Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 2

September 2
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 2, 2015.

2017 CAF Confederation Cup



 * 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) 19:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 2017 CAF Confederation Cup → CAF Confederation Cup (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_CAF_Confederation_Cup&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL due to the fact that no information exists at the target on the 2017 edition. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 23:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 17:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Katrina Richardson
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 17%23Katrina Richardson

The Hardy Men



 * 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) 19:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The Hardy Men → 20th Century Fox (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hardy_Men&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * The Hardy Men (film) → 20th Century Fox (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hardy_Men_(film)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * The Hardy Men (2015 film) → 20th Century Fox (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Hardy_Men_(2015_film)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No films of this name mentioned... -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 23:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:REDLINK if there is such a film, it should not redirect to the studio article -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete'. Nuff said. Si Trew (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Into the West (2015 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. --BDD (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Into the West (2015 film) → Jim Sheridan (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Into_the_West_(2015_film)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Into the West (film) is a 1992 film by Jim Sheridan, but neither target mentions a 2015 film. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 23:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I concur. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

CSKA London



 * 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) 19:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * CSKA London → Chelsea F.C. (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CSKA_London&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This should be deleted, redirect serves no purpose other than to be a not-so-subtle jibe at the club's Russian owner/influence. GiantSnowman 17:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Nonsensical redirect, this was only related to the club's owner, not to the club itself. MYS  77  ✉ 19:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 23:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was about to nominate this myself. For the record, I first raised the issue at WT:FOOTY (permanent link here, anticipated archive here). --Theurgist (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ridiculous and completely useless. Peter238 (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Physible



 * 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. [do not change to a DAB] Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Physible → The Pirate Bay (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physible&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Currently redirects to The Pirate Bay, since the neologism originated there as a category name for printable 3D models. There are several options that would make more sense here: Redirect to 3D printing, to 3D modeling or a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Don Cuan (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Disambiguate per nom, with the disambiguation including a Wiktionary link. --Rubbish computer 14:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 *  Soft redirect to physible pending the creation of an article or keep as a second choice because the status quo actually describes the term. Oppose disambiguation because no other entries besides the current one would pass WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it a little more, I think I prefer keeping over soft redirecting. It's better to keep people at Wikipedia if we can and the current target explains the term. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The term doesn't have anything to do with TPB directly, other than them being the originator of it. A printable 3D model that I've downloaded from anywhere else or that I've created wholly myself could also be called "a physible", without TPB being involved. Don Cuan (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that. However, unless we create an article about it, I'm not seeing a better solution. -- Tavix ( talk ) 12:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:NOUN. For misspellings, Fissible is not a noun ( → Fissile material), Fusable is not a noun (Fusion is a DAB),  Fusible is an R to DAB at Fusion, Physical is a DAB. WP:RFD confusing, not at target: the only mention at target is "Physibles", which is red. Presumably a  plural agent noun, but mirabile dictu is red: and WP:NOTPROMO, or WP:REDLINK to encourage the creation of an article: the target does not link to it. (I guess either because the authors realised it would be a circular, or didn't: nothing in the ec comments of the history mentions either.) Si Trew (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how this relates to WP:NOUN: this isn't a misspelling. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * From WP:NOUN: "Adjective and verb forms (e.g. democratic, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Democracy, Integration)"...
 * ""Physible", if it meant anything, and the context in the article makes it clear, would be an adjective, thus "a physible" would be like saying "a black" or "an automated" or "an inflatable". While of course we often do so in English, we do so with an unwritten noun (a black person or ball, an inflatable boat or toy) which often can only be distinguished by context and stand meaningless as titles in themselves. Si Trew (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a misspelling of anything, it's a neologism (with WP:NEO being the strongest argument against it) derived from "physical" and "able". It's intended to mean that a file containing a 3D model is able to be turned into a physical object through 3D printing and comparable methods. Its use as a noun can indeed be compared to "an inflatable" and both are perfectly acceptable grammatically. In fact, this one seems to be used primarily as a noun. Don Cuan (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per Tavix. If it's a neologism from the Pirate Bay about 3D printing, this will explain all of that adequately. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tavix and BDD. Coined by TPB and not obviously in use by anyone else at this point; a WP:NEOLOGISM for sure, but neologisms can be valid redirects. If it were to be discussed in greater detail, the discussion would likely be somewhere more generic like 3D printing or 3D modelling but it isn't currently, and we're not redirecting for the Wikipedia of the future. It's also entirely possible that this will become a notable topic for its own article (though it would likely be "physibles" or whatever the generic term ends up being). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's not like the term has only been used by sketchy sources (here's gizmag.com commenting). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I am not happy with neologisms coined by private firms, but just because I am not happy does not mean they don't exist. If it is in use, it should stay, but there are thousands of words coined by marketing men wowcher for example that are not encylopaedic, and this is not encyclopaedic as the target does not mention this specific term (only in the plural). Si Trew (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.