Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 23[edit]

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

Average rating[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 3#Average rating

Interdenominational[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 30#Interdenominational

The Breakfast Show (Triple J)[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 programs broadcast by Triple J#The Breakfast Show. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target article mentions breakfast programming but not "The Breakfast Show". Note that the disambiguation page The Breakfast Show is proposed for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Jay, and propose boldly retargeting any similar unfixed redirects people happen upon. Vaticidalprophet 03:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Jay, and I fixed the incoming redirects (which was actually only one other that I could find). —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:02, 26 June 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.

Zoe Colletti[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. While I'm always wary of creating "orphaned" drafts, I'm happy to restore and send to Draft:Zoe Colletti if anyone is interested in working on it. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to keep a redirect of an actress to a movie she starred in. Misiek1997 (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - mentioned in the target article, valid rationale for a redirect. Onel5969 TT me 12:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify (Special:Permalink/982792070) as she has appeared in multiple films and television shows. This target says basically nothing about her besides her role in this one film. From the perspective of a reader who entered her name in the search box trying to find more information about her, the search results are more helpful than this redirect, as the search results at least show multiple roles. Meanwhile turning this into a WP:REDLINK in mainspace is a signal to editors that she does not have an article and that we should create one if and when she meets WP:NBIO. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remain of the opinion that it's rarely appropriate to redirect a living actor's name to a film they were in. If it's the only thing they've been in, search will get readers there just fine; if it isn't (as here), then we're actively obscuring more useful search results. Meanwhile the existence of a link implies that we have informative content about someone, when in this case the article doesn't even say enough about Colletti to fill out a stub. 61.239's proposal is interesting, but if this had been created as a draft originally it would have already been WP:G13'd, so I say still delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 23:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Scary Stories is her only significant role, then a redlink at that page should encourage standalone article creation. Jay (Talk) 18:27, 29 June 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.

Deutschland Airlines[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 30#Deutschland Airlines

Joan McAninch[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 18:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article but is listed in a few articles for albums under the production credits. There are no more details than that, however, so I don't think this makes for a worthwhile redirect. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:21, 23 June 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.

Amogus[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 per WP:SNOW. There is no way this discussion will reach a different conclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. O.N.R. (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, evidently not an implausible typo given its common internet usage. If implausible, certainly used purposefully in that context. It's convenient to have if somebody does not know the original context and only sees "amogus" out of context, which is very common.Rman41 (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I created this redirect per an WP:AFCRC request for the above reason. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 19:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Given that it has over two thousand pageviews a month, it is clearly useful. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not a typo at all, it's an alternate name for Among Us which started as an internet meme but is now unironically used to refer to the game. Mlb96 (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Always remember to Google a typo/variant spelling before RfDing. :) Though I've definitely been guilty of skipping that step once or twice myself. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as much as I wish this didn't exist as a common use meme, it does, and so we should have a redirect for it. firefly ( t · c ) 08:08, 24 June 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.

Bevin Maskey[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 30#Bevin Maskey

Draft:Foo[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 18:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Draft:Sandbox. Shortcuts to mainspace aren't needed and it would be consistent with WP:Foo. dudhhrContribs 20:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why is the page even there? User made a test edit by redirecting Draft: Foo to Draft: Sandbox, then some other user made a test edit by redirecting Draft: Sandbox to Sandbox, then a bot went and corrected the double redirect. Perhaps bot AvicBot should be disallowed from fixing redirects to the Draft: Sandox? - Jay (Talk) 06:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. I created the page under discussion. How did this even happen? I created it as a redirect to the page that the nom says it ought to go to. Why did AvicBot retarget it to Sandbox? Was Draft:Sandbox a redirect to Sandbox at some point? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Draft:Sandbox redirect that triggered the bot was this. That is the purpose of the Draft: Sandbox, you can do anything with it, including making it a redirect. - Jay (Talk) 19:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see us having a standalone "Foo" article any time soon, as distinct from Foobar, but this would seem to obstruct such an effort. Is there a benefit this is providing to outweigh that? --BDD (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nobody looking for a sandbox page types "Draft:Foo" into the search bar, and this redirect only causes problems like the target being accidentally changed. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike Wikipedia user sandboxes, sandbox is about actual sandboxes, and thus has nothing to do with writing Wikipedia drafts. JIP | Talk 17:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The alternative to deletion is restoring the redirect to Draft:Sandbox, not keeping it. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Either deletion or restoration is fine by me. But it can't be left as a redirect to sandbox. JIP | Talk 00:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably don't need this as a redirect. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom for consistency with WP:Foo. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:FOO is supposed to be just a shortcut though. Do we really need shortcuts in the draftspace? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No one will ever search for this. Furthermore, this redirect has nothing to do with the target article. ―Susmuffin Talk 13:59, 24 June 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.

Kirchröadsj Platt[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 18:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Kirchröadsjer Dieksiejoneer, the correct spelling is Kirchröadsj plat, which is already a redirect. I'd say: delete, unless there's an established German-spelling of the Kerkrade dialect (which is spoken on both sides of the border) *and* Kirchröadsj Platt is the way the name is spelled in Germany. Sol505000 (talk) 15:22, 23 June 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.

Deutschlandese Airlines[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 08:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found no indication that this name has ever been used to refer to Lufthansa. I think it may be some kind of joke? Not likely that it will ever be useful. JBchrch talk 13:21, 23 June 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.

Sweedish Fish[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 18:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created as a new article fourteen and a half years ago, then turned into a redirect to Swedish Fish almost immediately. Implausible search term. No incoming links from anywhere. Delete this. JIP | Talk 13:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Plausible misspelling. 849 pageviews since 2015 is well above the baseline you get from crawlers, curious search-bar clicks, etc. I note that Sweedish and Sweedish Chef both also exist; you may want to consider adding those, either to this nomination or separately. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. Plausible and helpful. CycloneYoris talk! 07:07, 30 June 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.

Doofenshmirtz's schemes and inventions[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 10:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was a WP:FANCRUFTy article for 10 minutes in 2011 before it was redirected (without, AFAICT, any content being merged elsewhere). Not a plausible search term, and pageviews are close to baseline. Doofenshmirtz already redirects to the article, and Doofenshmirtz Evil Incorporated redirects to the same section as this. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, implausible search term, no incoming links. JIP | Talk 13:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible search term, only passing mention of inventions at target section. Fyndegil (talk) 05:27, 24 June 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.

Pleş River[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 30#Pleş River

Technical details of friction-plate electromagnetic clutch[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 18:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not even sure if the target article is notable, but regardless, this weirdly titled redirect has no business in existing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:13, 23 June 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.

Pless[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Move Pleß (disambiguation) to Pless. signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pszczyna is not commonly known as Pless, and given the other uses at Pleß (disambiguation)—including Duchy of Pless (hence the redirect of Pless to Pszczyna)—may not be the primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:11, 23 June 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.

Nanoworm[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 18:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a neologism, and is not mentioned at the target article. The current version also includes a definition, which is not sourced (and Wikipedia is not a dictionary anyway). – bradv🍁 05:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The term nanoworm has been used since 2008 to refer to a string of nanoparticles. It should be incorporated into the Iron oxide nanoparticle article because of its regular usage in the scientific literature. [1] The nanoworm page should be kept as a redirect for now because it is just a stub, so that people will be able to easily find the relevant information on the topic.
You the man(converse) 07:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage creation of an article on the topic. Nanoworms are composed of iron oxide nanoparticles, but a clearly notable distinct topic, as there is no mention of nanoworms at the current target. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. Currently there is no content to point to. Someone could make a stub, beginning with the content on the current page, or add content to the iron oxide nanoparticle page, in which case a redirect could be recreated to target that section. However, I am not sure all nanoworms consist of iron oxide. I would also want to see more references, as with just one source it doesn't seem like a notable topic or a term in widespread use. In general, pointing a redirect about a thing to an article about the chemical the thing is made from is not helpful unless it the thing is described at the target. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:50, 24 June 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.

Hoot the Owl[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 30#Hoot the Owl

Nucleotide analog[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 both to Nucleoside analogue. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These should target the same place. While there is more content at the inhibitor article, this is really a subtopic, so I tend to favor targeting the more closely related article on nucleoside analogues. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:25, 23 June 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.

Pedro Bosch Labrús[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 08:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interlanguage redirects are strongly discouraged, and it's orphaned anyway dudhhrContribs 02:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious delete. There'd probably be a CSD criterion for cases like these if they weren't so rare. I really can't envision any situation under which a mainspace interlanguage redirect would be kept. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 05:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Tamzin (a CSD criterion proposed for these was rejected some years ago for lack of frequency). Articles about this person also exist in Catalan and Egyptian Arabic and there is no obvious reason to prioritise Spanish. Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Interlanguage redirects are inherently problematic. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 1881 Spanish general election#Elected deputies where he is hiding in an unexpanded table. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good find, but I don't think a single list item—just giving name, constituency, and party—is enough to outweigh the incentive that comes with redlinking this, given that, from the eswiki article, he would likely meet our notability standards. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless there is an appropriate local target for this page. Sending readers to non-English content is not helpful. Additionally, the plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). See here for precedents. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Unhelpful. ―Qwerfjkltalk 19:38, 30 June 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_June_23&oldid=1044070272"