Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 22

August 22

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 22, 2018.

Pickle fucker

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. Consensus below is that while there's a treasured(?) connection to the movie, it's a phrase used widely outside and without that context, and without being discussed in the target, there's no need to keep it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pickle fucker → Clerks II (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

not mentioned in the target article — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really should not be needed here. As I haven't heard being called that. Animation is developing 00:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I stumbled on this proposal because I am familiar with the film. That phrase was the source of many sick jokes in the movie and is apparently a favorite with fans, but highly unlikely to be used as a Wikipedia search term. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google results suggest the term is mostly associated with the film, but as long as it isn't mentioned in the article there's no benefit to keeping this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~WP:R#KEEP#3 if User:doomsdayer520 says that it was a popular sick joke then it is quite expected that someone trying to recall the article on the bases of his memory of sick jokes will type this keyword. Appears as a plausible redirect to me. courtesy ping User:Lenticel Arms & Hearts User:Matt294069 --DBig Xrayᗙ 22:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it's a plausible search term. That isn't the only pertinent question though: we also have to ask whether the encyclopaedia contains the information that someone who searches for this is looking for. In this case, it doesn't, so there's no viable target for the redirect and no reason to keep the redirect. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:R#KEEP#3 a plausible search term is a reason enough to keep the redirect. I am now changing my !vote to keep based on your confirmation of the same. Thanks --DBig Xrayᗙ 22:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But this case runs directly counter to that criterion. The criterion says: if someone sees the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article. As far as this redirect is concerned, if someone sees "pickle fucker" mentioned somewhere but doesn't know what it refers to, then he or she will be absolutely none the wiser for having been directed to Clerks II. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against DBig's logic here, but I am going to leave my vote as-is because Arms&Hearts has a more convincing argument on search term usage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this is a reasonable search term. If the issue is that "pickle fucker" is not mentioned in the Clerks II article, that seems easily remedied by editing, not deleting. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. We're not talking about deleting someone's hard work -- it's a redirect that can be recreated even easier than it can be deleted, should someone someday find the sources determining this phrase makes sense to include in the article. For now, it's just confusing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Question of rationale. HW is irrelevant here. I have made an arguement for a plausible search term. what is the argument for deletion ? --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A search for "'pickle fucker' -clerks" returns an awful lot of hits (e.g. beer, song names, etc. If it's not in the article, there's no point keeping this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are searching with the wrong use of Quotes if you used the same. I typed "Pickle fucker" clerks and got all the correct results. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Rhododendrites is referring to using the minus function, "-clerks", to find results that don't mention Clerks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And even among those awful lot of results none of the results is as notable as Clerks. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of which one is more notable. It's a matter of it not being in the article, so the only reason there should be a redirect is if it's (a) a plausible search term and (b) extremely unlikely it could refer to anything else. I find (a) meh and (b) untrue, regardless of which is most notable. Imagine one's confusion looking for the beer and finding oneself at the Clerks 2 page, which says nothing about this term. Was the beer in the movie? Was it a sponsor? Was the beer inspired by the movie? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rhododendrites Which beer are you talking about eh ? we here are discussing the Pickle Fucker. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the comment you replied to regarding the search terms (which Arms & Hearts was right about, btw). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The discussion so far actually convinced me that there are a lot of mentions of "pickle fucker" around the internet which aren't particularly inspired by this film. As such, the film isn't really the primary topic of this title and the redirect should be deleted for as long as none of our article mention this exact phrase. Deryck C. 10:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing about the primary topic, Had it been notable primary topic it would have its own article. Here we are only discussing a plausible search term or deleting it. based on the search it does makes sense to redirect it to the most notable search keyword. --DBig Xrayᗙ 18:21, 31 August 2018 (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.

Monkey fucker

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 31#Monkey fucker

Adios Mother Fucker

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 no sources, whether this other drink is a LIIT variant or its own creation remains a question. No prejudice against recreation if such sources can be provided. --BDD (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adios Mother Fucker → Long Island Iced Tea (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in the target article. Was sent to RfD before for the same reason. It was pointed out that the content (which looks to have been unsourced) had been removed and was restored, retaining the redirect. It was removed again a while ago. No reason to retain this. If someone wants to add it and dig up some good sources, no opposition to recreation later. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really should be needed here, I think that is possible vandalism indeed. Animation is developing 00:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Adios Mother Fucker" really exists as a variation on Long Island Iced Tea -- it's either spreading in popularity, or it's some local fad that nobody else cares about. See e.g. [1], [2]. Over the history of the dispute it looks like some editors have been planning to add this drink to "Variations" at the parent article, which never quite got off the ground, so maybe it really is just a local quirk. In which case this redirect is unnecessary, but unfortunately cocktail notability is not my area of expertise. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTJARGON until the variants are notable again to be mentioned. Is this the right spelling of the drink? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not mentioned in the target, and probably shouldn't be. Sources are very thin on the ground and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. @Rhododendrites: Adios Motherfucker (without the space) points to the same target. Do you want to add it to the nomination? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:R#KEEP as a plausible search term. I have thought a lot over this. Finally decided to !vote for keep. User:Matt294069 , The fact that this is not vandalism is just a google search away. User:doomsdayer520, User:AngusWOOF The fact that this is not just a local fad or jargon is based on the popularity evident by the votes on the 2 definitions here [3] . The notability of this phrase is enough in my opinion to justify a redirect to this article. none of the reasons at WP:R#DELETE applies here --DBig Xrayᗙ 22:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's a mention of it in the "variants" section, the redirect should be removed since an AMF is not the same as a Long Island Iced Tea. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 03:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not vote, just left a comment, because I did not want to wade into the matter of whether this drink is a notable variant on Long Island Iced Tea. I was undecided on that matter, and still am regardless of a couple more links that do not differ significantly from what I found the first time. I suggest ironing out the "Wikipedia is not for things made up one day" standard mentioned by Arms&Hearts above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Echoing my rationale for voting to keep pickle fucker. If the issue is that the target does not mention what's otherwise a reasonable search term (if that even is an issue...), the answer is editing the target, not deleting the redirect. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (copy and pasted from above, I thought I already voted on this, my bad) Unless there's a mention of it in the "variants" section, the redirect should be removed since an AMF is not the same as a Long Island Iced Tea. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ —Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 28 August 2018 (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.

Shubhanshi Raghuvanshi

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 Deleted per WP:G5. De728631 (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shubhanshi Raghuvanshi → Roop - Mard Ka Naya Swaroop (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This seems to be an alias for Shubhanshi Singh whose redirect link was deleted. Article does not describe this actress so there is no useful information to point to. Redirect was created by user that was later blocked for sockpuppet. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting to CSD G5 the 13 or so others, and now this one, as they are all created by a user who was banned for sockpuppet for spamming a bunch of actor redirects like this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:16, 23 August 2018 (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.

Alabama American band

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) feminist (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama American band → Alabama (American band) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Variant of name without (). Likely not needed. Home Lander (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as it was recently created. Doing a search would already get to the (American band) as an option. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This strikes me as a plausible enough search term for the band, and not one that could refer to any other Wikipedia article. "Not needed" is, I think, an unconvincing rationale that raises more questions than it answers. I don't think redirects need to be "needed" to be worth keeping, just potentially useful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arms & Hearts who is correct that we judge redirects on the usefulness for some purpose rather than any perceived need. In this case the redirect is a perfectly plausible and unambiguous search term that simply uses a different disambiguation format than our article title - clearly a very useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plausible keyword. --DBig Xrayᗙ 22:06, 27 August 2018 (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.

NC Province

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) 14:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NC Province → North Chungcheong Province (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

SC Province → South Chungcheong Province (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

NG Province → North Gyeongsang Province (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

NJ Province → North Jeolla Province (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These abbreviations aren't used at the target articles, and aren't used in sources referring to the targets either. There don't appear to be any other provinces with the initials NG, and only one with the initials NJ. There are dozens with initials NC or SC, but while some occasionally use those initials in an official context (e.g. NC is the license plate code for North Central Province, Sri Lanka), judging from Google only a few are actually called "NC Province" or "SC Province" in any sources, and the Wikipedia articles don't use those names at all, so they more or less fail WP:DABABBREV (see collapse box below). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

List of things you might call "NC Province" or "SC Province" if you were really straining to commit WP:OR and invent new abbreviations

NC:

Nor Carangas Province, Oruro Department, Bolivia
Nor Chichas Province, Potosí Department, Bolivia
Nor Cinti Province, Chuquisaca Department, Bolivia
North Central Province, Sri Lanka
North Chungcheong Province, South Korea
Northern Cape Province, South Africa
North Central Province, Maldives (abolished in 2008)
North Central Province (Victoria), Australia (abolished in 1908)
Province of North Carolina, British colony in North America

SC:

Sánchez Carrión Province, Peru
Santa Cruz Province, Argentina
Santa Cruz Province, Peru
Santiago de Cuba Province, Cuba
San Cristóbal Province, Dominican Republic
Sichuan Province, China (ISO-3166-2 code CN-SC)
South Central Province, Maldives (abolished in 2008)
Sofia City Province, Bulgaria
South Chungcheong Province, South Korea
South Cotabato Province, Philippines
Sud Carangas Province, Oruruo, Bolivia
Sud Chichas Province, Potosí Department, Bolivia
Sud Cinti Province, Chuquisaca, Bolivia
Province of South Carolina, British colony in North America

NJ:

Province of New Jersey, British colony in North America

Comment You forgot at least one entry, Province of South Carolina. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: not mentioned in their respective targets, and evidently ambiguous. Province of North Carolina, Province of South Carolina and Province of New Jersey seem like the most plausible targets for the NC, SC and NJ redirects respectively, but they're still very infrequently used. The NJ, NC and NG disambiguation pages don't list any provinces, and SC only lists Sichuan. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The collapse is all the evidence you need for deletion. AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:OR--DBig Xrayᗙ 23:13, 27 August 2018 (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.

Gay propaganda

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 2#Gay propaganda

Jio DTH

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) 14:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jio DTH → Reliance Industries (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Jio DTH TV → Reliance Industries (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] (Added by -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

No mention in the target and no mention in related article Jio as well. Should be deleted. Gotitbro (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Jio DTH TV also points to the same target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both redirects have some content that can be merged or added to an existing article, with Jio probably being the best match. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Jio as {{R from product}} DTH is some sort of direct-to-home service they are trying to launch this year. [4] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no prejudice against recreating this at a later date. The articles previously at both locations said the service would launch in May or June 2017, while in the April 2018 article linked by AngusWOOF above it's still off in the future with no fixed date. As such I can't see any good reason to mention this in the current target or the Jio article, and if isn't mentioned anywhere in the encyclopaedia then the redirects are unhelpful. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is leaning delete but I would prefer more input before calling a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with delete as well until it becomes established as a notable service. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:53, 22 August 2018 (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.

BCG-matrix: problem child or star phase

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) 14:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BCG-matrix: problem child or star phase → Growth–share matrix#Overview (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Deletion - redirect appears to have been created for unlikely title instead of using piped link on appropriate sentence. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 16:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Creator DjScrawl has been notified, but does not appear to be currently active, and has had a number of other redirects listed for discussion. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 16:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: hardly a plausible search term, but the terms are clearly defined and explained in the target, and this couldn't plausibly refer to anything else, so there's no risk of confusion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not remotely plausible as a search term, and the redirect has no other useful purpose. The phrasing also seems problematic to me; it sounds like this is referring to one particular "phase", with "problem child" being a synonym for "star", but that is not the case because "problem child" is actually a synonym for the "question mark" quadrant. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if perhaps it's jointly referring to both high-growth quadrants, but the fact that we're having to discuss the ambiguity shows that it would benefit from clearer wording at the very least. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 08:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a bit of WP:XY arbitrarily grouping of two of the four terms associated with BCG matrix (or growth-share matrix). The four terms are dogs, cash cows, question marks / problem children, and stars. There is no analysis on how those two terms are strongly tied over the other pairings. Compare with "bulls and bears" or "cats and dogs" which only have media titles. This would be like having a redirect for "House pets: cats or dogs" or "market conditions: bulls or bears". Problem child (growth-share matrix) and Star (growth-share matrix) redirects already exist. This phrase with the colon implies some media title, which does not exist in this particular article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:05, 22 August 2018 (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.

Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party

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 Procedural close. redirect is now an article. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 09:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party → Racism in the UK Conservative Party (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Topics of racism and Islamophobia are different things, no information about Islamophobia in the article. It should be redlinked to encourage its own article to be created RevertBob (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2018 (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.