< October 10
October 12 >

October 11

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 11, 2019.

Thạch Phúc

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. The keep arguments are stronger here by a mile. Per WP:NGEO, these places very well could have standalone articles, so there's no problem with redirects to a larger subdivision that lists them. Policies of other Wikipedias, and whether or not they have articles on a subject, are largely irrelevant. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These redirects all have the same issue (not all to be exact, since about half of these are the diacriticless version of the other half). That is they all used to be former Vietnamese villages or commune in 1980s and doesn't exist anymore. Vietnamese wikipedia don't even have one single articles on these since they are rated low importance and not qualified enough to become articles. However, someone created articles about them here (seriously I don't know why that person did that) and the result was, they have been converted to redirects and all points to "Cái Nước District". However, I think this is not a very good solution, since former village names pointing to a current district, those are considered incorrect target redirects. Therefore, I think the best solution is to delete all of them, as they were not even qualified enough to be created in Wikipedia in the first place. Cn5900 (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just found two more Cn5900 (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: there's no reason to delete these redirects. The fact that the villages don't exist anymore makes no difference. If anyone does come across a reference to any of them and wants to find out, the redirect will take them to the appropriate province article. Where's the harm in that? I would add that whoever (rightly) converted these tiny articles to redirects should have first added the information to the province article, not just thrown it away. That would be a useful task - deleting all traces is not. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colonies Chris:, since you are not from Vietnam. So there's this issue you need to understand. These kinds of villages are considered rural communes, and back in the 1980s, communes are splits and merged over with all adjacents almost all the time (I seriously don't know why), and these villages above, in fact these are divided from larger villages (but this division only lasted for 8 years, from 1979 to 1987). But after 1987, they were merged back to whatever villages they used to be a part of (the larger villages Cái Nước District's present-day villages). These villages ceased to exist 32 years ago, whoever wrote the articles about them must have gotten the incorrect source. As I mentioned, even Vietnamese Wikipedia (those villages native language Wikipedia page) don't have any of such redirects (if there were any, it would have been deleted), so why should we have them here? And no one is going to come up with their references, since as stated above, they existed for a very short time. If people wants to search for any villages, they have to look up for the district first (villages are very small divisions in Vietnam), and when two Vietnamese people talk to each other and one ask the other where his/her hometown is, they will mostly ask the province (as in some cases, but very rare, the district within that province), no one will ask for the village you came from, that is not to say those villages only existed for 8 years but ceased to exist 32 years ago (32 is four times larger than 8). Therefore no one will look up for such villages. Leaving these redirects here would be a complete messed up, since about 20 former-villages redirecting to the district's page. The former articles of these redirects should have been carefully verified before they are published. They were created 10 years ago, which is back when en.wikipedia rules aren't as strict as they are right now.
I am currently creating more articles about current villages in Vietnam, and at first I used the source that the author used 10 years ago to create those villages articles, but were not accepted. I have to provide a more detailed source ("Administrative subdivisions". General Statistics Office of Vietnam.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link) and I was even required to add notes such as To find information at reference, go to row 77, then row 748, and it is listed on row 26560). These villages former articles weren't as carefully reviewed the moment they were created, so that's why they came to exist. If those are created in 2019, they wouldn't have come to exist and ended up becoming redirects like this. Cn5900 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the 8 years they existed, were they never mentioned in any source? Did nothing happen in these villages that would never have been mentioned? Would someone who left 33 years ago not consider searching for them? Guettarda (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying they were not mentioned. If you want to search for where they were mentioned, I can list a whole article on them in Vietnamese wikipedia for you. And yes, things did happen, but.... mostly any articles written about them are just like "this village is separted from that village, bla bla bla.... such things". In Vietnamese Wikipedia, we do not allow such redirect to exist. I have already tried to minimized the number of redirect to delete when I listed it here Cn5900 (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda if anyone wants to look for a Vietnamese location, the first place they should go to is Vietnamese wikipedia, and NOT HERE. Hoever, even in Vietnamese Wikipedia don't have them, so why should they exist here? If they want to look for them, they will just look for Cái Nước District. They can easily contact the government to get information. We are in 2019 now, information is not that difficult to search for. These redirect are just being useless. You can see that it is not linked from any other articles Cn5900 (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"... if anyone wants to look for a Vietnamese location, the first place they should go to is Vietnamese wikipedia, and NOT HERE": This is not the way Wikipedia works. People will generally look everything up first in the Wikipedia(s) they are capable of reading. Someone who speaks a given language is not necessarily the first person to choose to write about a given topic mostly closely associated with that language; there's no reason why this Wikipedia can't or shouldn't carry articles or appropriate redirects on Vietnamese topics that Vietnamese Wikipedia doesn't happen to have articles on. They're independent projects. Largoplazo (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colonies Chris. Guettarda (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, these are created by mistake, since the author didn't look up for the sources carefully, and newly created articles aren't carefully reviewed 10 years ago as they are now. If these are created now, they will be deleted immediately. I'm just sending them back to where they should be. So please just take them as a daily clean up. Cn5900 (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"And for the last time, I should emphasize that even Vietnamese wikipedia (its native language, and is definitely where people should look for any information they want to find first before they look for somewhere else)": As I wrote above, this is not the way Wikipedia works. People generally look everything up first in the Wikipedia(s) they are capable of reading. How many non-Vietnamese people in the world do you think can read Vietnamese? Do you think Polish speakers look up Louis Pasteur on French Wikipedia and Angkor Wat on Cambodian Wikipedia? These are independent projects with different contributor communities and different readerships. The existence of an article, or lack thereof, on one Wikipedia is irrelevant to its validity on another. Largoplazo (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo:, yes you gave me examples on people who are Polish trying to look, but at least Louis Pasteur and Angkor Wat has a large enough amount of history to be discussed in every Wikipedia, and that amount of history makes it easy to look. But looking for a tiny former village, if someone would do that, they will definitely be aware that it is going to a very challenging process, since very few sources will mention them. Therefore they will not begin the search here Cn5900 (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they only speak English and only use English Wikipedia, then people begin to look and only look here. Period. Largoplazo (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Largoplazo, tell me how you are so sure that they will only look here. This is 2019, data is huge and sources to look for these are not that rare anymore. Many Vietnamese website today has an English translation, where English speaking people can absolutely search for. This Vietnamese Project as you mentioned above, is being abandoned and has been abandoned for almost 10 years (you can verify that by checking most of its article creation time). Only villages for provinces beginning with A, B, C has been created. Other has been left abandoned until now. How can someone rely on these to find information? Moreover, if there's someone who rely on Wikipedia and can only count on looking here, then I'd say that person needs to catch up with the modern world. The sad truth is, no doubt, no one rates Wikipedia as the most reliable source (some people even rate it the least reliable), simply because anyone can jump in to add false information at any time. begin to look and only look is a crazy thing to do 2600:1700:CCD0:5790:357B:FC79:DA07:48C8 (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the original stub articles were wrong to state that the villages currently existed, but that's irrelevant; the villages had indeed existed in that province, at least for a period. That makes the redirects valid and potentially useful. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colonies Chris:, I should say again that if they are former districts or former provinces, which is larger and comprise many villages, then that is worth keeping. These tiny villages have almost no history to be discussed. Cn5900 (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colonies Chris: also what about the other provinces which the author hasn't accidentally created stubs about former villages yet and resulting in them being turned to redirects like these. Clearly they won't have any, but this one has too many, I just want to be fair here Cn5900 (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal seems to broadly make sense to me. To summarise my understanding (please correct me if this is wrong), a significant number of new villages were legally created in 1979, but many of them never really came into existence on the ground and were abolished in 1987. But some of them really did come into existence, and were abolished after 2000 (merged back into their former villages?); and are there some which were created in 1979 and still exist?
I suggest that a section should be added to Subdivisions of Vietnam summarising the explanations that several knowledgeable editors above have provided, with a link/reference to the documents mentioned, and that the corresponding redirects (the 1979–87 'paper' villages) should be pointed to that section. I can't see any reason (unless there's a clash of names) to remove redirects at all. Notability is about whether something merits an article in its own right, but much looser criteria apply to redirects. For 1979 villages that were abolished later, after 2000, I agree, they should be covered in the article for the current village, and they should redirect there. I don't see any need to create new redirects for 'paper' villages not already covered, but I would see no reason to object to anyone creating them either. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colonies Chris:, answering your questions. New villages "merged back into their former villages?", Yes, and another merging is taking places from now to 2021 in many provinces from north to south, "and are there some which were created in 1979 and still exist?" Also, yes. So I would say unless the villages above has the same name with any existing villages (like Hiệp Hưng which Inwind adjust to talk about a current village in Hau Giang Province]]) or can be reused for a diambiguation page (like Tân Hiệp and Tân Phong which Cn5900 converted to disambiguation pages), we will delete them. The problem with those 'paper villages' is that no one can verify their correct names, as 153.18.172.42 mentioned above. How does that help to redirect them to Subdivisions of Vietnam at all, while we have to give examples on them in Subdivisions of Vietnam (examples need correct names for verification). The documents you mentioned above to reference in Subdivisions of Vietnam, I don't know whether that helps (the acts, as mentioned is the most reliable source, but even that one is not accurate). Take Thạch Phúc as an example, it is one of the paper villages (but neither the act in 1979 or 1987 mention its name, meanwhile an act in 1984 does mention, that'll obviously blow things up). So there's no way to trace those 'paper villages', so I'd say that doesn't help 2600:1700:CCD0:5790:7D14:2C27:E99E:E0CF (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly redirects for paper villages whose names can't be verified in the various bits of legislation should be removed. But for those whoser (legal) existence is documented, the redirects should remain. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Colonies Chris:, if you want to know more about the stories of villages in Vietnam, I promise you there are so much more to tell about villages after 2000, much more than those before that. To be more specific, a large number of villages are being dissolved from now to 2021. For example, In Sa Pa, Lao Cai Province, the communes of Nậm Sài and Nậm Cang have already been consolidated to form a single commune, the name of the new commune is Liên Minh; similarly, Bản Khoang and Tả Giàng Phìn consolidated to form the new commune of Ngũ Chỉ Sơn. Because of this, I'd recommend that if anyone is going to create more stubs on provinces, they should wait until 2021. Because the consolidations are taking places, many of them will be renamed so it will be very difficult to track such large amount of stubs. I'm insisting that we should let go of the ones before 2000 (another reason why this year is chosen is because it is the beginning of this century, also Wikipedia is established in 2001, which is just a year later), since there are very few sources on them, and they are not accurate (I don't know about other countries, but for Vietnam, it's very difficult to find such sources, since the country was very poor in those years, so having these accurately was not the government's priority). And no one is really looking into them, as they are villages in the rural area, they are not that well-known, that is not to say they didn't really exist. If there's a tool to count how many times the page was assesed, that will prove what I just said.

If there is a section on them in Subdivisions of Vietnam, I'd say we mention them very briefly (even if we want to mention more, we can't really do that due to the very limited amount of source). I promise that discussing about villages after 2000 is much worthier, there are so much more to discuss and most important, sources are much easier to find, and they are accurate too. For former subdivisions before 2000, we can focus on discussing former provinces and former districts (which includes many communes/villages) and we can totally discuss about those the former villages of that district/province in that article. That's how we should discuss about villages before 1987. If we discuss them individually, we almost have nothing to talk about. 2600:1700:CCD0:5790:71A0:8560:46E9:32F7 (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's asking for discussions or details or articles about these paper villages - simply to keep the existing redirects for those that can be confirmed. Why object to that? Colonies Chris (talk) 16:46, 20 October 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.

JUNIOR DETECTIVE

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) 13:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RCAPS, junior detectives have no affinity for all caps. Besides, the target article does not give any information specific to junior detectives. -- Tavix (talk) 21:12, 11 October 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.

Major consensus narrative

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 23#Major consensus narrative

Corbyn the Musical: The Motorcycle Diaries

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. The nominator's concern has been resolved. -- Tavix (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article, or anywhere on Wikipedia. This was a 2016 play; whether it's notable or not, the redirect isn't helping our readers as things stand. BDD (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a sentence on it to the article, which I guess solves the problem. I suppose it is recognition of a sort. Books on him are listed under Cultural depictions but they have their own articles. Jontel (talk) 19:13, 11 October 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.

Gross movement

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 23#Gross movement

PowerUp Heroes

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 23#PowerUp Heroes

Algoid

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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target page. "Algoid" is also the name of a programming language, making this redirect potentially confusing. Not a very active user (talk) 13:13, 11 October 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.

Next Portuguese legislative election

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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now misleading since the 2019 legislative election is over. I would suggest deletion until 2023 Portuguese legislative election is created. Geolodus (talk) 09:52, 11 October 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.
More