Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 21, 2017.

Chaudhari (S.T)

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. There's been an interesting discussion about some abbreviated version of "Chaudhari (scheduled tribe)" -> "Chowdhary" being a useful redirect, but the consensus is "this particular version of it is not useful". Editors are welcome to create redirects at the other titles discussed in this RfD as they see fit. Deryck C. 16:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC) reply

The use of S.T is unclear, and the article does not help clarify. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I don't know of any use of ST as a postnominal, nor can I think of any other likely qualifier. I suspect that S.T may be personal initials. It seems quite common in Indian English to place stops only between personal initials and not after the final one of the group. The qualifier is malformed for any redirect to a notable S. T. Chaudhari (there doesn't seem to be one). It would be malformed even if it were (S.T.) or (S. T.) - unlike Chaudhari, S. T. which would be fine, if there was a valid target. Narky Blert ( talk) 21:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I have a vague recollection of seeing a South Indian name where the initial followed the unabbreviated name, but that's irrelevant in this case: as evident in the redirect's history, the S.T stands for " scheduled tribe" (see its previous target: [1]). – Uanfala 23:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Good point on scheduled tribe - that can be a valid qualifier. But, I stand by my original proposal that "ST" and the like are confusing to anyone who doesn't know what one is, unless the target is precise. Narky Blert ( talk) 23:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Is S.T the correct abbreviation? The scheduled tribe article uses ST. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Can we rename this to (scheduled tribe)? Are there other Chaudhari tribes that are not scheduled status? I found Chaudhari (tribe but that goes to Chowdhury. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Chaudhri looks like the correct target. Someone who knows more than me about the subject should decide on the correct spelling of each term, and then add hatnotes etc concerning disambiguation. - Richard Cavell ( talk) 11:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I appreciate all the extra information, but please remember that we're discussing the redirect Chaudhari (S.T). If someone thinks it worthwhile to create the correctly formatted redirects, they're welcome to do so at their own discretion, but that needs to be a separate action than the one we're discussing here (whether or not Chaudhari (S.T) should be deleted). -- Tavix ( talk) 13:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. In apparent defiance of the last comment, and seemingly moving even further away from the effort to decide what to do with the redirect, I just note that ST seems to be uses as an abbreviation for "scheduled tribe" [2]. – Uanfala 21:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Commenting, hopefully more helpfully this time. The target is about no scheduled tribes, so this redirect is at best misleading. Add to that the awkward disambiguator (a remnant apparently of the creator's unawareness of formatting) and it becomes clearer that this should be deleted. The fact that between 2008 and 2010 it was the title of a stub article (that subsequently got moved several times before itself ending up as a redirect) doesn't give enough reason for keeping out of consideration for external incoming links rot. – Uanfala 21:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The fundamental question of "Is it helpful?" seems to direct to a flat "No", and I guess we ought to just be rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 08:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of kammas category

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. 16:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC) reply

While the target article does have a (small) list, it is not a category. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Blade Runner (2014 film)

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. The consensus here is to delete but the number of participants is small. So I'm leaving this note here to say if anyone feels we've made a mistake they're welcome to boldly recreate redirects in this batch with good reason (like a soft delete). Deryck C. 16:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Discussion

Here is the next batch of "faulty crystal ball" film redirects. As these years have already passed, it's impossible for these films to be released that year. It's also implausible that someone would type these redirects in the search bar due to the incorrect year disambiguation. (raw list available on talk page) -- Tavix ( talk) 20:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Luke Hemmings (Member of 5 Seconds of Summer)

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. 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. This is unlikely to be useful due to the unwieldy and non-standard disambiguation. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Reality Leigh

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 4#Reality Leigh

Donald Trump–Russia relations

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) 23:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Facetious? It doesn't make much sense to cover "bilateral relations" between an individual and a country. And even if we did have an article to the tune of Donald Trump's connections to Russia, the election interference would only be a subtopic there. BDD ( talk) 15:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 18:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Psycho (Borderlands character)

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 to Borderlands 2#Psycho and Ultimate Vault Hunter Upgrade Pack which satisfies the "not in target article" argument. -- Tavix ( talk) 23:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Not in target article, not even in the respective "Characters" section. Lordtobi ( ✉) 10:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 18:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Yellow people

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 to Color terminology for race. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte ( work | talk) 03:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Maybe not the best target. Prisencolin ( talk) 18:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I'll also note the existence of The Yellow People and Yellow race to the same target. -- Tavix ( talk) 00:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply
There's also Lego minifigure /s-- Prisencolin ( talk) 03:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Color terminology for race is a very good solution, in fact the obvious one. Malays were subsumed under Mongoloid but I'm not sure they were also considered yellow, Blumenbach put the Malay race as part of his brown race. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 23:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Austin dickinson (vocalist)

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) Anarchyte ( work | talk) 06:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Recommend this redirect for deletion (see [4]) as improbable and/or gramatically incorrect. Austin Dickinson (vocalist) as redirect already exists. Quis separabit? 14:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 18:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Zombi (2012 Video Game)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 11#Zombi (2012 Video Game)

Psychoheresy

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. No prejudice against recreation if the term becomes sourced somewhere after everything is sorted out (see Uanfala's comment). -- Tavix ( talk) 17:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

The connection to anti-psychology or anti-psychiatry appears to be original research. The inventors of this neologism object to this connection. The term is not notable as was already recognized. I see no suitable article to redirect to. Sondra.kinsey ( talk) 15:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply

  • delete per WP:REDLINK. This is a very specific coinage denoting objections to integrating psychology/psychiatry and Christianity, and all references to it go back to the original book and its authors. It also seems to me that things have evolved in a the decade since the last AFD to where an article could be written using secondary sources. Seyasirt ( talk) 16:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
    Wasn't content from this article merged as a result of the afd? Ppp ery 18:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
As far as I can tell, nothing was merged. Antipsychology was defined as specifically Christian already, and then an IP rewrote the thing to eliminate any reference to that a year later or so. Just today it was redirected to anti-psychiatry, again without any merger. If there's any relevant material in the last, it's purely by coincidence. Seyasirt ( talk) 21:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC) reply
This will not do. The proposed target is about analysis of religion from a (secularized) psychological viewpoint, whereas psychoheresy is about the religious problems of practicing psychology within a Christian framework. They are almost completely reversed from one another. Seyasirt ( talk) 13:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Why? This seems to be covered in the subsection Psychology of religion#Religion and psychotherapy AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply
... which shouldn't be there, but in a separate article. For all I know, it might even exist already, but this obviously doesn't belong in an article which says, in the first sentence, that it is about psychologial analysis of religion. Seyasirt ( talk) 13:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 17:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the arguments above. This can get retargeted to whatever article that Psychology of religion#Religion and psychotherapy eventually gets split into (as it clearly doesn't belong where it is now), but only if a mention of the term is made (otherwise the redirect will be plainly confusing). Noting that adding such a mention isn't a trivial task: it will take some research to find enough sources for a balanced way to define and contextualise it. – Uanfala 10:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wally Grant

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 move Wally Grant (ice hockey) over Wally Grant, retarget Wallace Grant to Wally Grant, and delete Wally Grant (disambiguation) ( G6). -- Tavix ( talk) 21:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Wally Grant was a one-entry DAB page which I've turned into a redirect. I propose: swap the two pages round. Narky Blert ( talk) 15:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Richardcavell: Well spotted & absolutely fine by me - Grant isn't mentioned in the Virginia Tech article. Narky Blert ( talk) 16:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

American Folkloric Tradition

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 to Folklore of the United States as I find no consensus to delete. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Seems like an unlikely search term. The original text was migrated to American Folkloric Witchcraft which is itself currently at AfD. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC) reply

I'd support the lower-case version of that. Striking above vote. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 03:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The history of American Folkloric Witchcraft indicates that the contents of this article were transfered to the witchcraft page, and then this page was sloppily turned into a redirect. The only reason for keeping this page is to try to make legitimate the phrase "American Folkloric". It's not a phrase in common usage and isn't likely to be searched. If a user starts to type in American Folklor... then they are offered the choices that finish the page name. We don't need a redirect to a page that the user would find anyway. Why isn't anybody mentioning WP:FAKE?  — Myk Streja  (who?) 07:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lohengrin: An Opera

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) 21:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Unlikely search term and unused variation of the work's title, apparently created to make a WP:POINT in an unrelated discussion at Talk:Trump Tower: A Novel#Requested move 20 June 2017. — JFG talk 06:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_21&oldid=1136448047"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE