Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 12, 2021.

Fever Games[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. Treat this one as a bit of a soft delete; if the content is added back and remains in the article long enough to indicate stability, ping me and I'll be willing to restore the redirect. Hog Farm Talk 14:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Mentions elsewhere appear to be referring to games of Indiana Fever. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Mention was removed in this edit (without explanation): Special:Diff/981606619. It was actually sourced to something, so it could be restored, but I don't know that's it's important. -2pou (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @CaptainBlackburn, who made the edit linked further above. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:07, 13 August 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.

Sunnydale Syndrome[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term is not mentioned in the target article at all, and hasn't been since it was removed with this edit in 2009 citing original research and fancruft (to me it reads more like a TV Tropes article than Wikipedia content). That completely unsourced content was the result of a merge from Sunnydale Syndrome but the (lack of) content was discussed at Talk:Sunnydale#Sunnydale Syndrome in 2009-2010 without apparent objection so I don't feel like reverting the redirection and sending the content to AfD is needed (but will happily do so if others think it is). The hyphenated form was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunnydale-syndrome in 2006, with the outcome being a redirect to Sunnydale Syndrome as a duplicate article a few days before the content there was merged into the target article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. These redirects are no longer meaningful, because Wikipedia no longer covers this "syndrome" (relating to characters failing to notice or understand the supernatural/fantasy events taking place around them). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The redirect serves no purpose now.Bjones (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My objection back then was to mis-using AFD to handle duplicate content. I still think that we should not send this through AFD. However the syndrome is nowadays a properly documented thing, that it wasn't in 2009. The 2014 Reading Joss Whedon (ISBN 9780815610380) covers it in the "All Those Apocalypses" chapter (written by anthropology professor Linda J. Jencson). So it is a thing that Wikipedia could cover, and removed content such as Special:Diff/39795436 is now supportable by the aforementioned book, which gives that same example on page 104. I'm not sure that making removed content that an ordinary editor could now reinstate with supporting academic sources inaccessible by deleting the edit histories is the right way to proceed. Uncle G (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Uncle G: are you arguing to revert to the article content? If so that's something I'd consider supporting, but I don't see keeping this a redirect is a good or appropriate course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can see an article on the general phenomenon, but the title and the composition of the article make it appear to be Buffyverse minutia, so I'd argue for a fresh start.Bjones (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that it could be discussed in the target article, and that the content that was there in the edit history that got redirected could be used, perhaps not in total but at least in large part, with suitable source additions such as the aforementioned. Deletion of the original edit history eliminates this path of editors using, and improving upon, what we already had written for us; which would be a shame in my view. The argument that Wikipedia doesn't have the subject so the redirect must not exist is backwards here. The subject was merged in (Special:Diff/66907708) in 2006 from the edit history that is being nominated for deletion and later got blanked for reasons that are no longer true. I think that the way to proceed is some passing editor to pick out the good stuff from the edit history, Jencson et al. supporting, and put explanation of the subject back in to the target article. I don't want to get in the way of a volunteer doing that. Uncle G (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further consideration of Uncle G's comment that advocates for an outcome other than deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:03, 12 August 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.

New York Emmy Awards[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 restore article. Anyone is free to nominate it at AfD, but do not simply revert it to a redirect. --BDD (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The regional emmys aren't notable and keeping a redirect to a page that doesn't discuss the topic is pointless. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert to article and send to AFD, if desired. We have an entire category of regional Emmys, which suggests they are notable. I don't know why this one was singled out for WP:BLARing. It deserves to be discussed on its merits as an article, not a redirect to a topic where it's not mentioned. - Eureka Lott 20:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Topic and Revert I am unsure as to why anyone would suggest that the regional Emmys are non notable? The Academy does not distinguish notability due to a Daytime, Primetime, Sports, Special Acknowledgement, Regional,International or Educational Emmy award as anything less than an "Emmy Award" The fact that they won it on a regional level does not mitigate the fact that they are in fact Emmy Award winners. These regional Emmys also have their own television broadcast of the awards ceremonies throughout the country in which mainstream celebrities are often in attendance. So, for that reason I believe this article should not be tampered with under the guise of being non-natable. Also, as someone who has sat on the academy board for more than fifteen years I can assure you that the regionals are looked at with the same respect as the nationals.--Canyouhearmenow 21:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Emmy_Awards#Regional_Emmys (where they are discussed) or potentially restore as article. At a very quick glance, there may be enough of a case that each regional Emmy (or various Chapter of the National Television Academy sections) justifies an article; however sub-pages like 26th Midsouth Emmy Awards are unnecessary and don't demonstrate GNG and (if regional pages are kept) should redirect there. Some of those regional articles are quite bad: New England Emmy Awards for example has no secondary sources and a 10-year-old list of members of the board of governors. If the articles cannot be improved, the supporters of coverage of the topic will be disappointed at AFD. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response While I do agree that the articles for the most part are in bad shape and are definitely in need of some sourcing and updating, I still do not believe they are even remotely deserving of an WP:AFD or even a redirect. I suggest that we tag the article for more sourcing and article clean up and allow others to contribute to the article. The regionals are again just as important as any of the other Emmys and are held by the same standards. The only difference is that they do not cover as much area as the nationals. But each recipient is none the less an Emmy Award Winner.--Canyouhearmenow 00:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either restore or retarget per above. Deletion, if warranted, should be discussed at AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore without prejudice to AfD per WP:BLAR. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 17 August 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.

Stretch goal[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion per CSD G.1 The target article doesn't even mention stretch goals and even less explain what it is. TobiF (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see G1 applying here since that specially is about incoherent text or gibberish, which doesn’t apply here.--67.70.144.233 (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ambiguous. Search results yield multiple mentions of this term throughout WP, but nothing worth including on a DAB page. CycloneYoris talk! 22:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Search results show that the term is currently mentioned in 118 articles, so it would be nice to point this somewhere. We could describe the process in the crowdfunding article, and if that doesn't work, we could point it to wikt:stretch goal as a last resort. - Eureka Lott 23:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went bold and created a stub instead, despite English not being my native tongue. How do I close this suggestion? TobiF (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TobiF: Your stub was reverted by Onel5969, so this discussion should remain open until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris talk! 20:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The nomination was malformed, as the page itself wasn't tagged. This has been fixed (hopefully). --Paul_012 (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Eureka Lott, Wiktionary redirect for now, with no prejudice against retargeting to Crowdfunding if a mention is added. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cyclone, and meanwhile TobiF can work on the draft. Jay (Talk) 22:17, 20 August 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.

Jewish architecture[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. The main argument was per WP:REDLINK until an article can be created on the topic (that's not awful or synthy), with an additional argument that Jewish architecture is a (much) larger topic than Synagogue architecture. While Jewish culture#Visual arts and architecture may be a tempting target, even the proposer agrees that discussion of architecture there is minimal. -- Tavix (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewish architecture" is a vague term that does not refer exclusively to synagogues. Delete unless a suitable target is found. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as no suitable target. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 05:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a legitimate term, the current target is quite possibly what the reader wants, and there is no more general article. I note that Christian architecture redirects to Church architecture. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that Christians are a religious group while Jews are an ethno-religious group. So anything "Christian" is defined almost entirely by its association with Christianity, while something "Jewish" could refer to either the religion of Judaism or the Jewish people. So Christian architecture is a much smaller superset of Church architecture relative to this case. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Such considerations are best addressed by expanding the page into a full article, not by deleting the current placeholder. Likewise, the Christian equivalent might usefully be expanded in a similar way. See The Social Origins of Christian Architecture, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree with you that the topic deserves a full article! But in the meantime I think the search bar does a better job than simply redirecting readers to one type of Jewish architecture. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jewish architecture is notable and its religious architecture is naturally a big part of it – here's volume 1 of a substantial work about it, for example. Insofar as there's some secular architecture too, this just means that there's scope for expansion as we don't seem to have some other page about it. The redirect was created as an {{R with possibilities}} and this seems a reasonable placeholder. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and definitely discourage "R with possibilities" or creating an awful, SYNTHY article, which would be even worse than the existing redirect. Note as way of background I raised this as a hypothetical anti-example of a bad article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian architecture , although clearly Andrew Davidson disagrees. While I disagree that "Jewish architecture" and "Synagogue architecture" are synonymous (as noted, secular Jews exist, and "Jewish architecture" could apply to any work of a Jewish architect, not necessarily just synagogues), an attempt to make some "My Original Research theory of how all architecture created by Jews is really the same" article would be even worse and quite offensive. Or if you do, don't write it on Wikipedia, write it on your blog. I'd offer other examples of why this would be bad but attempting to do that before only encouraged Andrew Davidson to make (any adjective) + (any noun), so I won't. SnowFire (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're assuming that there is no reliable source which is already about Jewish architecture (not saying that there is, btw, I just haven't checked). WP:SYNTH prohibits synthesizing multiple sources to make conclusions which can't be supported by any single source; it does not prohibit synthesis if the synthesis is made in the sources themselves. Regardless, this is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the redirect should exist. Mlb96 (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree about that, to be clear - I brought the matter up solely to explain why I removed the "possibilities" category. That said, in response to "in the sources themselves", it's not just any sources we're looking for - it's reliable sources that also agree there's a topic to be had at all rather than mentioning it in passing or mentioning it to argue it doesn't exist. I guess I'll break my rule and offer an example (please, please don't make this redlink blue Andrew): Jewish banking or Jewish banker. Rothschild family is a perfectly legit topic, but despite the fact that there are absolutely sources that will rant about Jewish bankers as a collective (e.g. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion), the standard needs to be very high for Wikipedia to essentially "agree" it's a topic of study. "Jewish architecture" as a separate article, while less offensive, is treading on similar dangerous territory. (If it is agreed that there is not an article to be written, then the question is if "Jewish architecture" is really a synonym for "synagogue architecture", which I don't think it is, but maybe there's evidence otherwise.) SnowFire (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I think I've found sources to start a stub on the topic ([1], [2], [3] [4]). signed, Rosguill talk 05:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Jewish culture#Visual arts and architecture, which despite the name has minimal discussion of the latter. It might be worth adding Synagogue architecture to the section hatnote, if not in the article text. It sounds like this would be an interim measure pending a full article. --BDD (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:01, 12 August 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.

Postmodern Neo-Marxism[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 Jordan Peterson#Postmodernism and identity politics. Nominally no consensus, but as a distinct majority opposed the current status quo (suggesting either redirection or deletion), defaulting to redirect seems like the more appropriate outcome. signed, Rosguill talk 19:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Should at least link to both postmodernism and neo-Marxism. Peterson is pro-Semitic, but cultural Marxism is anti-Semitic. Peterson himself describes postmodern neo-Marxism as a different thing than cultural Marxism. Finally, Peterson rarely or never uses the term cultural Marxism. Antiquark (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable, secondary sources say that Peterson does use this term as a synonym for "Cultural Marxism", in the sense of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. This invented term appears to be a code or trope of the CT, and so the redirect appears helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable primary source (Peterson) and the reliable secondary sources (whoever they are) have a conflicting opinion; this conflict should be described at the redirect page, rather than wikipedia just choosing which source is the more reliable and making the redirect. Antiquark (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No; that isn't how we deal with conflicts between self-published primary sources (YouTubez) and reliable secondary sources. WP sticks with the secondary sources. Newimpartial (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a university library search, Peterson himself invented the term postmodern neo-Marxism. There was a smattering of random references to PMNM before that, but nothing substantial. Thus, it could easily be argued that Peterson is the reliable primary source. Antiquark (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand WP:PSTS very well, TBH. Newimpartial (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to refs #43 and #44 in Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory? Those claim that he misuses "postmodernism" as a synonym for CM. Antiquark (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The best source is probably Jacobin. Newimpartial (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nice thing about that Jacobin article is that they describe what they think Peterson means when he discusses PMNM (more than just "it's CM"). There are various articles where PMNM is discussed: medium areo TheVarsity. So PMNM seems to be an actual "thing," not just a synonym for cultural Marxism. Antiquark (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which of these sources describe "postmodern Neo-Marxism" as an actual "thing"? I'm afraid I'm not seeing it. (The Aero piece subscribes to the conspiracy theory anyway, so any hair-splitting offered there can best be understood as self-serving cant.) Newimpartial (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "thing" was not the best wording, a better description is that PMNM has become an actual linguistic phenomenon in terms of popularity. If you do a google search for PMNM before 2016, you get less than 10 results. After 2016, there are thousands of results. So people are discussing it, disagreeing with it, agreeing with it, even saying that postmodernism contradicts Marxism thus making PMNM impossible. These opinions should be encapsulated in a standalone page. Antiquark (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're arguing for a standalone page? But you nominated the redirect for deletion? Are you sure you've come to the right place? You might want to withdraw this nom and create an RfC about the current redirect proposing a standalone page. The right place to do that would be Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was told to come here: Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#2021-07_Postmodern_Neo-Marxism. I had replaced the redirect with a minimal article, but it was reverted to the redirect. I'm assuming that once the redirect is deleted, that opens up the URL for a standalone article. Antiquark (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is possible, depending on how the RfD is closed, but I suspect you misunderstood what you were told. Newimpartial (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's no WP:RS sources connecting the two (just opinion pieces). Wikipedia shouldn't indulge every neologism WP:NEO that comes along. Especially ones that are so obviously content forks WP:FORK and WP:COAT coat racks. Peterson is frankly, not a big enough name, nor is he an academic expert in either topic. It's a waste of time. --61.68.111.187 (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given your logic, then, the term should be deleted and salted. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this redirect might qualify as a prank or a stunt. (Not sure if that has an official name as a form of wiki edit). A particular user in reddit argued at length that Cultural Marxism and Postmodern Neo-Marxism are the same thing, then eventually a wiki user with a similar name created the redirect, then the reddit user start using the wiki link as evidence that CM is PMNM. EDIT: and to expand on this a bit, the wiki user created the redirect on Jul 8 17:04, and the reddit user posted the redirect five minutes later, on Jul 8 17:09. Antiquark (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
« this redirect might qualify as a prank or a stunt. » => Why? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
« Why? ». Your wiki edit gives the impression that you created the redirect to bolster an argument you were having on reddit. Antiquark (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
« (Not sure if that has an official name as a form of wiki edit). » => I guess that you should look at WP:AGF and WP:HOAX.10:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:59, 12 August 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.

Azimech[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) CycloneYoris talk! 02:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a historic name for the star, and while USS Azimech, another possible meaning of the search term, is mentioned at the target (though not ideally from a navigation point of view), Arcturus#Etymology and cultural significance suggests that another star can be referred to by this name as well. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dab page - this should be a disambiguation page with both stars and the ship listed therein. Skyerise (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB per above. I've drafted one. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per above. Narky Blert (talk) 06:01, 13 August 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.

Apronia[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 Apronia of Toul. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article on this page was merged into the current target by Klbrain in January 2020. In July 2020, Apronia of Toul was created by Figureskatingfan. It looks like the best solution is to just retarget this redirect there, though Aponia gens needs to be accounted for, probably with a hatnote. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with doing that, since I had no idea about the redirect when I created Apronia of Toul. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget is quite right. My view is that Figureskatingfan's new article might survive a merge proposal in a way the previous article about here didn't (see Talk:Aprus of Toul#Merging: Yes). Klbrain (talk) 16:37, 13 August 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.

🙏[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 soft redirect to Wikt:🙏. A minority of editors advocate deletion and support this with the explanatory supplement at WP:REMOJI. While this is weighty, a greater number are opposed to deletion at all for various reasons and there doesn't seem to be any consensus to delete. There was a late suggestion to soft redirect to wikitionary, and while not extensively discussed it had support from both sides and is a result in line with the majority opinion to keep or refine. It seems consensus lies there, but further discussion on the target can be had on the talk page if necessary. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This emoji originally redirected to Prayer. That target could be reasonable were that the only meaning of this emoji. As this emoji can have other meanings, however, it was changed to redirect to List of gestures. But I can't imagine what reader would be served by the current redirection. Accordingly, I would propose that the redirect be deleted. 142.161.113.242 (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine to § Two handed, which I think adequately disambiguates the various meanings here. There might be a case for better organizing that section to have similar gestures grouped together, in which case there could be an anchor for this to point to, but that's best decided on that page's talk and/or by bold changes. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 04:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking into this this was along with several similar emojis were previously deleted in 2017 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 9#🙏.--70.24.249.16 (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedural note: This means that this was eligible for G4 speedy deletion at the time of its creation, but became ineligible when it was retargeted. Also, it seems that all of the others from that RfD have been recreated (with the same target as this), so I'll bundle in a moment. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 18:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. If your computer or phone shows any of these emoji as little boxes, the retarget will demonstrate that it's a gesture. (If we had a hand gesture article I'd say send it there, but that's a redirect to the current target.) This means that it's a good redirect to that page; the only way it should change is if there's a better target somewhere. No opinions on retarget/don't retarget. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This can refer to a few different gestures, all of which are listed at the target. Do not refine to § Two handed because high five is listed in the one handed section. -- Tavix (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never delete emojis redirects. Refine target if needed, but I oppose ever deleting them. Gonnym (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt all per the previous discussion and to prevent recreation and having to have this discussion again when someone picks another different ambiguous target. WP:REMOJI prescribes deletion when an emoji has no clear and obvious target, which these do not. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The only problem with that is that the current target is all of clear, obvious and appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector's squirrel. No basis for a different outcome than in the previous discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. signed, Rosguill talk 00:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Tavix. When a plausible search term, as all individual unicode characters are, and there is a suitable target the only reason why the encyclopaedia or its readers would ever benefit from deletion is if there was a desire for an article. There is no desire for an article here and the current target is entirely appropriate, so deletion would be harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all or refine if necessary. I also oppose deleting emojis redirects same as Gonnym. These are all plausible search terms and it would be pointless to have them deleted. CycloneYoris talk! 21:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I still struggle to see how most emoji redirects can be more than easter eggs. If there isn't a straightforward place we can point to say "this is what that emoji means", it's just going to be a time sink for editors and confusing for readers. While List of gestures#Two handed is probably the best we can do for these, that's really saying something. Can these emoji refer to all of those gestures? Of course not, and there are other topics not listed there that the can refer to. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case the answer is to create a disambiguation page or set index in exactly the same way we would for a non-emoji redirect - I cannot understand why people see any difference between them because there isn't from a reader's perspective. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think for the same reason we wouldn't create a disambiguation page for most non-English words. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Tavix. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking about this a bit more when I was having trouble falling asleep last night. If we discount the easter-egg searchers ("Wonder what happens if I put this in?"), a user searching with one of these emoji is probably asking one of two queries (cf. use–mention distinction):
  1. "What concept does this emoji represent?"
  2. "Tell me about this emoji itself."
For the first, these don't represent a single concept, or at least not one we can easily retarget to. As for the second, we don't come close to answering it at the proposed section.
A possible solution to the whole emoji question would be a real List of emoji, including explanatory text such as their official descriptions. I don't know if that veers too much into NOT territory with Emojipedia, though. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The best page to answer those queries would be wikt:🙏, which is also an option I would support. -- Tavix (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to wiktionary, BDD's reasoning is compelling and Tavix's suggestion fits it to a tee. signed, Rosguill talk 04:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Given the ambiguity of meaning of some of these, I'm not sure there's a good target. My instinct would be to treat emoji redirects like we do non-English words: if there's a strong connection and its unambiguous, then keep it, if not, deletion is probably best. Hog Farm Talk 17:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To all those !voting delete. This is consistently getting 250 hits a month. That's extremely high for a redirect and so very clearly this is something people are looking for. We obviously don't want an article on this topic so a non-existent emoji is the exact worst thing we can do for readers here - our job is to educate people and we don't do that by deleting the emoji and giving them (if they are lucky) unhelpful search results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neel.arunabh (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Page views only tell part of the story. They can't tell us whether readers are satisfied with what we give them in return. Keep in mind that any way of searching Wikipedia that includes suggestions based on extant pages, most notably the default search, is likely to increase hits because it signals to readers "yes, we cover this". If we do not actually do so, we risk disappointing or confusing readers, or generally undermining their confidence in Wikipedia and its search capability. There are plenty of worse options than no redirect. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neel.arunabh: copying others' comments from previous, unrelated RfDs really doesn't help. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've always thought there needs to be a WP:broad-concept article overview for the hands-with-palms-pressed-together gesture, be it namaste/anjali/wai/prayer/whatever. Problem is I haven't been able to identify RS that cover this as a concept in and of itself. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone needs to relist this discussion. Neel.arunabh (talk) 02:50, 28 August 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.

Cash nexus[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 21:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While Ferguson did write a book called The Cash Nexus, the phrase long predates him and isn't particularly closely associated with him. I haven't been able to identify any possible alternative targets with the exception of money and cash, which are rough synonyms, but neither use the term (and I suspect a reader searching for this is already familiar with the concepts of cash and money, so I don't know if retargeting to either would add much value). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This term is used in Marxist scholarship, and a number of articles use it that way, often without clearly defining what it means. It thus seems like a good candidate for REDLINKing (even if only to encourage creation of, say, a section at Commodity (Marxism)). And in the absence of content clearly explaining this term, the search results are probably marginally more helpful than redirecting anywhere, although that's a bit undercut by the fact that articles using it tend to be rather jargon-y. (Economics articles aren't quite as opaque to non-experts as, say, math articles, but they come close.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:00, 14 August 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.

Eòsaph Stalin[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 21:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the Scottish Gaelic rendering of the name. Since that does not appear to have any close connection to the person, I suggest deletion per WP:RLOTE. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was wondering if there'd be some interesting link to Scotland at Stalin's article that I didn't know about, but nope. Nothing. Delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:02, 14 August 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.

Party for National Centre[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 20#Party for National Centre

DadBod[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 19#DadBod

Gotterdamarung[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 19#Gotterdamarung

Sridevi Soda Center[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 Procedural close - an article has been created at this title. Hog Farm Talk 21:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need of this redirect. It amounts to blocking name of a film based article. It qualifies for deletion as it has no relevance. Thanks. Rickyurs (talk) 13:46, 12 August 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.

Wigginsia[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. Hog Farm Talk 21:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect should be deleted because this synonym for Paroidia is still an existing sponge genus... Problems might arise if someone linked the new cactus genus through it but I'm not sure. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OddBiologist (talk • contribs) 11:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. The genus of sponges is nl:Wigginsia. Sponges and cacti are in different kingdoms, and both names look prima facie valid - but the cactus had already been described under another name, so Wigginsia (=Parodia) is invalid. Some editors might look down their noses at a {{genus disambiguation}} page which consisted of a redirect and an {{ill}} link to a junior synonym - but I would not, because it would help readers. I've added a draft. Narky Blert (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as above. Scientific synonyms are fine in disambs, and we should eventually have an article for the sponge - in the meantime the family serves as target. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:29, 13 August 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.

Pol pol- a village in palamau district of jharkhand[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 09:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely implausible name with only 46 pageviews, which are probably from bot noise or readers clicking on it while searching for Pol Pot dudhhrContribs 07:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, but create Pol pol as a redirect instead. There is very little English-language content available about this village, so the fact that the article's creator (who was likely a resident) spelled it as two words suggests that that's a valid alternative name. That said, I know the notability threshold is very low for populated places, but I'm not sure that this article meets it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- a voting option in rfd discussions. Unlikely redirect. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     19:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've created Pol pol and Pol Pol as redirects as suggested by Tamzin above. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably created by someone clicking on a badly-bracketed attempt at a wikilink. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI talk | fings wot i hav dun 08:39, 19 August 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.

Devil Went Down to Georgetown[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 09:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable parody song not mentioned in target article. Hog Farm Talk 05:20, 12 August 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.

Der Zaubergeiger (Der Teufel kam nach Eppendorf)[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 09:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, does not seem to be a significant parody. Hog Farm Talk 05:16, 12 August 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.

Kuca[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 KUCA. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kuca (footballer) was created in 2014; the movie does not seem to be a PRIMARYTOPIC, especially being the native language title. We also have the two topics at KUCA, a radio station and an airport code. Ideally, KUCA (all caps) would redirect to KUCA (FM), and the radio station, airport, footballer and movie would all be linked from Kuca, but I'm not sure how this should be arranged so I'm bringing it to RfD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:08, 12 August 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_August_12&oldid=1041328930"