Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 30

March 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 30, 2016.

Rod Durham[edit]

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, default to keep. Since this redirect concerns a recently deceased person, it would be sensible to postpone the decision of whether to retain the mention of him or not, to a later date, say half a year later. Der yck C. 16:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Durham → Extreme Weight Loss (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. The name is not even mentioned once in the article 92.72.198.54 (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yes he is. Giant Snowman 07:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on whether he should be or not, I think it's worth pointing out the nominator's statement was true, and you've just added this information. It would probably be helpful to discuss this person's significance. Should a reasonably complete article on the subject discuss him? --BDD (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: - does a list of contestants of a reality TV show deserve a mention in this article? Probably yes (see e.g. List of Big Brother 7 housemates (UK) and similar) hence why he merits inclusion. Giant Snowman 18:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for elaborating. It might make sense to have a sentence or two about each contestant where they're listed, or an additional column in the tables with space for notes. Do we have a good reason to exclude surnames from the lists? If not, the problem is solved. Unless there's broader significance to his participation, Durham should probably just be discussed in the Season 4 section. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I note that the CSD seems to have been improperly contested as there was no reason provided. I also note that the administrator who removed the CSD tag is also the editor who created the redirect, so I feel that there is inherent involvement on the part of that administrator. As BDD noted, GiantSnowman added the mention of Durham in the article literally just before !voting here. Unless Durham's death is confirmed to be related to his participation in the show, then there is no need to mention it in the article, thus there is no need for the redirect. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkudlick: - the CSD was botched and the non-standrad rationale was clearly not accurate any more, so that's why I removed it, not because of this. Furthermore your accusations of involvement/administrator misdeeds (aimed at me) are unwarranted and I invite you to withdraw them. Giant Snowman 18:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Please accept my apology, as I do agree that I did not AGF – due to the bombings in Brussels and the impact upon my work, I was in a state of mind where I should not have been editing. Upon review, I agree the CSD was malformed as not meeting R2 or R3, thus anyone would have been correct in removing it. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think his death is inherently important to have in a description of the show. Obviously, that could change if it's determined that his weight loss created fatal health problems or something. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mr. Durham's death appears to have no connection to the show, and he appears to have been only slightly notable, to the point where him having his own page would seem out of the question and even mentioning him in a paragraph of such appears undue weight. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My preference would be to move information about the contestant to the season 4 section, perhaps giving the information about his death in a footnote. The redirect seems acceptable per WP:BLP1E, though it's going to look a bit odd to have more information on him than any of the other contestants. That's why I suggest a footnote. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2016 (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.

Adumbration[edit]

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 soft redirect to Wiktionary entry. Der yck C. 17:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adumbration → Foreshadowing (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Foreshadowing" is really only a tertiary meaning of "adumbration." More frequently, it is used as a term that means "to give a description of something that includes general points about it, but no details." In fact, the OED defines the term as: "to outline; to sketch; [or] to give a faint indication of." Therefore, I think we should delete this potentially misleading redirect. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget to wikt:adumbration. It gets a fair amount of hits (just north of 1/day), so it'd be better than nothing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget to wikt:adumbration; not a synonym for foreshadowing and we don't seem to have a better article. Weak because I dislike Wiktionary redirects. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to DAB at summary. Si Trew (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the definition at Wiktionary, I don't think that's accurate. Notecardforfree's description is accurate, but Wiktionary makes clearer that this is an art term: a sketch or an outline as in a rough drawing, or "give a faint indication" as in draw lightly. Not like summarizing the key points of something. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, computer died before I had a chance to strike this, then I forgot: you're right, and I was going to replace "summary" with "outline" but all is rather XY. Delete per WP:REDLINK. Si Trew (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2016 (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.

Singer Girl[edit]

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 women in music. Although there isn't a clear consensus on the outcome, all participants want the redirect changed, so the most-supported outcome is enacted. Der yck C. 16:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singer Girl → Meghan Trainor (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The connection between the redirect and the redirect's target is unclear. Also, I attempted to see if this redirect is the title of a song or album by the redirect's target, and no such luck. Also, no page titled "Singer Girl" appears on the Meghan Trainor Wikia (meaning I essentially cannot find anything about "Singer Girl.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom In ictu oculi (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarget to Women in music where female singer leads to, and the meaning of "singer girl" -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no obvious connection to Meghan Trainor, nor to any other topic. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Women in music. Plausible search term. sst✈ 05:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And then I became ‘the singer girl’. This may be the redirect creator's original intention. sst✈ 16:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to women in music per 70.51 and others. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Women in music. Not the best synonym but I think it would work --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It could refer to females with the surname singer as well.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to Girl Singer as a possible word exchange error. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't sound like a plausible search term to me. Lawyer Girl → Women in law? Dancer Girl → Women in dance? Engineer Girl → Women in engineering? --BDD (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2016 (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.

List of burn centers near umbrella corp[edit]

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. Der yck C. 17:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of burn centers near umbrella corp → Humour (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirect appears to be misleading; searching with Google brings up nothing related to subject and target doesn't include anything about burn centers or an "umbrella corp". -Liance^{talk/contribs} 13:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Presumably a joke. Si Trew (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inappropriate use of humour in article space. Umbrella Corporation is the antagonist in the Resident Evil series, and the meme is one of referring a person who was just mocked or insulted ("burned") to the nearest burn centre, ostensibly for treatment of their "injury". I don't really understand what the connection between the two here is, and regardless, it's not appropriate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:34, 1 April 2016 (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.

Poda-poda[edit]

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 Withdrawn. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poda-poda → Share taxi (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target, although it is mentioned (but only in passing, and not linked) in boda-boda, which is how I came to search for it. Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is mentioned at the target, but you have to drop down the unconventional "terminology used around the world" dialog in place of the infobox. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
withdrawn, I'll fix the target. I couldn't find it using my tablet's UI. Si Trew (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2016 (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.