Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 16

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) 20:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• বার্নাড ৰিমান → Bernhard Riemann  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's no connection between the person whose article this redirect points to and the Bengali language that this title is in. See WP:FORRED. Largoplazo (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly CSD'd one of these two articles, but I removed the tag; the content is likely suitable for the Bengali wiki, which doesn't currently have articles on either of these individuals. I would suggest we decline to delete either of these articles, until someone with more experience in these matters than myself has the chance to transwikify them. BilledMammal (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There is no specific relationship between the Bengali language and the target. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article and transwiki to the Bengali Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bengali Wikipedia already has the article, at bn:বের্নহার্ট রিমান. Largoplazo (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• For what it's worth, the same editor has now created বার্নাড ৰীমান, the same name but spelled differently (but again not the same spelling as the one on Bengali Wikipedia). You removed a speedy tag someone else had place there, but I've restored it. Largoplazo (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Largoplazo: And I've removed the speedy deletion tag again. Once a speedy deletion has been declined it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is explicitly only for cases that everybody agrees should be deleted, if someone objects in good faith to the nomination then it cannot, by definition, meet that requirement. Please read the WP:CSD policy again. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC):[reply]

• That seems pointlessly legalistic and obstructive as your objection was based on a mistaken belief on your part that has now been rectified, and as it's plain, following that, that there is no controversy. And Anthony Bradbury, apparently disagreeing with your stance, has deleted it anyway. Largoplazo (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's neither legalistic nor obstructive. There is no reason why it could not have been transwikied and merged. I have contested the speedy deletion with Anthony. It's also not just this case, it's a general thing - if someone objects in good faith to a speedy deletion nomination then it does not meet the criteria and the tag must not be restored because it is not uncontroversial. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If the person who thought it was controversial finds out that the only reason for their objection was a mistake of fact made by themselves (in this case, that there wasn't already an article about the person on Bengali Wikipedia), then it's no longer controversial and really wasn't bona fide controversial to begin with, so to hold up speedy deletion on the grounds that it's "controversial" is legalistic. Further, this was the second Bengali article that the same author had created within a day or so about the same person. Were you proposing to transwiki both of them to Bengali Wikipedia, so that it could have three articles about the same person? (There's a level of practicality here that I can't seem to persuade you to appreciate, which is the sort of thing that would fall nicely under WP:IAR if you're going to insist that there exist some guidance somewhere—lo, it's a policy!—to cover it.) Finally, you seem to have forgotten that your proposal to make an exception to A10 for transwiki-able articles is still a proposal, not an established guideline, yet you keep discussing it here as though it's already in effect. Largoplazo (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Largoplazo and Thryduulf: This isn't written in Bengali, it's written in Assamese. It's also a direct copy of the article on the Assamese wiki, as:বাৰ্নহাৰ্ড_ৰিমান. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that's interesting. But I notice that the version on Assamese Wikipedia has only been there for the last twelve hours. Before that, it was no more than a lead paragraph. And Google Translator, allowing for the usual flaws of Google Translator, seems to do a fairly coherent job of translating the text when treating it as Bengali (except for the part about "His deity was a miserable Lutheran leader"), so I wouldn't have suspected it was mistaken about the language. Largoplazo (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2021 (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.

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) 20:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• এণ্ড্ৰিউ ৱাইলছ → Andrew Wiles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect to a bio article from the subject's name in Bengali, which there's no reason for us to have under WP:FORRED. Largoplazo (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly CSD'd one of these two articles, but I removed the tag; the content is likely suitable for the Bengali wiki, which doesn't currently have articles on either of these individuals. I would suggest we decline to delete either of these articles, until someone with more experience in these matters than myself has the chance to transwikify them. BilledMammal (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Again, there is no specific relationship between the language in question and the target. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and transwiki. The article content in the history looks suitable for the Bengali Wikipedia which, afaict, doesn't have an article about this person. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki I concur with Thryduulf-- this appears to be a legitimate article; it's supported by reliable sources and has relatively well-written content. The only problem is that it's written in Bengali, which easily can be fixed by transwiki-ing the content to the appropriate Wikipedia. I'm sure they'd be glad to have a new addition. Helen(💬📖) 15:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentTranswikiing is fine, but note that if the articles hadn't been converted to redirects in the first place, they would have been eligible for speedily deletion outright under WP:CSD A10, without waiting for however long it might take for someone to come along who'd be willing to handle the transwiki process. Largoplazo (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC) No! Since the article already exists on Bengali Wikipedia and Assamese Wikipedia (taking into account the indication that the language is actually Assamese), transwikiing it is moot. Largoplazo (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That appears to be true, although it really should not be. See WT:CSD#A2, A5, A10 and non-English material. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the Bengali Wikipedia does have an article about Andrew Wiles (bn:অ্যান্ড্রু ওয়াইলস). While that article isn't very long, Google Translate suggests that this one isn't very good either. Hut 8.5 07:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say that the apparent deficiencies in that article in Google Translate are likely to due Google Translate making a mess of things. Taking the first sentence of the en.wp article and Google translating it to Bengali and back produces "... is an English mathematician and Professor of Royal Society Research at Oxford University, an expert in numerology." Google translate obviously doesn't know the Bengali for "number theory" - number theory is interwiki linked to bn:সংখ্যাতত্ত্ব, put that title into Google translate and it spits out the English "numerology". Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf and HelenDegenerate: This article isn't written in Bengali, its written in Assamese. The creator of the article has already copied it to the correct language project, as:এণ্ড্ৰিউ ৱাইলছ. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2021 (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.

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. ✗plicit 11:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hamilton–Verstappen rivalry → Lewis Hamilton#Max Verstappen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This rivalry isn't discussed in the target article. Mainly because discussing such a short lived and fairly low-tension rivarly would be WP:UNDUE at this stage. In fact Verstappen is only mentioned twice in the entire article, whilst this is unjustifiable low, it does prove the point. SSSB (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As far as the article is concerned, there is no rivalry. The redirect would only cause confusion. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since the current target contains no information on the topic and there does not appear to be any alternative target. I do believe it is a viable search term but it is far too early to write an article on this and there isn't enough coverage to even try.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others. The current target doesn't exist anyway (as far as I can tell no version of Lewis Hamilton had a section by that name). Perhaps a section or article may be warranted, but probably not at the moment, and certainly the redirect serves no purpose without such a section. A7V2 (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2021 (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.

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 restore article, with thanks to Ivanvector, who has done most of the work. --BDD (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• List of U.S. state theaters → List of California state symbols  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Nonsensical redirect. It appears that this redirect was the result of a merge, but it does not make any sense. Natg 19 (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: This seems to have been redirected immediately to the current target by Reywas92. I'd say delete per WP:R#ASTONISH, though I'm not sure if there is any attribution to be kept in the page history. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and send to AfD. This was really a blank and redirect and not a merge. While the target contains the same information, it makes little sense as a redirect. Send to AfD to consider whether an article can be justified and expanded to include more entries or if deletion is appropriate. If there is no interest in that, retarget to State Theatre#United States, which is just a dab page with theaters named "State Theatre" and is not the same thing as "official state theatre" (and does not include the lone entry, Pasadena Playhouse), but is a less astonishing target with plausible utility, and probably there is some overlap between the two (i.e., there are some "State Theatres" that are official state theaters. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to State Theatre#United States, which is a list of theatres named "State Theater" in the United States. The former list with only one member (Pasadena Playhouse, though not linked) was redirected 12 years ago and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP: I have not been able to determine if any states besides California actually designate an official "state theater", but if there are more then just restore the list and add them, and then this discussion is moot. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems like there are more official state theaters, looking at this list anyway (and the first article I checked, Alabama Theatre, seemed to verify this: In 1993, the Alabama was designated the official state historic theater of Alabama.. So, restore the list and improve it (ping Ivanvector since this is somewhat of a reply to him). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and expand, per Elli. I haven't gone through that whole list but I've seen enough with Wikipedia articles indicating they're the state theatre of <some state> to warrant a list. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, I was using an alt when I !voted above, I'm not supposed to use both accounts in one discussion. Regardless, I've restored the last revision before the old single-entry list was blanked and redirected, and added some more entries to the list, below the RfD notice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm absolutely open to expanding the restored article given Elli's and other's findings. If someone here wants to take that on, great, otherwise I think an AfD nomination might be a good catalyst getting that to happen. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2021 (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.

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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• SCDP → Mad Men  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Please see Talk:SCDP#Why go to Mad Men, ElySmith2 suggests that South Carolina Democratic Party is a better target for this initialism. It has pointed to Mad Men for the past nine and a half years. Is the primary topic the political party or the fictional advertising agency (which itself is also a redirect to Mad Men)? ✗plicit 03:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to South Carolina Democratic Party, otherwise some hatnote or disambiguation is necessary. Winston (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There's also the Soviet Peace Committee which apparently went by this acronym. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the internationally acclaimed television show gets more pageviews than the American subnational political group or the Soviet anti-war group by a factor of about 100. I also found the Société Camerounaise de Dépôts Pétroliers (SCDP), an oil company in Cameroon which we don't have an article about but there's a reference to it at Yaoundé Nsimalen International Airport, and a partial match with OpenSCDP. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add redirects here with hatnote to South Carolina Democratic Party and OpenSCDP. If there are even more alternatives, consider a disambiguation. If the oil company has its own article it would be a third. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate (drafted). The television show itself might get more page views, but the television show is not called SCDP. The page views for the redirect Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce (the fictional firm from the TV show) or its short form Sterling Cooper [1] barely equal the Soviet Peace Committee and are minimal compared to the South Carolina Democratic Party, suggesting not many people are looking for it. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also worth noting that the Sammarinese Christian Democratic Party gets more hits than anything else mentioned [2], though it doesn't meet WP:DABACRONYM right now (I think because even in English it is usually called by its Italian acronym PDCS rather than SCDP). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify per IP --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate as suggested by 61.239.39.90. I don't think it's a clear case for a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate The draft looks fine to me. The bar for an initialism as PRIMARYREDIRECT should be pretty high. Yes, Mad Men was an acclaimed show, but not to the point where "SCDP" as shorthand for this fictional company is anything close to a household name. --BDD (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2021 (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.

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. ✗plicit 11:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse Trolling → Internet troll  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete – useless redirect. The term does not occur in the target article (and did not occur when the redirect was created. As can be seen in this (not "reliable") source, the term is not a common name for a specific delineated activity.  --Lambiam 06:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The relationship between the redirect and its target is unclear. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:42, 16 September 2021 (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.

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 Lament. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Lamenter → Mourner  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Piggybacking off of the Lamenters RfD below, I think this points to too narrow a target. The article Lament documents a number of nuanced meanings, not just the act of being a mourner. I think it would be best to retarget to Lament, as is standard for derived parts of speech. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Lament per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:05, 20 September 2021 (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.

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• False-stalking syndrome → Factitious disorder imposed on self  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target article has nothing to do with stalking, I wasn't able to find any connection between these two titles with a search online, a google search turns up a single result created after this redirect was created 192.76.8.74 (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I see the relationship but yeah it's not a realistic search term. Winston (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I do find some non-RS using this term and comparing it to Munchausen, e.g. [3]. However, when I saw the title, my first thought was something along the lines of gang stalking, a probably better-known phenomenon of delusions of being stalked. Given the lack of mention at the target and the potential for confusion, delete. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: While I can understand the basic logic behind this redirect, it would only confuse the average searcher. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:45, 16 September 2021 (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.

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 Lament. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Lamenters → Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not convinced that the primary target of this title is a minor warhammer 40,000 space marine army which isn't mentioned in the target article. I'm not sure where best to target it though, perhaps Mourner to match the singular form Lamenter? Alternatively this did briefly target Lament before being retargeted to its current target. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Lament per my rationale in § Lamenter. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Lament as a more plausible target. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:07, 20 September 2021 (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.