Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 17

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 17, 2018.

AYX (language)

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 26#AYX (language)

Watersportsgate

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. Deryck C. 14:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Novel or obscure synonym (WP:RFD#DELETE 8). Cute, but still. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The name was used in headlines in January 2017 by The Mirror, The Express, Huffington Post and The Sun, amongst others, so this is neither novel (in the sense of recent) or "very obscure", as the guideline suggests. As far as I can tell it is seldom used to refer to anything other than the current target, so there's no risk of causing confusion, and the number of news reports using the name suggests this is a similar case to the Attorneygate example mentioned in WP:RNEUTRAL. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The big difference here is that Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy is a descriptive title unlikely to be directly searched by users. "Attorneygate" is probably the WP:COMMONNAME, in fact, even if it's not suitable for the actual title. By contrast, "Trump–Russia dossier" is itself a plausible search term, as are redirects such as Trump dossierTrump dossier and Steele dossier. "Watersportsgate", though a clever journalistic joke, is not commonly used as a name for the dossier. I can admit this isn't nothing—perhaps a user has just seen one of those articles and searches the term here, not knowing it isn't in wider usage. But this isn't a simple WP:RNEUTRAL case like "Attorneygate". --BDD (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arms & Hearts. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term is not mentioned at the target so the connection is not clear unless one does additional research. -- Tavix (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. I think the appropriate path here would be to get consensus at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier to include this term before recreating the redirect. I have no particular opinion on the WP:RNEUTRAL/"novel or obscure" issue; I'll just note that there are sources using this term, but many of them are disallowed by WP:RSP. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • In terms of redirects, the reliability of sources isn't a principle importance - the key thing is whether readers will be using this term to find the article. The presence of this term in sources is a strong indicator that this is true. I don't think it is key that the term is mentioned in the article, as it's not ambiguous and so nearly everyone using it will know that it related to a specific incident related to Donald Trump (if not necessarily this one). Even if it is felt necessary to include the term in the article, all it needs is a sentence like "...referred to as "watersportsgate" by some media outliets." even notoriously extremely unreliable sources can be used to verify statements about what that source said. Ultimately this is a useful search term that is neither novel nor obscure. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 21:17, 17 November 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.

Cocktail sausage

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 25#Cocktail sausage

Wikipedia:WHITELOCK

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. (non-admin closure) Matt14451 (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The icon is no longer a white lock. Kamafa Delgato (Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 21:11, 17 November 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.

Huron Packers

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. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page is redirected to an article it isn't even mentioned on. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:34, 17 November 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.

Lynxmon

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. Deryck C. 14:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the halcyon days of 2005, there were separate articles for all of these things. They were all merged/redirected into List of Digimon, which was deleted outright in 2015. As things stand, there is no information for this one or any of the hundreds of redirects that are inexplicably pointing to the main Digimon article, despite there being only a paragraph of relevant information that doesn't individually name any of them. I was tempted to mass nominate them all but that was too much work, so instead I might use this one as a precedent to boldly delete the others. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got my history a bit wrong, most of these stem from other large list articles that were deleted before that, starting with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rookie Digimon (Part 1). All the more reason to delete these stray redirects that aren't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:26, 17 November 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.

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 26#"""

Gaelic(language)

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 (utc) 15:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible because of the missing space before the disambiguator. Pings to creators: Themightyquill, Vgmaster. Uanfala (talk) 18:14, 17 November 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.

Fundamental principles

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 (utc) 15:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what they have in common. Perhaps retargeting the redirect to principle would make more sense, but I don't really see the point of this redirect in general. Colonestarrice (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:37, 17 November 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.

Ekushe february

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 Retargeted to Language Movement Day. Nomination withdrawn. wbm1058 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are mentions in several articles of various works with this title, so instead of arbitrarily redirecting to one of them, it's best to let the search engine reveal them all. Given that the mentions are all in passing and so there's no substantial content about any of these entities, I don't see the creation of a disambiguation page as a viable option. – Uanfala (talk) 14:44, 17 November 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.

PC Expert (Dungeons & Dragons)

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 (utc) 15:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was promptly moved to Expert (Dungeons & Dragons generic class) shortly after creation, then redirected to the list. This leftover is misleading and should be deleted. I thought it was a joke redirect at first. Xezbeth (talk) 11:15, 17 November 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.

Bola de Drac

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 (utc) 15:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish name for the series. Should fall under the inappropriate redirects part of WP:FORRED. Xezbeth (talk) 10:00, 17 November 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.