User:Awesome Aasim/rfd rewrite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copied from WP:RFD with few changes

"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Feb Mar Apr May Total
CfD 0 0 21 0 21
TfD 0 0 6 0 6
MfD 0 0 10 0 10
FfD 0 0 2 0 2
RfD 0 0 87 0 87
AfD 0 0 6 0 6

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
  • If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

Shortcut
  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
  • In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]


Shortcut

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving over a redirect

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").

Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.

Reasons for deleting[edit]

Shortcuts
See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. Shortcut
    If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

Shortcuts

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

Closing notes[edit]

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut
STEP I.
Tag the redirect(s).

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page.

  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page ("Publish changes").
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination.
  • If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated.
STEP II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
STEP III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template

{{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Current list[edit]

May 3[edit]

Thonk[edit]

Yet another confusing vocabulary word redirect. Apparently "Thonk" was the title of one album this guy made in 1994, but as many of y'all might know, it's also the name of a commonly used emoji (particularly on Discord). I think Thinking, wikt:thonk, or (if mentioned there) List of Generation Z slang would all be better targets than this, but I'm not quite sure - I'd be happy with Michael Manring being mentioned in a hatnote though. Duckmather (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Soft redirect to wikit Okmrman (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several targets were proposed by the nom, and it's not entirely clear which one is best.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Islamist insurgency in Somalia (2007–present)[edit]

Not appropriate for a "2007-present" redirect to point to events from a decade ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history of Islamist insurgency in Somalia (2007–present)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Probably delete per nom. Okmrman (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Axis victory in world war ii[edit]

Grossly miscapitalized redirects like this one invite visual edits like this one. Due to a longstanding UI misfeature in the visual editor, links to such bad redirects are made every day. They show up in the report of links to miscapitalized redirects, and I fix them. If we would just delete such redirects, including things like united states, there would be a lot fewer errors to fix. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep or perhaps Keep both since you seem to be suggesting the deletion of united states as well. They are valid Template:R from miscapitalizations. Honestly I fail to see the problem to be solved here. The link in the diff was piped so it doesn't show up for readers so use there was not a problem that needed to be fixed. If there is some problem to be fixed that has not been well explained here then it should probably be done through some kind of centralized RFC to delete all Template:R from miscapitalizations rather than nominating one or two arbitrary examples for deletion. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9D60:98F8:7049:A67E (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Bonde (disambiguation)[edit]

I listed this rdr for a G14 because the target, as I stated in my nomination, is now an article with a list of names bearing this title/name. This IPv6 address (2601:5cc:8300:a7f0:9d60:98f8:7049:a67e) reverted my edit as "explicitly" not so, but I want it deleted since it longer serves the purpose for which it was created in the first place. Intrisit (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

With that explained, it is true WP:INTDABLINK is no longer a concern, and permanent hatnoting for other people with the name could be done through say Bonde (surname), though there is the additional complication of its use as one of the estates of the Swedish Riksdag which may justify maintenance retention. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:9D60:98F8:7049:A67E (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2[edit]

Pan-American English[edit]

I just created it but I'm not sure if it's the best idea. I based it on Pan-American Spanish, but English language has no specific article for all the Americas. Or does it have under another name? --MikutoH talk! 22:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

-ic[edit]

This suffix isn't exclusive of IUPAC. The target was changed without consensus, it was a soft redirect to wikt:-ic, which to me is the best target. Though it should be commented that the current target links to Wiktionary already. So dabifying is also possible I guess --MikutoH talk! 21:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Weak retarget to Ic. It seems there are three items to disambiguate here: the English language suffix, the (misspelled/transliterated) Slavic family name suffix and the suffix's use in chemistry nomenclature. The Ic DAB page has appropriate links for those uses. Though I think the hyphen pretty unambiguously signifies a suffix, so it's a bit inelegant to serve a reader a page full of links to search through. Maybe a tiny DAB page can be made. I'm not opposed to restoring the soft redirect to Wiktionary either. ― Synpath 22:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Johnny be good[edit]

This was a 2-entry disambiguation page for the film Johnny Be Good and the similarly-titled (but much more popular) song "Johnny B. Goode", but @Mach61: redirected it to the former. I must admit I didn't realise until now the song title was spelled like that, but I'm only one person. Is the film the primary topic at this capitalization (inferring keep); or are readers much more likely to want the song (based on pageviews [1], inferring retarget); or is there no primary topic (inferring restore)? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Telephonics Corporation[edit]

Telephonics Corporation is no longer owned by Griffon Corporation. If Telephonics is not sufficiently notable for its own article, the redirect should be deleted. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRRRD[edit]

These two have similar names, but redirect to different pages. I'm unsure what these should redirect to, but I'm leaning towards a retarget both to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Edit warring. mwwv(converse) 17:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Romani people in Paris[edit]

Recently created at WP:AFC/R. The target section contains very little information about the Romani people in Paris - only the line There is a Romani community in Paris. I'm inclined to think that this might be better off being a red link/being deleted per WP:R#D10, as the target article contains virtually no information on the subject of the Romani community in Paris. While Romani people in France does exist as an article, it doesn't mention Paris (other than briefly/in passing in the History section), and so also doesn't contain much information on the subject of the Romani people in Paris. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 14:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Romani people in France. The factoid "there are Romani in Paris" doesn't seem like a particularly useful target for a redirect, and while this proposed target also doesn't have info specific to Paris, I don't think a reader would find it disappointing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Romani people in Pristina[edit]

Recently accepted at WP:AFC/R. As far as I can see, the target article contains little to no information about the Romani people - therefore, I'm inclined to think that this would be better off as a red link/being deleted per WP:R#D10. While Romani people in Kosovo does exist as an article, that article doesn't seem to contain information about Pristina specifically, and so wouldn't be much help to readers searching for information about the Romani community in that area. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 14:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep It's definitely there, although it uses the misnomer "Romans". Queen of ♡ | Speak 14:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Queen of Hearts (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this RfD.
  • Keep - if readers want to find information on the Romani of Pristina, this target is what we have. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ivanvector (talk • contribs) has never before seen the page that is the subject of this RfD, and doesn't see why the page creator commenting here needs to be flagged in this way.
    — Note to closing admin: Queen of Hearts (talk • contribs) is perhaps a bit too paranoid. Queen of ♡ | Speak 15:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Jhanak[edit]

Redirect with confusing history left over from promotional copy-and-paste moving. A draft of this television show exists at Draft:Jhanak (and has also been created at other titles). Target is one of the networks it has aired on, but has no information on the show at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Mestecănești[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

Shoob[edit]

This is a meme slang term not mentioned at the target article, as garnered from the edit summary and rcats. Not useful in its current form as we have no further information about the term of "shoob" at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I have the redirect target on my watchlist and the term "Shoob" has been added there many times without sources. Graham87 (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  • retarget to Marvin Herman Shoob and tag as R from surname --Lenticel (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Can't think of a notable primary topic for this. Okmrman (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FLUFF[edit]

Should have the same target as MOS:PUFFERY. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Desi (Tibetan)[edit]

The target doesn't tell me what "Desi" means in the context of Tibet. Is there a better target, or should we delete it if there's no substantive information? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment The most substantive information I can find is at Dalai Lama, where the term is used several times and briefly defined once as "regent" or "viceroy." I am not sure that would be a suitable target, however, since the discussion is so brief. It might be better to leave as a redlink or perhaps find a more suitable article where a substantive mention could be added (maybe Ganden Phodrang?). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Liquid nails[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Lower case version of what's apparently a brand of glue...? Adhesive? In any case, liquid nails are not mentioned at the target, and anyone typing this in instead of adhesive seems to be looking for something else. Has some history, but has also been to RfD before (13 years ago). Utopes (talk / cont) 05:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Retarget to PPG Industries (the owner of the brand), where the product is mentioned. - Eureka Lott 23:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete without a strong objection to retargeting to PPG Industries instead. The product is mentioned there, but no details are given, not even "it's an adhesive". Stating what the thing actually is should be minimum viable information. Here, it's just stated to be a part of an acquired product line related to the "architectural coatings" industry, which doesn't say much about what it is. Lacking the information, I think redlinking may be more useful... but I don't feel strongly about that, and so don't object to the retarget either. Fieari (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Mental gymnastics[edit]

I had to do some serious mental gymnastics to wrap my head around why this redirect exists. Sure, some people may perform mental gymnastics when "they're uncomfortable from their beliefs being inconsistent and contradictory". A similar idea I feel could be people perform the act of running to get from Point A to Point B, although that doesn't make the "running" a good redirect to "pathfinding". It's a singular mean to the end, and not everyone that has cognitive dissonance is "performing mental gymnastics", and not everyone that does mental gymnastics has cognitive dissonance. Example: I'm fairly sure I'm performing mental gymnastics right now in an attempt to jump through the logical hoops that went into this redirect, and I don't think I'm too uncomfortable from cognitive dissonance. I believe I've come to understand why, although I don't think it's a great end-all-be-all redirect that takes people to the right location at 100% intentions every time. To me, I feel like Convergent thinking or Divergent thinking are what I would have associated mental gymnastics with, i.e. following along with someone's thought process jumping through hoops with twists and turns to an eventual endpoint. Also, "mental gymnastics" is not mentioned at the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Soft redirect to wiktionary Okmrman (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Cocaine hippos, Cocaine Hippos, Cocaine Hippos (film)[edit]

Rather odd situation with these three redirects. For one, the film which these redirects are possibly meant to refer to does not seem to be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Regarding the other two redirects, it seems that one targets in anchor that does not exist, and the other redirect targets a different page than the redirect with the nonexistent anchor. At the minimum, I'm thinking the redirect with the "film" disambiguator needs to be deleted, and the other two redirects should at least target the same location. Otherwise, it might be best just to delete the whole lot of these. Steel1943 (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

did snowflame make those?
keep as it's mentioned, delete and create a redirect along the lines of "colombian nose candy hippos (documentary)" as that's what's mentioned there, and delete as there seems to be no netflix slop with that name (yet), respectively cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Retarget both "cocaine hippos" redirects to Hippopotamuses in Colombia, the article about the hippopotamuses left over from the cocaine kingpin's estate. Links are provided there to Escobar and his estate. Retarget the film title to Pepe (2024 film), a recent film which has one of these hippos as its protagonist. I don't see the mention that Cogsan is referring to. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
    lead on the first article, last paragraph on the second cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The Other Mrs.[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article, and apparently not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Apparently, the subject of this redirect is supposed to represent a film version of a novel by the same name written by Mary Kubica (no article) with the novel being published in 2020. As it stands, there seems to be no information about the novel or film anywhere on Wikipedia. (Also, I could not find any unrelated article to retarget this redirect since the phrasing of the title seems like it would represent some other notable subject, but ... my searches came up with nothing concrete.) Steel1943 (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Last Sons of America[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article, and not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Looking at third-party websites, it seems that the subject of this redirect (a film by this name intended to be released on Netflix) was in some sort of pre-production phase after Netflix possibly, in 2019, purchased the rights to create a film version of a novel of the same name; the novel was apparently written by Phillip Kennedy Johnson (but there is no mention of any subjects by the name "Last Sons of America" in that article.) Regarding the film, apparently, Peter Dinklage was in talks to play one of the characters in the proposed film. However, that's kind of where the trail ends ... 5 years later, and no further news about the film. (For what it's worth, the subject of this redirect does not represent the subject at American Son (2019 film), a similarly named film also on Netflix.) In addition, it does not seem the novel which the film was to be based has an article on Wikipedia. In other words, deletion seems to be the best option here to either encourage the creation of an article about the novel (WP:REDYES) or ensure readers attempting to look for information about the nonexistent film subject are not led to a bunch of nothing. Steel1943 (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and per WP:REDLINK. The novel may be notable enough for an article to be written; the evidently unproduced film is not and we have no information on it anywhere. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Boston Incident[edit]

This isn't commonly referred to as "Boston incident"; searching the term finds little about the massacre compared to other incidents (such as the 2007 Boston Mooninite panic). In the cases where the massacre is referred to with this term, it's only in a descriptive fashion and not as an actual name. Redirect was created by a quickly-reverted WP:POINTy page move in 2006. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete one would think the Boston Tea Party or Battle of Bunker Hill would be better -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - although it seems ambiguous (my first thought was the Boston Marathon bombing) the article on the Boston Massacre notes in the lede that the event is also known as the "Incident on King Street"; "Boston incident" is a plausible misremembering. It's a more neutral title anyway, the article also notes in the lede that calling it a "massacre" was American patriot propaganda. As far as I can tell, the other events listed here aren't widely known as named "incidents". If deleted then don't disambiguate, search results would handle this better. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Older[edit]

Old business[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Awesome_Aasim/rfd_rewrite&oldid=1201929683"