Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 24, 2020.

Teslarati[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) 01:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teslarati, a fansite, isn't discussed in the target (though it is cited), and I don't see much scope for any such discussion to be added, so the reader who searches this will be left none the wiser as to what it is. I haven't been able to find any other articles that discuss it (though, again, several articles cite it), so there are no obvious alternative targets. If Teslarati is notable then point 10 of WP:RDEL also applies. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, specifically, WP:R#D10. Doug Mehus T·C 23:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as OA of the Redirects, I'm flexible with whatever is decided by WP:CONSENSUS; no problem whatsoever - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think Teslarati is probably a valid news site in the way the online news sites operate these days, albeit with a narrow-ish focus on SpaceX and EVs in general and Tesla etc. I have seen a number of news events covered my Teslatrai reporters first, ahead of other media. Having said that, a redirect to Tesla, Inc. doesn't make much sense as the news site is certainly not something that is operated by or the responsibility of Tesla, Inc. So unless someone creates a valid stub article for Teslarati that meets the general notability criteria with some coverage in other news media, then I'd be fine with the current redirects going away. N2e (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - current redirects do not make sense. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the ambiguous redirect to encourage people to create an article about Teslarati. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While releated, not enough to be a redirect. --Frmorrison (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2020 (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.

User:Acctry3[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. signed, Rosguill talk 02:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Useless cross-namespace redirect. The user created this redirect in 2008 as a redirect. User has not edited since 2008, and the user's entire contributions consist of test edits in the userspace, so there should be no issues with deleting this userspace redirect. Hog Farm (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is harmless, Hog Farm. The user is likely choosing to use their user page as a redirect, and may be trying to signify their significance. ;-); alternatively,
Soft redirect to 1, to remove it the subject redirect as a "redirect to this page" in the "Page Information" for "1". This would be an ideal alternative to deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 23:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this user has not contributed to Wikipedia in years other than userspace tests, and this redirect will not make sense. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 02:54, 25 February 2020 (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.

Fred Flintstone Units[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 speedy keep/nomination withdrawn. Per the added links and rationale by Xionbox, which expands on the rationale of WhatamIdoing, I'm more satisified now than I was when I first nominated this that there's likely little WP:XY issue between whether this should target to United States customary units or Imperial units. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 17:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the current target. Per my before procedures, I couldn't find any other suitable targets related to The Flintstones television series and film franchise. I tend to think we don't really know, definitively, what a "Fred Flintstone unit" is. It could be, conceivably, an Imperial unit, a Metric unit, the current United States customary unit, or some other measurement (i.e., Fred Flintstone's foot, perhaps?—the length of which we do not know). Without a mention in the target, ideally sourced by some sort of verification (including in primary sources), I think it's an WP:XY and WP:R#D2 thing and deletion is probably best. In terms of usage, it had 28 pageviews in the preceding twelve month period to yesterday, so per WP:R#D8, there's little to no utility or usefulness to this redirect. Thus, I'm recommending delete unless valid alternative option(s) are specified. Doug Mehus T·C 22:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Thanks. That's reasonable, but still, there's the WP:XY issue on where to target. It shouldn't be targeted to United States customary units, I think, but rather either (a) Imperial units (if we add this reliable source mention there, which we could easily) or (b) List of humorous units of measurement (preferably with this reliable source mention). Given the humourous nature, I'm inclined to think the latter suggested by Dondervogel 2 would be better. Doug Mehus T·C 12:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: is correct. The term refers specifically to the US customary units, which isn't a humorous system of measurements. It's a pejorative term to refer to these units, and sporadically used in the aerospace industry (which relies mostly on the metric system in the US). The FFU disambiguation page also had this redirect with an explanation up until October 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FFU&type=revision&diff=743544445&oldid=739877520 . I vote to keep. (Disclaimer: I created that page in 2011.) Xionbox₪ 17:14, 28 February 2020 (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.

USCU[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 disambiguate. signed, Rosguill talk 02:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed this redirect pointed to United States customary units, but I thought the abbreviation USCU would more commonly refer to a United States-based organization or corporation and, as it turns out, the U.S. Central Credit Union, commonly abbreviated as USCU or USFCU, seem like a more appropriate target so I'm recommending retarget-ing to U.S. Central Credit Union, with a one- or two-way hatnote as applicable. Note that CU is an internationally-recognized abbreviation for Credit Union. In turn, U.S. Central Credit Union was the central back-office credit union, which serviced credit unions regulated by and belonging to the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). Doug Mehus T·C 22:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be likely to accept an argument that U.S. Central Credit Union is WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Narky Blert (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: I suppose I'm not opposed to disambiguation here, as we do have three potential disambiguation page links. That said, though, since the two University of South Carolina articles are related to each other, one would be subordinate to the other, so we really only have two disambiguation links. We also have United States customary units, that's true, but couldn't we take the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT argument for USCU, add hatnotes on the University of South Carolina page(s), and then create a separate UScu redirect for United States customary units per WP:DIFFCAPS? Doug Mehus T·C 18:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the notion of "primary" topics very much (except for in very clear-cut cases), therefore I would suggest to use a disambiguation page for disambiguation rather than to disambiguate via hatnotes. In particular as this is about an abbreviation, it is extremely likely that there will be more than two or three entries over time. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom Comment I'm not opposed to disambiguating per the above, without prejudice, of course, to potentially retargeting to U.S. Central Credit Union, boldly or with a subsequent discussion on the applicable talk pages or at RfD with a primary redirect that Narky mentioned above, at some point in the not immediate future. Doug Mehus T·C 20:28, 1 March 2020 (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.

Freedom unit[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) 02:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the the RfD discussion, this redirect seems to be a silly neologism with no reliable, independent source verification. In terms of common usage, it doesn't seem to have common usage outside of online message boards like Stack Exchange. I didn't want to interrupt the existing RfD discussion and have to ping everyone for approval to add this one, so am starting a separate discussion. While we don't necessarily have to have reliable, independent source verification of information for redirects, this redirect is still problematic per WP:XY and WP:R#D2 in that it's vague, ambiguous, and confusing, and could potentially refer to multiple potential things/targets. Per WP:R#D8, it's only got 40 pageviews for the twelve months to yesterday (the day before it was nominated). So, that's showing only the most marginal level of utility and usefulness. Delete, unless valid justification is provided or alternatives suggested. Amended Doug Mehus T·C 22:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 – Please see the related RfD discussion for the plural version. I did not want to interrupt that discussion by requesting to combine them, so felt fyi pointers were more helpful.
@Narky Blert: How come not "per nom" as well? Is my rationale per WP:R#D2/WP:XY not the same thing? As for your latter point, I completely agree! I hadn't thought of freedom fighters. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 23:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But that would be "freedom fighter units" or "fight units". I couldn't find "freedom unit" being used as a synonym for this, only for "US customary units". --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, as Narky Blert explained, a freedom unit could refer, potentially, to unit of freedom fighters just as freedom units could refer to multiple units of freedom fighters. Doug Mehus T·C 23:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being an advocate of the metric system I find the term just as "stupid" and "backwards" as others, however, we are not here to judge if a term is "proper" or not. It is out there and actively being used by some (with Google I can find it being used in numerous net outlets within minutes, f.e. [1][2][3][4]). Therefore we, as an encyclopedia, have the very duty to educate our readers about it. This starts by helping those who run into the term somewhere and redirect them to the proper term and article about "US customary units" in order to give them a chance to leave their information bubble and start to use the proper terminology. In order to not give the term undue weight, I don't think we should discuss it at the target page, but this is not a requirement for redirects. I don't see WP:R#D2 and WP:R#D8 applying, it is not vague, ambiguous, or confusing, but specifically refers to US customary units, and it is not in the way to another article or redirect. 40 hits? Well, so the redirect already helped about 40 people. If it is of concern that the term shows up in the index, we might add {{R from misnomer}} to it, so that noone in WP will start linking to it and it remains unprintworthy. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthiaspaul: I get the desire to keep this redirect and, while it's true we don't need to have reliable source coverage to "keep" redirects in place, we need to have some sourcing which indicates (a) it's got fairly common usage and that (b) it doesn't ambiguously refer to two or more potential things (b being the more important of the two things). Unless you can provide sourcing, beyond a few online message boards threads, that this is a misnomer, as you suggest, to refer to United States customary units and not, say, Imperial units (since the U.S. also uses the Imperial system), it becomes an WP:XY thing in that it could refer to multiple potential targets. Similarly, because of the above potential colloquial reference to U.S. freedom fighters, it's also ambiguous and potentially confusing per WP:R#D2. Disambiguation would be an option, if we had multiple English Wikipedia articles which referenced this term. I'm not seeing that, so can't support retaining this redirect, unfortunately. Sorry. :-( Doug Mehus T·C 23:59, 24 February 2020 (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.

Mean acceleration of the Earth[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) 02:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see exactly three hits on google books for this phrase: one indeed appears to be referring to gravity, but the other two refer to the acceleration due to the Earth's rotation instead. Given the ambiguity and the fact that this is a rarely used descriptive phrase, WP:XY applies. – Uanfala (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Mean acceleration of the Earth relative to what? it has to be relative to something (see Newton's Laws). It's a hopelessly ambiguous term. Narky Blert (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Narky Blert. he said exactly what I was thinking but couldn't put into words. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 23:18, 24 February 2020 (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.

1.000[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 4#1.000

Lingwa[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 3#Lingwa

Latinish[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) 01:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Latinish, a rare word, means 'Latin-like' ('of the nature of Latin' according to the OED, but there are current uses where the Latin is that of Latino). This is an obscure ambiguous term whose meaning is not defined anywhere on wikipedia and whose meaning should be transparent to English speakers anyway. – Uanfala (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:R#D2 and WP:XY. When I first saw this, I thought it was referring to Spanish-like, as in latino/latina-like. But, yes, I can see this in Latin-like. Doug Mehus T·C 22:33, 24 February 2020 (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.

Nautical units[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 speedy retarget to List of nautical units. No need for bureaucracy here; consensus is unanimous. (non-admin closure) J947 (c), at 23:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nautical mile is not the only nautical unit: there's for example the fathom and the knot). Surprisingly, I haven't been able to find a place on wikipedia that discusses the units of measurement used in navigation, but hopefully somebody else might. Failing that, I'd go for deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dondervogel 2: Circumstances have changed, and PamD has kindly created a list article instead of disambiguating, so I'm replying to you to consider your earlier !vote in view of recent events. Doug Mehus T·C 15:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see a redirect to a list as one of several forms of disambiguation, and quite possibly the most appropriate form in this case. Please treat my !vote as including that possibility. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dondervogel 2: Thank you for clarifying! Doug Mehus T·C 18:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a list, not strictly a dab page, but something to link to all these units, perhaps with a brief explanation. PamD 22:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create an article. It's an encyclopaedic topic. I add toise, an obsolete French measure of length similar to but not the same as fathom Narky Blert (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to list of nautical units. Narky Blert (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create an article (changed to retarget to List of nautical units, as the article does exist) Enough examples have been given to create a list on. Hog Farm (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: It didn't exist when we !voted. PamD just created it. While we all prognosticated on whether a disambiguation page, list, or article were better, PamD got to work and made a list. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 01:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retargeted to new List of nautical units. (Should it be List of nautical units of measurement?) Please join in to improve it, it's just a start. PamD 00:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We don't usually boldly change the current target until closure is ascertained, or previous participants agree to that. No prejudice against commenting out, below the current target, any possible retarget suggestions, though. As such, I've reverted the good-faith edit by PamD and will have a look at Pam's target suggestion. Doug Mehus T·C 01:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of nautical units per PamD's list article with {{R to list entry}}. We should add one more bibliographic reference to ensure no notability issues, though there's a lack of consensus on whether notability applies, specifically, to lists. Failing a disambiguation page, I think Pam's list is a better solution than an article, frankly. It does the trick and clearly passes WP:CLN, WP:LISTN, and WP:AOAL. As for the name, I think maybe your suggested name is a good idea, but keep list of nautical units as {{R from short name}}? Nice quick work, PamD! ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 01:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of nautical units as the best solution currently. J947 (c), at 01:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Uanfala: We have unanimity on retargeting to the list page, List of nautical units, PamD has whipped up. As nominator, you're the only one that can speedily withdraw and retarget this nomination, so I'm pinging you to consider the ensuing discussion, and decide whether you wanted to withdraw and close the discussion as speedy retarget/nomination withdrawn? Doug Mehus T·C 18:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    PamD's new list is an excellent solution, and it's consistent with the first preference of my nomination (that's why I assumed there was no need for me to add an explicit vote now). I'm not keen on withdrawing as we've got a clear consensus for retargeting (and an outcome of explicit "retarget" is preferable to one of "withdrawn"), so I'd wait for a bit, and if no passer-by closes this in a bit, I'll be happy to make an WP:INVOLVED WP:SNOW close. – Uanfala (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Uanfala. That's what I thought you would say as your argument indeed suggested you would be fond of this solution. That sounds reasonable, but since Rosguill is non-involved, Rosguill, would you mind closing early per WP:SNOW? Doug Mehus T·C 21:23, 25 February 2020 (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.

Shabbat (disambiguation)[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) 01:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target is not a disambiguation page, it is a list of topics about Shabbat. For disambiguation, there is a hatnote at Shabbat. Speedy was declined on the basis that it's "disambiguation-like", which I claim it isn't: it is not a list of articles that might otherwise be called "Shabbat". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per G14 in spirit and nom. Administrator Nabla took the cautious, prudent approach in declining speedy deletion because, technically, this list is like a disambiguation page. Nevertheless, it's got little, if any, utility. So, I'm fine with deleting it. Doug Mehus T·C 22:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This case is murky enough that I agree with contesting CSD in favor of RfD. Ultimately this redirect is unused and all but useless. Ibadibam (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Dmehus - Nabla (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The ambiguous wording in WP:G14 strikes again. To reiterate: the only point of any redirect with the (disambiguation) qualifier is to tell User:DPL bot not to report a link to a DAB page as a WP:INTDAB error in Disambiguation pages with links and similar reports. Narky Blert (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2020 (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.

Rome II Conference[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 8#Rome II Conference

Sony's Marvel Unviverse[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) 01:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Unlikely misspelling. (Also, please note that in the previous discussion, this redirect had a different since its current target was a redirect during the previous discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and I agree this target is a better target. Doug Mehus T·C 20:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (was Keep) Per WP:R#K5 as {{R from misspelling}} as it has 68 pageviews from the preceding twelve months, to yesterday (before its nomination). We've kept similar redirects with quite a bit less pageviews. Sony used to have the film licensing rights for the Marvel franchise, and still shares with Disney some rights to some of the franchises, so "Sony's Marvel Universe" is a very plausible search term. Unviverse, too, is an equally plausible misspelling. In short, it's harmless and at least a bit useful. Doug Mehus T·C 20:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Nope, Unviverse doesn't exist and shouldn't. (If it was such a likely misspelling, it would have been created at some point during Wikipedia's existence of almost two decades.) Having redirects such as the nominated redirect where one random part of the phrase is misspelled whereas the rest is spelled properly is WP:COSTLY. And the page views are most likely someone clicking this redirect on the search bar because it appeared when they started typing "Sony's Marvel"; this redirect unnecessarily clutters the Wikipedia search bar. All and all, it's more problematic that it is helpful, especially considering than its target is the properly-spelled version, letter-for-letter. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree that it "clutters the Wikipedia search bar." The search bar is separated into two parts: in the first part, it is a list of bolded article titles (including redirects) that match the string entered; in the second part, it is a "contains query" part, which searches the full text of Wikipedia articles. It is very easy to search within the latter part. If it were the case that redirects were just cluttering up the search bar, we wouldn't have most redirects, I'd argue. Doug Mehus T·C 20:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      ...Well, if you care to start listing off some of those redirects, I'll happily nominate them for deletion for the same reason I'm nominating this one. Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Most should be listed under the category from {{R from misspelling}}, among others. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 20:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Also, "clicking a misspelling in a search bar" does not equal "usefulness", especially if the correctly spelled version appears as well. It just proves that it was clicked for the reason alone that it exists. Seriously, I wager that if this redirect was deleted, the page views would disappear. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Steel1943: Sure, I'll take that bet, but let's keep it a friendly bet. If this redirect is deleted and in a year, it still has at least 50% of the pageviews as before, you will invoke WP:IAR (technically, not needed as there are no enforced rules regarding the service awards) and award me Grandmaster Editor (or Grand High Togneme Vicarus) earlier than the edit requirement. If, however, the pageviews fall to less than, say, whatever's reasonable, I will do whatever you wish of me. Doug Mehus T·C 20:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      FTR you can't view pageviews of pages that don't exist. J947 (c), at 23:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @J947: You're right about that. But you know ... I think the page view tool showed page views for nonexistent pages before the update a few years back ... which may be what I was basing my previous comment on. (IMO, the previous version of the page view tool was a lot more helpful.) Either way though, I'm sure the princess process for viewing the page view statistics for nonexistent titles could be acquired somehow. Steel1943 (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Steel1943 Interesting points on the previous version of the pageviews tool, but sorry, can you clarify what you mean by princess? That's got me confused. Doug Mehus T·C 02:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dmehus: Autocorrect fail. Steel1943 (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. Figured it had to be something like that, but couldn't figure out what word(s) were supposed to be there. Much more sense now. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 02:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible misspelling. I don't care how many views it has had, it's still an implausible misspelling. We don't need to (and should not) have redirects for every possible typo someone might come up with. Narky Blert (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Narky Blert: And how do you objectively assess what is a plausible or implausible misspelling? The term is notoriously vague and can mean different things. To my view, the only way to assess plausibility is on pageviews. Doug Mehus T·C 21:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have the redirects unviverse, unviversal or unviversality, and quite right too. This is useless junk. Narky Blert (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, fair enough. I see that we don't have any redirect misspellings beginning with -unvi, so that may be true. I'm going to wait to see what J947 says, though, if he or she says anything. Meantime, I'll change to a comment. Doug Mehus T·C 23:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm male BTW. J947 (c), at 18:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    J947, I thought so, but didn't want to make assumptions as I've been incorrect in the past. Thanks for clarifying! I try and use they whenever possible. Doug Mehus T·C 19:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RHARMFUL, which says: Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones. My opinion on plausibility in RfDs is that it is all relative to the number of pageviews a redirect receives. Redirects are here to help the readers; and what the readers want is most adequately represented by pageviews. With the search-bar argument, I could argue an equally potent argument by saying that this redirect is helpful because it gives more space in the search results for Sony's Marvel Universe (which is what you're going to be searching for if "Sony's M" is what you have typed). It's completely harmless and demonstrably helpful. J947 (c), at 18:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947 and my initial gut instinct (described above). Doug Mehus T·C 19:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, worthless redirect that should have been deleted the day it was created. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think the above illustrates why page views should not be used to determine the usefulness of redirects. Page views do not tell you that x people were helped by a redirect, simply that it was viewed x times (and potentially not all of those views may be human). And page views should certainly not be used to try to obtain service awards that have not been "earned". -- Tavix (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My citing of RHARMFUL is still yet to be refuted. What is to be gained by deleting this redirect? J947 (c), at 23:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J947: It's a good question, and, given the age of this redirect, which is completely harmless, I see no real reason for deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 03:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary for a small mistake that is easy for the reader to notice/fix themselves. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we do not need to have redirects for every conceivable spelling mistake. One, because readers are not stupid, they can spot and fix a simple spelling error; two, redirects may be cheap, but no so much as to encourage creation of bazillions of potential spelling errors; three, readers are not stupid; four, human time is not cheap, and maintaining these take time (I am aware this one is somewhat circular reasoning); five, and foremost, readers are not stupid! If someone looks for "Unviverse" and the search does not show anything, they are capable of fixing it - Nabla (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2020 (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.

Bertie Scott[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 3#Bertie Scott

Wikipedia:RFL[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 no consensus. Editors remain split over keeping or deleting this redirect, with a minority supporting disambiguation. signed, Rosguill talk 02:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed this shortcut, with less than a handful of inlinks, which could easily be updated or piped, but I think this shortcut is woefully ambiguous per WP:R#D2, potentially confusing, and also an WP:XY thing. It could, potentially, refer to, but not limited to, {{reflist}} (whose RFL and Rfl shortcuts closed as "delete" on similar grounds), or to WP:RFFL/WP:RLOTE. Similar to WP:FORRED, I am recommending delete-ing this shortcut, updating the ~4-5 inlinks, and nipping this in the bud (or is it butt?) before it becomes too wildly used and we can't delete or retarget. Doug Mehus T·C 14:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's even fewer than first thought. Excluding the bot-created pages for tracking this RfD, there's only two, maybe three, instances of this shortcut. The other two or three are just wikitables that track whether a shortcut is in use as a page, as a redirect, or not in use. So those wouldn't need to be updated. In short, it's simply unused, and we should delete it, possibly with Sysop brand salt so as to ensure consensus is used to establish where best to target it. Doug Mehus T·C 14:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SALT is only used for things that are repeatedly recreated. Your salting suggestion would be a blatant misuse of that function. -- Tavix (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous.
    SSSB (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't think of anything sensible RFL might stand for in Wikipedia space. Narky Blert (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, WP:RFFL, which was just renamed, by the way, following consensus to do so, and it already has three official shortcuts and one deprecated one. It doesn't need another one. But it would be the most logical target. But, it, too, is still ambiguous; hence why I thought salt protection could be useful. Doug Mehus T·C 19:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's short for REFILL. Shortcuts are usually ambiguous because they are meant to be, well, short—if we delete shortcuts for being ambiguous we would not have many shortcuts remaining. -- Tavix (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true, to a certain extent, but for a user script, it's woefully being under-utilized for a three-letter shortcut. It would be better to establish community consensus more broadly on where this shortcut could be used. Since it's not being used outside of one or two userpages/user talk pages, it seems appropriate to repurpose it before it becomes more broadly used. Doug Mehus T·C 23:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I disagree that it should be repurposed. If the redirect becomes more broadly used, then the shortcut is doing its job. -- Tavix (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate (drafted below the redirect). That solves any possible confusion while not breaking the few links to this title (thus, we don't have to update them as well). I also strongly oppose salting as that is premature; this hasn't been deleted once yet. Glades12 (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and I agree with you and Tavix that salt protection should normally only be used for repeatedly recreated pages, but my thinking was that since we have no rules, we could form consensus on an exception basis to use salt protection in order to decide how best to use the redirect, as part of a larger community process. Nevertheless, while my preferred option is deletion per the above, I can support your disambiguation proposal as an alternate option, if that's what others prefer. Thank you. Doug Mehus T·C 13:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BOLD, that's not how consensus works... For what it's worth, I oppose disambiguation, because then it would cease to be useful as a shortcut. -- Tavix (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding disambiguation, though, we have 152 disambiguation pages for Wikipedia project namespace shortcuts at Category:Wikipedia disambiguation pages. Many are two- and three-letter shortcuts just like WP:RFL, including, but by no means limited to, WP:WPL. Doug Mehus T·C 02:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Retarget. If the ReFill script is not worth this shortcut, then send it to WP:Reflist or WP:RFFL. We can always add hatnotes to the tops of the articles to make it clear in case somebody typed in the shortcut expecting to go somewhere else. There are definite possibilities for where this redirect could go. I also oppose disambiguation per Tavix, for that would cause the redirect's function as a shortcut to be negated. I see no problems with this being a shortcut to the ReFill tool, though. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or weak disambiguate. Either keep because this is a shortcut redirect with incoming links in the "Wikipedia:" namespace (so thus deletion is harmful since it breaks incoming links), or disambiguate if there really is a proven need to disambiguate (which I currently don't see.) Either way ... "strong oppose deletion". Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or more radically, move User:Zhaofeng Li/reFill to Wikipedia:ReFill as this tool seems to be used by a fair number of editors. Disambiguation is also a plausible solution. Deryck C. 17:38, 3 March 2020 (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.

P:b[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) 03:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, and a Scholar search turned up nothing. It's also a not-implausible search term for P/B ratio, although I think that deleting it is preferable to redirection. signed, Rosguill talk 04:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tavix. When I suggested that, I wasn't really that serious about that. It would've been a stretch. I hadn't yet noticed the disambiguation page PB. Doug Mehus T·C 03:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it's a good idea to do your research before you post. -- Tavix (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To add to what I asked above, and ping Rosguill in case they don't make it back to this log page for a few days, perhaps, depending on the usage, retargeting to PB is better? I note there's a number of variant capitalizations and punctuations of PB as redirects targeted there. Even to peanut butter, it's an WP:XY thing, so it's ambiguous per WP:R#D2. Doug Mehus T·C 13:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Targeting PB seems reasonable. signed, Rosguill talk 03:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I think that's the best approach. Doug Mehus T·C 03:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing about "P:b" and although I think it's meant to mean the 2 types of Bilabial stop it's far from clear that "p:b" is used to describe this. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not seeing this as a stylization that is in use for any of the PB disambiguations. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2020 (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.

Nindu Masasulu[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) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created as the result of a spelling mistake. No incoming links. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; it has got a huge number of pageviews so we can reasonably assume that there are external links pointing here. WP:R#K4 and WP:R#K5 both apply to major extents; K4 in particular says: For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. J947 (c), at 19:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for J947 I tend to think most of those pageviews were Wikipedia visitors visiting the page following its move. I'd like to see the pageviews for Nindu Manasulu. I agree it's a reasonable misspelling and, to be honest, it probably was a happy accident that it was a typo in Kailash29792's page move. Someone else likely would've created it. WP:R#K4 is a weak rationale here in that this was only a recently-created page move; thus, any external links would be bot updated and thus be bot updated if deleted. There's likely a strong case for WP:R#K5 here, but I'd prefer to take a
    keep and wait approach as you did in another RfD. Nevertheless... Doug Mehus T·C 19:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from misspelling}}. Doug Mehus T·C 19:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dmehus: See this comparison. I think external links are the most likely explanation for the majority of the views. J947 (c), at 22:18, 24 February 2020 (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.

Customs and Immigration[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 8#Customs and Immigration

Louder Sound[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 no consensus. No consensus prior to the relist, and no further comments after the relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural move from an RfC discussion at a talk page in which editor Bait30 asked the following question, "Should this redirect target (a) Metal Hammer, (b) Classic Rock (magazine), or (c) neither? (same goes for LouderSound and Loudersound.com)"? For what it's worth, I am officially neutral until I've taken a position, if I take a position. Doug Mehus T·C 17:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created a couple of the redirects. I don’t really care where they target - they’re all interconnected - I’m only against outright deletion. Here’s the About Us page for consideration. Sergecross73 msg me 00:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still decidedly neutral, but some observations, and I thank the creator Sergecross73 for the URL and insight...it seems that Louder is the publisher of these two magazines, so the question becames, to where do we target these, that is, to which magazine? In the case of loudersound.com, that can probably be kept as {{R from domain name}}, assuming we have a suitable target. In terms of the others, since neither is an actual name for this publisher and because the term is somewhat ambiguous, I'm personally uncertain on what is best here. Doug Mehus T·C 00:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it’s actually Future Publishing that does the publishing. LouderSound is more like...the umbrella term for their music topic areas. It’s all kind of confusing though, especially because they keep changing, rebranding, and renaming things too, due to financial issues. Team Rock was another one in the mix, which I think was the prior name for Louder. Sergecross73 msg me 00:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, if that's the case, I'd be more inclined to target to the parent publisher then as there's an WP:XY thing between these two publishers. The remaining question becomes whether there are other "Louder Sound"(s), at least in that capitalization. I tend to think not, though Louder sound would be a candidate for targeting to either Loudness or Louder probably per WP:DIFFCAPS. Doug Mehus T·C 14:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm the one who did the original RfC. I'm also against outright deletion. But I feel like all three of those redirects should target the same article. The question really is just which one.  Bait30  Talk? 04:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After a week of comments and little idea on what should be done with these redirects, let alone what that action should be for each, relisting seems prudent. The nominator, Bait30, who favours anything except outright deletion, has produced a good and challenging RfD in that the limited participants are stumped. There seems to be the prevailing view that these redirects should target the same place, assuming they're kept, given that Metal Hammer and Classic Rock (magazine) are two separate magazines under the "Louder Sound" umbrella banner.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 16:04, 24 February 2020 (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.

American classicists[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) 01:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to category, created with puzzling edit summary about one particular scholar. PamD 13:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fists pounding on the table Delete per WP:R#D8 because there were only 3 pageviews in the 12 months to yesterday, one of which was the redirect's creator and the other of which would've been the nominator of this redirect for discussion. It's simply unused. More importantly, though, this cross-namespace redirect is harmful for at least two reasons: (1) it's occupying a potential article title, potentially a broad-concept article, so deletion per WP:R#10 to encourage article creation carries a lot of weight and (2) readers/patrons, not familiar with Category: namespace, may appear confused as to where they are, so there's a potential WP:R#D2 case as well. Doug Mehus T·C 16:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. "Classicist" can mean (inter alia) classical scholar, or an expert in classicism, or a type of philosopher (see classicism (philosophy)). We don't have an article on German classicists, a renowned school in the study of the classics. All those topics are international. Narky Blert (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per pageviews and being a barely-helpful CNR. J947 (c), at 00:01, 26 February 2020 (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.

Superconti[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) 01:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this term in target article PamD 13:08, 24 February 2020 (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.

Mysterious Two[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 Gary Sherman (director). (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article PamD 12:50, 24 February 2020 (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.

Surith[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 2#Surith

Almuerzo[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 speedy delete. By Fastily per G7. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 23:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish term with a fleeting mention in article ("In Mexico, lunch (almuerzo) is usually .."), but we don't really need to provide redirects from every language version of our titles. PamD 11:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a term with a clear translation in English. I see no reason to delete the redirect. Interstellarity (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2020 (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.

Desayuno[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 speedy delete. By Fastily per G7. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 23:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish term not mentioned in article PamD 11:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a term with a clear translation in English. I see no reason to delete the redirect. Interstellarity (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2020 (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.

Bebida[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 speedy delete. By Fastily per G7. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 23:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish term not mentioned in article PamD 11:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a term with a clear translation in English. I see no reason to delete the redirect. Interstellarity (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2020 (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.

Comida[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 speedy delete. By Fastily per G7. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 23:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish term not mentioned in article PamD 11:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a term with a clear translation in English. I see no reason to delete the redirect. Interstellarity (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2020 (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.

Suegra[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 speedy delete. By Fastily per G7. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 23:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish term not mentioned in article PamD 11:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a term with a clear translation in English. I see no reason to delete the redirect. Interstellarity (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2020 (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.

Suegro[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 speedy delete. By Fastily per G7. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 23:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish term not mentioned in article PamD 11:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a term with a clear translation in English. I see no reason to delete the redirect. Interstellarity (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2020 (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.

Padrastro[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 speedy delete. by Fastily per G7 (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish term not mentioned in article PamD 11:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a term with a clear translation in English. I see no reason to delete the redirect. Interstellarity (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2020 (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.

Madrastra[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 speedy delete. by Fastily per G7 (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish term, not mentioned in article. PamD 11:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a term with a clear translation in English. I see no reason to delete the redirect. Interstellarity (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2020 (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.

Tarea[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 speedy disambiguate as unanimous. Don't see that result often. :) (non-admin closure) J947 (c), at 18:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish word for homework, but no mention in the target article and we do not provide redirects for all translations of titles. PamD 11:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate - Agree with others as page creator. Interstellarity (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a term with a clear translation in English — it has multiple possible translations, as in es:Fuerza de Tarea Conjunta de Paraguay (which does not mean "Joint Homework Force of Paraguay"). This was a reply to an earlier version of the above comment 59.149.124.29 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 59.149.124.29 (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFFL. Narky Blert (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate La tarea (a film) and two people with the given name. Drafted below the dab. The {{wiktionary}} link on the proposed dab page handles people looking for dictionary information. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per IP. Narky Blert (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate (as Nominator): excellent WP:ATD solution, thanks. Should have done a bit more "Before" and found those items, apologies! PamD 18:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate using the draft provided. Hog Farm (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2020 (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.

Crich Cualann[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 , nomination withdrawn by nominator signed, Rosguill talk 02:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "crich" in target article. No WP article on Crich (apart from Derbyshire village) which would show why this is a likely search term (eg if it was a term for a kind of territory). PamD 11:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - see below. PamD 19:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Crích is an old Irish term for border or borderlands, or a territory in general. Oxford Reference Sheila1988 (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Rathdown Castle, where it's mentioned (and remove the link in that article). Narky Blert (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an {{R from alternative name}} per Sheila1988 and the fact that the term is well attested (as evident by a search on google books). My assumption is that Crich Cualann is not a different entity from Cualu. Rathdown Castle is by no means a suitable target: the fact that this happens to be the only article currently mentioning this precise form of the name is entirely incidental (and the Crich Cualann referred to there is the same one as the topic of Cualu). – Uanfala (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sheila1988: Could you please either add a note somewhere in the article referring to this term, or maybe create Crich (Irish term) or something like that, to explain it, for the sake of non-Irish-speakers unfamiliar with it? Thanks. PamD 18:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've now created Crich (disambiguation): had I found it, with the link to Wiktionary, I probably wouldn't have nominated this for RfD. I think all the entries are just-about justifiable, so it's a valid little dab page. So happy now to Withdraw the nomination. (But my request to @Sheila1988: stands: as you've got that nice little source for it as an alternative name, please add it to the article. Thanks.) PamD 19:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-involved Comment Pinging @Narky Blert, Uanfala, and Sheila1988:, can all of you see PamD's added request? It seems she has created a disambiguation page, though it's unclear whether this request would be withdrawn as "speedy keep" or as "speedy retarget" to the new disambiguation page. Nevertheless, this can't be done whilst conflicting !votes are outstanding. This is not to suggest your !votes in any way need to change, but rather to encourage you to consider the new developments. Thanks. Doug Mehus T·C 21:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hurry. This RFD was posted less than 12 hours ago. I can see no reason for truncating the usual 168 hours (7 days). Narky Blert (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: Nevertheless, I thought it was important for you to consider the updated comments, particularly Uanfala's response to you on retargeting. Doug Mehus T·C 23:24, 24 February 2020 (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.

Bacon Eggs (Ariana Grande 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. --BDD (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No bacon in target article. PamD 11:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, misheard lyrics; unless someone can find a citation to justify retargetting to mondegreen. Narky Blert (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Narky Blert. Hog Farm (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few radio stations have written articles on it [5] [6], and there's also a list entry here [7], so it's not impossible to cite, but it would probably be too trivial for mentioning in any Wikipedia article. feminist (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2020 (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.

Freedom units[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) 01:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 – PamD, Dondervogel 2, Jc3s5h, erkinalp9035, Shhhnotsoloud, Narky Blert, please see the related RfD discussion for the singular version. I did not want to interrupt this discussion by requesting to combine them, so felt fyi pointers were more helpful.

No mention in target article. Edit summary on creation of redirect asserts "freedom units is a common alternative name for US measurement system". Googling suggests it does exist as a US meme, but there's no point redirecting to nonexistent content. Add the info, with a reliable source, and then create the redirect. PamD 11:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've only ever heard this term used on Wikipedia. Sounds like a joke. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dondervogel 2. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep as per https://english.stackexchange.com/a/378090/247311 (I wanted proper citations to be added to this answer in order to be usable as a reliable source). Erkin Alp Güney 19:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had added those humorous referrals, but someone deleted those citations. Erkin Alp Güney 19:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yellow snow? Narky Blert (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsubstantiated humourous or slang use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned in English WP. Stack Exchange is not WP:RS (as a friend who is a moderator there, and tries to help the site keep clean of spam and miscellaneous rubbish, would surely agree). Narky Blert (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Q/A sites' reliability change based on answer. A well-written, well-researched, properly-cited Q/A answer may be more usable than a poorly-written refereed article in occasions. Erkin Alp Güney 19:34, 25 February 2020 (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.

XVIXII[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 per WP:SNOW. I'm not sure where "9+ deletes" came from, but I'm already seeing enough flurries to cancel school. -- Tavix (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Roman numeral representing 1613, but a concatenation of the numerals for 16 and 12. I initially tagged it for speedy deletion, but made a typo in the criterion used (WP:R2 instead of WP:R3). – Uanfala (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The only correct Roman numeral for 1613 is MDCXIII, as mentioned in the lede. Narky Blert (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (Uanfala). It's a useless and confusing redirect per WP:R#D2. As the remover of the CSD tag, I still think you could've retagged as R3, but it's okay. It'll be better to have this discussion on the record. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 16:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, possibly speedy. J947 (c), at 19:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J947: I declined it, and administrators often don't seem to like second attempts at speedy deletions, so letting it play out seems best. If, however, in a couple days, we're at 9+ "deletes," then I'll request early deletion per WP:SNOW. Doug Mehus T·C 22:06, 24 February 2020 (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/2020_February_24&oldid=955621847"