Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 2

< July 1

July 3 >

July 2

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 2, 2022.

Nasir Greer

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 11#Nasir Greer

Potential Tropical Cyclone Nine

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 11#Potential Tropical Cyclone Nine

Jesse Rice

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Rice → Cruise (song) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not the only work this person is known for, but doesn't seem notable enough for a standalone article. Also seems to be subject to edit warring. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was created in response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Rice (3rd nomination), which was based on the negation of your statement, that this is the only notable topic associated with this person. No counterargument has been offered, based on reliable sources, that there is another wiki-notable topic connected ot this person or that Rice himself meets GNG. I see only an incident in February 2018 where a spam user overwrote with a copyvio, and one case in February 2022 where the user Snix2104 (talk · contribs) created an unreferenced BLP on top of the redirect. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄)

I agree, even if the edit waring issue was more frequent blocks or protection of the redirect makes much more sense than deletion.--70.24.248.109 (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keeping the redirect is cheap, and presumably as one of the writers of the biggest songs in US means that he would always be of some interest as a search item. There are also sources on his other works, so can't say that he is completely non-notable. Hzh (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2022 (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.

User:Londonmedialog1

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 Blank. Removed redirect from user page. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Londonmedialog1 → Alice Thomson (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unnecessary redir from user page to an article (Alice Thomson) created by the user, presumably left behind when moving content from user name space to main article space. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blank. This can be done boldly without taking it to RFD. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the editor should be reminded not to use their userpage as a sandbox, as that is not the purpose of the base userpage, and instead use a subpage. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blank is usually what's done in these situations. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2022 (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.

Shi Hao

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 10#Shi Hao

Chamblee Dominos hostage incident

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chamblee Dominos hostage incident → The Noid#The Noid hostage incident (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Should be deleted because the same redirect with better grammar exists (Chamblee Domino’s hostage incident) Somewhereattheendofspace (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Redirects are CHEAP and it seems like a very plausible search term to me. TartarTorte 16:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually now I see that the nominated one is the only one that shows up when you try to type it in. Somewhereattheendofspace (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Somewhereattheendofspace I thought that Chamblee Domino’s hostage incident might have not been popping up because it has a smart quote in it, but I created Chamblee Domino's hostage incident which also doesn't show up in search. Search can be very weird. TartarTorte 19:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a small but useful variation of the apostrophed title ~~and create Chamblee Domino's hostage incident (with straight quotes)~~. NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out the non-smart-quote title was already created by TartarTorte. Thank you! NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2022 (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.

Owlsley

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 9#Owlsley

Conservative Resident

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. Jay (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Resident → Conservative Party (UK) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target, doesn't appear to be a formal term based on internet and Google Scholar searches, as results are just about residents who are conservative in various contexts. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The links suggest this was a local branding used by Conservative council candidates in Croydon in the era when you could use whatever variation you felt like, possibly with some eye to the various Residents' parties that used to be more prevalent though whether this was a local merger or just a more voter friendly branding I'm not sure. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is quite a lot of history here. It seems to have largely been used in Croydon (where Residents candidates and Conservative Candidates where closely aligned). Quite a strong history of candidates elected as indpendents in 1964 and 1968 being re-elected as Conservatives in 1974 (Bensham Manor comes to mind). The candidates in Norbury stood as "Conservatives" in 1964 and "Conservative Residents" in 1968 - and were members of the Conservative Group on the Council for that whole time - other sources also count "Conservative Resident" candidates as Conservatives - like here from Rallings and Thrasher: http://www.electionscentre.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Croydon-1964-2010.pdf Trimfrim20 (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I believe the discussion is incomplete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tim and Trimfrim. It seems to be an actually attested name for certain groups of Tories. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:41, 2 July 2022 (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.

Retards FC

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 10#Retards FC

United States Olympic national soccer team

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 9#United States Olympic national soccer team

Platty Joobs

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. (non-admin closure) Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 23:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Platty Joobs → Platinum Jubilee of Elizabeth II (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

A quick google saw a few pages make reference to "Platty Jobs" but not to "Platty Joobs". I see some pageviews, but all in the first day, and max of one a day for the past 3 weeks. But its enough views to make me hesitate on R3 Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 03:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is literally a Daily Mail (so sorry for sharing that rag) article about the 'Joobs' nickname, and it's all over Twitter. Also spelt 'Jubes'. Giant Snowman 10:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per extensive coverage, including inews, Indy100, Daily Mirror, GB News, Axios, The Irish News, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. No idea what the OP means about google since I get over 40,000 hits for the term "Platty Joobs". It was all over the place in the days leading up to the Jubilee. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly this name has been used to refer to the Platinum Jubilee. Redirects don't need to be neutral. A7V2 (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2022 (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.