Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 13, 2020.

Dominant majority[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 22#Dominant majority

Vatican summit[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) 18:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seems to be a bit too broad; from searching internally, it appears that we mention a different Vatican summit in a section of Denis Brennan. From searching Google Scholar, it seems that the Vatican has occasionally held summits on a variety of major controversies. I would suggest deletion, although an alternative solution would be to add a section to Summit (meeting) related to summits convened by the Vatican and point the redirect to that article. signed, Rosguill talk 18:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per recentism. The Vatican has held umpteen summits. — JFG talk 10:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. What summit? Could refer to a recent summit, or previous summits. Or potential future summits. I have no crystal ball. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:59, 19 January 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.

Civi[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a plausible misspelling in English. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. Moriori (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Implausible indeed. C is pronounced like S when followed by E, I or Y in English (and I don't think anyone pronounces kiwi like "siwi"), and that's ignoring the mixup between V and W, which are not even the same type of sound (/v/ is a fricative, while /w/ is an approximant). Glades12 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided after reading Uanfala's reasoning. Glades12 (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current target is beyond implausible. wikt:civi doesn't suggest any target in English WP which would be any better. Narky Blert (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible typo. I can find no good target. Hog Farm (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify. There are no civis on Wikipedia, but there's one CIVI and two Çivis, and variants involving capitalisation and diacritics are normally disambiguates on the same page. It's relevant to include "see also" links for CiviCRM (it's a kind of CRM so it's conceivable somebody might imagine its actual name is just "Civi"), and maybe for CV and Sivi. Draft available below the redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just created Çivi (disambiguation) because I don't didn't see anything authoritative stating that variants with diacritics should not be disambiguated separately. I'm neutral towards your proposal itself however. Glades12 (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the need for Çivi having a separate dab page from Civi as it's so small; and variants that differ only by the presence of diacritics are almost always combined on the same dab page: WP:DABCOMBINE. This being the English Wikipedia, most readers won't have an immediate way of entering diacritics (or at least not one immediate enough for them to use while searching). – Uanfala (talk) 13:28, 14 January 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.

Hegoch Private Limited[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 per Uanfala's explanation of why WP:G8 applies signed, Rosguill talk 19:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not listed at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rosguill, Hegoch is a two-sentence stub article (the #redirect at the top is obviously an error). The key issue is notability and I don't think it's RfD's job to be evaluating that (and the article was created too recently for us to ignore its contents). Try PROD? – Uanfala (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing that one, my bad. signed, Rosguill talk 01:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many wikipedians does it take to change a light bulb? A new user creates a short article at Hegoch, and Hegoch Private Limited as a redirect to it shortly after. Then at some point they decide to add "#redirect List of Indian IT companies" to the top of the article, maybe they wanted to make that a redirect, maybe they didn't, or maybe they realised the article wasn't notable and that was the only solution they could think of. Regardless, Hegoch Private Limited is promptly changed by one of the bots that fix double redirects, then both pages are picked up at the New Page Patrol and sent to RfD. At that point it was pointed out that this is fundamentally a case of article deletion and should be handled by the article deletion processes. As a result of this remark, Hegoch was removed from the nomination and tagged for A7, but bizarrely Hegoch Private Limited was left in. Hegoch was almost immediately deleted, after which I took the next obvious step: tagging the remaining redirect for WP:G8. No action proceeded until the following day, when the speedy tag was declined, because the redirect was already at RfD. So it turns out that an article can be instantaneously zipped out of existence, whereas what is essentially a redirect to this now deleted article is there for us to get stuck debating for a week. – Uanfala (talk) 14:56, 14 January 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.

Edward Fortyhand[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. Noting the nota bene from Rosguill about this drinking game, there is strong consensus to keep here as a plausible misspelling. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 17:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Fortyhands" is a surname, albeit a fictional one: this is not a singular form of a plural word. Implausible search term, got 16 hits last year, no inlinks. My gsearch brings up only the username of an online gamer. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep seems like a reasonable {{R from mispelling}} to me. signed, Rosguill talk 22:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tag with {{R from misspelling}}. I find it plausible, and I don't think I'm the only one who sometimes has a hard time remembering whether a given person's surname had an -s at the end of it or not. – Uanfala (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. it's not really a surname, it's the name of a drinking game. signed, Rosguill talk 01:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, directs readers to the content they're certain to be looking for. WilyD 13:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and change the tag to {{R from misspelling}}. Mistakenly changing the plural to the singular here is a plausible misspelling. Hog Farm (talk) 20:47, 14 January 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.

Angiosperma[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. signed, Rosguill talk 06:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for Portuguese/Spanish Plantdrew (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep this as the singular of New Latin Angiospermae, which redirects there. But the singular doesn't seem to exist in English, understandably enough as the seeds are many, not the plant. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per IP. Seems a reasonable typo or misnomer in English. I'm not at all taking the Portuguese/Spanish into account, since that would indeed be a pretty straightforward WP:RFOREIGN if it didn't look so close to the English form. --BDD (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't know how plausible it is that someone might imagine the term to be singular, but it's defintely likely that someone might misremember that as a neuter (-a) rather than feminine (-ae). – Uanfala (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search attempt of Angiospermae. Hog Farm (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - would see to direct the readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 13:36, 14 January 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.

Joyce Santana[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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 23:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A bare mention in a skeleton list is not enough to substantiate a redirect. I'm not left much wiser by such a set-up, and it is not referenced anyway. -- Tavix (talk) 22:29, 20 January 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.

Mexicanx[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. -- Tavix (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is the most appropriate target for this redirect. Better targets, in my opinion, would include Latinx for an article about the use of the gender-neutral -x suffix in Spanish and Spanish-origin words, or Mexicans for an article about Mexicans (ie mexicanxs). Given the lack of a clear best choice, deletion may also be appropriate per WP:XY. signed, Rosguill talk 23:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this really depends on whether Mexicanx is used more for gender-neutral neologisms or for Mexicans in general. The one usage that stands out from immediate searches is for John Picacio in his "Mexicanx Initiative" for Worldcon 76 in which he defines Mexicanx as "You must be Mexicanx — that is, of Mexican ancestry, whether a citizen of Mexico, Mexican American, Mexican Canadian, etc." https://johnpicacio.com/onthefront/2018/01/28/the-mexicanx-initiative/ If the usage is more towards gender-neutral neologisms, then retarget to Latinx in the appropriate section that discusses Chicanx and Xicanx. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Enwiki has no information about "Mexicanx" and the current target doesn't help. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. I have nothing further to add. Doug Mehus T·C 20:16, 19 January 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.

MWCA[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 26#MWCA

Learjet Bombardier[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 19:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Learjet is now owned by Bombardier. The logo (and common sense) says "Bombardier Learjet".
    • No inlinks
    • Handful of pageviews
    • Created by banned sock/disruptive user
    • No evidence of usage in gHits – only occurrences look like "... blah blah Learjet. Bombardier Learjet foo ..."
—[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep (vote withdrawn) google shows this exact phrase is occasionally used, hence it is a plausible redirect.Staszek Lem (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – @Staszek Lem: can you provide an example? The gHits I looked at were of the form I mentioned above, where it matched because "Learjet" was at the end of a sentence, and "Bombardier Learjet" started the next sentence, or separated by a comma or other punctuation because they are part of separate clauses (e.g., "The soft-selling Learjet, Bombardier's smallest business aircraft, is now trailing ..." and "... stated David Coleal, vice-president and general manager, Learjet, Bombardier Business Aircraft."), or clear mistakes (e.g., this, where it's used correctly in several places except an extra "Learjet" got into the copy in one place, again like the pattern above – Learjet Bombardier Learjet).
      There's also:
      • "Bombardier Learjet" (575 hits) vs.
      • "Learjet Bombardier" (5 hits; 3 of which are of the above "separate clause" type and I can't see the other 2)
        at AviationWeek to demonstrate "correct" usage.
        I don't know if it's a valid policy reason, but I worry that having a redirect from the words in the wrong order allows people to write it that way, linked, in articles, and not see a redlink, so they don't notice they have it backwards.
        I contend the most likely search term would still be "Learjet" alone, and even if you searched Learjet Bombardier, you'd still get the near hit (and/or see the suggestion) for the "Learjet" redirect article. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Your search if only from one, professional, domain. My search was all internets. We have redirects even from typos, and this doesnt mean we are teaching people bad english. But in this case you may be right. The usage is very infrequent and we can dismiss it. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. Just to clarify, the first paragraph describes a google search of all sites; the two bullet point linked searches (575 v 5 hits) were limited to Aviation Week to demonstrate the professional industry usage. Bad structure/formatting on my part. I made another minor correction (redirect → article). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's reasons #2, #3, and #5. I'm not in the camp that subscribes to auto-deleting everything of a blocked sockpuppet, so can't support that rationale. Nom had me at "no inlinks" and the low pageviews sealed it. Doug Mehus T·C 20:18, 19 January 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.

Furioso (horse)[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 Move Furioso to Furioso (horse) and Furioso (disambiguation) to Furioso. signed, Rosguill talk 19:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where should this target: Furioso-North Star, also known as Furioso, a horse breed from an 1836 horse called Furioso; Furioso, a 1939 horse; or Furioso (disambiguation)? I don't think "Furioso-North Star" can be considered the primary topic for "Furioso (horse)" when there's an article about a horse called "Furioso" at the base name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest making it a dab page, as I have already once done. The horse breed is probably the primary topic, but uses an alternative title instead of disambiguation. I didn't know that, so when I linked to it at the expected title and found a redlink, I created a redirect. It's a mess. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: I meant above that the horse breed is probably the primary topic for Furioso (horse). The primary topic for (il or the) Furioso is without a shadow of a doubt the protagonist of the epic poem by Ariosto, followed probably by the musical tempo – on which we appear not to have a page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Furioso to Furioso (horse) and Furioso (disambiguation) to Furioso. I don't see horse breeds disambiuguated with "horse" but I do see individual horses disambiugated this way. I would also keep the hatnote currently at Furioso just in case. I am convinced by Justlettersandnumbers' argument that there is not a primary topic. -- Tavix (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the suggestions of Tavix sound good, along with a hatnote at the horse article (the new "Furioso (horse)") to the horse breed article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:04, 15 January 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.

Hulled corn[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 Husk. There seems to be consensus forming for a retarget, with agreement from the nom and no significant disagreement. No prejudice against creating a dab page in the future, though. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While hulled corn is an ingredient in hominy, it is also an ingredient in samp. Samp identifies hulled corn as groats, which ironically is an article that mentions neither hominy nor samp nor corn, although it does mention hulling.

I think that the redirect should either be converted to a disambiguation page, or deleted to encourage article creation signed, Rosguill talk 05:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Hulled corn" and "hominy" are actually synonymous; whereas "samp" (as used in North America, not in Africa) is hominy that has been ground (or ground corn prepared similar to hominy), hominy is simply hulled corn. A number of historical recipes called for "hulled corn"; what they are asking for is what we would now call "hominy". Hulled corn/hominy might in fact be a kind of groats, though I don't really think anyone would call it that. If you believe the redirect is inappropriate, perhaps you can explain how hominy differs from hulled corn prepared using an alkaline solution? The Jade Knight (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't corn hulled through a process other than using an alkaline solution be different? signed, Rosguill talk 06:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Husk, which probably has the broadest and most literal context. -- Tavix (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Husk per Tavix. Do we have an Rcat we can use for broader concepts, or would "related term" work? We could possibly dab this, too, I think. But, retargeting is fine. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The retarget proposal seems ok to me too. signed, Rosguill talk 01:05, 21 January 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.

Rio rojo[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. Participants cite WP:RFOREIGN — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No entrants in the dab page are called "rio rojo". Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's one entry for a river in Spain (presumably called Rio Sojo in Spanish), and one or two entries for places in the southern United States (whose original names are likely to have been in Spanish). – Uanfala (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any examples in Spain (did you confuse Grenada with Granada? Additonally, the specific southwest US articles don't appear to have been named Rio Rojo in Spanish (at least one of them has a link to an esWiki article where it's called "Red River (Nuevo Mexico). signed, Rosguill talk 19:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes, I did get Grenada and Granada mixed up! So that river's off the table (no Spanish in Grenada), but we still have at least one river in the American Southwest with a potential Spanish history: Red River of the South (corresponding to es:Río Rojo (Misisipi)). – Uanfala (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see a strong-enough WP:RFOREIGN claim. The closest is probably Red River of the South, but the article does not account for how the river was named nor does it give any Spanish history. -- Tavix (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Directs reader to the article they're looking for (or, really, a list of candidates). No rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 13:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Two editors have cited Wikipedia:Redirects from foreign languages as rationale. Narky Blert (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a tough one, as I concur with Uanfala and Tavix that the redirect is ambiguous...there are multiple rivers named Rio to which we could be referring. We could also be referring to the Spanish translation of whatever rio means. So, while I initially leaned delete as ambiguous, in consideration of alternatives to delete, I have to say keep per WilyD but we should add See also references (to one or more related DAB pages) and/or additional references to the existing DAB page, and continue to add references boldly as needed. Doug Mehus T·C 16:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said the redirect is ambiguous. Also, I want to point out that per MOS:DAB: References should not appear on disambiguation pages. Dab pages are not articles; instead, incorporate the references into the target articles. -- Tavix (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tavix Can you clarify what you're arguing then? That makes me see even less of a delete case then. Regarding the references, I'm referring to a == See also == section with links to related topics, but which don't necessarily fit within the existing DAB page structure. I've seen it fairly common on our DAB pages. For clarity, I didn't mean citations (which I only just learned should not be on DAB pages) Doug Mehus T·C 16:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote was an appeal to WP:RFOREIGN, not ambiguity. Please clarify how you think my !vote means "ambiguous" and I'll try to help you out if necessary. WP:REFERENCES in a Wikipedia context mean citations, so please be careful about that in the future. -- Tavix (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Thanks for your reply. I'm not familiar with WP:RFOREIGN so my "keep" !vote wasn't on that basis. I just think that since rio means river and rojo means red, it's a plausible translation. Perhaps we need to update the redirect categories to the redirect page. You mention Red River of the South, but also note why retargeting there isn't necessarily appropriate. There's all Canada's Red River and, presumably, a lot of "Red" rivers, including those that appear red in the sunset but aren't named that way. Because of the ambiguity, I don't see a WP:FORRED argument here since there's obviously no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I think just keeping is the best way to go, possibly by adding some links to one or more related DAB pages. Regarding my incorrect use of "references," my apologies as I was just thinking in a library sense. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFOREIGN can be summarized as: redirects from languages that have no relation to the subject are unlikely to be searched for and should be deleted. For example, no one is plausibly going to search for "Rio rojo" in the English Wikipedia looking for Red River (Asia). Spanish is not relevant whatsoever to that region, so no English sources are going to refer to the river that way. On the other hand, Red River of the South does have some relationship to the Spanish language, given that Spain is one of the Six flags over Texas and the river borders Texas. If the river was named by the Spanish, historical accounts of the river would follow suit and call the river that. However, without evidence of Spanish history on this river, I'm leaning towards deletion. I don't see ambiguity as an issue either way because the Red River disambiguation should catch any usage of "Rio rojo" given it is a direct translation. -- Tavix (talk) 18:26, 20 January 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.

Kolkata Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport (Kolkata Airport)[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 16:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The airport name is "Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport" not "Kolkata........(Kolkata Airport)" this redirect is baseless. Moreover there is already another redirects Kolkata Airport avaiable, so requesting to delete this redirect Sony R (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Delete per above, the Kolkata Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport (Kolkata Airport) is a useless redirect, especially since "Kolkata Airport" also exists. Also incorrect as per naming conventions. It is highly unlikely anybody would search Kolkata Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport (Kolkata Airport). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think a redirect should be created, simply do so! There is no need to move a redirect to a different title without good reason to do so. I did not see any history that needed to be preserved or anything along those lines, so I went ahead and did so. -- Tavix (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was intrigued by Shhhnotsoloud's "move" idea, but in this case, the Kolkata airport article (the target of the subject redirect) is appropriately named. I'd probably go with delete per Soumya-8974 above, or, a maybe a weak keep with an applicable rcat (i.e., transliteration, alternative spelling, something like that). Doug Mehus T·C 22:41, 19 January 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.

Prolpulgate[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 16:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An alternate spelling of propulgate, a word invented on The West Wing that doesn't have its own article. I can't find any evidence that this spelling is in use. Wikiacc () 06:58, 13 January 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.

Corva[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target article only lists Giardino Botanico Alpino di Pietra Corva which is apparently the reason for the redirect. But it should go directly to that article, or perhaps the Corva, Arizona. MB 06:02, 13 January 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.

Hall of Fire[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 16:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article, rather ambiguous. Hog Farm (talk) 01:48, 13 January 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.

Draft:Mental health of Donald Trump[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 16:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I missed something in the page history with attribution, it's unclear why we have a redirect from the draft space to the article space. Hog Farm (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is very common to maintain redirects from draftspace to the corresponding article once moved to article space. In this case, the article did not survive as an independent subject, so the draftspace redirect can safely be deleted. BD2412 T 02:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What BD2412 said. Should be deleted per WP:CSD#G6 cleanup. — JFG talk 08:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral(ish), but note that Mental health of Donald Trump now targets Goldwater rule#Regarding Donald Trump, which is a different article. Also, G6 does definitely not apply. This is not an uncontroversial technical deletion. Glades12 (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:RDRAFT. Even though the content at the draft title was redirected to another article, the draft title targets the title which the redirect where its content resides (in edit history) targets. (The content and edit history at Mental health of Donald Trump was moved to Health of Donald Trump, the latter being where the draft's edit history resides.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This is weird. There is nothing of value to preserve in the history of this draft redirect. RDRAFT is silent on what should happen to redirects of drafts that have been moved to mainspace and then did not survive AfD. Still feels like a cleanup action to me, even if not strictly G6, I still see this thing as a technical leftover. — JFG talk 17:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - seems unneeded leftover, maybe a WP:CSD#G8 as the content this referred to was deleted. As Glades12 said, in main space the Mental health of Donald Trump redirects to Goldwater rule, not to a subsection of Donald Trump. When the article ‘Health of Donald Trump’ was by AfD deleted and bits moved to Donald Trump, the Mental Health bit was at first included (Donald Trump Consensus #36), and the redirect would have made some sense. But that content was later excluded (Donald Trump Consensus #39), so now this seems a leftover mis-directing redirect. One could edit to make the draft match main space, but that seems the reverse of what ‘draft’ is and... just no point to it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's nothing here we need to keep. Guy (help!) 10:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and JzG's concise explanation. This is just a leftover redirect from draft space where merged into the health & lifestyle section of Donald Trump. As much as AnomieBOT et al. may disagree with me, there's no human-edited attribution history to keep here. Doug Mehus T·C 14:45, 19 January 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.

Template:Arrowverse summary[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 16:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template was generalized to be used by more than one series, and this template name is now no longer in usage, so the specific-title name is no longer required. -- /Alex/21 01:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. - Brojam (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Template:Arrowverse since it exists. Steel1943 (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two templates are completely unrelated and served different purposes, so why would it redirect there? -- /Alex/21 21:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - was never a summary to begin with, but as Alex mentioned, it was generalized. --Gonnym (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's no point in keeping unused redirects to existing templates. The only transclusion is in Gonnym's sandbox, which can be easily substituted. --Doug Mehus T·C 15:17, 19 January 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.

House of the Kings[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 16:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article and rather ambiguous in meaning. Hog Farm (talk) 01:28, 13 January 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.

Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting[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 withdrawn now that my concern has been resolved. -- Tavix (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As established at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 30#SATCM, this is not mentioned at the target article. Therefore, this redirect can do nothing but confuse or disappoint those wanting specific information on this term. -- Tavix (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as information added on the redirected page. Although not mentioned earlier, the SATCM is an important meeting part of the Anarctic Treaty, happens a lot less than ATCM but it discusses more important topics. I have added information with a reference on the designated page about the SATCM meetings. TwinTurbo (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that sourced information has been added to the target. Narky Blert (talk) 14:18, 18 January 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.

Holländische Griff[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 20#Holländische Griff

32,767[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 30,000#32000 to 32999. Nomination withdrawn, I missed the "Range section" part of WP:NUMBER. Retargeting to the specific section per editor suggestions. (non-admin closure) — MarkH21talk 05:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search query for 2^15 - 1 — MarkH21talk 01:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have bundled identical nominations. -- Tavix (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the creator of the redirect, these seem just as plausible of search terms as 32767 (number) with and without the comma, given that 2^15-1 is not notable enough for a standalone article, but a redirect. I will grant that this was a declined redirect at AFC/R, and I did create them after they had previously been declined. In hindsight, I should have definitely left a note on DannyS712's talk page, as this was the first time that I unilaterally overruled an AFC/R decision, especially because I didn't provide a reason for doing so (because the discussion was archived). So that wasn't a proud moment of mine. However, I digress, and I am going off-topic. The number is a valid search term, as users who wonder about why the largest integer available on a 16-bit computer is 32767 can search for that term to find information on it, and it would be more helpful to send them to information about the 30,000's where it is covered by an entry than to send them to a "no search results" page. Utopes (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I failed to notice the section on range sections in WP:NUMBER (which admittedly is directly beneath the Integers section on which I was more focused), as KAP03 pointed out. Withdrawing RfD and changing target to the appropriate section. — MarkH21talk 04:43, 13 January 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_January_13&oldid=937629977"