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.
I'd say that if it's a minor aspect of more than one game series, it would be better to leave it up to the search function to have people see where it is mentioned instead of sending people to a place they may not want to go.ZXCVBNM (TALK)22:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's the only article where it is mentioned so there is no advantage in deleting the redirect for that reasonPC78 (talk)22:37, 4 July 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I actually am not sure if this should be deleted, and want to bring it here for discussion: This redirect points at a "notable professors" section for a college. However, this subject's article was deleted at AfD in April, which raises the question of whether this professor is actually notable enough to be included in the target (as anAfD discussion determined that Jones is not WikiNotable, although it's not clear if they considered coverage published by advocacy groups in their assessment,[1],[2]).
If the subject is notable enough to stay listed at the target article, then I think this redirect is appropriate. Otherwise, the target should be edited and this redirect should be deleted.signed,Rosguilltalk18:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commment we don't blank votes either, even if they are our own. We strike them through to show an accurate record of the deletion discussion. Best,GPL93 (talk)01:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although entries in an embedded list are not required to be notable as a general rule, it appears that the editors of this article have implicitly agreed to use notability as the criterion for inclusion in this particular embedded list. It's a reasonable criterion and this person does not seem to have met that standard.ElKevbo (talk)19:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not entirely sure if this is the right place to bring up this topic but I have a concern regardingTobias Epos response to this discussion. Specificallyhis initial response toRoseguill's notification on his taslk page about the redirect being up for deletion. I particularly don't care about the Jimmy Wales part, if you think he's a jerk that's your opinion, but the posting of the the articleIsraeli Foundation Awards $1 Million Prize to Wikipedia Founder and Others heavily implies that he believes that the decision to delete the redirect is part of some greater "Jewish Conspiracy" whenI asked him about why he posted it he did not reply and insteadblanked his talk page. I find this behavior incredibly concerning, as there is no place for anti-Semitism or any other form of discrimination on Wikipedia. Best,GPL93 (talk)13:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not commenting about notability of the subject. I am talking about your behavior as an editor, specifically an edit that you have made in response to this redirect being up for discussion for deletion. You have still yet to explain yourself.GPL93 (talk)17:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this discussion is sprawling out in a few different directions. It seems like we have three separate issues:
Is it appropriate to have a redirect to (and a listing at) a Notable alumni section for EMJ if he has been deemed to not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines?
Does EMJ actually not meet notability guidelines?
Tobias Epos's behavior in responding to this nomination and in this discussion.
I think that based on the discussion, we seem to essentially have reached a consensus that the answer to 1 is No (i.e. delete). The answer to 2, should editors choose to pursue it, should probably be determined through aformal deletion review. The appropriate venue for 3 is user talk pages followed byWP:ANI if issues cannot be resolved.signed,Rosguilltalk18:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thediscussion to delete the previous article was a close call - 5 votes to 4. The party that wanted to keep the article wanted to do so because Jones is "a prolific author", "international commentator", "intellectual". The other party, one user namely,XOR'easter, argued against that Jones is "a prolific author", quoting several reviews of some of his books. I got an impression that his main point was to prove that Jones's "collective body of work" is not seen as "significant or well-known". XOR'easter may prove me wrong. He failed to prove that Jones isn't international commentator or an intellectual. Being a commentator or an intellectual doesn't require form a person to publish several books or his books to be reviewed by other scholars.
Wikipedia defines anintellectual as: "An intellectual is a person who engages in critical thinking, research, and reflection about society, proposes solutions for its normative problems and gains authority as a public figure." Jones certainly fits into this category, and as such he was a commentator on several TV stations, YouTube channels, and was invited to speak in different countries, and therefore can be described as "international commentator".
Another objection of the party that supported the deletion of the article stated that the previous article failed to meet theWP:Notability criteria.To this I object. The google search gives172,000 results.
The conclusion would be, if we would take the argument that Jones doesn't meet the WP:Notability criteria as valid, that Wikipedia should delete all articles about persons who's search results are equal to or fall below 172,000.
I think that I have covered the main and only two arguments for the deletation of the article about Jones: the value of his written work and his notability.
For the first argument, I claim that it doesn't substantiate the reason for deletion. Regardless of the quality of his work, he can still be described as an intellectual, and is an international commentator and well-known public figure, especially in the Catholic circles.
For the second argument, I claim that it is not valid, as I have demonstrated that Jones indeed meets the WP:Notability criteria. If he doesn't (and he does) Wikipedia would need to delete many more pages.
XOR'easter referred to sources accessible only by subscription, authored by subjects notably unknown: Michael Tolan (JSTOR899038), Leslie W. Tentler (JSTOR25026822), Leland S. Person Jr. (JSTOR29532898)."InThe Bacchae, as brilliantly explicated by E. Michael Jones, Euripides showed exactly how unsafe sex is when disconnected from the moral order. When Dionysus visits Thebes, he entices King Penthius to view secretly the women dancing naked on the mountainside in Dionysian revelries. Because Penthius succumbs to his desire to see 'their wild obscenities', the political order is toppled, and the queen mother, Agave, one of the bacchants, ends up with the severed head of her son Penthius in her lap — an eerie premonition of abortion."Reilly, Robert R. (March 13, 2013)."What would the Greeks have thought of gay marriage?".LifeSiteNews.Archived from the original on July 12, 2019. RetrievedJuly 12, 2019."Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability."Tobias Epos (talk)22:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC) 16:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
XOR'easter also said thatthis is not the place to relitigate the original deletion discussion. That discussion already deemed the available sources inadequate for establishing notability, and one unreliable source in addition does not a case make.XOR'easter (talk)00:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The new article text did not establish notability any more than the deleted article did. Circumventing the consensus of the Wikipedia community by appealing to a "discussion" in which no one participated is not "courageous".XOR'easter (talk)16:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I took thisover to ANI in the hope that the drama board could bring closure to the interminable affair. By the time I started typing a notice of that over here, the pageE. Michael Jonas was deleted and salted. I guess we can close this discussion now.XOR'easter (talk)17:09, 14 July 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Too vague...searching online has results "Cricket World Cup 2019" for the first page and no mention of Congress Working Committee(s)signed,Rosguilltalk18:17, 4 July 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - Overly vague to refer to this series in particular. Seems like it would be a common sci-fi term and would cause confusion.ZXCVBNM (TALK)16:35, 4 July 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
One lacks the "of", the other is miscapitalized. Given that a list article no longer exists, they are unlikely redirects.ZXCVBNM (TALK)13:15, 4 July 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete - unclear whether it refers to in-universe or real life history; either way, it wouldn't be capitalized. Unnecessary redirect.ZXCVBNM (TALK)13:13, 4 July 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
A redirect to a DAB page with no matching entry (I checked all the articles). There is a man called Muhammad Hussain Shaheed: a Pakistani general (seeSoon Valley), whoprima facie meetsWP:NSOLDIER.I proposedeletion to encourage article creation.Narky Blert (talk)11:25, 4 July 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Should be a disambiguation page, because Narunga is also an alternative spelling for Narungga. (Also, the page redirected to doesn't show this spelling, but I'll edit it myself now.)Laterthanyouthink (talk)07:42, 4 July 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Sansuu in English, 100%English, not other any language. Sansuu mean Arithmetic, not 算術 or さんじゅつ. The term "sansuu" are pure English, not any other symbol and other text— Precedingunsigned comment added byHmht45tgree3d (talk •contribs)06:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; doesn't appear to be related to the fundamental concept of arithmetic, and it's 100% not English. If ja:wp has something comparable to ourWP:FORRED, they would delete a redirect fromja:Arithmetic toja:算術 because the English word "Arithmetic" is unrelated to the concept of arithmetic. This is a basic human concept (since the earliest humans, it's been understood that 1+1=2, for example), not something that is particularly related to one culture or one language.Nyttend (talk)10:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't redirect 算術 since it is not English, but "sansuu" yes, like "Deguo"(Germany) or "Xibanya"(Spain), it is English since it is written within A-Z or a-z. "Pingguo" can refer to "apple". Since riyu pinyin "sansuu" are written in English text, it is not aboutWP:FORRED problemHmht45tgree3d (talk)12:11, 4 July 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.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 15#Star fox wii
–MJL ‐Talk‐☖17:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]