Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 23, 2021.

Ekta Jain[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. ✗plicit 23:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the subject in the target film page. Deleting should encourage creation of a standalone article, if notable. Jay (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2021 (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.

Morai[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 30#Morai

Tuahu[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 30#Tuahu

LeBron Witness Shirt[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 5#LeBron Witness Shirt

Big 11[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 5#Big 11

Open Researcher Contributor Identiificatiion[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. ✗plicit 23:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deletion. This typo isn't plausible; "ORCID" stands for "Open researcher and contributor ID". This drops the "and", spells out the "ID" in full, and then misspells it by doubling two out of the three i's. It's a weirdly specific typo that I can't picture anyone making: even if someone were doubling all of their i's, they would likely double all 3. Tamwin (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a weirdly specific typo that I can't picture anyone making: the creator of the redirect did make it, after all. :) — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, yes. On the other hand, if that were the criterion we used, we would never delete any redirect from a misspelling. The question is whether someone is likely to make the typo again, and I don't think they are. Not that the redirect is doing any harm per se... Tamwin (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two separate instances of a repeated letter make this an implausible search term that just clutters search results and is unhelpful. Redirects like this shouldn't exist. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2021 (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.

Wikipedia:FAKENEWS[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 Wikipedia:Fake news. ✗plicit 23:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect formerly led to Fake news and was deleted in 2017 (past discussion). It has now been recreated, but I don't think this is a particularly natural target for it. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I realise now the cross wikilink was the previous target for this redirect. Concerning the current target, it is not appropriate to classify a list of both reliable and unreliable sources as "fake news". And even if the target listed only unreliable sources (which it doesn't) that is still not the same thing as "fake news". Polyamorph (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per 192.76.8.91 below. Keep as creator. Why isn't that essay a natural target? I can never remember the 3 letter acronym for WP:RSP, and that's basically its function, by anyone who ever mentions it: it lists various publishers some editors believe propagate fake news, and thus aren't WP:Reliable Sources. No? -- Kendrick7talk 01:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's its function. To my understanding, its function is to summarize past discussions about frequently-discussed sources to avoid wasting time having substantively similar discussions again and again at WP:RSN. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't list "various publishers some editors believe propagate fake news", it lists sources with recurring use that have had discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard. There are sources on that list that are considered extremely reliable, there are sources that are only considered usable for attributed opinion and there are several spammy websites listed there that were blacklisted due to persistent misuse as sources. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it tended to list publishers instead of sources, and I think it's a little confusing to conflate these two things, but OK. I didn't realize WP:Fake News already existed and it's obviously correct to retarget this this. Nice catch! -- Kendrick7talk 18:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the DAB page at Wikipedia:Fake news. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per the IP user. Thanks for finding that page. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:54, 25 April 2021 (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.

List of equipment of Cyprus[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 00:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect is a leftover of Talk:List of equipment of the Cypriot National Guard#Requested move 16 April 2021 (permalink).
The name of the redirect is confusing since "equipment of Cyprus" definitely contains other things that are not "equipment of the Cypriot National Guard", like say... scissors? I am quite sure there are ✂ in Cyprus. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 15:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete how does this relate to the equipement of the tax collection agency? or other entities -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although this says the redirect is the leftover of a move done on April 23, the page history says the redirect was created on March 3 by User:Noah Kastin, who has not been notified of this Rfd or the earlier move. Or am I getting confused with the WP:ROUNDROBIN that happened? Jay (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is a wp:round robin. I do not see a point notifying them since the redirect was initially created as List of equipment of the Cypriot National Guard by Noah Kastin. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then who created List of equipment of Cyprus? In the history of List of military equipment of Cyprus, I see the creator's comment: Eurohunter moved page List of military equipment of Cyprus to List of equipment of Cyprus. Why he would do that, I don't know. Jay (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure too since they initiated the linked requested move above after the move, but presumably the current title is what they wants. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 00:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified Eurohunter about this Rfd. Jay (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2021 (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.

Leticia Dionizio[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. ✗plicit 23:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned as an alternative name at the target or its corresponding ptWiki article, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I couldn't find any connection between the target article and Dionizio. Less Unless (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2021 (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.

Qaumaniq[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 6#Qaumaniq

Wentshukumi****eu[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. ✗plicit 09:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:10, 23 April 2021 (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.

Kulin,[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. Hog Farm Talk 04:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNNATURAL typo, from which the target article was moved on the day of its creation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:43, 23 April 2021 (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.

Medusa (mythology),[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 00:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was created with the content "MEDUSA" in 2005 and immediately redirected with the summary "Better to redirect than to delete". I would suggest deletion of this WP:UNNATURAL error; however, for some reason, this does get some 10 pageviews per month. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is absolutely no need for this redirect. Paul August ☎ 14:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think we should err on the side of caution with those pageviews, presumably caused by some odd old link. It doesn't harm to keep the redirect, but it might harm to delete it. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - This, for some odd reason, has been getting decent pageviews, including a good bit over 100 in 2020. Don't know why this is being used, but its existence doesn't actually hurt anything, and it is apparently getting used. Hog Farm Talk 01:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So many of our mythological topics have titles formatted this way that people are likely to use it as a link, and perhaps as a search term—overly cautious, perhaps, but there are a lot of things named after Medusa, including an asteroid, so doubtless there are many people who will argue that Medusa is not primary for the title... in any case, a potentially useful redirect. P Aculeius (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius: Just to check, did you see the comma at the end? Your comment kinda implies you haven't, and I missed it on my first read. Tamwin (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't—I looked for something odd about the link, and couldn't see anything, probably assuming that the comma was part of the nomination, not the link.
  • Delete. Nobody's going to search with a comma at the end; if this redirect gets pageviews, it's by accident—probably because it pops up in the search window when people start to type "Medusa" or "Medusa (mythology)" without a comma. P Aculeius (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the reason some of the redirects with commas get pageviews is that when you start typing the term in Wikipedia search window, it shows both options - without and with comma, and people might pick either of them. I think the redirect should be deleted as there's another redirect without comma that comes up both in Wiki and search engines. Less Unless (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2021 (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.

Connellan 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. ✗plicit 09:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNNATURAL error. Connellan Airport exists and has a lot more pageviews. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unlikely typo and unlikely to be useful, consistent with the low page views. Adumbrativus (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2021 (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.

John McAdam,[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. ✗plicit 09:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was the initial title of John McAdam (businessman), but was moved a day after creation. No need to have this WP:UNNATURAL error. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:22, 23 April 2021 (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.

Meeting on Vjun[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 30#Meeting on Vjun

Dr. Michael Roizen[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) jp×g 04:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect from title, which seems to have had about sixty pageviews in the whole year of 2021. jp×g 02:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, plausible redirect from title, seems to be a common search term. 60 pageviews in 3 months is a good effort, even considering NPP views. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 06:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- target is a Dr., so this is plausible and non incorrect or ambiguous. Hog Farm Talk 01:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947 and Hog Farm. There are people out there who call him by his title, so this redirect is definitely not implausible. Regards, SONIC678 04:21, 24 April 2021 (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.

Safemoon[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. ✗plicit 02:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Also not mentioned at Ponzi scheme, a previous target. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a scam. 30 seconds of research would legitimize itself— Preceding unsigned comment added by SirNicNasty (talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 April 2021 (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.

Andy ****[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 00:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a very unusual way to refer to the target, as the odds of somebody typing **** instead of Dick when it's somebody's last name seems odd. Hog Farm Talk 00:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note I think **** parade,****ing, Austria and *****ing Betty should also be put up for deletion since there’s no evidence that either of them are known by that alternate name.--67.70.101.238 (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are at least expletives being used as expletives; it's conceivable that some particularly puritanical news outlet might censor them. Tamwin (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this redirect per above. I can see where the creator's coming from, and Andy Dick may have exhibited some ****ish behavior during his life, but this just...doesn't help things because it's used in the wrong context. Regards, SONIC678 04:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a common name that is clearly not an expletive in this context. Tamwin (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia's edit filters will filter/flag out this surname. Though, how this redirect would help, would require a bot to actively go about and replace these links with the fulltext link instead. So it could be helpful to unconfirmed editors, but it would require a cleanup category and some confirmed editor or bot to go around and fnx them later. -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think a more likely reason for this redirect's creation is to fix a link that was placed on some other Web site that automatically censored it. Template:No article text has been used to handle some other link modifications; could that be done for this? --116.86.4.41 (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we tell whether this was created as an intentional Scunthorpe problem workaround, or an editor being too much of a prude to type the man's name? At first glance it's utterly ridiculous, but if it holds some value as other people are saying then it's worth considering (and maybe expanding to other articles?). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll never know as this editor's one and only contribution was 12 years back. Jay (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SONIC. Jay (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2021 (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/2021_April_23&oldid=1021793853"