Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 6, 2019.

Will Swanner[edit]

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) 17:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name was removed from the list in 2017.[1] Should temporary redirects such as this exist when most will eventually be deleted? Peter James (talk) 22:13, 6 September 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.

Thai redirects to Gautama Buddha[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 20#Thai redirects to Gautama Buddha

Prince Siddharth[edit]

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) 07:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled. Usually spelled as Prince Siddhartha or as Prince Siddhattha. The former is more common among scholars. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:38, 6 September 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.

Union of India[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 1#Union of India

🏴󠁴󠁨󠀵󠀷󠁿[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 2#🏴󠁴󠁨󠀵󠀷󠁿

Angela Allen (paedophile)[edit]

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. Fish+Karate 11:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable title for this redirect; per discussion at ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Paedophile redirects issue we shouldn’t tag anyone this way in an article title - not even if the person actually is a convicted sex offender. MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • So do we just go for "Angela Allen (criminal)"? Seems quite a bit less precise, and "murderer" is used in other instances for example.Shakehandsman (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm on the fence about this one, as while we should always be very cautious about redirects like this, Ms Allen has been described as a paedophile in sober reliable sources like the Daily Telegraph.[2] If we need a redirect for the person (which is again borderline imo) then something like Angela Allen (nursery worker) might be better. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are going to keep this redirect, there is no need for any disambiguator. It could simply be Angela Allen. I see that the other people involved in this case - 2009 Plymouth child abuse case - all have redirects without a disambiguator; I hadn't noticed that. In the discussion at AN there was a feeling that we should not have redirects from every perpetrator in these cases, and most of them have been deleted, but that was partly because of the tag of paedophile. I guess we could rename this, without a redirect, to get rid of "paedophile" - and then separately tackle the redirects as a group. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MelanieN: I didn't think to check whether the base name was available. Google tells me though that there is a BAFTA-winning script supervisor by this name who might be notable (I haven't looked in detail) and if they are both notable I would not be able to immediately say who was primary topic and there is also a band member (Carmen (band)#Angel Allen) who is definitely not primary topic. I certainly have no issues though with the group discussion you suggest. Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not have enough notability as a name/term to justify its non-neutrality, not to mention its inflammatory nature. Create a new redirect at just "Angela Allen". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • John M Wolfson, I'm unclear what you are recommending: should we have a redirect from Angela Allen to the article about the case, or should we not? "Delete" suggests not, while "create a new redirect" suggests yes. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • MelanieN, yes, we should have a redirect, but it should not have the "(pedophile)" at the end as it is unnecessary disambiguation and problematic, so delete the current redirect in question. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unless Angela Allen becomes a disambiguation page and then both the actress and the paedophile are listed then IMHO this should be kept atleast to avoid confusion with the actress, From a quick search the actress does appear to be notable, I'd prefer the disam route but if that can't be done then I'd support keeping the current title (unless something better comes along). –Davey2010Talk 13:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. If we ever have a Angela Allen (actor) page we can create a disambig at that time. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We now have a disambig, and on reflection that was the right choice. Still say that the BLP-violating "paedophile" redirect is not needed and should be deleted. Second choice: change "paedophile" to "sex abuser". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP. If this person is not notable enough to have their own article, then there's no justification for having such a non-neutral redirect. The name is already in the article so it will be indexed by search engines and able to be found without this redirect. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer seems very simple to me, if we actually want to have any such redirect at all, which apparently John M Wolfson, Davey2010, and Guy Macon do. As MelanieN said, just rename this redirect to Angela Allen, without leaving a redirect behind at the current title. There seems to be no route for then developing that, either as a primary topic or a disambiguation article, which involves this page title being used again. A headnote at a primary topic would not; nor would an entry on a disambiguation article. A script supervisor is different to an actor, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where do you get that I want the redirect to exist? Was my "Delete" not clear enough? "Angela Allen (paedophile)" has to go. "Angela Allen" is not needed. Searching on that name finds the article without any redirect. Just delete it. Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Paedophile redirects issue and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Paedophile redirects again. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • We now have a disambig, and on reflection that was the right choice. Still say that the BLP-violating "paedophile" redirect is not needed and should be deleted. Second choice: change "paedophile" to "sex abuser". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The part where you said "we can create a diambig", which only makes any logical sense if Angela Allen is a redirect. Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not true. I wrote "If we ever have a Angela Allen (actor) page we can create a diambig at that time". Specifying a hypothetical situation (a future where we have articles on Angela Allen (actor) and Angela Allen (musician) for example) where we would need a disambiguation page at Angela Allen does NOT imply that we should have a useless disambiguation page there now. Right now the Wikipedia search function works just fine to lead the person searching to all of the different Angela Allens. Again I say, delete the redirect at Angela Allen (paedophile) and do not create or rename anything. I hope that my position is clear on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • We now have a disambig, and on reflection that was the right choice. Still say that the BLP-violating "paedophile" redirect is not needed and should be deleted. Second choice: change "paedophile" to "sex abuser". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:RNEUTRAL, redirects do not have to be neutral so long as it is used in reliable sources. We have sources (and the article itself FWIW) that refers to Ms Allen as a paedophile, so that is good enough for a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to reiterate what I said earlier: IMO "keep as is" should not be an option, if only because there is no need for disambiguation. If people believe there should be a redirect from this person to the article about the case they were involved it, the redirect should be named Angela Allen. Personally I would prefer not to see redirects from the name of the criminal to the article about the case, but all of the other criminals in this case have redirects so it can be argued that she should too. I nominated this for deletion because of (paedophile). Based on the discussion here I will withdraw that nomination in favor of "keep but rename to Angela Allen. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Since there is now a DAB page at Angela Allen, renaming this to Angela Allen is no longer an option. In that case I favor simple deletion, as I explain below. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a poor but acceptable second choice for me. My first choice remains deletion, because typing "Angela Allen" into the search box brings up links to the criminal and the musician. Making an Angela Allen redirect loses the link to the musician. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We now have a disambig, and on reflection that was the right choice. Still say that the BLP-violating "paedophile" redirect is not needed and should be deleted. Second choice: change "paedophile" to "sex abuser". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)That doesn't work because there are several other people named Angela Allen who are valid WP:DABMENTIONs, a couple of which are at least as notable as the paedophile. I'd argue that the musician and the BAFTA award winner (who is an MBE) fit that criteria. I have created a dab at Angela Allen to illustrate what I'm talking about. -- Tavix (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL, which covers redirects from commonly-used POV, non-neutral, and controversial titles, and per WP:NOTCENSORED. Disambiguation is required (per Tavix) and the selected disambiguator is accurate, sourced, and used as a primary descriptor in the article. Furthermore the redirect received an average of 11 pageviews per day in the default period (30d?) prior to the nomination, so it is clearly useful. WP:BLP says "get the [page] right" (word "article" replaced, emphasis in original), not "cover up accurate info because it's distasteful". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been pointed out before,
[1] Per discussion at ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311#Paedophile redirects issue) we shouldn’t call anyone a paedophile in an article title, even if the person actually is a convicted sex offender.
[2] We now have a perfectly fine disambiguation page at Angela Allen that lists:
In my opinion, this should be closed as delete based upon the strength of the delete arguments and the weakness of the keep arguments. There simply is no need for a redirect at Angela Allen (paedophile). I would also note that one of the keep !votes specified "Unless Angela Allen becomes a disambiguation page and then both the actress and the paedophile are listed." Well, Angela Allen is now a disambiguation page and both the actress and the paedophile (along with four other Angela Allens) are listed. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about this some more. Our article on Pedophilia says that "Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children." That's a medical/psychiatric diagnoses. But our article on the 2009 Plymouth child abuse case says that Allen was convicted of one count of distributing an indecent image of a child and four counts of sexual assault involved children. That's a criminal verdict, not a medical diagnosis.
So should we call someone like Allen a convicted sex offender instead of a pedophile? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I commented on this at BLPN but we should only be using 100% factual disambig terms in cases like this. "paedophile" is not 100% factual, its a theory/diagonsis of their mental state, where as something like "convicted sex offender" is 100% true (they were convicted even on the slim change they were truly innocent). If a redirect is necessary (I don't see the need since the disambig page exist), it must use the more factual term. --Masem (t) 13:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or change to "Angela Allen (convicted sex offender)." Yes, pedophilia and child sexual abuse are commonly considered the same thing among the general public, but they are not. There are more child sexual abusers and statutory rapists (both male and female) than there are pedophiles. And pedophilia is extremely rare in women. If Allen was diagnosed as a pedophile, that's different, but it seems we should go with "convicted sex offender." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - News Journalism is not reliable in the psycoanalysis arena when not reporting on psychoanalysis. Journalists engage in a certian amount of sensationalistic name-calling; encyclopedia editors do not. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. Claiming that we don't ever have to comply for redirects is a thinly veiled excuse to use inflamitory language when it's not substantiated by reliable sources, and also not necessary. The term "felon" should do nicely if disambiguation is needed. Oblique references characterizing a person's psychological state can be misleading. There is no impartial analysis of psycological scrutiny of the subject. Wikipedia does not engage in, or promote, name-calling. When someone starts typing in the name and an unsubstantiated psychological diagnosis appears on the screen, Wikipedia is unfairly stigmitizing the person as having a particular psychological makeup. It's understood that the editors felt they were supplying more complete and specific information in a concise way; however, there was obviously original analysis by the editors or journalists to do so, with no scientific basis. It is suggested that we cut out the sensationalistic name-calling from WP. - NewageEd (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether or not it's appropriate to tag someone as a paedophile in an article title—and I agree that it's probably not—is a separate question from whether this is a suitable redirect. I think many readers will not distinguish between a paedophile and a child molester, or think it inappropriate for this person to be referred to as the former. So I think we have a likely search term, and a way of providing some distance between this person and others with the same name to help allay potential BLP concerns. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A likely search term? You think someone is going to search for "Angela Allen (paedophile)" when "Angela Allen" already brings you to the correct page? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? "Angela Allen" alone does not bring you to the right page. Yes, it brings you to a disambiguation page that links to the right page, but there's no reason to force users to go through another click. --BDD (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be claiming that users will search on "Angela Allen (paedophile)" before searching on "Angela Allen". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt at consensus forming.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no reason to have this redirect at all. – Levivich 22:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A person convicted of a sexual offense against a child is not necessarily a pedophile. Use of that term would need its own sourcing. The term "convicted sex offender" is sufficient. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear WP:BLP violation. Sex offender is correct within policy. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (since I am the nominator this is a revote - basically a clarification.) If someone types in Angela Allen, it will now take them to the DAB page, which will take them to the article they are looking for. There is no need for us to wear out our brains thinking of an appropriate disambiguator for this relatively obscure person. It's not as if she has an article we need to find a title for; we are just talking about a redirect. The DAB page will do the job just fine. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Call for close[edit]

By my count we have:

  • Three keeps,
  • One keep unless Angela Allen becomes a disambiguation page (which it has),
  • One delete and create an Angela Allen disambiguation page (done),
  • Ten deletes,

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has been seven days since the last person !voted. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: This action will probably create more potential for this being closed than inquiring for a closer from a statement made within the discussion itself. Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 19 September 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.

Gasu[edit]

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 to GASU. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This, as far as I'm aware, is just the word "gas" in Japanese and has no additional meaning. I have no idea what relation it has to this series but a reader would be better served by a redlink. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the disambiguation page GASU that I've just created. This barely merits disambiguation IMO. --BDD (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:22, 6 September 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.

Mohammad Rafiq (Norwegian folk hero)[edit]

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) 07:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral redirect. Unlikely search term in both natural language and in terms of Wikipedia naming conventions because of the non-standard parenthetical disambiguator. No incoming links. 109.240.210.178 (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As the page linked in the nomination (!) states, redirects don't have to be neutral, and I think it's less of a problem when it's non-neutral in a positive way. A bigger issue here is that this has substantive history and was merged after AfD, so simple deletion really shouldn't be an option. That said, I'm open to some sort of move without leaving a redirect in order to rename the page. I understand the intent, but "folk hero" makes it sound like he's a figure from myth or legend! Some options may be Mohammad Rafiq (Bærum mosque shooting) or Mohammad Rafiq (born 1954). --BDD (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I oppose redirecting as I see it a way to discount on the visibility of a notable person by wikipedia standards. Several attempts were made to remove the name of this person from the face of wikipedia as some users obviously have had personal negative viewpoints on him. At the beginning, even a speedy deletion was requested for an article backed with dozens of reliable sources such as BBC, WSJ, Reuters and Independent. It then came down to an AfD and the result was Merge with the Bærum_mosque_shooting. Being on wikipedia or not, he is considered a hero and widely praised especially in Norway, by people and by authorities + + (even the far-right party in Norway called him a 'real hero'). There are numerous international independent reliable sources covering his story and he is well beyond a single-event person now. It has been tried to put this person under 'victims' in the Bærum_mosque_shooting (that is a ridiculously wrong place for the one who managed to overdue the terrorist and prevented a mass killing and kept him in chokehold until police arrived. If Rafiq because of an injury (described minor by media outlet) can be a 'victim' here, why not the terrorist himself with tens of bruises and scratches?. So yes, this was also an attempt to reduce the visibility of Rafiq in the article.Sattar91 (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not germane to the redirect discussion, but I don't see anything wrong with characterizing him as a victim, given that he was injured by a criminal, even if that isn't the best single term we could use to characterize him (i.e., would not be suitable as a new name for this redirect). --BDD (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The only 'victim' in that story is the 17-year-old stepdaughter of the terrorist killed by him. Other people, although being slightly injured including Rafiq and the terrorist himself, had other obvious roles/functions. Categorizing any of them under 'victims' is incorrect. While the attacker is now under 'Suspect', Rafiq is deliberately mentioned as a victim and his other more important, headline-absorbing function was attempted to be hidden/neutralized.Sattar91 (talk) 09:11, 10 September 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.

Italy 2026[edit]

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. Fish+Karate 08:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague, not an official title, will eventually be confused with 2026 in Italy signed, Rosguill talk 22:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as entirely unambiguous. Even down to page 6 of a google search every single result is about the Winter Olympics. If it does become ambiguous in the future then this can be revisited then, but most likely a hatnote to 2026 in Italy will suffice when that becomes a blue link. We don't delete redirects because there is a theoretical problem with them in 6½ years time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how such a title could be considered "entirely unambiguous", it is hardly "theoretical" to suggest that other things will happen in Italy in 2026 (the 2026 Winter Paralympics for one). However, note that other such redirects either target that year's Summer or Winter Olympics (USA 2028, France 2024, China 2022, Japan 2020, Korea 2018, Brazil 2016, China 2008) or don't exist at all (Russia 2014, Canada 2010, Italy 2006, Greece 2004, Australia 2000). PC78 (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Theoretically ambiguous and ambiguous in actual reality are not the same thing. At the present time the only thing referred to by this title is the Winter Olympics. If it becomes ambiguous in the future then we can revisit this, but unless and until that happens this should be kept. What other redirects exist or don't exist is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Paralympics, as I mentioned above? And no, the other redirects are not irrelevant in the slightest. This redirect does not exist in isolation, and the perceived problem of ambiguity would be better addressed by looking at those belonging to past events where your "theoreticals" don't exist. PC78 (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • If those other redirects are ambiguous then they should be disambiguated, retargetted or have hatnotes added depending on what people are looking for when they search for those specific terms. What people are looking for when they search "China 2008" has no bearing on what people are looking for when they search for "Italy 2026". This redirect has a very clear primary topic - 100% of the google results on the first six pages were for the winter Olympics. Thryduulf (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ambiguous. Sawol (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except it isn't. And even if it was, there is a primary topic so hatnotes can link to alternative uses. And even if there wasn't a primary topic, then a disambiguation page would be the answer. There is no need for deletion at all. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it is ambiguous. Arguing that it should be kept as a primary redirect is valid, but that is not the same thing. PC78 (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Find me anything else that is actually currently being referred to by this name. Not just theoretically might use this name, but actually does. Not even the Paralympics in my search results. That might change in future, but per WP:CRYSTAL we don't redirects because they might potentially be ambiguous in the future - especially when a disambiguation page would be possible for all the things it might potentially become ambiguous with. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Find me some solid examples of these Olympics being called "Italy 2026" that don't just come from running text. Most of those Google hits are just "...Italy's 2026 Olympic bid..." and such, which really isn't the same thing. Italy 2026 could refer to anything happening in Italy in 2026, I genuinley don't see how this can be considered unambiguous. PC78 (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my above comments and per WP:COSTLY as an ambiguous redirect that is likely to become problematic later. PC78 (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree entirely with Thryduulf's argument (it is ambiguous) but I find myself here anyway. Until 2026 in Italy exists, I see no issue with this redirecting to what is undoubtedly the most notable scheduled event in Italy in 2026 per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. -- Tavix (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per PC78. Initially I was going to say "weak", thinking this was like a time-sensitive redirect that had already expired, under the assumption that Italy had bid for and won these Olympics but had not yet selected a host city. That does not seem to have been the case, and all those red links from previous Olympics testify to the fact that "Country Year" is not a common shorthand for Olympic games. I'd be more sympathetic if the host city were not well known internationally, perhaps if it were Cortina alone (or, I don't know, Esino Lario). Milan 2026 or Milan-Cortina 2026, sure. I'm less concerned with the idea of ambiguity and more that this is a novel or obscure synonym for the games. And for the record, "Italy 2026" isn't a likely search term for "Italy in 2026" either. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:15, 6 September 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.

Democrazia Cristian[edit]

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. MBisanz talk 03:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious mistake, the word "Cristian" is non-existent. It should be deleted. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, R3 does not apply either way as this was created in 2008. Second, the page you linked to is about articles and does not even mention redirects from plausible errors. Geolodus (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I consider as a plausible error, for example, a name of a party written in an alternative way from the correct one. But it is harmful to keep invented words as a redirect (for example, I noticed "Alleanza Nationale" because it was used on 1/2 pages, the fact that users can use invented words as functioning redirects is not a good thing....)--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are misspellings of existing words, not invented ones. I agree that they shouldn't be linked or used in any other way that makes them seem correct, but there is longstanding consensus that many such redirects are useful and should not be deleted. See Category:Redirects from incorrect names. Geolodus (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete It's a small error, but "Cristian" doesn't look Italian, so I don't think it's very plausible. Democrazia Cristiano, maybe (not at all saying that someone should create it, just that it's a more plausible error than this). --BDD (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:15, 6 September 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.

In Love With The Song[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 14:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google search indicates that it's a new music variety show on that chanel, but without any content in the target article a redirect is pointless. PC78 (talk) 14:42, 6 September 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.

Blue dress[edit]

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 to Blue Dress. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to get wider community opinion on whether this new redirect is appropriate/useful. While a blue dress played a non-trivial role in the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, this is hardly the only context that blue dresses exist in, and I'm not sure that the redirect is likely to help anyone to find what they're looking for. signed, Rosguill talk 13:35, 6 September 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.

Incarnations of Starscream[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All content merged into main article Starscream. No incoming links. Unlikely search term. No edits in almost nine years. Delete as useless. JIP | Talk 08:15, 6 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_6&oldid=919161388"