Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 31

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 delete. Redirects created when cleaning up page move vandalism are explicitly covered by criterion G3. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Good Bye Kowloon–Canton Railway → Kowloon–Canton Railway  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Page move vandalism; unlikely search term. Jc86035 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2018 (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 disambiguate. Deryck C. 11:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Black family → Fictional universe of Harry Potter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nothing on target page about the Noble and Most Ancient House of Black, probably all removed from Wikipedia as "cruft". There may be a more appropriate target elsewhere such as The Black Family. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate for the Blacksburg, Virginia#The Black_family (1772–1797), The Black Family, The Black Family (band), and whatever else. Put Black (surname) and African-American family structure in "See also". Might want to displace the edit history to Black family (Harry Potter) first, since this lemma used to be an article. Note however that the Harry Potter Black family is actually mentioned at Fictional universe of Harry Potter#Blood purity. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig and do all the other things 59.149 says, for the reasons they give. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I made the disambiguation page as suggested and it looks fine. An administrator will have to do the edit history machinations. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig per above editors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2018 (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. Deryck C. 11:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Hertfordshire Golf and Country Club, Broxbourne → Broxbournebury Manor  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect created as a result of a page move. This is an unremarkable golf club which happens to inhabit a Grade 2 listed building. Which the article creator appears to have no interest in, since the article barely mentions th e building. TheLongTone (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The golf course is mentioned at the title, and given it is the full name of the current occupying organisation it seems a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The discussion of the golf club in the target is indeed insubstantial, but I think that's less of an issue when it's effectively a different name for the same building. The target provides some useful information to someone who searches for the golf club (a separate article on the golf club would presumably cover much of the same ground). Neither of the first two sentences of the nomination contribute to a rationale for deletion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2018 (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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 09:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Money (Cardi B Song) → Money (Cardi B song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

An article already exists with the correct capitalization at Money (Cardi B song). This page previously redirected to Cardi B discography. — Newslinger talk 13:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as completely harmless. It now targets the correct place, so there will be no benefits achieved from deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - redirects are cheap, this is harmless and valid. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. We have lots of redirects from miscapitalisations. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2018 (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. Deryck C. 11:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Trump's dubious relationship to truth, facts, and reality → Veracity of statements by Donald Trump  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This article has many redirects already.[1] This particular one is not a natural search term: it is an essay-like disparagement of the subject, apparently originating from an editor's essay WP:TRUMPBIAS#Trumpian problems vs RS and facts which states "This is a very small portion of what's available on Trump's notoriously dubious relationship to truth, facts, and reality." (courtesy ping BullRangifer)

This redirect clearly falls under the exceptions to WP:RNEUTRAL, viz. "not established terms and unlikely to be useful". We can do without it. — JFG ^talk 05:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Dubious" is itself dubious; it is up to searchers to make up their own minds on the validity of his statements. JZCL 21:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While redirects from non-neutral terms are not inherently problematic, I agree that this falls within the exceptions to WP:RNEUTRAL. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:14, 7 November 2018 (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.