June 28

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 28, 2015.

The News-Dispatch (Jeannette, PA)

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) 14:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article; WP:RDEL#10 applies. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page is about the newspaper based in Michigan City, Indiana. For the Valley News Dispatch published in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, see Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
We have Valley News Dispatch that redirects there, created on 18 Jan 2009 by User:Dissolve. So the hatnote was more complicated than it needed to be, and with this edit I have changed it to:
This page is about the newspaper based in Michigan City, Indiana. For the newspaper published in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, see Valley News Dispatch.
Without prejudice to that discussion, I've made that an R to section Pittsburgh Tribune-Review#Kent State and the Pulitzer and added a courtesy comment at the target. However, I am not sure that the Valley News Dispatch serves Jeannette, PA: its parent paper certainly does. But since it's not mentioned specifically at the target, it is also WP:RFD#D2 confusing and WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense. We don't have News Dispatch, The News Dispatch or Valley News-Dispatch as {{R from alternative punctuation}}, nor for that matter The News-Dispatch (Michigan City, IN) nor The News Dispatch (Michigan City, Indiana).
Jeanette is 30 miles from Pittsburgh, whether that counts as a suburb I am not qualified to say: but certainly the article doesn't. Si Trew (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two different periodicals. The News-Dispatch (Jeannette, PA) became defunct in 1981.[1] Valley News Dispatch is still published and serves the Alle-Kiski Valley, made up of Tarentum and New Kensington. dissolvetalk 10:23, 29 June 2015 (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.

2000.06

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. --BDD (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are unnecessary yyyy.mm redirects. Three of them, namely 2002.11, 2002.12, and 2006.04, redirect to a month in the wrong year. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GeoffreyT2000. The correct format is mm-yyyy, not yyyy-mm; and 2002.11, 2002.12, and 2006.04 redirect to November 2006, December 2006, and April 2004 respectively (these are redirects to months in the wrong years). SONIC678 |Let’s hang out here 01:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we have collation orders for that. WP:MOSNUM would grind its teeth at this. Why not have 1976.03 then? I suppose it is the User:Thryduulf argument that "it shouldn't be created but if it has been, it shouldn't be deleted". (Paraphrasing Thryduulf). But MOS:NUM applies and WP:TITLE to. Sorry to grind the same stone, but why should titles have a Get out of Jail Free card when content hasn't? These are not just useless, but harmful and blocking searches for common terms like 2006.16 (kilohertz). Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like my concept of "RfD zen", though I'm sure Thryduulf has said similar things, perhaps even earlier. --BDD (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2015 (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.

Adam's wine

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, and I'll do the same for Adam's ale. It seems there are places this name could be discussed, but right now, it isn't. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague and due to it not being mentioned at the target. It seems to be an obscure synonym for water and/or a Liquor store in Brooklyn. -- Tavix (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep- Water is sometimes called Adam's ale or Adam's wine. This epithet refers to the fact that the biblical Adam had only water to drink. If this is deleted I think Adam's Ale should go as well. My keep is weak because this term is generally used for humor, and in most cases it would be better to simply refer to water.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to Temperance movement. It seems that the biblical connotations aren't just for joke. The Temperance movement have religious roots. It seems that their statement about water boils down to "hey if water's good enough for Adam then it ought to be good enough for you". Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with Western history to confidently include this entry in said article.--Lenticel (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:04, 28 June 2015 (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.

Wikipedia:SanFranBan

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. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect. Unlikely to be searched. GZWDer (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2015 (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.

Principle of continuity

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 Law of Continuity. --BDD (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The target does not discuss the concept. Taku (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2015 (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.

Mission: Impossible VI

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 Mission: Impossible (film series)#Future. --BDD (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not announced yet. No proper confirmation 74.120.223.141 (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as misleading and a WP:CRYSTAL violation. The target is the 5th film in the series, not the 6th. (I believe that the nominator meant to add that point ... because I almost voted "keep" until I saw what the issue truly is.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2015 (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.

Lucy 2

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 per WP:RFD#D2. Just Chilling (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not confirmed. 74.120.223.141 (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2015 (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.

Country Brand Index

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 6#Country Brand Index

List of girl groups

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 restore the previous version of the target article. Random86, while this was technically correct, I suspect many readers would not distinguish between bands and groups like this. It sounds like there's consensus to maintain separate lists, whether that involves resurrecting the old article or simply merging the content you previously removed. Let me know if assistance is needed with any of this. --BDD (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently removed all vocal groups from List of all-female bands because they didn't meet the list criteria. A girl group is not the same as an all-female band, according to the latter article. Another option is turning List of girl groups into a separate article, although an article of that title was deleted in 2007. Random86 (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment so exactly where is the information for all-female vocal groups now? -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Looks like they disappeared with User:Random86's sequence of edits between 23 June and today. I think we should restore version 668306530 and keep this or at least, do as Random86 suggests, and create a separate list (nobody's stopping anyone turning the redirect into an article). Si Trew (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a not-recent edit at all-female band defines a girl group as distinct from an all-female band, supposedly on the basis of whether or not its members play instruments, though also that this definition is not universal (and thus potentially POV). I'm with Si on this one, we should revert Random86's edits, but without prejudice against creating a new List of girl groups based on the existence of these distinctions. If someone else wants to punt that to AfD well that's their choice; the eight-year-old AfD ignored the (maybe more recent) guideline that lists and categories are not automatically redundant. Ivanvector (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm willing to create a new List of girl groups page with the groups I removed. If my edits on List of all-female bands are reverted, the lead section there will have to be removed. All-female band doesn't discuss girl groups, so should the list article? Random86 (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we have rough consensus here that the information removed from the target should go somewhere, rather than be deleted. Over the last day or so I obtained a copy of the old deleted list from a friendly administrator, and I've posted a question over at WP:AN about having the old version restored so that the content that Random86 removed could be added to it instead. The question is about whether it's technically possible, not a request to actually have it done, and not meant to bias this discussion. If you're interested, have a look. At any rate if we go this way, it would not be necessary to revert the deletion, we can just pull the info from the page history. Ivanvector (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Turn it into a list with the content User:Random86 removed from List of all-female bands.--Cattus talk 11:49, 1 July 2015 (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.
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_28
No tags for this post.