Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 20

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

August 20

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 20, 2021.

Boaconda

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. ✗plicit 13:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect leftover from reverted page move to an unsubstantiated, unreferenced, unverifiable title. Paul_012 (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2021 (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.

Frontier tech

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. bibliomaniac15 22:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really properly verify the existence of this term as a synonym for high tech. We recently had a similar discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Bleeding edge technology. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just throw in some pings of all the same people here, as the topic area seems closely related: MBisanz Beeblebrox Andrew Davidson AndyTheGrump 力 Artem.G
TIA :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that seems logical, but we still need a modicum of a definition. I couldn't find one in the first page of Google Books search results for both the shorter and the longer term, so I'm a bit wary. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the nom appears to be in slight disagreement with the potential outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider that:
  1. the words are in fact "not real", that is, made up just for their own sake
  2. there is no established usage in reliable sources

The second part is significant, because inclusion in Wikipedia under this scenario is essential us making the buzzwords notable just by their inclusion. And this isn't how we operate here. If these criteria are true, I advocate for deletion. Further, we are under no obligation to find some possible article that barely passes a threshold, just so we can find a way to keep them. Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 01:16, 28 August 2021 (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.

Template:Infobox biography

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. ✗plicit 13:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate name for the current target. This is currently used on our articles about people, not our articles about biographies. Propose replacing existing uses and deleting, as this would likely get some accidental use if targeting something like {{Infobox book}}. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should also consider Template:Infobox Biography -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the title of a former template which is still linked to, the small potential for confusion does not outweigh the inconvenience deletion will cause. Editors familiar with the old name will be stumped by the deletion, which wouldn't benefit those looking for an infobox for biographical books anyway, since one does not exist. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:03, 20 August 2021 (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.

玛雅和米格尔

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. ✗plicit 12:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Delete per WP:RLOTE, no particular affinity between the target and the Chinese or Japaneese languages and these targets. signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 20 August 2021 (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.

Party for National Centre

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. bibliomaniac15 22:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, no relevant results in an internet or GScholar search, delete unless a justification can be provided signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kim Joon-kyo and Chung Jin-suk (politician) both use this term. Given the lack of GHits, they probably shouldn't, but the fact that someone thought it was the right term to use, and the fact that Google Translate translates this as People's Central Party, makes me think that perhaps this is a reasonable (mis)translation. Leaning keep, but would like to hear from someone who speaks Korean. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment South Korean political parties have appeared at RfD a couple of times previously and my takeaway from those discussions is that the parties/party names are incredibly turbulent from the perspective of someone used to UK or US politics and that there isn't always a single definitive translation. This suggests more leniency than perhaps we would usually allow, but there does have to be an appropriate target that wont confuse - do we have one here? Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 14:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect was seemingly created as a result of being linked in Chung Jin-suk (politician), both which were created last month by Jolin254. It has been linked for some time in Kim Joon-kyo, which was also created by Jolin. Google searches for "Party for National Centre" yields nothing more than Wikipedia or websites that take information from the articles here, and "Party for National Center" introduces partial matches to unrelated groups. I see no evidence that this term was ever used before being introduced on this site. ✗plicit 14:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xplicit, and Thryduulf's context. If we can't verify this, I'd rather have a redlink than potentially mislead readers. --BDD (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2021 (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.

Heineck Schniver

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. ✗plicit 14:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created by User:Heineckschniver as a test or vanity. The name is unrelated to stomach cancer, and does not appear in the article or anywhere on Wikipedia. Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 08:15, 20 August 2021 (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/2021_August_20&oldid=1042039917"