Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 6

August 6
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 6, 2018.

Alabama American band
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 14%23Alabama American band

Dirty Words (Rock band)
 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  . Deryck C. 11:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Dirty Words (Rock band) → Dirty Words (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dirty_Words_(Rock_band)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Dirty Words Rock band → Dirty Words (Rock band) (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dirty_Words_Rock_band&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Not a band, but rather an album. Home Lander (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I've combined the Dirty Words Rock band to this one. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll note that Dirty Words isn't a video game title from the Rock Band franchise. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's at least one non-notable band with this name, as well as one called Dirty Word, and an apparently notable group called The Dirty Works. This could probably be a plausible search term for any of these (especially the first), but not really for an album by a band with a totally different name. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2018 (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.

Cinnamon stix
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 16%23Cinnamon stix

Sexual gatekeepers
 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 Causes of sexual violence. Of the opinions to delete, two (Duke of Nonsense and 142.160.89.97) rely on the redirect being offensive or implying a lack of neutrality per the principles of NPOV, which is directly opposed by keep opinions pointing to WP:RNEUTRAL; the latter seems to be the relevant applicable guideline which covers redirect titles, not NPOV; if the opposers would like to effect a change on the application of RNEUTRAL then a broader discussion should be held at WT:Redirect. The only opinion to delete not relying on NPOV (from Arms&Hearts) even opposes the NPOV-based rationale! However this single delete opinion not running against guidelines but also not supported by any is outweighed by the other editors opting to keep and refine to the relevant subsection (which technically means a minor retargetting to the same page...)
 * Note, the same result will be applied to, which was mentioned by a few commenters but not properly added to the nom template although the redirect was tagged with the RfD-nom; I added them here just before closing to ensure the paperwork gets done cleanly... NPASR separately if that one has other problems (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  16:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sexual gatekeepers → Causes of sexual violence (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_gatekeepers&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Gatekeeper of sex → Causes of sexual violence (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gatekeeper_of_sex&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This redirect could be taken to imply that the role of women in our society as sexual gatekeepers is a cause of sexual violence, which is a typical trope in misogynistic, "incel" rhetoric. As such, I believe this redirect is controversial and has the potential to be offensive, and is not appropriate for Wikipedia. CataracticPlanets (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a section at the target page, #Gender based socialization and sexual scripts, that I think provides enough context to avoid your specific concern. That doesn't necessarily mean this is an appropriate redirect, though. (I was surprised to see that the concept isn't mentioned at Incel.) --BDD (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Now I see that the redirect violates WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL, I apologise for accepting the redirect. I did not mean to offend anyone and I was not taking sides when accepting. The Duke of Nonsense What is necessary for thee?.  21:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Did you intend to nominate Sexual gatekeepers, Gatekeeper of sex, Gatekeepers of sex as well, ? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for having it removed, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, apologies for offending you. I only accepted the redirect because it had something to do with the subject. I was not taking sides. Thanks. The Duke of Nonsense What is necessary for thee?.  10:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete – Per nominator, whose argument is valid despite the fact that the subject is addressed briefly in the article. Not only "could [it] be taken to imply that the role of women in our society as sexual gatekeepers is a cause of sexual violence, which is a typical trope in misogynistic, 'incel' rhetoric", but I personally took it that way as well (hence why I raised the issue at ). 142.160.89.97 (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL and as the term is mentioned in the article. Iffy★Chat -- 12:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Refine to Causes of sexual violence. If the concept is mentioned and expounded in a more appropriate place in the future, then this can be retargeted there. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Though I share the nominator's wariness about Wikipedia seeming to endorse or reproduce misogynistic rhetoric, I don't entirely agree with the nomination – almost anything "could be taken to imply" almost anything else, with the right amount of confusion, bias or malice, and possible inferences are rarely grounds to delete anything. As Iffy notes above, WP:RNEUTRAL also applies. But I also don't think the single sentence using this phrase in the target is sufficient for the redirect to be useful. "Group x views group y as sexual gatekeepers" tells us nothing about what "sexual gatekeepers" actually means. Note that Gatekeeper of sex redirects to the same target. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This discussion was closed by The Duke of Nonsense, but since there's an ongoing RfD in which multiple editors have wanted to keep the redirect in some form, this was an inappropriate candidate for speedy deletion. --BDD (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Does WP:G7 provide for an exemption in such a case? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, as there's good faith opposition to deletion, G7 doesn't apply. Iffy★Chat -- 13:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was questioning that premise which you merely restated, . Where is an exemption provided for in such a case? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The exemption is that a speedy deletion request made when someone wants to keep the page is not made in good faith, that's why we have XFD to determine consensus on this matter. Iffy★Chat -- 19:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the basis for that assertion, taking into account WP:AGF? That's quite the accusation to level against 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A page deleted by G7 can be re-created immediately by someone who wanted the page kept, therefore there's no point in deleting in the first place if you know that someone wants to keep. See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_68 for the views of other editors when I asked this question a few months ago. Iffy★Chat -- 20:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not answering sooner. As someone in the linked discussion put it, speedy deletion is for non-controversial cases. If there's an XfD with explicit votes for keeping, that's controversial (enough). --BDD (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, my apologies for originally G7'ing the page.
 * Keep Sexual gatekeepers because it is a valid search term discussed in the article, although it should be refined to the specific section (and for the record, that section does discuss what this term means). Not sure I like Gatekeeper of sex, but I suppose it's a valid R from modification. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Duke of Nonsense What is necessary for thee? 09:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and refine per Iffy and Compasionate727. The term is used and explained at the target article, making it a useful search term, WP:RNEUTRAL explains that redirects don't have to be neutral (WP:NPOV is a policy about the content of articles, WP:NPOVTITLE deals with article titles). Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2018 (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.

This Week (BBC News TV series)
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 16%23This Week (BBC News TV series)

Outstanding Male
 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  . Deryck C. 11:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


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

I propose the redirect is deleted as it doesn't make sense. I cannot find a source that connects the phrase "Outstanding Male" and "Valedictorian". Kadane (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Sounds more like some incomplete awards title. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't see any obvious connection between this phrase and the target. Though a valedictorian is in some sense "outstanding," it is not a gendered title. We have articles on a couple of awards for "outstanding males" – the NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Male Artist and the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Miniseries or Television Movie – but neither seems to be known by this name. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * delete seems to be a partial title match to different awards -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:38, 8 August 2018 (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.

Lu Kaidan
 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  . There is unanimous conclusion that this is a typo. The redirect creator agrees to deletion. Deryck C. 11:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Lu Kaidan → Ellen Joyce Loo (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lu_Kaidan&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Obviously misspelt redirect, and unlikely to be used B dash (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Not the spelling of the target's name in any romanisation system, nor a plausible typo. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per above -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:39, 8 August 2018 (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.

Shadow Slasher
 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  . Absent a closing statement, it can be difficult to tell to what extent an AfD closer considering redirecting as an outcome. But since the first vote in the discussion raised the possibility of inclusion at List of Marvel Comics characters: S and all subsequent votes were for outright deletion, one of which explicitly argued against inclusion at the list, the situation seems clear to me. Consensus can change, but not in a day. For now, there is consensus against discussion of the character, so the redirect serves no purpose. Should its notability increase, editors may contact me or another admin if they wish to salvage some of the former content at this page. --BDD (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Shadow Slasher → List of Marvel Comics characters: S (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shadow_Slasher&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This page was closed at AfD as delete, not redirect. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 01:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article was deleted, and all content was deleted with it. The redirect points to the content in the list page. Nothing on the AFD proscribed that there could not be a redirect pointing to the list page. BOZ (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment My Google results for "Shadow Slasher" are mostly about one model of Honda Shadow (not sure this is a nickname or official name or what; it's not currently mentioned in our article). There is also a TV show episode by this name. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It could be moved to Shadow Slasher (comics) if there is a disambiguation issue. BOZ (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate or delete I'd prefer letting the search engine handle these kinds of "nothing but tiny WP:DABMENTIONs" situations, but in the absence of a consensus to delete, this should be a disambiguation page. I've added sourced content about the motorcycle at Honda Shadow (it was already covered in the Japanese article). Given that the motorcycle predominates in search results, the comics character only appeared in three episodes, and the Google News results are mostly about neither the motorcycle nor the character, I seriously doubt that there's a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT here. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per BOZ. There's sourced content relating to the character in the target, so deleting the redirect would be an unnecessary hindrance to the reader. It's curious that Google mostly turns up content about the motorcycle, but so long as the name isn't mentioned in the Honda Shadow article there's no need for a hatnote. I think we can similarly forgo a hatnote for the Garo: The Animation episode. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per Etzedek24. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, there was content on the list page for the redirect to point to until it was removed just now by the above editor. BOZ (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The content shouldn't have been there, though. The consensus was to delete the article, not to put the information on the list page. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The two things are not mutually exclusive. Consensus to delete an article on a given topic is not consensus to never include any information on that topic in any other article. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I realize that deleting an article doesn't mean the information can't be included anywhere, but merging the information to the list page in this manner was rejected during the discussion. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is an issue with including that character on that list, I am more than happy to compromise with a retarget if you can think of an article to which you would be more comfortable with moving the text you removed. BOZ (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Merging the information was rejected by one editor. One other editor who participated in the discussion supported a merge, and three others (including yourself) offered no opinion. There was very clearly no consensus against merging. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Voting to delete instead of to merge is offering an opinion. Merging isn't the same as deleting an article. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase the point I made above (11:28, 8 August), a !vote to delete an article on a given topic is not a !vote to never include any information on that topic in any other article. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's worth noting that (at least according to Marvel Wikia) this character has only appeared in three issues. The list pages shouldn't be that extensive. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2018 (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.