Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 20, 2021.

Io Wahine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 30#Io Wahine

Intel 3[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous; target topic not specific to Intel, no evidence this is alternative name for target. Delete to avoid confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I have added two other analogous redirects. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Intel 7 is mentioned as such at target, but the other two redirects are not mentioned at their target pages. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ambiguous. Could easily be referring to i386 or i486 (the third and fourth generations of the Intel 8086 core, which were basically the only processors used in desktop PCs for a decade or more) or with the Core i7, not to mention numerous other third/fourth/seventh generation Intel chips. Best to let the search engine handle these. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:48, 28 September 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.

Kongsberg Defence Systems[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 Closed with no action.. Nom. is a request for a move, which I have done. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move Kongsberg Defence Systems to Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace. The name changed in 1997 Znuddel (talk) 20:08, 20 September 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.

Hitlist OTT 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 delete. ✗plicit 03:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect not mentioned at target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the high threshold for a cross-namespace rdr. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:14, 21 September 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.

Dean Gate[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 the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a duly sourced mention can be added to the target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:11, 20 September 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.

Port Castle[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 28#Port Castle

Shinkan[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) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear in target article, as alternative pronunciation or otherwise. Created by creator of many subsequently RfD-deleted redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:17, 20 September 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.

F****[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. ✗plicit 07:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong number of stars; low pageviews in 2020 suggest that this isn't a common search term. Hog Farm Talk 04:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It's a plausible enough typo (just one extra tap of the asterisk key), and there doesn't appear to be anything else it could be confused with. That said, a typo of a censored form makes this two modifications removed from the actual title, and the pageviews are fairly low, which is why this is only a weak keep. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was a moron back in 2007 and made a lot of pointless redirects without thought, clearly this is one of them. Btw, I quit Wikipedia a long time ago. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per originator. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (to balance the weak one). More research is needed when we nominate redirects at RfD, imho. This one for example would target Fucks if that wasn't already a redirect to Fuck. Since we cannot have double redirects, this redirect is correctly targeted. It also warrants an {{R avoided double redirect}} tag, which will be uncommented back in if this redirect is kept. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 05:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The avoided double redirect tag is appropriate if there is a not-insignificant chance that the intermediate redirect could become its own article in the future. That is not the case here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The avoided double redirect tag is appropriate whether or not there is any chance that its preferred target will someday become an article. There is nothing in the documentation to support the rationale that there must be a chance, non-significant or otherwise, that the preferred target could become an article in the future. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 09:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if we assume that "f****" is meant to mean "fucks", the main issue is that this doesn't seem to be a sufficiently useful or common search term. Technical limitations make it difficult to search online for "f****", but I don't personally see this censored variant often, if at all, and as the nominator mentioned, the pageviews suggest that this is true for more than just myself. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag per P.I. Ellsworth. It's a plausible search term for "fucks" and it's also a plausible typo for "f***". Deletion will not bring any benefits but keeping will help some people, so deletion will harm the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - It seems fairly unlikely that anyone arriving at this page will commonly wish that they have gotten anywhere but our article on the four-letter word i.e. fuck (except perhaps those with prudish moral sensibilities that wish we did not cover such foul language and concepts of disrepute). It is potentially ambiguous, but a good argument that it is regarding things we currently cover has yet to be made; we can revisit this term in the future if that changes. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:18, 21 September 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.

Death of dean shillingsworth[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. ✗plicit 07:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from an unlikely typo. Death of Dean Shillingsworth with correct caps exists and will lead users to the correct article. Sjö (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unnecessary. WWGB (talk) 05:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We do not need to have a redirect for every possible mistyping of a person's name. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Overly exhaustive, as are many case-based name redirects. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - valid {{R from other capitalisation}}; page views indicate utility. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 20:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mostly agree with and support Ivanvector's squirrel's correct rationale. Only it should be tagged with {{R from miscapitalization|of=Dean Shillingsworth}}. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 04:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PEIsquirrel. There are no typos here, unlikely or otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector. People might forget to capitalize the words, so this redirect isn't really hurting anything. Regards, SONIC678 19:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The internet is actually smart. Believe it or not, any search box where this incorrect capitalization is entered will actually get to the correct place, even if we do not have the redirect in Wikipedia! Amazing! We don't need to help the internet. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately that isn't how it works. Some methods of finding Wikipedia articles are case insensitive, like the search box and Google, but there are also other methods that are case sensitive, e.g. links (internal and external), bookmarks, and direct URL entry. Every single one of these methods is used by at least some people. The notion that we don't need to help the internet is ludicrous - our job is not only to write encyclopaedic articles but also to enable people to find them. The redirect provides benefit to some people, removing it would hinder some people and it neither harms nor inconveniences anybody to keep it so there is absolutely no justification for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that our job is "to enable people to find them" using every imaginable way they could do so, and fortunately Wikipedia consensus agrees with me, not you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one would like to see proof that consensus agrees with you that our job is not to enable readers (when and if we can) to find our articles. Good luck with that. I've been working with redirects for a long time, and I can tell you that Thryduulf nailed it. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 04:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you really think these capitalization variants help readers find articles, start creating redirects for every capitalization variant of our "Death of . . ." articles, and see how far you get. That you have not, and will not, speaks volumes. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you really think these capitalization variants don't help readers find articles, then start bringing them all here to get them all deleted. The fact is, they actually do help readers find articles and always have. That you, a very experienced editor who has worked with me on redirects for years, doesn't get all that speaks volumes of perplexity! Whether or not an editor creates a redirect is largely determined by their own experience. And few editors just sit there and create redirects indiscriminately. Suffice to say that you have not produced evidence of the consensus you previously claimed, so until you do we shall have to continue to follow Thryduulf's sound logical reasoning. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 07:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Death of Dean Shillingsworth. There is clear guidance on the handling of redirects from incorrect capitalizations at WP:CAPITALIZATION:

    It is not necessary to create redirects from alternative capitalizations, unless editors are likely to link from the differently capitalized form. For example, National Park should be created as a redirect to National park, but it is unnecessary to create Isle of wight as a redirect to Isle of Wight. Many such redirects do nevertheless exist, and these are harmless;

    In other words, "Death of dean shillingsworth" would be a harmless redirect to "Death of Dean Shillingsworth", and there would be no need to delete it. Since it already exists as a redirect but is targeted elsewhere, it would be reasonable to delete it (since the redirect to the correctly capitalized title would be unnecessary) or to target it to the correctly capitalized title (since that would be harmless). Arguing for the latter is certainly not an argument to create redirects for every capitalization variant. Given the guidance at WP:RFD#HARMFUL to delete redirects only if they are harmful, it makes sense to keep the redirect, but retarget it appropriately. The primary justification, again from WP:RFD#HARMFUL, is to maintain what is a non-trivial edit history. Coastside (talk) 07:27, 26 September 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.

Public governance[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 Governance#Public governance. ✗plicit 06:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make much sense. AFAIK, public means any government, not specifically a state government. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 04:39, 20 September 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.

O`ahu `O`o[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. ✗plicit 07:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Useless Eubot redirects with grave accents instead of okinas dudhhrContribs 06:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It is doubtful that anyone would use these malformed redirects. ―Susmuffin Talk 07:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. It's entirely plausible that someone might use a grave accent instead of an ʻokina if they don't have the latter on their keyboard. I wouldn't support people creating these en masse necessarily (something I've done with a lot of apostrophe→ʻokina redirects), but once they're made, they're harmless. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tamzin: I used {{la}} because that's what AfD says (WP:BUNDLE), and I thought it was the same for RfD. dudhhrContribs 19:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, no worries. I've just wound up as the resident policer of RfD irregularities, since I manually review all redirects that User:'zinbot flags as tagged but filed (and "filed" is based on the output of {{subst:rfd2}}). So, might be seeing me around nagging people about little details like this. :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Tamzin. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all There is no one likely to have a keyboard with the grave accent but not the much more plausible single quotation mark (all of which exist as redirects already). UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On what basis are you assuming that everybody regards the single quotation mark as "much more plausible"? On my keyboard the glyph for the grave accent actually looks slightly closer to an okina than the glph for a an apostrophe does. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of redirects in which the single quotation mark stands in for the ʻokina vastly outnumbers the number of redirects where the grave stands in for the ʻokina: that's the basis. Hope that helps. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:42, 26 September 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.

Windows 99[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 06:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No longer mentioned at target. Unlikely to be used for a near future version of Windows. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently, it is, or was, an illegal pirate of Windows 98SE. [1][2] It could eventually get a mention somewhere on Wikipedia, but delete for now. SpinningSpark 15:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it was an alternate name for Windows 98 SE. 176.88.30.25 (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it wasn't. Read the first link I provided above. In any case, the relevant issue is that the target article no longer mentions it so the redirect is currently going to nothing. SpinningSpark 17:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is an obscure piece of pirated software that is not mentioned in the target article. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not an unreasonable typo (or other misidentification) for Windows 98. It also seems to be in use, for one reason or another; it has 61 views in the past month, most of them from before this nomination. BilledMammal (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any actual examples of this alleged typo? SpinningSpark 21:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 17 views on August 26 could be because the nom reverted an earlier change. The nom himself, or editors with this redirect on their watchlist, may have contributed to the views. Jay (Talk) 14:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. An illegal version of Windows 98 SE would mean some form of notability had to be established for a mention (much worse a separate article). – The Grid (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SpinningSpark and The Grid. Jay (Talk) 14:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:26, 20 September 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.

Flash Communications[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 27#Flash Communications

Science magazine[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 Science (journal). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should delete this redirect, because most people who enter "science magazine" into the wikipedia search bar would probably be better served by the Science Magazine page (note the case difference), which redirects to Science (Journal). The "Science magazine" page currently prevents case correction and therefore redirection to the Science (Journal) page. Retroflexivity (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Science (journal) There are other magazines called Science, but there is a clear primary topic here and the target article has hatnotes. There's no reason for this to go to the disambiguation page instead of the primary topic's page. Mlb96 (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Readers typing in lowercase are likely looking for the general topic, which is covered in List of science magazines rather than the AAAS journal. Narky Blert (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an unlikely claim. My experience is that most people type in lc because it's too much effort to put in the capitals. They mostly expect to still be taken to the right place even with the wrong capitalisation. Using all lc for everything is a pretty universal internet phenomenon, so much so that I'm convinced some people don't even realise that it is wrong. SpinningSpark 12:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Mlb96. It's confusing to have a lowercase and title case redirect going to different places. That's only ever justified if there are two clear primary targets. Deletion just invites recreation of the same problem in the future. SpinningSpark 12:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Science (journal) per Mlb96. The AAAS publication Science was and is popularly known as Science Magazine, which is the reason that up until recently their website was sciencemag.org. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Science (journal). I'd be inclined to invoke WP:DIFFCAPS, but given that Science (magazine) also points to the eponymous journal, I think this is probably best as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT there. I agree most searchers use lowercase when they mean the proper noun. Hatnotes easily take others to List of science magazines and the current target Science (disambiguation). Note that the section targeted at the current target no longer exists, and there is a hatnote at that page that targeting to the section would miss. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:39, 21 September 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.

Scottish pure Gaelic[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 06:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target contains no mention of "Scottish pure Gaelic" and no content on language purity. There is a single line article in the page history which claims it it "Undiluted highland Gaelic or Southern Irish (non-Ulster)" but no sources were provided to backup their claim. Google searches haven't turned up anything reasonable. Delete unless some relevant content is added. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The contents of the original article seem to suggest that Old Irish is being referred to. But even if that is a correct reading, the modifier "pure" is too ambiguous to be useful. SpinningSpark 12:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no discussion of language purity in the target article, so the utility of this redirect is in question. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:45, 20 September 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.

Dubya See Dubya[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 06:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do people actually use this? I don't see any connection with Bush 43. feminist (+) 01:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term has absolutely nothing to do with Bush. "Dubya" is just a phonetic spelling of "W" in a southern twang, which is the origin of the use of it in reference to George W Bush, which is not an inherent reference. The redirect here is a phonetic respelling of "WCW", and was a way to refer to the promotion long before Bush the younger was president. Now whether that makes it a good redirect is still a question, but the nomination rationale is based on an erroneous understanding. oknazevad (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I doubt that many people would associate the phonetic spelling of "W" with anything other than George W. Bush, at this point. Obviously, this redirect should not lead there, either. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A cursory search of the term does not instill confidence that it is common enough to be a reasonable search term on Wikipedia. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:57, 20 September 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.

Gerald Little[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted as it was never created as an article that was later redirected. Its redirect to Papua conflict is pointless as Gerald Little is mentioned only once on the conflict article under the section Post-Suharto under the subsection 2010–present. And the redirect doesn't direct to this subsection. The redirect doesn't have much purpose or value as it doesn't essentially aid in navigation. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's no policy reason to delete here: the subject is mentioned in the article, and nowhere else. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subject isn't notable enough to have been an article originally only to have it be redirected to the conflict article. Sort of negates the purpose of the redirect. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no notability requirement for redirects. Mlb96 (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That I am aware of, but generally when a person is the name of a redirect, it is because there was some notability, but not enough for their own article. For instance Darioush Rezaeinejad is a redirect to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists to a subsection about him. Although, there was an article about his assassination that resulted in the same redirect. But Gerald Little isn't a notable person to have a redirect to begin with because if there was enough information about him on the Papua Conflict page then the redirect would be proper. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since this article contains the only mention of a "Gerald Little" anywhere in the encyclopaedia so it is completely unambiguous. There is no requirement or policy on notability for redirects, they link search terms to targets. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. There is no notability requirement for redirects, only that there is information at the target. That is why we have tags such {{R from episode}}, {{R from fictional character}}, {{R from member}} and {{R from song}} (which is expressly designed for non-notable songs). Narky Blert (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The premise of the nomination is misguided. But even if it really were a thing, there is enough information on the subject that a WP:1E article could be written and then redirected. Furthermore, Little has more than a mere mention in the article. The entry has about 90 words and three references. As for not redirecting to the exact passage, we don't delete things that have easily fixable problems (you need {{anchor}} for that in case you didn't know). SpinningSpark 13:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per reasons above. Add category template {{R from person}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastside (talk • contribs) 15:47, 26 September 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_September_20&oldid=1047431699"