< May 3
May 5 >

May 4

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 4, 2018.

Alternative Life Form

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the character "Alf", the lead character of the target article's subject, stands for "Alien Life Form". For that reason, this redirect is an unlikely incorrect name, and thus ambiguous as a reader could be attempting to find something else if using this term to search. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An incognito search for the three words [1] seems to turn up Hypothetical types of biochemistry as the first result. --tronvillain (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what method are you using to get that Google result? My incognito search for ""alternative+life+form"&gl=us" returns almost nothing about ALF except the initial redirect - it's almost entirely about extremophiles, alien microbes, alien life, ("If we ever did meet any other intelligent alternative life form -- do you think it would be a benign and friendly encounter?"), Santa Clarita Diet, C. elegans, and various other random results, with ALF finally turning up on page 9 in a Russian video. -- tronvillain 17:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
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.

Mythical being

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 12#Mythical being

List of botanical cryptids

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 13#List of botanical cryptids

Cryptid whale

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 and retarget, though it occurs to me Cryptid cetacean might be more accurate given the "rhinoceros dolphin". --BDD (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not identified in the target article, nor does the target article mention the word "whale" at all. (However, Cryptid whale is a ((R with history)) as a result of a WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2018 (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.

List of cryptozoology organizations

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 and refine. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such list of organizations at the target. (However, List of cryptozoology organizations is a ((R with history)) as the result of a WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I was just going to point that out. Human memory is terrible. *chuckle* --tronvillain (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, so it was me indeed — been a while :) :bloodofox: (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, let me fix that. --tronvillain (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tronvillain: I think the edit you just performed ended up in the wrong section (this one) since you referenced "whales". Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It did. Had an edit conflict and pasted it into the wrong section.--tronvillain (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2018 (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.

Alien and Paranormal Creatures

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) 20:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY. For example, the term "Alien" could refer to "Extraterrestrial life". Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2018 (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.

Portal:Cryptozoology

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) 20:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per similar rationale and consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 2#Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. No such portal exists. Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Well, I'm certainly willing to maintain and update it.--Auric talk 22:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about a cryptozoology portal, are you aware of any other extant pseudoscience portals? :bloodofox: (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am. See above. I haven't been able to find any.--Auric talk 14:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It also pertained to the unexplained removal of cryptid categories from articles, cryptozoology in general and POV pushing by BloodofFox which is partially my reasoning behind my decision. I'm not entirely certain of this but I think the portal was deleted/removed, I will have to look at its history though.--Paleface Jack 15:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)--Paleface Jack 15:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, this guy. Ever been yelled at by a flat earther on a geology article? That's what's happening here. More information. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you read any of my following comments explaining WHY I did that? Apparently not, otherwise you souldn't continue to bring this up BloodofFox. Name calling and undue accusations on Wikipiedia and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop it. Back to Oiyarbepsy's comment, I do think that the Black Shuck is more a Mythological/Folkloric creature rather than a cryptid as there is no sources that suggest otherwise. Something I stated before in the link that I supplied. My issue was more around the lines of both me and another editor (DarkKnight2149) have seen that a lot of what BloodofFox has been doing in regards to articles on Cryptozoology, I.E. removing categories without having a proper discussion/consensus with editors before making such edits (other edits are delved into in more detail here). If there never was a portal rather that there use to be and it was removed then I believe that one should be created rather than the whole thing removed. All I ask is that ALL alternatives be explored before deciding on deletion.--Paleface Jack 16:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

Cryptid

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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently cryptid and cryptids redirect to list of cryptids. This follows a merge discussion that occurred in 2016 (see here). However, since then, the cryptozoology article has seen significant development, and now includes a robust section discussing the development of the term cryptid and its application (in short, the term was coined by cryptozoologists as a reflection of the pseudoscience's approach — its use is essentially restricted to cryptozoologists and in cryptozoology-influenced items, and isn't used by, say, academic zoologists or folklorists and remains obscure to the general public). Everything but the list itself and Eberhart's proposed classification scheme are included at cryptozoology, and with more detail and context. List of cryptids also refers readers to cryptozoology for more information. I propose we redirect cryptid and cryptids to cryptozoology, rather than the list. What do you think? :bloodofox: (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's that astonishing, since "cryptid" was defined after cryptozoology, as essentially "what cryptozoologists study."--tronvillain (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2018 (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.

Dale Coyne Racing with Vasser Sullivan

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 withdrawn. -- Tavix (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

created soon after the AfD for the advertorial at the same was closed. It amazes me why we would do this. The creator (who is blocked) of the advertorial gets what they wanted by having a redirect. it isn't about the article content, it is about the link to Wikipedia. I wish people would understand how SEO works. John from Idegon (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC) John from Idegon (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment If I had known beforehand, that to make a redirect, I just had to edit the article and could bypass AfD entirely, I would have. I am the nominator of the article at AfD, which I shouldn't have done. I would have created this redirect originally myself had I bothered to read up on how before the article was created by the COI account, and no one would bat an eye. It's not about giving the guy "what he wants" (LOL), it's the fact that there is a full season, race winning entry to the 2018 IndyCar Series named "Dale Coyne Racing with Vasser Sullivan." I'm pretty sure that's notable enough to pass WP:NMOTORSPORT and WP:ORG enough to warrant a redirect. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2018 (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.

Kent Peak (Ravalli County, Montana)

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. REDLINKing seems helpful; can link at the dab. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2018 (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.

Lindsay Shepherd

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) 19:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target outside of a few headlines (ref title parameters) in the references section (not mentioned anywhere in article content itself). TheSandDoctor Talk 06:11, 4 May 2018 (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.

Wikipedia:JOKE

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 most to Wikipedia:Humor, and of course keep the one that already points there. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This very rarely used cross-namespace redirect is misleading. We have a WP:HOAX - sometimes misinterpreted as guiding contributors not to cover hoaxes, when it actually recommends not creating articles that are, themselves, hoaxes. In an AFD another contributor is writing as if we had a policy against covering jokes. tSo I checked to see if we had a WP:JOKE wikidocument. I found it both surprising, and not all useful, to have it redirect to category space.

I think the redirect should be deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2018 (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.
More