Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 23

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 Thong (disambiguation). Note that before this discussion closed, an RM moved the disambiguation page there from the base title, which is now about the clothing item. As noted, no one would want this pointing there! I'll ensure that the relevant footballers are listed at the disambiguation page if they aren't already. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thong (footballer) → Thong  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Suggest retargeting to Thongchai. Some backstory: We have articles on Thongchai Rathchai and Thongchai Sukkoki, both footballers. One day, an editor moved these articles to Thong (footballer, born 1982) and Thong (footballer, born 1973) due to the very mistaken notion that these people are referred to by their unqualified nicknames. They are not, and the moves were reverted. However, the misguided move created the need for a disambiguation page. I nominated this disambiguation page for AfD, and most participants suggested to merge the two items into Thong (disambiguation). However, this was a violation WP:NAMELIST, which states: "Articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their first or last name only if they are reasonably well known by it," as neither of these two persons are well known by nickname alone. Also, the name list page Thongchai was created (by me) during the course of the AfD, and there was a strong suggestion by User:Levivich that Thong (footballer) should be redirected there. Most of the participants in the AfD did not notice this suggestion, though, and it was closed as a merge to Thong (disambiguation). Some time later, I WP:BOLDly retargeted the page to Thongchai per the earlier suggestion. This was recently reverted by User:Shhhnotsoloud, so here we are. Paul_012 (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the close of WP:Articles for deletion/Thong (footballer). Retargetting to Thongchai does not help anyone searching for footballers called Thong. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both footballers with the nickname Thong are listed at Thongchai, of which "Thong" is a shortened form. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Pinging users Staszek Lem, Tavix, Bkonrad, Lerdsuwa, Smartyllama and GiantSnowman, who participated in the AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it is per Shhhnotsoloud. GiantSnowman 18:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a comment that almost everyone in Thailand is actually best known by their nicknames, and full names are rarely used (at least not informally) - I have friends of 30 years there whose full names I still don't know. No idea what should be done here, mind, with our focus on what reliable sources say, but I though it might be worth mentioning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Thong (disambiguation). It certainly shouldn't redirect to Thong, as it currently does! The articles on the two footballers expressly say that they are nicknamed 'Thong'. The debsirinalumni.org citation in Thongchai Sukkoki supports that. This source supports it for Thongchai Rathchai. Narky Blert (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Thong (disambiguation) where footballers named Thong should be listed per WP:INCOMPDAB. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:47, 1 December 2019 (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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Outagraphy → Ted Joans  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was redirecting to a hoax, which I removed in this diff a year ago. There's no other mention of "Outagraphy" in the article and no connection with Ted Joans I can find (apart from Wikipedia mirrors resulting from the years the hoax was on Wikipedia). See also this, another part of the hoax, removed a number of times. It's all been part of a long-running campaign by a non-notable artist to get his works on Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as promotion without a mention in Wikipedia or in any reliable source that I can find. Geolodus (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom and per G3. Wug·a·po·des​ 23:43, 23 November 2019 (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.

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. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• National South West Coalition → Franklin Dam controversy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RFD#D2, not mentioned at target (nor any similar term). I could not find any likely candidate for a retarget, and my quick Gsearch was fruitless. Two articles link to it (one via template transclusion), both about Australian election results, where this party is mentioned as representing New South Wales – but the Franklin River is in Tasmania, so I am confused. Four related template pages link to it, but pipe it as "South West Coalition" – which we have not got. 185.62.130.234 (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I did guess that "NSW" may have meant "New South Wales", not "National South West", but searching for that yielded nothing. Neither New South Wales nor Tasmania are in southwestern Australia, so I remain nonplussed. The conservationist Milo Dunphy stood as a candidate, but nothing in his article mentions it. 185.62.130.234 (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. It is in South West Tasmania and had national interest, not that this is a reason to retain the redirect.--Grahame (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2019 (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.

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. Consensus is that this redirect is WP:CHEAP and WP:THE does not apply. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Franklin Dam → Franklin Dam controversy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, fails WP:THE, although strictly that covers only article titles. Franklin Dam (among others) has the same target; there are no internal links and it's had only two page views in the last six months. 185.62.130.234 (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CHEAP; useful search term. Wug·a·po·des​ 23:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Plausible redirect that does no harm. As the nominator pointed out (ironically), article titling policies only apply to articles themselves, and no other reason for deletion has been given. Geolodus (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - very plausible search term. The dam was never constructed, but someone might be searching for information on it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:57, 25 November 2019 (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.

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. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Frank Felton → Frank Fenton (actor)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is a misspelling of the target title that should be deleted per WP:RDELETE criterion 3. I redirected Frank Felton to Frank Fenton (actor) per the discussion at Talk:Frank Fenton (actor)#Merger proposal; it was previously a duplicate of the target article that existed for nearly nine years. I did not merge any content, so there is no reason to keep the redirect for attribution purposes. Courtesy ping for the participants in the merger discussion: QTHCCAN and Teblick – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Delete: This redirect does not seem particularly useful, but I don't see any reason to delete it either. Deletion criterion 3 is about being "offensive or abusive", which this clearly is not. Geolodus (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Geolodus: Gah, I meant criterion 2—a redirect that might cause confusion. A quick Google search reveals that there are people named Frank Felton. None of them look particularly notable, but it's plausible that someone might search that name and be confused to wind up at an article about a Frank Fenton. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fair. I'm contemplating changing my !vote to "delete". Geolodus (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed my !vote now after being convinced by the nominator's additional argument. Geolodus (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2019 (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.