January 16

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 16, 2015.

66 Chorale improvisations for organ

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) 20:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

66 Chorale improvisations'' for organ → 66 Chorale improvisations for organ (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Wiki markup. No incoming links. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - bizarre markup. Ivanvector (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:22, 19 January 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.

The Islamic State

The result of the discussion was keep. The previous RFD was properly closed. Though consensus can change the discussion shows that nothing has happened to change it in the very short time since the close. Just Chilling (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Islamic State → Islamic state (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

I realise this was just recently closed (on January 5), but the conclusion makes no sense to me. How can "The Islamic State", a proper noun with a definite article on the front, redirect to a generic article regarding Islamic states as a general concept? I suggest that this redirect should either be deleted, or it should redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, I don't have a strong opinion which, but eh current situation is not good. — Amakuru (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - this closed 4 days ago. If you disagree with the close, you should take it to deletion review. Ivanvector (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I don't disagree with the close necessarily, that's not why I came here. I believe the current redirect is wrong, for the reasons I've given here, and I feel it should be discussed. Hence I've brought it here to "Redirects for discussion". Do you disagree with the point I make above, or do you agree with it? — Amakuru (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, for what it's worth, but you're proposing to reverse the outcome of a discussion which finished only four days ago, and that is a deletion review. The forum might be poorly named, maybe it should be called "deletion discussion review". Anyway, perhaps you could send a note to the closing admin (BDD) and ask to relist the discussion instead? It looks like their close was proper given the discussion, but perhaps there's more to say. Ivanvector (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks, I will do that. — Amakuru (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, I appreciate this, because contacting me first probably would've been a good idea. That said, as the closer of that discussion, I'm inclined to just let this discussion run its course. Amakuru is right that this is a somewhat different matter. That question was, "Should this term redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant?" and the answer to that was definitely no. On the other hand, I suppose that's the most likely outcome here if something changes. Let's just see how it goes. --BDD (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morning @BDD: and happy new year to you. Apologies if I acted out of line in bringing this here, or failed to contact you accordingly. As I said above, my intention was never to criticise or challenge your close, because clearly based on the conversation that had taken place, you closed correctly. That's why this seemed the perfect place to bring this issue. I want to discuss the redirect. On the "redirects for discussion" page. Nobody presented the argument I made above during the original discussion, and that's what I want to discuss (as indeed we are doing below). Thanks! — Amakuru (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could see how someone would look at the top of Islamic state, see that only ISIL was hatnoted, and conclude that there are only two uses and, since "The Islamic State" implies a proper noun, that's what a reader would be looking for. But that article is actually sort of functioning as a dab right now, especially in the See also section. As a proper noun, the term could refer to some of those entities, as well as Iran or Pakistan. --BDD (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural close recently closed discussion. Please use WP:DRV to dispute the outcome on procedural grounds -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is why the assertion by ISIL that they are the only "Islamic State" is so problematic. They are not the Islamic state, there are plenty of islamic states, but they claim that all governments are void as soon as their soldiers arrive. Leave it redirected to the Islamic state article. Legacypac (talk) 08:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No @Legacypac:, that is faulty logic; because this is not an appropriate redirect to that title. We'd rather delete it altogether if you really don't want it to redirect to ISIL. — Amakuru (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ((R from alternate capitalization)). ISIS (ISIL, whatever) claim to be the Islamic State, but the claim is widely rejected by the myriad of other, properly established and internationally recognized Islamic states. I think the current situation with the hatnote is most appropriate in terms of WP:NPOV here. I understand and tend to agree with the nominator's rationale that the capitalized title is commonly used to refer to the insurgent group, but I think upholding NPOV with this redirect is more important, in this case. Note: if this is interpreted as a duplicate !vote, I intend it to supersede my previous comments. Ivanvector (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, WP:NPOV does not apply to article titles, and I would tend to extend that to redirects (which are essentially article titles where the article isn't actually at the name of the redirect). WP:POVNAME is clear on this point. If a WP:COMMONNAME happens to also break the neutral point of view rules, it's still a common name, and is still used for the article. — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But patently the consensus at WP is that it is not the common name, as these discussions prove. The common name is "ISIL" or "ISIS", and "The Islamic State" is too vague to refer just to this organisation. "The Islamic State" should go to "Islamic State", which discusses the various uses, with links, in its first para. If that helps clarify to readers what an Islamic State may or may not be, all to the good: that's the point of an encylopaedia, isn't it? Si Trew (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's an ((R from alternate capitalization)). It has the same caps. I presume you're alluding to "The" being some kind of variation in the title name, but alt caps documentation doesn't mention that; ((R from modification)) is probably the best we could do. Si Trew (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've changed the hatnote at target to say "Islamic State" and "The Islamic State" redirect here. That is not to prejudice this discussion, it just happens to be the case right now – that can change. Si Trew (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru, it seems there's no appetite for revisiting, or at least changing, this decision right now. I'm somewhat involved; would you object to me closing? --BDD (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine, @BDD:. I can see that you're correct in your argument. Please close it. Thanks! — Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 24 January 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.

KTJZ

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KTJZ → Tallulah, Louisiana (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

I assume this is a radio station. It's not mentioned at the target article. I suggest red-linking to encourage an article Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is indeed a radio station in Tallulah, LA, however it is not mentioned at the target. Ivanvector (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my be better off as a redlink should the station be deemed notable in the future.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget to List of radio stations in Louisiana, where it is mentioned, but that would be circular. Si Trew (talk) 04:34, 19 January 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.

Pinlite

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinlite → Seven-segment display (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This brand seems quite insignificant, and even so, we shouldn't redirect every brand name to the product they make. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if it was a significant manufacturer it might be mentioned at the target but it is not. Possibly weak retarget to light emitting diode but probably not. Ivanvector (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to encourage article creation. Pinlight does not exist, so there's no possiblity of an R from incorrect spelling, either way. Si Trew (talk) 04:38, 19 January 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.