Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 19

May 19
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 19, 2017.

Banco de Ponce (disambiguation)
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  . RfD is for the discussion of already existing redirects. If you'd like to request creation of a redirect, please see WP:AFC/R. If you're contesting a closure of an AfD, please see WP:DRV.  -- Tavix  ( talk ) 21:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to redirect the recently deleted Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) to Banco de Ponce as the function of disambiguation is now carried out by a hatnote. There is no apparent reason to create linkrot (keep #4), no reason to think people would not guess that there is a disambiguation page and try to go there directly (keep #5), probably keep #2 too, eg someone might make a dab and not link to it. I'm not sure what deletion reasons are supposed to apply, maybe "it might cause confusion", but anyone who searches for it is going to get what they want (presumably a way to the entiti(es) called Banco de Ponce they are looking for). Frankly I don't think they thought about this option properly so I'm not going to ping them, someone else can. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well alright but she/he seems to be watching this page anyhow. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "He" first of all. Then: I just closed the AfD based on the consensus and consensus was against creating a redirect. Personally, I can understand why, considering this page had almost no page views before the PROD/AfD (see, click the page view number). Regards  So Why  06:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that "rationale" for not creating the redirect was mentioned in the discussion. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 07:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is why I explicitly declared that part to be my personal opinion. I hadn't checked the page views before closing and I didn't have to since, again, I just executed the consensus, not added to it. Regards  So Why  14:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So what was the actual rationale for deleting the redirect? Causes confusion? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

Washington DeMolay
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  . Perhaps it can be recreated if information about this particular chapter is created. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Washington DeMolay → DeMolay International (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washington_DeMolay&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This is a follow-up to Articles for deletion/Washington DeMolay which was closed as delete, but subsequently redirected to DeMolay International. After a conversation on the closer's talk page, it was decided to take the matter here to resolve whether or not a redirect should exist. There is no information about Washington DeMolay at the target article. No reliable sources have been brought to light yet, and I feel it'd be fairly trivial to add anything on this anyway. As such, continuing to have a redirect to a target that offers our readers no additional information does nothing but confuse or disappoint them, so the redirect should be deleted. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm pinging all participants of the aforementioned AfD so they're aware of this discussion:, , , , , , , , , . -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Per my reasoning . Redirects to targets with no content about the subject of the redirect are not useful for readers. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  16:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment As I said in the Afd, DeMolay International covers state/provincial aspects of the organizations structure. This information might be helpful to a person looking for information about Washington DeMolay. I thought it was a valid alternative to deletion although I accept the Afd closing. Gab4gab (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, there may be links to the now-deleted article--that is, links from OUTSIDE Wikipedia. It makes sense to have them direct somewhere, redirects are cheap, nothing else is going to be at that namespace... No good reason to NOT have one there. Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- does not make sense to have a redirect to an article that does not discuss the subject (nor would it be appropriate for the target article to discuss it). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete if he's a founder, he should be mentioned in the article. Otherwise, it could be a coincidence the organization shares the same name. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 03:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

61st Street (Manhattan)
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  .  -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 61st Street (Manhattan) → List of numbered streets in Manhattan (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=61st_Street_(Manhattan)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Not mentioned in the target; needlessly confusing; possibly WP:RDEL#10. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Now mentioned with some buildings. Striking vote. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 05:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Are we sure that the street shouldn't be mentioned in that article? The location includes what seems to be a somewhat historically notable hotel. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody's saying that it shouldn't be mentioned in the article, rather that it currently isn't mentioned. If someone were to create a section on this street, that'd be another way to solve this problem. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is the most sensible answer. I've added a short section listing the building CoffeeWithMarkets identified (the Mount Vernon Hotel Museum) and some other notable locations on the street. I'd be happy for this to be closed if there are no objections. (There are still, I think, plenty of problems with the list, which is very unevenly detailed, but that's neither here nor there. I may or may not bring some other similar redirects to RfD at some point.) – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – now listed there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Thanks for the editing work. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

Espagna
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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)  f  e  minist  14:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Espagna → Spain (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Espagna&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Delete per WP:FORRED. This is the French for Spain, which is not official or particularly widely spoken in Spain and doesn't have any other strong connection to the country or Spanish language. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not the French for Spain; that would be Espagne (which is a dab page). Apart from Wiktionary claiming this is Old Occitan, I can't find any evidence that Spain is called Espagna in any language. I'm tempted to say "keep"; it's getting hits, and the usual FORRED argument (redirects like this are harmful because they can give native speakers wrong ideas about how the English Wikipedia works) doesn't apply here since Old Occitan is a dead language with no native speakers left. But that leaves the question why it's getting hits, and whether those hits come from English speakers, possibly as an eye dialect spelling of España. Sideways713 (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and tag as R from typo since Espana is right there up front as a redirects here hatnote. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per AngusWOOF. Spain is called "Spagna" in Italian, so I can understand the typo. The "gn" in Italian is the same as the "ñ" in Spanish (cf. Palatal nasal), so someone familiar with Italian but not with Spanish who hears "España" will naturally think it's spelled with "gn". Regards  So Why  19:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per SoWhy. In this context iIt's a plausible misspelling for España (which also redirects there). – Uanfala (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as plausible pronunciation variant per SoWhy. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.

Roisin Kelly
 Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 27%23Roisin Kelly

SilentScream
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Silent Scream.  (non-admin closure)  f  e  minist  14:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * SilentScream → Paperplane Pursuit (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SilentScream&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Retarget to Silent Scream (a dab page). Paperplane Pursuit (a band) were formed from "Silent Scream" but I think any occurrences of "SilentScream" (no space) were a stylisation. Better to redirect to the dab page (or perhaps delete). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Retarget per nom. Upon a quick Internet search, the first website that combines the terms is an anti-abortion site, and also points to a bunch of media Silent Scream or Silent Screams. So the dab page is most appropriate.  Given that Paperplane Pursuit used this name briefly as "Silent Scream" (note the space)  before publishing anything, that should not claim primary topic.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Retarget - The term "Silent Scream" is rather vague without context. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.