This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 12, 2019.
File:Chakravarthy (2016 film).jpg
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.
Keep per Steel1943. There is a very high bar for deletion of {{R from move}} redirects in the file namespace. If the file name is not shaddowing Commons and is not a BLP violation or similar then it is almost certainly not going to pass that bar. This is not an exception.
Thryduulf (
talk)
14:32, 16 July 2019 (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.
Category:Natacha Atlas
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 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.
Americo
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 target, “classical compound,” probably is more apropos to “Americo-” (with a hyphen) than “Americo” by itself. In my case, I was looking for the insurance company,
Americo Financial Life and Annuity Insurance Company which, it turns out, has no Wikipedia article (as it might not be
notable enough for one).
Bwrs (
talk)
23:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - this isn't a binational compound but part of one. Part of a very large number of possible compounds, actually. This
WP:DICDEF is not useful. It might be useful as a redirect to an article about the insurance company if we had one, but we do not.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
23:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)reply
There are a number of people with the first name
Américo, and I also was hoping that somebody would write an article on the insurance company. (A cursory search did not establish notability, however.)
Bwrs (
talk)
01:52, 2 July 2019 (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.
Calocurb
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.
Calocurb was created as a promotional page and then converted into the redirect. I think it should have been deleted instead. "Calocurb" is not mentioned at the target page and it is not a notable enough product to ever be mentioned there.
Deli nk (
talk)
20:46, 12 July 2019 (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.
Wikipedia:SU
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.
Though this redirect has represented the target since September 2006, the task representing this redirect seemed to end about a year later. Given that this is a two-letter shortcut, it would probably be best converted to a disambiguation page ({{Wikipedia disambiguation}}) using the potential targets in the hatnote at the top of
Wikipedia:Sheynhertz-Unbayg cleanup as a baseline. The incoming links can be disambiguated if this redirect is converted to a disambiguation page. (I normally don't advocate for retargeting long-standing redirects in the "Wikipedia:" namespace, but since this is a two-letter shortcut that represented a super short-lived project, this may be one of my few exceptions.)
Steel1943 (
talk)
20:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. While it's not the greatest use of this two-character shortcut, disambiguation would not achieve anything that the current hatnotes don't, but would require changing hundreds of links in long closed archives causing disruption for no benefit. None of the links I spot checked were for anything other than the current target.
Thryduulf (
talk)
14:39, 16 July 2019 (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.
Hypersphere (The History of the Galaxy)
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 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.
OmniTech Support
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.
Not mentioned in target, originally created with the justification OmniTech support is remote desktop software. I think this is a promotional redirect and that it should be deleted. signed, Rosguilltalk17:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I understand the creator's rationale, but this is unhelpful and misleading when the software isn't included in that list. Readers already familiar with OmniTech will learn nothing, and those who aren't will probably be confused. Perhaps they'll be able to infer "OmniTech Support is a type of remote desktop software", but that's not much to go on. --
BDD (
talk)
20:34, 11 July 2019 (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 crypt (charity)
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.
Die Gruft and
Zweite Gruft were created under these titles, but there is no indication that the charity or anyone else is using this name; it's a literal translation by the author and inappropriate for a proper name. (Merging the articles, BTW) Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
22:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)reply
It's not in use... and if you want to keep these redirects around, they are alreay pointing at the correct article(s), so there's no need to retarget. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
23:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Sorry, that was intended for the section on "Founder's seat" below. I think I see how that happened. I went to the page section by number that had been relevant when I started formulating my response (which started as a lengthier soliloquey, and got reduced to four words), and by the time I was ready to make the edit, two more discussions had been added above, including this one.
bd2412T03:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep Unless the translation is disputed, I don't see any problem with trying to provide English-language access on the English Wikipedia. I remember a recent similar RfD, something about diving maybe, but I can't find it now. --
BDD (
talk)
21:31, 10 July 2019 (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.
Adhurs Raghu
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.
This title is a combination of the actor's name and their breakout film,
Adhurs. This would already be a stretch for a redirect, but Karumanchi isn't even the only person named Raghu that was in the movie. signed, Rosguilltalk19:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Raghu Babu didn't rise to fame from this movie, but Raghu Karumanchi did. For this reason, he is popularly known as Adhurs Raghu, which is his stage name. Since there isn't a source, a redirect isn't needed.--
DragoMynaa (
Talk)
19:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)reply
That establishes that he had an important role in Adhurs, which we already knew. It doesn't establish that "Adhurs Raghu" is a commonly used nickname. signed, Rosguilltalk18:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)reply
DragoMynaa, speaking as a potential closer, your comment sounds like an argument for keeping the redirect, but you labeled it "Delete". Could you clarify? --
BDD (
talk)
20:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete The creator has posted that they will no longer be editing. With all available evidence, this looks like a spurious redirect. --
BDD (
talk)
19:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let's see if we can break this consensus stalemate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk)
13:21, 12 July 2019 (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.
Isabela Tovaglieri
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 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.
Exophthalmus vittatus
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.
This redirect was created in a page move, which was a correct move since the article is about the genus and not the species. However the redirect should be deleted per reason 10 of
WP:RFD#DELETE. As can be seen on the genus article
Exophthalmus, the article contains no specific information about this species. All other species have red links, to have their own article in the future. Reason 7 of
WP:RFD#KEEP does not apply. Being a redirect and a blue link in the list of species makes it less likely that an article is created, not more likely.
Taketa (
talk)
08:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Better to have a red link. The only cases where it is normal practice to have a species redirect to a genus is when: a) there is only one species in the genus; b) the genus is known only from fossils; c) rarely, when a genus has a small number of species (2-3) which are discussed in detail in a single article (
gastric-brooding frog is the only example of this that comes to mind).
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.
List of accolades received by The Master
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.
Confusing and no suitable alternate target. There are many artistic works titled "The Master" so having this point to any one of them means that readers looking for other items will have a harder time finding their article. It can't be retargeted to
The Master because that redirects to the disambiguation page at
Master.
Wug·a·po·des
05:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Re-name - I meant to create that to re-direct to the accolades specifically for the 2012 film's Wikipedia page, so if need be, please move the page to List of accolades received by The Master (2012 film) and remove the List of accolades received by The Master re-direct. There are several accolades pages that don't specify the year of the film, like the ones for
Room and
Up, so I didn't think it would be that much of an issue, my bad.
Daerl (
talk)
12:19, 12 July 2019 (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.
Hurricane Bud(2006)
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.
This was the original name for the article until it was moved about 4 days after creation. However this is no longer a recently created redirect, and so I think it needs to be kept for attribution.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
07:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as a textbook case of
WP:RDAB. This was the title of the article for 3 days back in 2008: that's too little and too long ago for us to worry about breaking incoming links from outside wikipedia.
Graeme Bartlett, the history of the article is at
Hurricane Bud (2006); the nominated redirect only has history as a redirect, so there's nothing here that's relevant for attribution. –
Uanfala (talk)10:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. There is ample precedent for deleting this sort of thing and no reason to make this one an exception.
PC78 (
talk)
20:00, 12 July 2019 (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.
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 12, 2019.
File:Chakravarthy (2016 film).jpg
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.
Keep per Steel1943. There is a very high bar for deletion of {{R from move}} redirects in the file namespace. If the file name is not shaddowing Commons and is not a BLP violation or similar then it is almost certainly not going to pass that bar. This is not an exception.
Thryduulf (
talk)
14:32, 16 July 2019 (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.
Category:Natacha Atlas
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 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.
Americo
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 target, “classical compound,” probably is more apropos to “Americo-” (with a hyphen) than “Americo” by itself. In my case, I was looking for the insurance company,
Americo Financial Life and Annuity Insurance Company which, it turns out, has no Wikipedia article (as it might not be
notable enough for one).
Bwrs (
talk)
23:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - this isn't a binational compound but part of one. Part of a very large number of possible compounds, actually. This
WP:DICDEF is not useful. It might be useful as a redirect to an article about the insurance company if we had one, but we do not.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
23:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)reply
There are a number of people with the first name
Américo, and I also was hoping that somebody would write an article on the insurance company. (A cursory search did not establish notability, however.)
Bwrs (
talk)
01:52, 2 July 2019 (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.
Calocurb
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.
Calocurb was created as a promotional page and then converted into the redirect. I think it should have been deleted instead. "Calocurb" is not mentioned at the target page and it is not a notable enough product to ever be mentioned there.
Deli nk (
talk)
20:46, 12 July 2019 (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.
Wikipedia:SU
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.
Though this redirect has represented the target since September 2006, the task representing this redirect seemed to end about a year later. Given that this is a two-letter shortcut, it would probably be best converted to a disambiguation page ({{Wikipedia disambiguation}}) using the potential targets in the hatnote at the top of
Wikipedia:Sheynhertz-Unbayg cleanup as a baseline. The incoming links can be disambiguated if this redirect is converted to a disambiguation page. (I normally don't advocate for retargeting long-standing redirects in the "Wikipedia:" namespace, but since this is a two-letter shortcut that represented a super short-lived project, this may be one of my few exceptions.)
Steel1943 (
talk)
20:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. While it's not the greatest use of this two-character shortcut, disambiguation would not achieve anything that the current hatnotes don't, but would require changing hundreds of links in long closed archives causing disruption for no benefit. None of the links I spot checked were for anything other than the current target.
Thryduulf (
talk)
14:39, 16 July 2019 (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.
Hypersphere (The History of the Galaxy)
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 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.
OmniTech Support
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.
Not mentioned in target, originally created with the justification OmniTech support is remote desktop software. I think this is a promotional redirect and that it should be deleted. signed, Rosguilltalk17:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I understand the creator's rationale, but this is unhelpful and misleading when the software isn't included in that list. Readers already familiar with OmniTech will learn nothing, and those who aren't will probably be confused. Perhaps they'll be able to infer "OmniTech Support is a type of remote desktop software", but that's not much to go on. --
BDD (
talk)
20:34, 11 July 2019 (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 crypt (charity)
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.
Die Gruft and
Zweite Gruft were created under these titles, but there is no indication that the charity or anyone else is using this name; it's a literal translation by the author and inappropriate for a proper name. (Merging the articles, BTW) Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
22:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)reply
It's not in use... and if you want to keep these redirects around, they are alreay pointing at the correct article(s), so there's no need to retarget. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
23:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Sorry, that was intended for the section on "Founder's seat" below. I think I see how that happened. I went to the page section by number that had been relevant when I started formulating my response (which started as a lengthier soliloquey, and got reduced to four words), and by the time I was ready to make the edit, two more discussions had been added above, including this one.
bd2412T03:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep Unless the translation is disputed, I don't see any problem with trying to provide English-language access on the English Wikipedia. I remember a recent similar RfD, something about diving maybe, but I can't find it now. --
BDD (
talk)
21:31, 10 July 2019 (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.
Adhurs Raghu
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.
This title is a combination of the actor's name and their breakout film,
Adhurs. This would already be a stretch for a redirect, but Karumanchi isn't even the only person named Raghu that was in the movie. signed, Rosguilltalk19:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. Raghu Babu didn't rise to fame from this movie, but Raghu Karumanchi did. For this reason, he is popularly known as Adhurs Raghu, which is his stage name. Since there isn't a source, a redirect isn't needed.--
DragoMynaa (
Talk)
19:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)reply
That establishes that he had an important role in Adhurs, which we already knew. It doesn't establish that "Adhurs Raghu" is a commonly used nickname. signed, Rosguilltalk18:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)reply
DragoMynaa, speaking as a potential closer, your comment sounds like an argument for keeping the redirect, but you labeled it "Delete". Could you clarify? --
BDD (
talk)
20:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete The creator has posted that they will no longer be editing. With all available evidence, this looks like a spurious redirect. --
BDD (
talk)
19:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let's see if we can break this consensus stalemate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Steel1943 (
talk)
13:21, 12 July 2019 (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.
Isabela Tovaglieri
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 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.
Exophthalmus vittatus
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.
This redirect was created in a page move, which was a correct move since the article is about the genus and not the species. However the redirect should be deleted per reason 10 of
WP:RFD#DELETE. As can be seen on the genus article
Exophthalmus, the article contains no specific information about this species. All other species have red links, to have their own article in the future. Reason 7 of
WP:RFD#KEEP does not apply. Being a redirect and a blue link in the list of species makes it less likely that an article is created, not more likely.
Taketa (
talk)
08:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Better to have a red link. The only cases where it is normal practice to have a species redirect to a genus is when: a) there is only one species in the genus; b) the genus is known only from fossils; c) rarely, when a genus has a small number of species (2-3) which are discussed in detail in a single article (
gastric-brooding frog is the only example of this that comes to mind).
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.
List of accolades received by The Master
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.
Confusing and no suitable alternate target. There are many artistic works titled "The Master" so having this point to any one of them means that readers looking for other items will have a harder time finding their article. It can't be retargeted to
The Master because that redirects to the disambiguation page at
Master.
Wug·a·po·des
05:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Re-name - I meant to create that to re-direct to the accolades specifically for the 2012 film's Wikipedia page, so if need be, please move the page to List of accolades received by The Master (2012 film) and remove the List of accolades received by The Master re-direct. There are several accolades pages that don't specify the year of the film, like the ones for
Room and
Up, so I didn't think it would be that much of an issue, my bad.
Daerl (
talk)
12:19, 12 July 2019 (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.
Hurricane Bud(2006)
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.
This was the original name for the article until it was moved about 4 days after creation. However this is no longer a recently created redirect, and so I think it needs to be kept for attribution.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
07:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as a textbook case of
WP:RDAB. This was the title of the article for 3 days back in 2008: that's too little and too long ago for us to worry about breaking incoming links from outside wikipedia.
Graeme Bartlett, the history of the article is at
Hurricane Bud (2006); the nominated redirect only has history as a redirect, so there's nothing here that's relevant for attribution. –
Uanfala (talk)10:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. There is ample precedent for deleting this sort of thing and no reason to make this one an exception.
PC78 (
talk)
20:00, 12 July 2019 (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.