Body Block or various uses of "body block" (at Blocking (American football) or Professional wrestling attacks, for example). PC78 (talk) 15:59, 24 May 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.

Earls of Greed

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. Shoutout to Thryduulf for Abrahams Lincoln 😆 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part of a mass creation of plurals to various peerages. Except that these two aren't peerages but fictional characters, and there aren't more than one of them. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:54, 24 May 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.

Marooning (disambiguation)

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 disambiguate per !votes below, but the disambiguation page will need to be extended, otherwise it'd be delete-able per WP:TWODABS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Maroon (disambiguation) does not describe other uses of "marooning". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Psantora: which actual articles (not disambiguation pages) describe a use of the term "marooning"? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was not primarily arguing for disambiguation, just that disambiguation is preferential to deletion. I'll re-state my argument for clarity: "Marooning" is the present participle of the verb "maroon" and "marooned" is the past tense; either of those articles are perfectly acceptable WP:PARTIAL title matches for "marooning" ("maroons" is the third person singular present, but probably isn't as appropriate as the other two targets). If it is decided that "marooning" deserves its own dab page instead, it could link to those two/three disambiguation pages but also to the wiktionary entry for the term as well as "maroonwing moth", which could easily be confused with "marooning".
To directly answer your question, there are no current articles that use the term "marooning" in their title other than marooning and marooning (disambiguation). However, there is the 1887 work by Edward John Gregory named "Marooning" (not to be confused with "Marooned", the oil painting that the watercolor painting "Marooning" is based on) as well as the first episode of the first season of Survivor (in Borneo) entitled "The Marooning", which won an Emmy for outstanding sound mixing for a non-fiction program and is the first of over 500 episodes in that series. Based on these articles, I've changed my !vote to favor disambiguation over keeping or retargeting, but I still argue that any of those three is preferable to deletion. (Though, if kept or retargeted, those above links should be included on whichever disambiguation page marooning (disambiguation) points to.) - PaulT /C 12:13, 27 May 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.

Dr. Rivon

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) 20:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A minor character that had a small entry in the target article a couple of years ago but as of today has no mention in any article. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:32, 24 May 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.

Die Abenteuer von Rocky & Bullwinkle

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) 20:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a German-language film, therefore fails WP:FORRED. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given the potential ambiguity mentioned by Ivanvector, though it's hard to say as the German Wikipedia doesn't appear to have an article for the show. Do we know for sure that it was a German co-production? This isn't stated in the article, but it's an English language film in any case. PC78 (talk) 21:31, 24 May 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.

Ahmad ibn Fadlan (The 13th Warrior)

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. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad ibn Fadlan was a real person, so this redirect is pointless. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - I'm not sure how useful it is or if anyone's likely to search for this instead of just searching for either the person or the film depending on what they're looking for, but the film is a partial retelling of Ahmad ibn Fadlan's account of the Varangians, and a fictionalized version of the real person is the central character of the film. Not sure, I guess, but probably harmless. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:31, 24 May 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.

Homosexual lifestyle

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. After the most recent relist, there has been no further substantial comments that made consensus any clearer. The side for deletion seems to want the redirect deleted per WP:REDLINK, and the side to keep the redirect is supporting the current target being accurate. So, as far as I can see, this is definitely no consensus. (However, the redirect(s) Can be overwritten with an article at any time, provided the subject is notable on its own.) Anyways, I don't see consensus getting any clearer during this discussion; I don't see a relist helping any further. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the new version of this RfD below. WanderingWanda (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Retarget. Current target of LGBT culture is incorrect, and would be seen as offensive by some. If the culture wars article were much expanded, it might make sense for it to go there, but given the current state of affairs, it seems best to redirect it to Homosexual agenda

Assuming good faith, this may have been added by someone unfamiliar with the origin of the term in the culture wars as an expression indicating a belief that homosexuality is chosen, and may be abandoned at will, or through therapy, as proposed by NARTH. It is used primarily by groups on the religious right to attack gay people, as pushing a "homosexual agenda". The current target, LGBT culture, has nothing to do with religious right activism against gay people and homosexuality, and would be considered an offensive connection by some. Mathglot (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing for this redirect, not sure how to merge this in at the top, maybe someone can help?
Mathglot (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that at the top for you. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've also left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies alerting participants to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the best approach (but much more laborious) would be to create an article on the term "Gay lifestyle" that talks about the framing of homosexuality as a lifestyle by LGBT rights opponents. Something that I want to do eventually is make a similar page for gender ideology, which is a snarl word used in Catholic countries to refer not only to gender studies (where it currently redirects) but also to gay people in general. Bẽeiçon (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bẽeiçon:, Could you please elaborate on how you see the proposed Gay lifestyle topic (as you define it) as being different than the existing article Homosexual agenda? Is there anything you envision in the former, that is not already included in the latter (or should be)? I'm worried about a content fork; absent some clear disjunction between the two topics, I think they should be one article. Imho, "Homosexual agenda" is the better title, because it is unambiguously used as a POV or attack expression by anti-gay activists, whereas "Gay lifestyle" has both an attack meaning (probably the primary sense), but also has a benign meaning with no pejorative connotation (there might even be some reappropriation going on there). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Gay lifestyle" as a compound word has a different meaning than simply the adjective "gay" plus the noun "lifestyle". If English were spaced like German, perhaps this would be the difference between "Gaylifestyle" and "Gay lifestyle". The compound word is definitely pejorative and notable (there are many sources, and you can start with media monitoring organizations like GLAAD, which discuss the problems associated with the "lifestyle" framing), where the latter sense isn't.
While I've definitely seen "gay agenda" be used ironically by gay people themselves, I don't think "gay lifestyle" has any potential for reappropriation. The reason is obvious within the term itself: gay people don't have any one lifestyle, and the lifestyles of gay people only seem monolithic and deterministic to people who see LGBT folk as an outgroup, and only in stereotyped media. Bẽeiçon (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bẽeiçon:, Sorry, I couldn't understand your last comment in the context of this Rfd. It sounds like you are agreeing with me that "Gay lifestyle" means essentially the same as "Homosexual agenda", is that right? I wasn't asking about what "gay lifestyle" means; I have a pretty good handle on that I think (and on the formation of German compound nouns). I was asking, basically, if you see any difference between the meanings of "gay lifestyle" and "homosexual agenda"; i.e., do you think they are synonyms? If so, one should redirect to the other. If not, what difference do you see between them? The reason I ask, is because you said, "the best approach... would be to create an article on the term 'Gay lifestyle' ", and I don't understand why you would want to do that, if they mean essentially the same thing. If you believe they are not the same, then how is "Gay lifestyle" so different from "Homosexual agenda" that it deserves its own article? Hope that's clearer. Mathglot (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bẽeiçon:, actually, hold off a bit; this may be a completely moot point, now, as I screwed up the original statement of this Rfd. Thanks for your comments. Mathglot (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A previous section titled "Fix, or close & relist." RfD introduction fixed by me. eπi (talk | contribs) 00:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I see what the problem is, here; and it's my fault. I'm not used to Rfd, and I treated it analogously to Requested move, where you give the source article in the first argument, and the proposed merger target in the second argument. But I realize now that Rfd's arg2 isn't what you're proposing, it's the way it is now that you're complaining about. If that's the case, the two bullets at the top completely misstate the case.

Thryduulf, may I call on your assistance once again, please? What's the best way forward here: close this Rfd as too screwed up to continue and open another one, or just fix the listings at the top and carry on? If we go for "fix it", then the bullet items at the top should say the equivalent of:

With either solution, the notice at WT:LGBT would need adjustment. I apologize for the bother. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WanderingWanda, could you please move the {{Archive top}} to right after the two bullet items at the top, which state the definition of this Rfd? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Rfd is open; please add your comments below. Mathglot (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Survey
edit

Retarget. Current target of LGBT culture is incorrect, and would be seen as offensive by some. If the culture wars article were much expanded, it might make sense for it to go there, but given the current state of affairs, it seems best to redirect it to Homosexual agenda

Assuming good faith, this may have been added by someone unfamiliar with the origin of the term in the culture wars as an expression indicating a belief that homosexuality is chosen, and may be abandoned at will, or through therapy, as proposed by NARTH. It is used primarily by groups on the religious right to attack gay people, as pushing a "homosexual agenda". The current target, LGBT culture, has nothing to do with religious right activism against gay people and homosexuality, and would be considered an offensive connection by some. Mathglot (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Homosexual agenda as an interim solution. I agree with Bẽeiçon that an article should be created for this topic. Simply put, the Homosexual agenda article states that it's a term (about the advocacy of LGBT acceptance), and Homosexual lifestyle is a different term (about ways of life supposedly common among LGBT people). Conflating the two terms is inaccurate and confusing. feminist (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to keep as Headbomb and BDD make good points. Anyone may still convert this into an article about the term "gay lifestyle" in particular. WanderingWanda mentioned some sources that specifically discuss the term, thus allowing this topic (the term itself) to meet WP:N requirements. feminist (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Culture makes a ton more sense than agenda/advocacy. Plenty of gay people are happy to live without advocating for anything in particular. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Headbomb:, I don't undertand your comment, can you elaborate? Are you familiar with the use of "Homosexual lifestyle" as a homophobic slur by the Christian right? There is no other recent use of the term, other than as parody by gay people satirically alluding to homophobic attacks. Mathglot (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget.
    • GLAAD says that "gay lifestyle" and "homosexual lifestyle" are "Offensive" and "used to denigrate lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals suggesting that their orientation is a choice and therefore can and should be 'cured'". GLAAD also notes that the NYTimes and AP style guides say to avoid the term "gay lifestyle".
    • Doing some searches on Google Books seems to confirm that referring to homosexuality in terms of "lifestyle" is largely the domain of the anti-gay Christian right. I'm getting books with titles like Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle, The Health Hazards of Homosexuality, and Called Out: A Former Lesbian's Discovery of Freedom. Although searching for "gay lifestyle" does return a few results that use the term in a positive way: How to Be Happy, Healthy... and Hot: The Ultimate Gay Lifestyle Guide. WanderingWanda (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, saw that one, too, but you'll have to page a long way through the results before you find others. It seems to be a rare usage, and WP:COMMONNAME would apply. Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, no argument from me, just trying to be as even-handed as I can be. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          Yes, absolutely. But since we're on it: you will find usage of the term by the gay community through roughly the 1980s, but not after. This book, written in 2014, is an exception. Delving further, the book was written by a German (Sven Rebel) and translated by one Nicola Heine. Normally, one would expect a book translated from a foreign language into English to be translated by a native speaker; but a simple search shows that she is German as well. Normally, that's a big no-no for translation, precisely for the kind of thing that happened here. Unless you're a native speaker, or at least steeped in the culture and up on the latest trends, you have no business translating into English. And there's no indication that's the case here; so I chalk this book item up to a well-meaning mistranslation. As someone interested in translation and who hangs out on WP:PNT, this sort of thing happens all the time. So, this book is not really an exception, after all; just a mistake, really.
          I can see from the various arguments here, that some aspects of the history of this term are unfamiliar or confusing to some. That deserves clarification. Watch for a forthcoming section about that, hopefully today. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          @WanderingWanda: See #History of the term. Mathglot (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Gay lifestyle” is a non-neutral term for homosexuality, which would be the appropriate redirect target. While it shares certain aspects of its origin in common with “gay agenda”, I don’t think they refer to the same topic.--Trystan (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Treating the query literally appeals to me, and probably blunts some of the pejorative usage. "Oh, you want to know about gay people's style of life? Sure, here's the culture..." I've tagged both with {{R from non-neutral name}}. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you can base a "keep" on a reworded version, as it's not the redirect under discussion here. The term "gay people's style of life" sounds very different to me, than "gay lifestyle". If you wanted to create gay people's style of life and redirect it to LGBT culture I wouldn't oppose it (it wouldn't be that useful, but redirects are cheap) and it wouldn't need to be listed at this discussion, but Gay lifestyle is something completely different, and votes should be based on what is at issue here. Good Rcat, by the way; thanks. Mathglot (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I have no objection to its being expanded it into an article, but I'm not sure whether that would appear to be a content fork of "Homosexual agenda". One alternative would be to explain the evolution of the term "Homosexual lifestyle", and add that as a new section to the article "Homosexual agenda". The only solution that makes no sense to me, would be to leave it as it is, pointing to LGBT culture. "Homosexual lifestyle" is a pejorative term used by those opposed to LGBT rights; it should not redirect to LGBT culture. For how the term got that way from its humble beginnings as a neutral term used in academia and elsewhere, see #History of the term, below. Mathglot (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create article "homosexual lifestyle" Mathglot below seems to have done enough research, source identification, and content drafting to establish "homosexual lifestyle" as a Wikipedia article tracing the history of a technical term being used in a particular way. Mathglot - what is your opinion of this? I am not sure the research you have below would merge well into any other article, because it seems so specific to particular terms matched to particular concepts. This information would be WP:UNDUE weight in other Wikipedia articles like LGBT culture and homosexual agenda, which probably should have so much weight tracing the history of political and academic choice of term. Perhaps this content could go to Media portrayal of LGBT people, or maybe some new split from that article. Perhaps if we create no new article the redirect should go to Media portrayal of LGBT people because sources around this term seem to analyze the people using the term rather than the target of the term. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting comment, Bluerasberry, with some new approaches. Mulling it over; wonder what others thing about it, as well. I've long thought the entire topic of Evolution of LGBT terminology deserved its own article; maybe this could be part of that. For an analogous treatment in this space, see for example, Transgender terminology (much of which goes back to this edit by User:Anameofmyveryown, who may have some ideas here as well). Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – note to closer: some !votes (one, so far) is in the #Discussion section, below. Mathglot (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I totally disagree with redirecting this to "homosexual agenda". "Agenda" means political activism. The term "lifestyle" is neutral - even if it has been used by some opponents to suggest activism by gays. If I clicked on the link "homosexual lifestyle", looking for information, and found myself at looking at this - "Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term introduced by sectors of the Christian religious right (primarily in the United States) as a disparaging way to describe the advocacy of cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual orientations and relationships. The term refers to efforts to change government policies and laws on LGBT rights-related issues." - I would be WP:ASTONISHED. That would not be at all what I was looking for. I agree with the suggestion above that the term "Homosexual lifestyle" deserves its own article - a neutral one - but in the meantime a redirect to "LGBT culture", as it currently is, meets the principle of Least Astonishment. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget with Possibilities. I don't really think RFD is equipped for these types of conversations, but honestly Mathglot should just write the article on this. There's clearly a gap in our coverage here, and they've done a lot of good research on the subject. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just moved this from the discussion section. I just want to reiterate that I don't think the results retarget vs keep really matter here because whatever it links to should be tagged {{R with possibilities}} and written about. Evolution of LGBT terminology (maybe as a category, list, or featured topic?) is not a bad concept, but let's start with this one article first. I really just agree with Bluerasberry here for the most part. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
edit
History of the term
edit

In reading the survey arguments, I wondered if people are aware of the history of the term homosexual lifestyle, so I thought I'd offer some background about the evolution in meaning over several decades from neutral to pejorative.

The term homosexual lifestyle started out as a neutral term used in dozens or hundreds of books, magazines, and academic publications, and remained that way for two decades after Stonewall. In response to activism in support of gay rights, the Christian right launched counter-campaigns starting in 1992, the first of which was called The Gay Agenda. The latter term soon shifted to become "Homosexual agenda". By 2003, the Supreme Court had used homosexual agenda in a decision, and by 2004, a U.S. Senator rated the "homosexual agenda" as more dangerous to Americans than terrorist activity. Meanwhile, the meaning of the term Homosexual lifestyle was undergoing a semantic shift to a pejorative sense.[n 1] Usage of the term Homosexual lifestyle began to change until it became used mostly as as a derogatory term, or as a dog-whistle term for LGBT anti-discrimination activism, or for the homosexual recruitment conspiracy theory.

Evolution over time
The rough time periods corresponding to usage of Homosexual lifestyle are (dates are approximate):
  • 1960–1980: a neutral term; very little academic usage
  • 1980–1990s: discovery of AIDS; still neutral; lots of academic usage especially in biology, virology, etc.
  • 1992–2000s: transitional period – mixed use
    • academics continue to use Homosexual lifestyle neutrally, but less and less frequently, due to increasing recognition of:
    • the Christian right starts using the terms Gay agenda and Homosexual agenda in a derogatory fashion
    • the term Homosexual lifestyle, previously used only neutrally, undergoes pejoration as Homosexual agenda gains in frequency
  • mid-2000s–present: the meaning of Homosexual lifestyle is mostly pejorative
    • Christian right and allies uses the terms Homosexual agenda and Homosexual lifestyle pejoratively
    • term Homosexual lifestyle no longer used by LGBT individuals; among the public, it takes on aspects of the culture wars and is used by those opposed to LGBT rights; among academics, neutral usage has dwindled but still exists, largely by those whose native language is not English.
Supporting data
The term homosexual lifestyle first appeared in print right around the time of Stonewall and increased in frequency thereafter (see ngrams chart).[n 2] Early usage, from Stonewall (1969), to roughly the appearance of the AIDS crisis (early 1980s) was entirely neutral and non-pejorative.[n 3]
In scientific journals, papers using the term appeared suddenly in the wake of the AIDS crisis, starting around 1981.[n 4] but on rare occasions articles using the term appeared on non HIV-related topics before that.[n 5]
In the last ten years, scholarly articles still use the term homosexual lifestyle. But it's not clear how often. Google Scholar won't show more than 1000 results, but if you pick the last five years, it gives 947 results; however, because of how PageRank works, not all of those actually contain the term in question. (For example, page 94 of results shows no results that contain the term; page 84 has one; page 49 none; page 37 has seven, which all appear to be non-native speakers. Results 1-10 on the first page contain six uses of the term, one is in scare quotes, one is a church organization, and two others appear to be non-native speakers. For the last five years in books, all of the top five are religious sources with negative views, none are academic.
In books, checking 2000-2019, there are 21 book results, all of which contain the term. Of the top ten results most are polemics related to the culture wars. Looking at those top ten, we have:
excerpts from top ten books for "homosexual lifestyle"
  1. 2005 What is involved in the homosexual lifestyle that we are increasingly being asked to accept and see as normal? Here the gay propagandists are walking a very fine line.
  2. 2011: Is the Christian church increasingly accepting the homosexual lifestyle?
  3. 2007: Question of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse Would you please do me a favor and "Google" the phrase "homosexual lifestyle". [context:] For those engaged in political debate, my experience is that that particular phrase—it's not exactly at the level of fighting words, but it's a defining term in the political combat of the debate over the rights of gay people in America .
  4. 2007 Increasing the numbers of individuals who adopt a homosexual lifestyle would also likely be bad for society.
  5. 2004 Prager considers the stereotypical phenomenon of a 'homosexual lifestyle'. He writes: While it is possible for male homosexuals to live lives of fidelity comparable to those of heterosexual males, it is usually not the case.
  6. 2003 This major premise may be reconstructed to state: All adults may legally engage in private consensual sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Reference is made to all adults in the above proposition; children are excluded from the...
  7. 2010 Although the underpinnings of conservative fears are founded on bad history, the prediction that more people will adopt a homosexual lifestyle when society accepts this lifestyle, at first glance, appear to be true. Indeed more men and women ..
  8. 2006 When the homosexual lifestyle is examined, that downward movement becomes apparent in several ways. First, the homosexual lifestyle is dangerous to children. It's a fact that homosexuals put our children at greater risk of being sexually ...
  9. 2005 Harmful aspects of the homosexual lifestyle The evidence demonstrates incontrovertibly that the homosexual lifestyle is inconsistent with the proper raising of children. Homosexual relationships are characteristically unstable and are ...
  10. 2005 She said in the article that I changed, that I left my homosexual lifestyle and went from gay to straight, and I'm married with children now. She didn't question my sincerity or put it into a negative light.
Pages 2 and 3 of results are similar to the above. In this Rfd discussion, we are not looking at notability, rather, we are trying to determine if the existing redirect to LGBT culture is correct. Since the term homosexual lifestyle is now largely pejorative and LGBT culture is neutral, it should not redirect to it. Rather, if kept as a redirect, the term should redirect to an article with a title that also has a pejorative meaning, like Homosexual agenda. If expanded into an article, the term should contain a section which explains how the meaning changed over time from a neutral to a pejorative sense.

References

  1. ^ A semantic shift likely to due to its similarity to Homosexual agenda; but the actual reason for the shift doesn't matter. What matters is that it happened, for whatever reason.
  2. ^ The ngrams chart shows total usage of the term over time, and does not identify whether it is neutral or pejorative use.
  3. ^ Early usage was neutral: Creative Marriage (1976, p. 334): "If a person is committed to an exclusively homosexual lifestyle, then s/he will probably not even consider heterosexual living together or marriage.", or Jet magazine (1979): "James Baldwin, award-winning author, who recently released his 19th published work, Just Above My Head, discussing his homosexual lifestyle." See also All books 1960–1983.
  4. ^ The term appeared suddenly: MMWR (1981): "The occurrence of pneumocystosis in these 5 previously healthy men without a clinically apparent underlying immunodeficiency is unusual, but seems to reflect some association with a homosexual lifestyle or disease acquired through sexual contact." , or: Ann Intern Med (1983) "Discussion In this exploratory case-control study, the element of homosexual lifestylemost strongly associated with the occurrence of Kaposi's sarcoma and Pneumocystis pneumonia was a history of sexual contact with large numbers of male partners."
  5. ^ Rarely appeared before that E.g.: Qualitative Sociology (1980): "Although the bar's patrons may perceive all homosexuals as equally deserving of violent treatment, victims of such abuse are more apt to be people with a particular kind of homosexual lifestyle."

Mathglot (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...if kept as a redirect, the term should redirect to an article with a title that also has a pejorative meaning... WP:RNEUTRAL is clear that we can and often should redirect from non-neutral titles to neutral ones. The goal is to help readers get where they want to go, not to punish them for using the wrong language. The meaning of homosexual lifestyle in the above excerpts is much closer to "what gay people do in their personal lives" than to "the political agendas of gay people". If someone reading one of the above books wanted to learn more about the "homosexual lifestyle" (possibly deliberately seeking out a more neutral source), I don't see how the homosexual agenda article in any way meets that information need.--Trystan (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trystan, thanks; yes, that's a good point. But one has to consider what has happened with the title of Homosexual agenda as well: either it's inappropriate under its current name (for the same reason you cited) and should rather be a redirect to, perhaps, Homophobic conspiracy theories#Homosexual agenda (which isn't a bad idea at first blush, but a separate issue for a RM perhaps), or else it's at the proper title even though pejorative per WP:POVNAME. If the latter is the case, then there seems to be an inconsistency, or lack of balance, in keeping a pejorative article name supporting a POV view, while redirecting a POV title to a neutral article title. I'm not sure I can cite what policy would refute this, but there's a kind of POVvy unfairness there that bothers me. Put another way, if I were a homophobic activist editor, this is exactly the state of affairs I would want to see with these two article titles. Perhaps the solution is to move Homosexual agenda, I'm not sure. Do you see my point? I think you're probably more familiar with redirect and POV titles than I am; maybe you can suggest something? Mathglot (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule is that non-neutral titles should redirect to neutral ones, to get users where they want to go regardless of the language they used. It is quite rare for a non-neutral term to get an article about the term itself. But since there is an article about the term Homosexual agenda, I don't see how it could be moved. Similarly, if someone does go ahead and write an article on homosexual lifestyle as a term, that is where it would have to go. In general, I'm not in favour of such articles, given their risk for becoming POV forks and the barrier they create from connecting users with the substantive, neutral article that best matches their query. (For example, I would support merging Homosexual agenda into LGBT rights in the United States or a similar article.)--Trystan (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is still ongoing and it hasn't been a week since the RfD was "restarted".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per BDD (and, after reading through the dense history of the term helpfully provided by Mathglot, per Trystan). If there are other pages with potential issues, please nominate them for discussion in the appropriate place(s), but based on the discussion here I agree that both terms currently point to the correct target - LGBT culture. Would it make sense and/or be at all helpful to include a {{redirect}} hatnote there with these terms as well? Another potential option would be to create a disambiguation page pointing to both places, but that could get slippery very quickly. - PaulT /C 16:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Having said that, an article at homosexual lifestyle (with a redirect there from gay lifestyle) based on the above history would be preferable to a disambiguation page. This has the added benefit of removing any (potential) need for a {{redirect}} hatnote at LGBT culture to a non-neutral term and the necessary hatnote could point to the newly created article instead. - PaulT /C 14:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Between the "keep/weak keep" and the "create an article" comments, I was half-tempted to close this to "no consensus", but relisting this hopefully could clarify that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's really odd, is that I searched Afd to find this Entry, and Wikipedia prefixindex search didn't find it, but turned up reams of other things that mentioned it. Such as:

  • Pedophilia and homosexuality: "danger to children' or 'gay people recruit young people into the homosexual lifestyle' "
  • Promotion of homosexuality: "world who seem to share that point of view, that homosexuals are working to promote their wicked lifestyle in the liberal media and in public places where
  • Opposition to homosexuality: " It can also mean hatred of and disparagement of homosexual people, their lifestyles, their sexual behaviors"
  • Log/2005 May 8: "danger to children' or 'gay people recruit young people into the homosexual lifestyle'."

Thought that was illuminating. The point being, not that WP is a reliable source, but that even Wikipedia can be a battleground for this. Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 28 May 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.

Glad He's Gone

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 procedural close. The song has now been confirmed and a stub has been created. -- Tavix (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No clear connection between redirect title and target article. Am I missing something here? Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and Sunshine Kitty. I still don't see anything besides forum chatter, so while this may turn out to be legit I don't see any basis for having these redirects until there is at least some published and reliable information. PC78 (talk) 22:10, 24 May 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.

Gull Island (Niagara River)

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. -- Tavix (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted, so a redlink is rendered, where it is used. As with Gull Island (Lake Kagawong) the topic could potentially be a standalone article, so policy says it should remain a redlink. Plus the redirect target has nothing meaningful to say about the island, other than it exists. Once deleted its entry in the Gull Island disambiguation page should updated. Geo Swan (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 
Smell it.
  • Just to add to the confusion, there's yet another "gull island" where I live. I'm not sure it's super notable unto itself, although in summer lots of tourist boats go by it (you can't land ithout permission) and there is a live webcam of the various seabirds there in season [2]. I suppose it would be Gull Island (Kachemak Bay) if there was an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is an island back home where all the seagulls would congregate in the spring to nest, but we called it Shitface Island. I don't know what its actual name was or even if it had one. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, without prejudice against conversion into an article in the future. Redirects are not difficult or impossible to edit, so we do not actually have a rule that a redlink is preferred over a redirect to a related topic in the interim. Unlike the Lake Kagawong namesake below, however, it's a lot less difficult for me to believe (given its location literally just above the lip of the Horseshoe Falls) that a genuinely substantive and reliably sourceable article about this island might be possible — we'd need better sources for the claim, but I have seen a blog entry which claims that the island's distance from the lip is one of the metrics that's used to actually measure the lip's rate of erosion, which is obviously a reason why this island might be considered more notable than other most islets of its small size. So, if you can find the necessary sources to make an article about it sustainable and keepable, then go to town and make it happen — but deleting the existing redirect first is not a prerequisite that has to be met, when you can easily just convert the redirect into a real article at any time. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:27, 24 May 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.

Gull Island (Lake Kagawong)

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. -- Tavix (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gull Island (Lake Kagawong) is a topic that could, potentially, be a stand alone article . (2) Lake Kagawong currently says nothing meaningful about the island. So the redirect should be deleted, leaving a redlink. Once deleted its entry in the Gull Island disambiguation page should updated. Geo Swan (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Redirects are not impossible to edit, so leaving a redlink is not preferred over redirecting the title to a relevant related topic. Gull Island is also a very small islet, so small that it still isn't really visible at even the highest level of zoom that Google Maps offers over Lake Kagawong, so the likelihood of there actually being any substantive sources about it to support a standalone article is pretty close to nonexistent. We do not need, or want, an article about every small lake island on earth just to state that it exists, the end — we only need a standalone article about an island if we can actually write and support some genuine substance about it, and I find it highly doubtful that this island would have either the sourceability or the depth of meaningful stuff to say about it. Bearcat (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:27, 24 May 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.

Artemis Lee

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. --BDD (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are apparently characters called Artemis and Demarquette, and they are briefly mentioned in the target article, but I don't think these names are correct. Are these even real? They get very few google hits for characters on such a long-running and popular show. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • This sounds like a great question to ask on the article's talk page. It is not, however, an appropriate use for WP:RFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WhatamIdoing: "Redirects for discussion" is precisely the appropriate venue to discuss redirects. Talk:Nick Fallon hasn't been used in over a decade (and nothing has ever been answered there), you wouldn't get an answer there. -- Tavix (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Xezbeth wrote, "they are briefly mentioned in the target article, but I don't think these names are correct. Are these even real?". That sounds like a question of WP:V to me. This isn't just "Should we have these redirects?" The question here sounds to me like "Does the long, unsourced paragraph about these two characters comply with our standards for verifiability?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @WhatamIdoing: The names "Artemis and "Demarquette" are mentioned in the target, but not with the last names of Lee and/or Arvin. It's a matter of whether or not (some of) these redirects are correct, which is definitely a question for RfD to resolve. If you think there is a WP:V issue with the underlying content, you are welcome to work to resolve that, but that is separate from the issue at hand here. -- Tavix (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per [3], They are twins and the sons of some very wealthy people. They were placed into the care of Cassandra Arvin, but when he was arrested, they were sent to live with Nick Fallon until a man that worked for their parents brought them home. From that bit of information, they don't sound like they are legally Cassandra's sons, so they wouldn't have her last name. Either way, Xezbeth's point that they get very few google hits for characters on such a long-running and popular show is a good argument for deletion for being too minor of characters, especially to be searched in this manner. -- Tavix (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per [4] these two characters don't have last names. However, it is reasonable to assume that the woman who was pretending that they were her children would have presented them as having her own last name.
      Redirects don't exist to make sure that things are "correct". They exist to get people to the page that explains whether it's correct. We use "wrong" names as redirects for all sorts of people (including BLPs), places, and things. Doing that is actually in WP:R#KEEP #2 as a reason to keep a redirect: "redirecting a misnomer to a correct term". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:26, 24 May 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.

MGTOW (disambiguation)

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 per Steel1943 and the previous discussion at Talk:MGTOW. Suggest new discussion there before changing to a redirect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to "MGTOW", which is not a disambiguation page anymore. No pages link to this redirect. MrClog (talk) 12:30, 24 May 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.

Hanging tree

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. --BDD (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of hanging trees. Please see Talk:List of hanging trees#Requested move 16 May 2019. Steel1943 (talk) 11:49, 24 May 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.

Warp drive (disambiguation)

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 disambiguate -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page "Warp drive" does not have a disambiguation, therefore this redirect is entirely unnecessary and should be deleted. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warp Drive Inc is required to be notable in order to have an article: if you don't think it is then you should take Warp Drive Inc to AfD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:39, 26 May 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.

Spacewarp

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 disambiguate. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear if this refers to the fictional warp drive, the real theory of space warping drives or the video game. Should be deleted for being overly vague and unnecessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:55, 24 May 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.

Things That Matter

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) 19:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Things That Matter: Three Decades of Passions, Pastimes and Politics#Requested move 13 May 2019 yielded consensus not to move but no consensus on the target of the redirect, this is a procedural nomination and I am neutral on the issue. SITH (talk) 10:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is - as I said in the RM, I think "Things That Matter" refers primarily to the book, for which that is the actual title, if you disregard the subtitle. The album is always titled The Things That Matter, which means per WP:SMALLDETAILS it is right to have it at a different location. A hatnote between the two concepts can take readers between them easily.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Amakuru. The present target is the clear primary topic for "Things That Matter". There is both a book and an album called "The Things That Matter", but we only have an article about the latter. Even if the book gets an article hatnotes will suffice. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 24 May 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.

Top kek

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 4#Top kek

Wikipedia:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force

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. Consensus is that it would be better to have a discussion of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force at MfD. If that page is deleted, this redirect would also be deleted per G8. -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion house keeping The redirect from "Wikipedia" name space to "Wikipedia talk" name space has been in place since November 2014‎. This project never went live (never advertised) as there was not consensus in favour of creating. If the link is deleted then the target talk page should also be deleted PBS (talk) 10:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep without prejudice. You're doing things the wrong way around - if you think the target page should be deleted you should nominate it at MfD. If consensus there is to delete it the redirect can be speedily deleted under criterion G8, but while it exists then the current redirect is appropriate unless and until a task force begins work at which point it can simply be overwritten. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not doing it "the wrong way around". This is a redirect across name spaces WP:CSD#R2, once it has been deleted then the WP:CSD#C8 applies (talk pages with no corresponding subject page). -- PBS (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW what does "Keep without prejudice" mean? Does "Keep" mean keep with prejudice? -- PBS (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As Sideways713 notes, R2 only applies to redirects in the main namespace which this isn't. G8 explicitly excludes pages useful to Wikipedia, which a proposed task force might be and so its deletion would need to be discussed at MfD anyway. "Keep" on its own might imply that we have found value in keeping this redirect around, which might be taken into account in the MfD discussion, "without prejudice" basically means we're just deferring to the MfD and this discussion is not a reason that should be used to determine the value of the target page. If you think a redirect and its target should both be deleted you should always nominate the target page first. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per Thryduulf. Like Thryduulf said, if you want this and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force deleted, you should go about it the other way and nominate the target at MfD; if that discussion closes as "delete", the redirect will also go as a G8. R2 doesn't apply here since this is not a mainspace redirect. Sideways713 (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and relist these pages at WP:MfD per others. I see where you're coming from but this doesn't seem like the appropriate forum. PC78 (talk) 22:20, 24 May 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.

Dolores Shairp

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) 21:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this character on Wikipedia. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:59, 24 May 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.

Byakuya Matō

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) 21:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor character that isn't mentioned in any article including the target, except for being listed at Byakuya which I've already removed. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:23, 24 May 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.

Bulma’s Mother

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 1#Bulma’s Mother

We Wish You a Merry Christmas (Take 6 album)

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 1#We Wish You a Merry Christmas (Take 6 album)

George Francis (supercentenarian)

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. The redirect seems to hinge on the inclusion of the mini-bio. The bold removal of the bio has been reverted, and there does not seem to be consensus in this discussion to remove it. -- Tavix (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This person does not appear in the target list because he "only" lived to 112. He had a mini-bio there, which I deleted, because Francis had no particular notability besides his being briefly recognized as the world's second oldest man alive in 2008. — JFG talk 11:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - I've restored the deleted minibio per community derived consensus from the AfD. As such, as of this writing, the nom's rationale is no longer valid. schetm (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That is... literally true, yes. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The consensus from 12 years ago no longer applies, the wider Wiki community has moved on from the days of endless longevity fanfluff. A considerable number of individual's articles have been deleted and not all have been redirected/merged. Many minibios have also been removed as no longer being justified. This is one of the latter. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and keep restored minibio - the guy fairly clearly meets WP:GNG, as he is the subject of multiple independent in-depth articles in reliable sources. I don't think he should have a full article, that's overkill, but he definitely has a place as a mention in the other article, and this redirect provides the link thereto. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that the information at the target has been restored. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 24 May 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.

Elmira-Corning, NY Combined Statistical Area

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 6#Elmira-Corning, NY Combined Statistical Area

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_24&oldid=1136447953"