Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 28, 2021.

File:Our Lady of Heliopolis Co-Cathedral in 2007.jpg[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn/moot -FASTILY 05:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Alexis Jazz under criterion R3 FASTILY 22:53, 28 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.

Digital Euro[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) CycloneYoris talk! 09:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted because the target link doesn't even include an entire section about the source title, and per WP:R#DELETE#1 the term could also refer to Euro, the user would be better of just being sent to the search results and making a choice, until a proper section or article is written about the digital euro (which would most likely be at Euro#Digital Euro). Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is no mention of digital in Euro, so a search resulting in Euro would not have helped. There is no requirement for the target to have an entire section on the subject. Delete can happen if the target article contains virtually no information on the subject, and in this case the target article has good info. Jay (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Of the mentions in enwiki of "digital euro", the most substantive content is at Central bank digital currency. Of course, the redirect could be retargeted in future if the Euro article is expanded. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:34, 1 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.

Total Advance[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 18:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:56, 28 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.

Frances Boyle[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 18:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from a misspelling of a person's name, with no indication in the target article that this spelling has any documented use in reference to that person. The first issue here is a gender one: Francis with an i is a male name, while Frances with an e is a female one, and there's no particular evidence that people commonly get the spellings mixed up by referring to men as "Frances" or to women as "Francis". And secondly, there's an award-nominated and potentially WP:AUTHOR-passing Canadian writer named Frances Boyle, who absolutely should not be pushed down to a disambiguated title just because of a misspelling of somebody else's name. We do not, for the record, have any established practice of Frances→Francis or Francis→Frances redirects for every person with one name or the other, and I can't find any credible reason why this one should need special treatment. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This looks to me like a more pressing reason to write the article than take the redirect to RfD per se. (It looks from Google that Frances Boyle can also refer to an oncology professor who quick-glance might pass NPROF.) I'm inclined to delete the redirect, as it clogs up the Google results for both Ms Boyles pending their article...ification, though it looks there's a possibility the name will be a disambig anyway. Vaticidalprophet 22:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to stress that the award she was nominated for just came roaring back from an extended hiatus, with several years worth of delayed shortlist and winner announcements literally all thrown at the wall within the last 14 days. In other words, I've got 90 redlinked writers (including several of the winners) to sort out whether I can find enough sources to start something, another 90 or so bluelinked writers who need to have the award nominations or wins added to their articles, and no pressing reason to prioritize Frances Boyle above everybody else. So should she have an article, yeah, probably. Can I guarantee that I'll get to it today, or even within the week before an RFD discussion would conclude, no. So it's much better to get the redirect dealt with in the interim than to just let it sit. Bearcat (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whilst I would agree that a misspelling is plausible, the nom has presented a good case that this redirect may be confusing. If an article is written I'd encourage a {{distinguish}} hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:38, 1 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.

Dutty dutty love[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 16:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Song lyric in target, but also in at least "Letting Go (Dutty Love)", which is what Google shows me when I search the term. May be valid search term, but suggest deletion as there are no incoming links, the page has few views, and the term is ambiguous. If kept, it should be disambiguated with at least a hatnote. Ost (talk) 21:27, 28 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.

Olympic Park Stadium[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. There's been a fair amount of discussion, but editors do not appear to be converging on a consensus, and there's been some comments to the effect that the changes at issue would be better discussed as a move request. signed, Rosguill talk 18:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic Park Stadium (Melbourne) was disambiguated for reasons I don't completely understand (are there other Olympic Park Stadiums?). I don't see any discussion regarding the move, and I don't know how to boldly undo a move and redirect, so I'm bringing it to RfD. SportingFlyer T·C 21:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Unnecessary RFD, unless you are pre-committed to opposing and fighting. You could have asked the editor who moved what was at "Olympic Park Stadium" to "Olympic Park Stadium (Melbourne)", and who has been disambiguating usage of the term. Yes there are others. --Doncram (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User:SportingFlyer likely did not understand that the term "Olympic Park Stadium" is being disambiguated at a combo dab page, Olympic Park (disambiguation). When they opened this RFD, the redirect now at "Olympic Park Stadium" temporarily, mistakenly went to "Olympic Park", a general term, not a disambiguation page. The one in Melbourne, by the way, has been demolished. The one in Tokyo (wikipedia article Komazawa Olympic Park Stadium) continues, and so do other stadiums in Olympic Parks which are naturally referred to as "Olympic Park Stadium". At RFD I do not know if the protocol is like at AFD, where a nominator can withdraw an item. If possible, SportingFlyer, could you withdraw this? I'll check back late tonight probably. --Doncram (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an improper disambiguation, as "Olympic Park Stadium" is different from "Olympic Park." I'm trying to BRD this, since no discussion occurred, the onus should be on you to establish the disambiguation. SportingFlyer T·C 10:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know what wp:BRD is, but I don't understand what you steps you'd mean to take in "I'm trying to BRD this". Opening an RFD is nothing like that. I'm almost half way through visiting 500-600 inbound wikilinks to Olympic Park Stadium, changing most of them to link to Olympic Park Stadium (Melbourne). If you consider my actions "Bold", maybe you should be reverting each of those and opening discussions at each of their pages? Please don't do that though. The correct forum for your view would have been a) talk to the editor (me) whose actions you question to work out some solution if possible, and then if that doesn't lead to clarification/solution, then b) open an RFC or other proceeding of some sort, which would have been a wp:RM. --Doncram (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close: This can/should be CLOSED at least because wp:RFD is not the right forum. Someone could open a "controversial"-type wp:RM about whether "Olympic Park Stadium (Melbourne)" should be moved back to "Olympic Park Stadium" or to some other name. Given the current or future article names, of course any redirects should go to wherever they should go to, there's nothing to discuss at RFD. And, this RFD is based on a misunderstanding, when the "Olympic Park Stadium" redirect in fact pointed to the wrong place, which was since fixed. --Doncram (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are only two Olympic Park Stadium's, the one in Melbourne - which I would argue is the WP:Primary topic and should be located at this page - and the one in Tokyo which has a natural disambiguation anyway. In any case, the redirect is directed to the wrong page. Olympic Park Stadium clearly refers to the stadium and not the Olympic Park so redirecting it to Olympic Park is misleading. For the same reason, it would be better to disambiguate at Olympic Stadium (disambiguation) rather than Olympic Park (disambiguation). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig. My searches indicate that London Stadium is the overwhelming primary topic for the search term "Olympic Park Stadium" -Wikipedia on google, with all-but 8 of the results on the first six pages of results. The other stadiums in the order they appeared and with the number of hits they got were: Daqing Olympic Park Stadium (1), Stadium Australia (3), Seoul Olympic Stadium (2) and Olympic Park Stadium (Melbourne) (2). I see similar results in a private window (again London is the overwhelming primary topic). I repeated the search using DuckDuckGo on Tor (with a German exit node), there was very clearly no primary topic here with results for stadiums in (in order) Melbourne, London, Munich, Beijing, Daqing, Yiyang, Seoul and Tokyo on the first four pages. Melbourne, London and Beijing were all about equally represented in terms of absolute number of hits with Seoul not far behind. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that's correct: a similar search I performed shows that the search engines tend to drop the order of words, for instance the three London results I checked did not include the specific phrase "Olympic Park Stadium." As it stands, the phrase Olympic Park Stadium has a clear primary topic. SportingFlyer T·C 14:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your findings differ from mine - when searching for the exact phrase in quotes (not just the three words) the significant majority included the exact phrase. In the case of the London stadium, the most common phrasing is "Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park Stadium", but sometimes just "Olympic Park Stadium" (especially on subsequent uses) is also common. Whatever, it doesn't matter though because it is clear that whatever the official names are, there is no single primary topic for what people are searching for when searching for this phrase because the intended target depends strongly on the location of the person searching and context of the search. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only results I see which call it the "Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park Stadium" are a couple from 2014. The others call it the "Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park stadium" (note the lowercase s, which refers to the stadium in the park, not the proper name of the stadium.) "Olympic Park Stadium" "Melbourne" brings up significantly more hits than any other of the cities you listed with the exception of Tokyo and Sydney, but nobody's thinking of redirecting Komazawa Olympic Park Stadium, and it's clear from the Sydney searches that it's not a clear name (many results list the Melbourne stadium, and "Olympic Park. Stadium Australia" is also common. I strongly disagree that search results show this isn't the primary topic at the title. SportingFlyer T·C 14:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Why on earth would we redirect Olympic Park Stadium and Olympic Park stadium to different targets? Given that we clearly wouldn't, we need to work out which is the topic that most people will be searching for given either capitalisation and the search results could not be clearer that there is no primary topic. What people are searching for when adding qualifiers to the search term is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • We wouldn't. My point is "Olympic Park Stadium" refers only to the Melbourne stadium as its official name. "Olympic Park stadium" refers to a stadium in any Olympic park. What's more indicative is that a scholar search brings up mostly the Melbourne stadium. SportingFlyer T·C 17:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            My point is that the official name is mostly irrelevant, what scholarly sources in isolation do is mostly irrelevant. What we are dealing with here is what article most people looking for "Olympic Park Stadium" in any capitalisation on Wikipedia will be expecting to find. All the evidence we have is that there is no single answer to that question - for someone in Australia it's probably Melbourne, in the UK it's probably London, in South Korea it's probably Seoul, if they're interested in a specific Olympics then it'll most likely be the stadium in that city's Olympic park. Together this means that there is no primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Olympic Park Stadium" is actually a highly specific search term, though. There's only one "Olympic Park Stadium." Google Trends doesn't pick up on it. The article receives 20-40 views a day. I don't have any issue with a common dab page, but there's clearly a primary topic here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              That there is only one thing that people are searching for when entering "Olympic Park Stadium" into a search engine is contradicted by every bit of evidence I've seen. Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              We're not going to agree, but I'm really disappointed in your edit summary saying every literally every piece of evidence points to me being wrong. I'm not wrong. There's one and only one "Olympic Park Stadium" (even if it's not extant anymore.) Yes, there are lots of other stadiums with similar titles, and we can include a link in the article to those topics, but this is not a case where there's several different topics with the same title that need to be disambiguated. SportingFlyer T·C 00:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              There might only be one stadium with that exact name as it's official name, but as I keep pointing out that is not relevant. What matters is whether that stadium is the primary topic for the name, and literally every bit of evidence shows that it is not which is what I meant in my edit summary. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              What, the fact your Google search brings up other hits even though Melbourne brings up several times more hits than any of the other cities? It's been the primary topic for the name since 2006. The only reason it was moved at all, as Doncram notes, is because the name occasionally gets shortened, not because of any likelihood of confusion we somehow stumbled upon 15 years later. SportingFlyer T·C 01:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              Except the Google searches bring up more hits for places other than Melbourne than they do for Melbourne - in the case of my default search there were about 20 non-Melbourne results (mostly London) for every 1 related to Melbourne. I haven't looked before now, but I would be amazed if it has actually been the primary topic at any point even though it has been located at the primary title. The reason it was moved is because it is not the primary topic - primary topics do not care about official names or even correct names, they care about what topic most people are looking for when they enter that specific string into a search engine. Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There certainly is no primary topic. I'm not opposed to having a combo dab page for "Olympic Stadium" and "Olympic Park Stadium". The reason I focused upon the Olympic Park (disambiguation) is that the common usage in Wikipedia was/is that about 20% of the 500-600 links intended to go to the Melbourne stadium article are from the pipelinked phrase "Olympic Park", and 80% are pipelinked as "Olympic Park Stadium". In Melbourne at least, there is apparently no distinction: the stadium is the park is the stadium. I dunno, at other places perhaps there is a difference between an "Olympic Park" vs. an "Olympic Park Stadium" (or "Olympic Stadium"). --Doncram (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In London the "Olympic Stadium" and "Olympic Park Stadium" are the same thing: London Stadium. "Olympic Park" means Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in which the Olympic Stadium, Aquatics Centre, Velodrome and other venues are situated. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks to me that all should be covered in one combo dab page, Olympic Park (disambiguation), as it has been developing, with Olympic Park stadia and Olympic stadia as subitems under larger Olympic Parks in some cases.
      • About usage for Melbourne, "Olympic Park" is used very often in Wikipedia to refer to the stadium (i.e. it's what shows in a piped link to the Melbourne stadium article), especially after the first usage in an article. Interestingly, the article now at Olympic Park Stadium (Melbourne) carefully explains that the stadium is within an "Olympic Park" which links to Melbourne Sports and Entertainment Precinct. An article which explains the precinct consists/consisted of Olympic Park Stadium (Melbourne) and two other parts. I will put into the dab that "Olympic Park" might mean the larger area Melbourne Sports and Entertainment Precinct or just the stadium once within it.
      • So, okay, the right process is to have a merger discussion, it's not for RFD to say. Please consider participating at Talk:Olympic Park (disambiguation)#Merger proposal. --Doncram (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • By the way, Thryduulf, should the link to ambiguous "Olympic Park Stadium" in article Charlie Twissell go to some facility in London? For most other inbound links I can confirm that the Melbourne stadium is meant, but this one looks different. Also by the way, there are a lot of inbound links (out of 283 total) to Olympic Park article where the Melbourne stadium/park seems to have been meant. Outside scope of what I've been trying to do so far. --Doncram (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          @Doncram: A match in 1956 was definitely not played in a stadium built for the 2012 Olympics. Association football at the 1956 Summer Olympics#First round lists the venue as the Melbourne Cricket Ground but without a source. This source [1], whose reliability I don't know, gives the venue as "Olympic Park Stadium" it doesn't specify which Olympic Park Stadium but as the match was played 5 days after one in a suburb of Melbourne it seems unlikely to be anywhere other than Melbourne. Thryduulf (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • A quick glance at The Age from 1956 shows that the newspapers used the term "Olympic Park" to refer to the stadium and "Main Stadium" to possibly refer to the 'G. Charlie Twissell should link to this article, Great Britain won 9-0 at Olympic Stadium that day [2]. SportingFlyer T·C 20:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there are "Olympic Park Stadiums" that are not listed at Olympic Park then they should be listed at Olympic Park (disambiguation). We should be careful, though, not to make Olympic Park (disambiguation) just a re-hash of the list already at Olympic Park, and I've cleaned it up to that effect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:11, 1 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.

Ken McNeil[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 Ken MacNeil. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 17:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might qualify for WP:R3, but if I read the guideline correctly I should be bringing this here. Article was created under an incorrect name—the subject's name is Kent, not Ken, McNeil, and I don't know of any instance in which he's referred to by Ken sans T. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:57, 28 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.

JLin[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) CycloneYoris talk! 09:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or retarget to Jlin. If it were "J. Lin", I suppose that would be different, but it's not really clear why it redirects here; Lin does not appear to go by this name commonly if at all, and it's not referenced in the article itself. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it is an Americanism, from street culture. Various other celebs have this form of abbreviation, such as JLo. As bball is a common topic of American street culture, and at one point Jeremy Lin had a high profile in bball, it was used at that point in time. -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous and delete the related hatnotes at Jeremy Lin and Jlin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shhhnotsoloud (talk • contribs) 11:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible search term - e.g. this and this. MB 23:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-target to Jerrilynn Patton alias Jlin. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since he does use this branding and capitalization (e.g. [3] The former NBA guard has launched the Xtep JLin One, his first signature shoe to drop in Asia. (emphasis added)). Keep the hatnotes as necessary. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A "delete" is effectively a retarget, as "JLin" would essentially become a misspelling of "Jlin"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Bagumba (talk) 11:11, 28 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.

The Magic Diner[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 16:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these are 2015 and 2018 short films that were originals commissioned by and shown on the Vogue channel so there is clearly a connection to the target. However, with no mention at the target this will not help anyone searching for information about them. The only mention I have found anywhere on Wikipedia is an entry in the list at Alicia Vikander#Filmography, but as that doesn't make a good target, especially as she has a co-star (Anna Wintour) in part 2 and most of the hits I'm finding on Google all seem to regard the director (Niclas Larsson) as at least equally significant to the film. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe the creator wanted to also create a page Vogue Original Shorts which was a red link from the target, but didn't get around to doing it. Jay (talk) 10:58, 6 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.

Business Information Systems[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 11#Business Information Systems

Independent Union (politcal party)[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) CycloneYoris talk! 09:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNNATURAL spelling error in the disambiguation –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as...uh, creator, sort of (I 'made' the redirect during a page move at RM/TR, see Special:Permalink/1012783770). Not only does the typo in question clearly not fit the disambig errors defined at WP:UNNATURAL, but it was so natural the page was literally created at that title before I fixed it. This is not an 'error having no affinity for one title over another'; it's a typo of a word specifically appearing in the disambiguator. Any title identified enough with a page to be the one it's created at isn't going to fit UNNATURAL under most circumstances (i.e. except when a page was intentionally made at a bad title). Vaticidalprophet 02:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Redirects are cheap. If it happened once, it could happen again. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 1 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.

Anti-Circumcision Movement[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 Circumcision controversies#Anti-circumcision movement. signed, Rosguill talk 00:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all to Circumcision controversies § Anti-circumcision movement, which is more focused on the relevant topic(s). The current target mainly references advocacy orgs rather than reliable, third-party sources (the exceptions are already cited at Circumcision controversies), making these redirects seem largely promotional. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Anti-circumcision, Intact advocacy, and Opposition to circumcision, which all redirect to Circumcision controversies. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget all as suggested. Even if the Bodily integrity section weren't messy (and it is), my cursory search suggests that intactivism is mainly focused on circumcision on not bodily integrity overall. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are none of those their own articles? Seems like a pretty notable movement.★Trekker (talk) 19:00, 3 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.

True Forced Loneliness[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 00:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a novel term not in real use as a synonym for "incel". Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I wouldn't call it a synonym, but it is a real, closely related community that certainly isn't notable enough for a standalone article. See this Huffington Post source. There is a brief mention of it at Incel already. A redirect seems appropriate to me. (Noting that I came here from the notification at Talk:Incel). GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Closely related concept without enough notability for an article. I hope that continues to be true; I truly hate that I know about this now. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:24, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_28&oldid=1022576316"