Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 27

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Airship (video game) → Airship  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misleading redirect that would suggest a video game name. Unnecessary. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since there is no mention of any video game in that article. This came about because of Airships in video games being turned into a redirect, which you did about 9 years ago. That should probably be deleted too for the same reason. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There doesn't seem to be a video game called Airship, and if there were one it isn't mentioned in the target, nor is any other material relating to airships in video games. As such, the redirect is unhelpful. (I agree that Airships in video games is also worth revisiting, but it might be better off nominated separately rather than being added to this nomination, as it's a less obviously confusing title and was once an article.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per all of the above. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Laval Mills → Ivanhoé Cambridge  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Created by user that was blocked for vandalism. Not mentioned in target page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An obscure cancelled project is an unlikely search term at best, especially when it seems there's no WP:RS to verify this project's association with the target. It's mentioned at Vaughan Mills#Sister malls in Canada, but without a source. There's an environmental assessment [1] saying some company was thinking of building it, but that only refers to them as "the proponent" without mentioning who they are. Clearly too minor to be worth adding a mention at Laval, Quebec either. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, it really was reported in WP:RS, though they're all in French and call it "Mills à Laval" [2] rather than "Laval Mills". I suppose it could be worth adding a mention at the target. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not mentioned in the target, nor does it particularly seem deserving of a mention as a project apparently abandoned in 2011. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 speedy close. Bad-faith nomination by a banned editor. Since nobody has commented in favour of overwriting the redirect who is not obviously a sockpuppet of the banned editor, I'm closing this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ghazwatul Hind → Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent#Ghazwa-e-Hind  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Looking at the history and comparing the last version I believe, the article may be given a separate page and redirect removed (and protected from disruptions, as is clear from history). This article is already available in other languages on official wikipedia:

• Hindi
• Urdu
• Arabic
• Bangla

So why the updated English wiki article (which is more comprehensive, well sourced and neutral) is muted using a redirect? (Note: The article was marked for deletion in March 2014 for being brief and unsourced, and some users quote that to keep it on redirect. But now those issues have been addressed in the July 2018 version of the article.Even placing a protection template request on talk page of Ghazwatul_Hind is undone by some users!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:10c:9c91:284c:dcfc:8851:3177 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Topic sounds OK. A google search of Ghazwatul Hind shows 1,08,000 results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.192.178.164 (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirect: The so-called July 2018 version of the article is not citing any reliable SECONDARY sources, and has practically no content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove redirect: The updated page discussed above although brief seems fine and to the point. I searched Twitter and YouTube for Ghazwatul Hind and it looks like a hot topic with millions of results.
• Comment. The first point of the guidance in the lede of WP:RFD seems to apply here: "If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!" As the nominator is asking for a result that is outside the remit of RfD, and as no one else has suggested deleting or retargeting this, I think a procedural close may be in order here per the "venue inappropriate" criterion of WP:PCLOSE. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Above IP is a sock of Chintu6 who has been evading his block since first day to restore the article. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chintu6. Capitals00 (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect unconstructive: The redirect Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent has no information on Ghazwatul Hind, while the former is a history article, the latter is religious. Some users are repeatedly redirecting it back,and undoing any discussion attempt on it's talk page and labelling it sock. That's why I think this thread was opened, so it needs protection also, as you may see the page history.
• Speedy close. This is a bad-faith nomination by Chintu6 (talk · contribs), evading a block. --Yamla (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 disambiguate. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Bham → Bellingham, Washington  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget or dabify? Most search results are for Birmingham or Birmingham, Alabama. feminist (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Set-indexify for people actually surnamed Bham. Drafted below the redirect. None of those articles existed back in 2007 when this redirect was created, but now they do. Birmingham and Bellingham and whatnot can go in "See also". 59.149.124.29 (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "Set-indexify"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Set-indexify" = "Convert into a set index article". For most practical purposes, this can be regarded as a type of a disambiguation page, sort of. – Uanfala (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd say primary usage is Birmingham (which is how I created the page; I wasn't aware it had been changed, and would have reverted if I had known), but a disambiguation page might be better. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify. In addition to the three people with the name already included in the draft, there is the abbreviation (used afaik at least for the English Birmingham, no objection if other cities are added provided the usage is attested), and the river in India (mentioned at Bham Dam). I'd rather have all the entries in a single page, than to split them across a dab page and a surname index. – Uanfala (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify news articles and websites refer to Birmingham, Alabama; with some Birmingham in England. Also quite a few people with Bham as a given name or family name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support disambiguation. Thanks 59.149 and Angus for the draft. Deryck C. 15:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Great line though ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Shomer Fucking Shabbos → Shomer Shabbat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused redirect based on trivial movie quote. Ibadibam (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Of zero help to people who are trying to find or link to the target. If it were explained at The Big Lebowski it might be worth a retarget there as {{R from quote}}, but at the moment it isn't even mentioned there. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the phrase has any encyclopaedic significance it's in relation to The Big Lebowski rather than Shomer Shabbat, but as long as it isn't mentioned in the article on the film then there's nowhere useful to send the reader who searches for this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.