November 29

World Richest Cricketers

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. --Patar knight -^chat/_{contributions}20:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• World Richest Cricketers →Cricket (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such list exists at target.Steel1943 (talk)23:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no such list atList of cricketers either. Also vague. Does the searcher want the ones that are rich by net worth, or the ones that are the best paid as withList of highest paid Major League Baseball players orList of largest sports contracts ?AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)02:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Target not really relevant, and I can't find any relevant one.Galobtter (pingó mió)11:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: also a typo ofWorld’s Richest Cricketers, which does not exist.165.91.12.221 (talk)04:35, 9 December 2017 (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.

Badminton 1000 bc

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. --Tavix^(talk)04:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Badminton 1000 bc →Badminton (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unclear what the "1000 bc" is supposed to represent.Steel1943 (talk)23:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly1000 BC, which falls in a timeframe not mentioned anywhere in the target.165.91.13.99 (talk)00:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm assuming BC means Badminton Club, but that club named Badminton 1000 BC isn't notable.AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)02:53, 30 November 2017 (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.

Basebasll

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. --Patar knight -^chat/_{contributions}20:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not seeing how this is a likely misspelling.Steel1943 (talk)23:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment striking both the intended key and the key next to it seems like a reasonable typo; "a" and "s" are adjacent onQWERTY keyboards. If it were created yesterday I'd say delete it, but it's been around for ten years.59.149.124.29 (talk)00:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  For some reason, when I see this redirect, I want to cook something withbasil.Steel1943 (talk)02:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete very low usage (14 in 2 years) since stats started tracking the use[1]AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)17:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 7 people a year seems like plenty, it's not like keeping a redirect is using up any real resourcesFitnr15:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nominator, not likely. 7 clicks a year doesn't seem like plenty.  —Scott•talk14:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an implausible typo redirect. Clearly, no one intentionally searches for it.ToThAc (talk)23:01, 7 December 2017 (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.

Template:R to surname

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. I've just completed the orphaning and 59.149 is right on with their assessment. --Tavix^(talk)15:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:R to surname →Template:R from alternative name (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Something has to change here. As distinct from aredirectfrom a surname, a redirectto one could be all sorts of things, not necessarily an alternative name for the topic. Could this be repurposed or should it be deleted? My first thought was the latter, but I thought I'd bring it up for discussion.(PagingPaine Ellsworth.) --BDD (talk)23:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I’d suggestdeleting this one as misleading. A redirect to a surname would most likely be from an alternativespelling, not this.165.91.13.168 (talk)19:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Looks like this one has no real value, and all of its redirects could be better categorized as alt spellings and such. Perhaps its creator,Robertgreer, can shed some light on this?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  05:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Orphan and delete I see it used in at least four different ways.
  1. Similarly to{{R to disambiguation}} (e.g.Ilie (surname)Ilie (surname) →Ilie, which could be replaced by{{R from unnecessary disambiguation}})
  2. As a clear mistake for {{Rfrom surname}} (e.g.KarsavinaKarsavina →Tamara Karsavina); I am going toWP:BOLDly go fix all of these now
  3. From a member of a family to the article about the family (e.g.Guy II Embriaco →Embriaco family, which could be replaced by{{R from member}})
  4. Actually as{{R from alternative name}} (e.g.The BrontësThe Brontës →Brontë family orZurnZurn →Zürn)

In other words, a redirect to any one template won't really work here; it should either be "promoted" to its own template & category (for which I don't see a good case, but I could be convinced otherwise), or orphaned and then deleted outright.59.149.124.29 (talk)08:03, 1 December 2017 (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.

Juli Briskman

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasno consensus. FWIW, she's been readded to the article, and it's been stable since late November. --Tavix^(talk)22:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Juli Briskman →NANA Development Corporation (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete recently-created redirect on the woman who flipped off Trump's motorcade. It redirects to the article onher former employer, the company where she had worked as a contractor,NANA Development Corporation, which quite properly does not discuss her, and is not likely to do so, since this incident is so tangential to the company. The redirect is unhelpful to Wikipedia readers, because they are redirected to an article with no information on Briskman.TJRC (talk)18:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No need to strike out "her former employer". Perthis reference, Akima LLC (NANA's subsidiary) is her former employer. You may have gotten confused by the fact that Akima is a government contractor and thought that Briksman was a contractor to Akima (or NANA).Sometimes the sky is blue (talk)19:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by nom; the redirect creator has good-faith re-added material about Briskman into the company's article after I notified him of this RFD; I have deleted it. It is tangential to the company, and is an example ofWP:RECENTISM. None of this is edit-warring; the editors who initially added the clause, deleted it, re-added it, and re-deleted it, are four different editors.TJRC (talk)19:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It was deleted as "tabloid" sourcing, but it has been reported by Fortune magazine, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and is still in the news today even though she was fired on November 6, 2017. The Gofundme campaign is ongoing as well as a wrongful termination lawsuit. People should be able to see the entry during a deletion discussion, so they can decide for themselves. Whenever we have a controversy/criticism at a company that gets this much media attention we add it, seeGeneral Electric,New York Times, andFox News for example. --RAN (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• It should not be in the article on the company. In the context of the company, where she was not even an employee, it is pure trivia and a fleeting news item. I don't dispute that it's been in the news, but Wikipedia is not a news repository;WP:NOTNEWS. If the individual and incident is not sufficiently notable for an article, it should not be shoe-horned into a barely related article.WP:COATRACK. Also, perWP:BRD, it should remain out unless/until there is a consensus reached to include it, but I don't wish to edit-war and will not re-delete it.TJRC (talk)19:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This reference calls Akima LLC, a subsidiary ofNANA Development Corporation "her employer" and says that she was "in charge of Akima's social media presence". Therefore, it is not clear how you came to the conclusion thatshe was not even an employee.Sometimes the sky is blue (talk)16:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Calling something trivia or trivial, just means, you personally have no interest in it. All sports information is trivia to me. All television show information for shows that I have no interest in, is trivia to me. --RAN (talk)00:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify, it is trivia to the audience of people interested in learning about the company, and who therefore go to an article about the company to learn about it. While sports information is indeed trivial to me as well, it is not trivial to a person reading a sports-related article; that's a different audience.TJRC (talk)00:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If a company does something that generates news headlines (and nowa potential lawsuit) then it is nottrivia to people interested in reading about that company.Sometimes the sky is blue (talk)17:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack ofWP:WEIGHT. If she sues the company for millions of dollars like the McDonalds coffee lady atLiebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants and it becomes Wikipedia notable that way, then there might be some chance of it staying around.AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)04:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrectly holding it to the standard of having its own article, not a mention in the article of the company that she worked for. --RAN (talk)13:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm holding it to a standard of whether it should have a section in the article. There are manywrongful termination lawsuits on corporations as well as class-action lawsuits, and I don't see a List of such kept around on Wikipedia until there's sizable sections likeMcDonald's#Treatment_of_employees andMcDonald's#Legal_cases.WP:PROPORTION applies withinWP:WEIGHT: "This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."AngusWOOF (bark •sniff)17:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well,a lawsuit is now under consideration. Although it's true that not all lawsuits are notable, perWikipedia's notability policy this lawsuit would be notable since the circumstances surrounding it have been covered by numerous sources independent of the parties involved.Sometimes the sky is blue (talk)17:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Pernew reference, litigation is on the horizon, and even if she chooses not to file a lawsuit, her firing attracted enough media attention to merit inclusion in the company's article.Sometimes the sky is blue (talk)06:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It'sWP:CRYSTAL to say keep, because there's likely litigation andthen she will be notable. If she becomes notable, produce an article. But regardless, redirecting to the company where she contracted, to shoehorn in the Brinkman content is wrong. If she's notable, create the article; if she's not notable, delete the redirect and keep the company article clean.TJRC (talk)17:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juli Brinkman's notability is not relevant to this discussion. Nobody has claimed that she is notable and an article should be written about her. The fact that her firing was covered by many newspapers means that it is appropriate to include her firing in the article about the company (in this case the parent company) that fired her. This is independent of whether she will file a wrongful termination lawsuit.

This discussion is about the redirect from Juli Brinkman to the company. The case that I am making is that since it is appropriate to mention her name in the company's article, it is legitimate to have a redirect for her name to the company.Sometimes the sky is blue (talk)19:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify, then: the only reason to redirectJuli Briskman toNANA Development Corporation is tocoatrack a non-notable person into the article on the company.TJRC (talk)20:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you came up with thiscoatrack argument. The essay in a nutshell says"Articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing". Having a single paragraph about this issue does not shift the focus. The paragraph is not about Juli Briskman, but about the company firing her, because that's what made the news.Sometimes the sky is blue (talk)20:27, 28 November 2017 (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.

νew Υork City

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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion wasdelete. --Tavix^(talk)04:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Νew Υork City →New York City (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This uses special characters for no reason, and is not in English. It is partially Greek and partially Latin, so is highly unlikely.νew Υork City - "νew υork City" (NUew UPSILONork City) is not a proper redirect use. --70.51.45.76 (talk)03:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete looks new enough forWP:R3.165.91.12.213 (talk)03:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE seeTalk:νew Υork City where74.108.224.146 (talk ·contribs) has made a suggestion forNew Υork City (New UPSILONork City / new υork city ) to be a redirect toNew York City --70.51.46.255 (talk)10:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all homograph attacks asWP:RFD#D8 implausible typos, and send aWP:TROUT to AFC for accepting it. No way you'll get a wrong-script character in themiddle of a search term unless you're deliberately screwing around. (IIRC,MediaWiki:Titleblacklist used to be quite aggressive about blocking things like this, but they dialed it back because it caused too many false hits for legitimate scientific topics likeα-Hederin).59.149.124.29 (talk)11:20, 1 December 2017 (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.

丁