Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 13

September 13
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 13, 2018.

Simeon Ivanov (Author)
 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  . Feel free to create the suggested redirect if someone thinks it may be useful. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 19:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Simeon Ivanov (Author) → Simeon Ivanov (racing driver) (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simeon_Ivanov_(Author)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This redirect is the result of a page move that I reverted. The subject, Simeon Ivanov, apparently just wrote a book (with no online coverage), but that doesn't suddenly warrant disambiguating him as "author" rather than as the racing driver that he's primarily known as, and about which nearly the entire article is concerned. At the moment, it seems unlikely that anyone would search for him here. Largoplazo (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless . There are no other authors with this name I can find with whom he could be confused and his twitter profile lists "author" first, so it's not an implausible search either. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Move to Simeon Ivanov (author) without leaving redirect. Recently created, might as well get the syntax right. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Thryduulf (with no prejudice against also creating Simeon Ivanov (author) – it might be worth getting the syntax right but there's no harm in keeping redirects that get the syntax wrong either). – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm with Angus on this, move to the correct title and keep it there. The redirect is the result of a brand new user moving a page and existed there for just about 1 hour 15 minutes.  It's not clear that this would be "useful" as it has yet to really be used.  The redirect resulted from a page move, so it's not really R3, but it resulted from a page move reverting a page move, so it's not not R3. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 11:37, 23 September 2018 (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.

Most Christian inhabited areas (Sub-Districts) in Odisha
 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  . No comment on ' suggestion. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 02:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Most Christian inhabited areas (Sub-Districts) in Odisha → Christianity in Odisha (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Most_Christian_inhabited_areas_(Sub-Districts)_in_Odisha&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Completely implausible search term. Vanamonde (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:MAD. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: The edit history has to be preserved in some form per WP:MAD, but we can also resolve the nominator's concerns by moving the redirect to a different title without leaving a redirect behind. An example title, borrowing from the current header at the target, could be Districts with the largest proportions of Christians in Odisha, but I am open to suggestions. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:34, 13 September 2018 (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.

North Shore Broadcasting
 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  . The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 02:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * North Shore Broadcasting → New Orleans (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Shore_Broadcasting&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This is a radio broadcasting company that is not mentioned at the target. It is mentioned at WHMD, WYLK, WOBM (AM), so search results would be more helpful than the status quo. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. Vanamonde (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Could refer to any number of North Shore Broadcasting companies such as this one in Washington state It's likely the one in Louisiana which is called Northshore Broadcasting Company, but that doesn't have an article. If notable, it can then be created.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 20:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2018 (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.

Cafe
 Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 23%23Cafe

Public-Private-Parnership
 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) feminist (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Public-Private-Parnership → Public–private partnership (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public-Private-Parnership&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Simple misspelling - not a suitable redirect page Cnbrb (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep misspellings are fine in redirects, that is one of their purposes. There is no ambiguity with this reduirect, and redirects are cheap. --Danski454 (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. A plausible misspelling with a long history (so a greater than usual likelihood of incoming external links), which takes the reader to the right target and isn't otherwise confusing or misleading. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 23:36, 15 September 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.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TheyFit
 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 no consensus  . ~  Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 11:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * <span id="Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TheyFit">Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TheyFit → Condom (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/TheyFit&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Appears to be a miss-target from when someone moved a draft through articles for creation. It seems to have been missed and currently hard redirects to Condom. I couldn't find a speedy deletion tag that applied to this specific kind of case, so RfD it is. Rationale being that this is a completely implausible redirect. Jip Orlando (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. I think it qualifies for G6 technical housekeeping speedy deletion but we'll leave it since its here already. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. In 2012, the draft article about TheyFit was created at this title - this was normal practice for the time (the draft namespace didn't exist then). The draft was then moved to the article namespace, and later redirected to Condom. We normally keep redirects from draft: to article namespace, so I don't think this fits as housekeeping and it isn't a mistake, so I don't think it's eligible for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep in the spirit of WP:RDRAFT. I have added r double redirect avoided. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 16:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Restore TheyFit as an article, or maybe send it back to draft space without leaving behind a redirect, and then point Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TheyFit wherever it ends up, roughly per Godsy. The article needs significant work but it might pass WP:N. In any case it's totally useless as a redirect to condom: the sole mention of TheyFit at the target is in the title of WP:REFSPAM at Condom (not even in the body text of the article). The citation to TheyFit's homepage could be removed with zero loss to the condom article; the relevant passage already cites a secondary source for that sentence. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 10:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as housekeeping. There's no significant page history at this redirect. Deryck C. 13:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.