Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 15, 2021.

01189998819991197253[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 29#01189998819991197253

Florida building collapse[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. signed, Rosguill talk 04:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous. There are eight other building collapses in Florida listed at List of structural failures and collapses. We could retarget to that page, but since the information isn't collated by location, I think it would make more sense to just delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig (or create a list or set index, whatever works best). This is a highly plausible search term, but while the current target is the primary topic at the moment it's generic enough that it's not as overwhelming so as the preceding two nominations and will most likely cease to be primary soonest. The existing list we have is not sorted or sortable by location though, so we need to create an alternative that will allow easy navigation. And yes, I would support making similar lists for other areas of the world where we have multiple articles. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i may be wrong but wouldn’t entries in a dab page titled Florida building collapse need to be known by the name Florida building collapsed and not simply be a building that happened to collapse in Flordia.--70.24.249.16 (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but that's why I suggested a list or set index as alternatives. In practice all three would serve exactly the same purpose and link to the same articles, the difference is just which set of arbitrary conventions are used. Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, you're saying that we shouldn't target this to the Surfside collapse because it probably won't be the primary target in the future. But WP:CRYSTAL teaches us that we shouldn't try to predict the future, and I think that principle applies here as well. If the Surfside collapse is the primary target currently, then we should target this redirect there until it no longer is. Mlb96 (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where are you getting eight other building collapses?
  • Bithlo TV mast collapse - guyed mast Red XN
  • Sunshine Skyway Bridge - bridge Red XN
  • Harbor Cay Condominium Collapse - building checkY
  • WCIX TV Tower - guyed mast Red XN
  • WRMD-Tower - mast Red XN
  • Miami Dade College parking garage - structure checkY
  • Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse - pedestrian bridge Red XN
  • Surfside condominium building collapse - discussion at hand
  • Space Shuttle Challenger disaster - nowhere close Red XN
If I'm looking for a structure collapse in Florida, the Surfside condominium building would be the most precise here. – The Grid (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1974 Miami DEA building collapse is equally precise. Jay (Talk) 05:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:29, 15 July 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.

2021 building collapse[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 List of structural failures and collapses#2020–present. MBisanz talk 00:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a number of notable building collapses in 2021. I suggest retargetting to List of structural failures and collapses#2020–present, which lists all of them, although I wouldn't be opposed to deletion either. (I note that the encyclopedia has survived for 20 years without a 2001 building collapse, despite that being the year of perhaps the most notable building collapse in history.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. The 2001 event has a very clear common name, the same cannot be said of this year's collapse in Miami, but regardless of why someone found this phrase useful enough to create they did and so there is no benefit to deletion over retargeting. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Thryduulf: The fact that someone created something should not be a measure of its utility, even to the creator. People create useless things all the time, often purely for the satisfaction of being creative, and having given little thought to utility. If your assertion was correct, there would be no need for RfD, as every redirect would need to be regarded as useful. General Ization Talk 18:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      (Non-Thryduulf comment) The act of someone creating a redirect implies that, at least to that person, the redirect is useful (WP:RKEEP #5). If we're to delete this, I think the WP:COSTLY argument makes a lot more sense than a plausibility argument. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Not every redirect that is created is useful, but as Tamzin says the vast majority are created because at least one person finds them useful. It's the job of RfD to decide whether that utility is outweighed by other considerations, for example here I think this is a useful redirect to keep as a search term but to a broader target than it currently has. In other cases redirects that were previously useful become less so as the encyclopaedia evolves, see for example my nomination at #Pride of Portree and other quidditch teams elsewhere on this page. Thryduulf (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as highly presumptuous. There are building collapses all over the world, and throughout every year. This seems to me to reflect a highly US-centric perspective, and to be an overly-broad search term that should not be rewarded by resolving to a specific article. I don't feel nearly as strongly about the other redirects to the article mentioned here, but this one genuinely bothers me. I note that Building collapse is already a redirect to Structural integrity and failure, and unless we are going to create redirects for every year I see no need to single out 2021. General Ization Talk 17:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support creating redirects for other years to the same proposed target and consider this significantly preferable to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that the oldest instance on the list is from 226 BC, we'd have to create well over 2000 redirects. Seems a bit much. Mlb96 (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Individual years would only be plausible and useful search terms for relatively recent years, without researching the distribution of entries at the target my guess would be the end of WWII at the absolute earliest, with decades back to circa 1900. However even if every year was equally plausible, I don't understand why adding 2000 useful redirects to the project would be in any way a bad thing? Thryduulf (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:29, 15 July 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.

South American Schools 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. N.b., This discussion was about suitability of these terms as redirects, not whether the games exist, are notable, etc. Consensus is clear on the former question that these are not suitable. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects, all created by the same editor, are mentioned at the targets as circular See also links (if at all), which is less than helpful for readers. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. These redirects seem to be made-up terms. — Chrisahn (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability or connection to the target articles. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, but not all for the same reason:
    • "Pan-American University Games" is an alternative name for the FISU America Games; while they seem potentially notable we don't have have content about them currently so there is nowhere to redirect to.
    • I can find exactly 1 mention of "South American Schools Games", but not with that capitalisation and only in the google cache of a page from 2010 [1] that refers to an event being held in Paraguay in 2011. However as far as I've been able to find out Paraguay hosted no international sporting events that year so I'm at a loss to what it is refers to. Whatever it is or was, we have no content so it's not a good redirect.
    • I can't find any evidence for any of the others existing at all. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More: i correct 4 redirectes. thanks.Hao Xia Xia (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hao Xia Xia: I reverted your edits of the redirects we're discussing here. See WP:RFD: "Please do not change the target of the redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for both potential closers and participants." — Chrisahn (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


There is no need to continue this discussion. I also asked the initiator to close the discussion. It is not right to return you either. It is not necessary to continue the discussion whose results are known. I corrected the redirection and the deletion request to redirect was incorrect. According to the principle of snowball, it is not necessary to continue the discussion. When you are diverted to the right path, it is wrong to turn you back. As they all have the ability to become articles, but due to the hassle of proving sources and reputation, I do not have the patience to argue with users. In the future, if one has steel nerves and a lot of time, one can create them. When the redirect goes in the right direction, the discussion loses its relevance, and if someone has a problem redirecting to the new one, they must delete the request again. I have not seen this senseless strictness in other articles and similar paths. Your behavior demotivates the user. Hao Xia Xia (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am find source for all of them:

[1][2][3]

[4][5][6]


[7]

Hao Xia Xia (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]



https://www.cubapostal.com/cgi-local/home.cgi?mode=view_detail&id=965  : Latin American University Games


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0041134516309393  : Latin American Transplant Games (Academic Journal) Hao Xia Xia (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peruvian delegation at the XXII South American School Games in Medellín received recognition of IPD.[8]

  • @Hao Xia Xia:
    1. Please prefix your comments in a deletion discussion with a star ("*") to indent them and keep them separate from comments by others. This discussion has become rather messy because you didn't adhere to this convention.
    2. DO NOT disrupt the process by modifying the redirect pages under discussion. I reverted your edits again.
    3. As far as I can tell, none of the sources you provided mention any of the names you want to keep as redirects: [2] mentions "South American School Games", but not "South American Schools Games"; [3] (full text here) mentions neither "Pan American Transplant Games" nor "South American Transplant Games".
    In conclusion: You have provided no valid arguments for keeping the redirects, and some of your edits have been disruptive. Please get acquainted with and adhere to the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.transplantgamesofamerica.org/2020transplantgames
  2. ^ https://donatelifecalifornia.org/transplant-games-of-america/
  3. ^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0041134516309393
  4. ^ https://newsbeezer.com/perueng/south-american-school-games-2018-the-issue-taking-place-in-arequipa-begins-sports-altogether/
  5. ^ https://www.wada-ama.org/en/events/2012-11/wada-play-true-generation-program-at-the-south-american-school-games
  6. ^ https://peru.info/en-us/talent/news/6/28/peruvians-in-south-american-school-games
  7. ^ https://www.isfsports.org/sites/default/files/isf_mag_september_2017_0.pdf
  8. ^ https://peru.info/en-us/talent/news/6/28/peruvians-in-south-american-school-games


  • "South American School Games", but not "South American Schools Games" : For a diversion, you do not need all this meticulousness and rigor. By looking at other articles, I can clearly see that there are many more important cases than this, wrongly or intentionally in many articles. There are many of these mistakes. For example, the World Youth Badminton Championship is written in both junior and juniors forms. I feel obliged to write the correct name. Definitely not a junior alone because it is singular. Here, too, is schools competition, not just a school. If I was going to create his article and I had a lot of resources, I would definitely add the original name in the description. The name I wrote is enough to change the direction.Hao Xia Xia (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will correct the redirects and you will reverse them! And then you consider them unconstructive? If the second route seems more correct with my subsequent studies, why is it necessary for the wrong name to remain and for the wrong name to be discussed? This is your unconstructive work and I object to it. Hao Xia Xia (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the umpteenth time – read WP:RFD! Quote: "Please do not change the target of the redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for both potential closers and participants." — Chrisahn (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pan American Schools Games and South American Schools Games: I do not think this method of objection exists in all of Wikipedia. Your behavior is simply because you intend to remove them in any way possible. These two are just a diversion (currently available with English sources) (there are definitely very complete sources in both Spanish and Portuguese). The sources I presented proved at least one to have been held 3 times and one more than ten times. So we do not need to struggle to have a small diversion. While there is no need to provide a source to change the routes, however, I provided. In my opinion, the discussion on these two diversions is over. Both competitions are definitely external and can move in the direction I corrected (and you reversed). Because I do not intend to create his article because it is clear to me that some people here are looking to harass users. This is just a diversion. Hao Xia Xia (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If good sources can be found for the original Latin article, both can be transferred to the article. If not, all three can be transferred to the article of the World Federation of Organ Transplantation. The problem is the lack of English resources right now, otherwise there is no problem.Hao Xia Xia (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pay attention to friends. There is no discussion about making these four articles !!!! We have only four diversions. So as soon as its existence and nature are proven, it is enough. If one wants to create one's own article, one has to discuss it. Hao Xia Xia (talk) 18:15, 19 July 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.

Соуза, Лазаро Барбоса[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 00:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RLOTE, no apparent connection with Russian or other Cyrillic-alphabet languages signed, Rosguill talk 20:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, no need to have a Russian redirect for this page in the English Wikipedia. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 1. The user who created the redirect, AccountUser0, also created the redirect Lázaro Barbosa (criminoso) (which probably makes sense on the Portuguese Wikipedia, but not here). Can we add that redirect to this discussion, or do we have to start a new discussion? 2. AccountUser0 is a pretty new account. Maybe AU0 wanted to add inter-language links and created these redirects by accident? — Chrisahn (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no obvious connection to any Cyrillic-alphabet language. Hog Farm Talk 23:36, 16 July 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.

Daventry Parkway Project[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 25#Daventry Parkway Project

Bishop eustace[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 22#Bishop eustace

Us Time[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 Time in the US. MBisanz talk 00:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Readers are more likely to be seeking information about Time in the US than a relatively obscure album. —Somnifuguist (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom and add a hatnote. Every one of the first four pages of google searches for this term relate to time in the United States in some respect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC
  • Keep or create article - Charting album with that actual name can have a hatnote for "Time in the US", whose "S" is actually capitalized. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Searching Wikipedia for "US time" and "us time" takes readers to this redirect, so capitalisation should not factor into the decision. —Somnifuguist (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - If that is the case, then "US time" and "us time" should probably be redirected to "Us Time". --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean redirected to Time in the US? If not, why should "US time" redirect to "Us Time", assuming the latter is still redirecting to the artist? —Somnifuguist (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - No, I mean that "US time" and "us time" should probably be redirected to the music album that actually has that title. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I disagree then. I wouldn't mind if "Us Time" redirected to the artist and "US/us time" to Time in the US, but am certainly against the latter redirecting to the artist (as is the status quo). You might have misunderstood me when I said "US time" and "us time" takes readers to this redirect—putting those terms in the upper right-hand search box will redirect users to Us Time due to the case-agnostic title match, but Time in the US is the first result when searching for them in articles [4][5][6], as well as one of the first results on the major search engines, whereas on the latter the album is nowhere to be seen—a clear indication of which is the primary topic. —Somnifuguist (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I am OK with "Us Time" redirecting to the music album that actually has that title, and "US/us time" to Time in the US. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 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.

2021 First Amendment Protests[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) 15:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Almost all non-violent protests in the US are covered by the First Amendment, and there will be thousands such protests in 2021. It doesn't make sense to single out one of them for this redirect. 2. The 2021 United States Capitol attack was marked by massive violence by rioters. It was not covered by the First Amendment. (The non-violent demonstration that preceded it is not the main subject of the article.) Chrisahn (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as nominator). — Chrisahn (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete HAs any RS called it this?Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the term was brought up in several government documents, and a discussion somewhere led me to create the redirect (AN I think?). Not sure where that was, if I can't find it then I'll G7. Pahunkat (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive328#Buckle Up Pahunkat (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link! That explains why the redirect exists. The redirect doesn't really match the title of the DoD document though: "Planning and execution timeline for the National Guard’s involvement in the January 6, 2021 First Amendment Protests in Washington D.C.". A redirect like January 6, 2021 First Amendment Protests in Washington D.C. would be specific, 2021 First Amendment Protests is too broad. The DoD deleted / modified the document a few days later, and as far as I can tell nobody is using the term anymore. — Chrisahn (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Department of Defense have used this title [7][8](document title). Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see "First" or "Amendment" in the title or content of the second link...? — Chrisahn (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see the title as "PLANNING-AND-EXECUTION-TIMELINE-FOR-THE-NATIONAL-GUARDS-INVOLVEMENT-IN-THE-JANUARY-6-2021-FIRST-AMENDMENT-PROTESTS-IN-WASHINGTON-DC - PLANNING-AND-EXECUTION-TIMELINE-FOR-THE-NATIONAL-GUARDS-INVOLVEMENT-IN-THE-JANUARY-6-2021-VIOLENT-ATTACK-AT-THE-US-CAPITOL.PDF" (my emphasis). This, in combination with the final paragraph of the content, suggest it was the name used during planning prior to the event based on what they expected the event would be known as. That this prediction was incorrect does not mean it never existed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I get it. The PDF metadata still contains the URL <https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jan/08/2002562063/-1/-1/0/PLANNING-AND-EXECUTION-TIMELINE-FOR-THE-NATIONAL-GUARDS-INVOLVEMENT-IN-THE-JANUARY-6-2021-FIRST-AMENDMENT-PROTESTS-IN-WASHINGTON-DC> as the title, although "first amendment" doesn't occur anywhere in the displayed content. (I guess some software you used to download, store or display the PDF prepended the title from the metadata to the file name.)
The URL <https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jan/08/2002562063/-1/-1/0/PLANNING-AND-EXECUTION-TIMELINE-FOR-THE-NATIONAL-GUARDS-INVOLVEMENT-IN-THE-JANUARY-6-2021-FIRST-AMENDMENT-PROTESTS-IN-WASHINGTON-DC.PDF> (with .PDF at the end) now redirects to <https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jan/11/2002563151/-1/-1/0/PLANNING-AND-EXECUTION-TIMELINE-FOR-THE-NATIONAL-GUARDS-INVOLVEMENT-IN-THE-JANUARY-6-2021-VIOLENT-ATTACK-AT-THE-US-CAPITOL.PDF>. Apparently the DoD changed the file name and content on Jan 11, three days after publishing the initial version, but didn't update all of the metadata.
There's no reason to assume the authors of the document expected that the events would be known as "2021 First Amendment Protests". They just used a common legal / law enforcement term that had also been used in the Dec 31 letter from Muriel Bowser to the District of Columbia National Guard (first item mentioned in the DoD PDF, also shown in the Twitter thread that started it all).
Also, the Jan 8 document always used the full description "January 6, 2021 First Amendment Protests in Washington D.C.", never the shortened (and overly broad) term "2021 First Amendment Protests". This abbreviation seems to have been introduced (without the intention to create a redirect or other page, I think) by Valereee in the discussion mentioned by Pahunkat above. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to ping. I certainly didn't intend to suggest a redirect, just was notifying other editors that there might be some disruption and where it was coming from. No opinion on the redirect except to say it doesn't appear to have gotten any traction outside the days immediately following that tweet. —valereee (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not specific at all. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All protests are First Amendment protests. If this were January 6, 2021 First Amendment protests then maybe it would be okay, but the title as it is currently is way too generic. Mlb96 (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as (1) all legitimate protests are protected by the First Amendment, (2) storming the Capitol is not protected by the First Amendment, and (3) "First Amendment" is a shield that MAGAs are throwing around as a defense of their actions, making this a POV redirect title. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RNEUTRAL POV redirects are allowed, indeed if a POV name is used for the subject then redirects from that term to our neutrally-titled article are encouraged. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mlb96 and Muboshgu. Non-neutral redirect titles are allowed when they're significant and well-known alternate titles for a subject. When a highly experienced editor needs to go digging in the metadata of an old revision of a PDF of a government procedure document to find any instance of this title referring to this specific incident, it's not a valid RNEUTRAL title. Furthermore, we're not here to promote conspiracy theories. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 21:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your conclusion, but to be fair – Thryduulf didn't need to dig into metadata. The original title of the document (which was more specific than the rather vague redirect we're discussing here) was discussed a lot on Twitter and occasionally mentioned in news media: Daily Kos Jan 9, Task & Purpose Jan 10. (I couldn't find other sources though that looked at least somewhat reliable or notable.) — Chrisahn (talk) 03:20, 23 July 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.

Scarlet Letterman[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 Cara Lockwood#Bibliography. MBisanz talk 00:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article; searching suggests that this is something else altogether. Recommend deletion as this appears to be primarily used as the title of a modern novel unrelated to the target. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget now that a reference has been added to the proposed target. CycloneYoris talk! 05:54, 25 July 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_July_15&oldid=1036042014"