Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 17

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 17, 2023.

Nathan Verela

[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 23:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Verela should not redirect to Josue Varela. The Josue Varela page was mistakenly created with the wrong title, as mentioned by @ChuckMe92: on Talk:Josue Varela Joeykai (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These appear to be two very much separate people. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

My Demon

[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 23:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not sure how this relates to the target, can't see it as one of her films or songs. Not mentioned at target. Onel5969 TT me 17:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Get On The Dancefloor

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 24#Get On The Dancefloor

Rudhran (upcoming film)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 24#Rudhran (upcoming film)

Léon Gillis

[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. Jay 💬 07:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted. Formerly a page about a Belgian SS soldier, it now redirects to a page about American adventurer Leon Gillis. There's no evidence Leon ever used this diacritic or pronunciation, and it seems unlikely anyone searching for Léon would expect to find this American. pburka (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CJDOS: But this redirect is written without the "(soldier)" disambiguator, thus preventing any confusion. Léon Gillis (soldier) on the other hand, does not exist, and it definitely shouldn't. CycloneYoris talk! 21:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether it has the disambiguator, CycloneYoris, Léon Gillis and the Gillis family are unrelated and so should not be linked by a redirect, nor should other unrelated surnames of Gillis redirect to the current Gillis family article. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CJDOS: The fact that they're "unrelated" is completely irrelevant to this discussion. León Gillis is merely a misspelling of the name mentioned at the target and that is all that matters here. CycloneYoris talk! 18:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Yanny\ or\ Laurel

[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. This was a surprisingly heated discussion. The nominator makes a valid point for deletion, but it is balanced by the counterargument that the redirect meets points 4 and 5 of WP:R#KEEP. The strongest arguments for keeping came from Randi Moth, who pointed out the high number of initial pageviews while still noting the very specific purpose of the redirect. There's no clear consensus either way. (non-admin closure) Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was created because Reddit was breaking a link to Wikipedia. It is not our job to fix broken links from external sites. Precedence exists based on prior MfD discussions, such as this and this. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No page views in 30 days. Clearly the external link that led to this page is not relevant anymore. This should be deleted on the basis of WP:COSTLY. Carpimaps (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reddit wasn't "breaking a link". It created a broken link. That link exists. Anyone who follows it will not end up on the intended page if the redirect is not in place. Will anyone else come along at this point and ever follow it? Who knows—but also who cares. WP:COSTLY is an essay, not authoritative policy, and most of what's there is either irrelevant, ironic ("Sending redirects to RFD is costly"—so don't create the redirects because we can't help ourselves but to keep ourselves and others busy by sending them there, I guess?), or just wrong. The redirect was created to assist people who are given the bad link, and it can continue to do that indefinitely and trivially. The only real costs are procedural time sucks like this one. The "precedence" [sic] linked to is basically a pyramid scheme of self-referential poor reasoning. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because something was linked to once off-site does not mean it should never be deleted. Keeping a redirect like this could set a precedent that would allow for similar redirects to be created at a very large scale. They're not useful search terms and the real cost and time sink would be on the creation and patrolling of those newly created redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Re "Keeping a redirect like this could set a precedent that would allow for similar redirects": Good. It's a good redirect, for the reasons User:J947 stated.
    Re "They're not useful search terms": why does this phrase keep coming up? Not only is it a bad argument on its face, but the purpose of a WP:Redirect is to "aid navigation and searching by allowing a page to be reached under alternative titles." You are putting undue and unreasonable focus on the latter (searching) and neglecting the former (navigation). The purpose of this redirect is known. It has not been claimed to assist in searching. It's to assist anyone who follows a known link (that would otherwise dump people out onto a search page, perversely enough, if they were to try to follow it—unless the redirect is in place stop that from happening and send them to the right place). Further reading: WP:R#KEEP, WP:EXTERNALROT, WP:ENDURE, Cool URIs don't change.
    Re where you say the "cost and time sink" lies: this comes off as a very "look what you're making me do to you"-style argument; that's an impulse you're choosing to act on. Just choose not to. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree about it being a good redirect, but I want to address a specific point: Re where you say the "cost and time sink" lies: this comes off as a very "look what you're making me do to you"-style argument; that's an impulse you're choosing to act on. Just choose not to. You're failing to acknowledge the burden this would add to the NPP team, of which I am a member. I've been the most active redirect reviewer over the past year, so I do have some knowledge on how this would affect the team and backlog.
    If this is so useful, why haven't there been more redirects with this style created? Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not. That's exactly what my comment was a response to. Doing NPP (which stands for WP:New pages patrol for any onlookers) is an activity you're seeking out—not to mention that what brought you to this one in particular is that you seized upon it after actively seeking it out as part of an effort to find a redirect to plausibly argue for deletion on the heels of the unrelated RFP from earlier in the day... No one is making you do that. If you don't want to, then just don't. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please shut up. While I strongly disagree with Josh's stance on this specific issue, the work he's been doing reviewing redirects is very helpful and should not be denigrated.
    However, I will ask one generic question to him, out of pure interest moreso than anything else: if someone who is autopatrolled had instead created this redirect, what would be your stance? J947 † edits 00:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to tell me to shut up, you should perhaps, if not read and understand what I've actually written, then at least not implicitly suggest that I wrote something else (by responding to something I didn't say). -- C. A. Russell (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @J947: Thanks for the question. My stance would be the same based on the past discussions linked in my nomination. I have a genuine concern that, should redirects like this be allowed to exist, it would cause hundreds of thousands more to be created. My opinion is that they are minimally useful at best, but I respect your right and approach to disagreeing with my stance. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: neither particularly helpful nor harmless, thus default to who cares. For the record, it was the right call to create this as it seemed like it helped about 100 people following a link on the day of its creation, but since then the pageviews have become negligible. Fun fact: it seems that this redirect cannot be found through URL searching – the \ automatically corrects to /. J947 † edits 08:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes to distinguish this from the linked nomination with malformed brackets:
    • The redirects have much less potential to be spawned. Rather than any Markdown-using site being a potential cause, this is only caused by Reddit, and in a fairly specific situation as well: the poster has to be using the New reddit style, not remove the backslashes themself which are directly visible in the reply/post, and for Reddit to not auto-correct the target, the person who used the hyperlink must be using the Old Reddit style or a third-party client that does not fix this issue.
    • Unlike the malformed bracket redirects, Wikipedia does not have the "Did you mean: <...>" pop-up redirecting to the correct title for this issue, so there isn't a way to immediately go to the intended target article.
Personally, I'm leaning weak keep on this one as WP:RFD#K4. As pointed out, this got ~100 views on the day of its creation, and though the views have become negligible since then, it's still plausible for someone to discover that post again. I also don't expect the number of created redirects to be an issue for new page reviewers: the circumstances for the creation of a malformed link are fairly specific and it is absurd to create them in precaution that a malformed external link might exist in the future. Though if the Module:Bad title suggestion were to be expanded to detect this case as well, making the second note no longer true, then I'd probably lean weak delete. Randi Moth TalkContribs 18:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per C.A.Russel and WP:R#KEEP points 4 and 5. The tiny downsides to this redirect's existence come nowhere close to outweighing its usefulness and almost all of them will be entirely avoided if people just leave redirects like this be instead of nominating them for discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While discussing the intricacies of reddit (or any other website's) URL generation are fine to explain the pageviews to the redirect, the decision to keep them ought not to be based on the website's quirks. Jay 💬 08:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They aren't being kept because of a website's quirks, they should be kept because they are useful to readers. Why redirects are useful is irrelevant, all that matters is that people should be able to find the content they are looking for as easily as possible and that means keeping redirects that are both harmless and unambiguous such as this one. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now, delete later: My recommendation based on what I'm reading above, is that the known incoming link should be fixed at its source first, and then propose the deletion RfD. Has someone asked the folks who manage Reddit? — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a widely reported issue that has existed for close to 2 years. You can search on /r/bugs, the official subreddit for reporting software issues on the site, for this error and find a lot of reports.
This is the first instance of it I found. It's highly likely that the developers are aware of the issue and aren't able to fix it (whether it's because of management or software concerns) or that they are intentionally keeping it in. Randi Moth TalkContribs 07:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's true – just because it's a broken link at their end, doesn't mean Reddit readers aren't capable of figuring out the correct link for themselves. If they'll never fix their link, that's their problem, not Wikimedias, which is what others have said above. What I mean is, try to contact someone in charge directly, and get an acknowledgement of the problem. If nothing further can be done, then this is the revisit, and it's time for some Wikipedia housekeeping; disregard the incoming link. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What matters is not when the external site makes the changes, what matters is that at least until they do this remains a useful redirect there is no justification to delete. It's not harming anything here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Amar Bail

[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 18:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the term at the target. —Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 16:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try. Consensus is split between two non-"keep" results.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Dissenting catholic

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. There has been support for a suggestion from the nomination on creation of a new article probably at Theological dissent in Catholicism, or at the current title itself. There are also those who see the redirect as useful, but there is no agreement on a single target. Jay 💬 07:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created this redirect about two years ago, and I have a feeling that this redirect may have a better target than the current one. The topic of "Theological dissent in Catholicism" might be a warranted article, and the natural place would be to point this there, but I can't quite find anything on that topic precisely. Alternatives like Heresy in the Catholic Church and/or Mater si, magistra no might fit, but I'm not sure that either would be the best place to point this. Any ideas? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking this over a bit more, I think I weakly prefer a retarget to Mater si, magistra no. It's a slogan of the "dissenting Catholic" movement that began in the 20th century, but I ultimately would prefer to target an article on that movement should one ever become written. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified about the RfD at the talk pages of the two suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

JMI

[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, defaulting to replace with DAB. Moving the old redirect out of the way per Uanfala's request. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current target of the redirect had stayed here for a long time. However, the Indian University, Jamia Millia Islamia (abbv. as JMI) has taken over the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Java Metadata Interface shows a page view of only 89, whereas the university has a page view of 24,251 (last 30 days). I boldly changed the redirect target, however was advised to start a formal RfD, so here I am. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 10:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 06:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Manipuri: The Bishnupriyas and Meiteis of Manipur

[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. wbm1058 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be deleted because it's an inappropriate title and no one will search any information in this title. Besides, the article is not about the two ethnicities' comparison but only about one ethnic group. That title sounds like the name of a book or a particular literary work. Haoreima (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 06:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Probably a translation of the title of a non-English book per Wbm1058. There are no incoming links. If there was mention of the book at the target, it would have made sense. Otherwise, it is just an unclear title. Jay 💬 15:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Global Series

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 13#Global Series

Iravaakaalam

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 14#Iravaakaalam

Turkish invasion

[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. No prejudice against the format of the disambiguation page being altered, for example to have it at a different title, have it be a set index instead, or have it include Ottoman invasions. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 00:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note also the previous dab page at this title from Dbachmann. J947 † edits 00:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous with Turkish invasion of Cyprus, which anyway is a WP:PTM. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Someone creating a list or set index draft on the redirect may help with consensus...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Create list/dab. This is a plausible search term that can reasonably refer to several topics. From Champion's list above it's clear we have a strong precedent, with different editors creating at different times dab pages for similar terms at the singular title, so I've drafted a similar one under the redirect. This choice is easily defensible as we're listing individual events that people may call "the Turkish invasion" (so it's not different from prototypical dabs), and it's desirable not have any incoming links to the page. – Uanfala (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Christian Biblical Council

[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 00:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 16:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are several better methods of dealing with the history than holding on to a redirect that points nowhere because of ancient nonsense from 15 years ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Histmerge and delete per Pppery. The redirect is quite odd in its current state, but a histmerge would preserve attribution to the authors that is required under the terms of the GFDL (which was the primary license at the time of the merge). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Talk:The Way International/Christian Biblical Council or similar. Easiest course of action is to just squirrel away the attribution on a talk subpage, saves the hassle of a complex histmerge while still removing a confusing redirect. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to a histmerge or even moving the history over to the title of an existing mainspace redirect that lacks any history of its own (e.g. Way International). I just prefer to keep things simple in cases like this. I also agree with Uanfala that the text is unlikely to be viewed or restored, but it can't entirely be ruled out, and preserving attribution in some form is inexpensive. Exactly what form that should take however isn't that important in this case. I also suggest that if no further input is received a WP:Bartender's closing may be in order. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete. I don't think any of the ways of preserving attribution are practicable here: the redirect and the article have parallel histories, so a histmerge would mess things up. If any other method is used (like moving to talk subpage, or mentioning in a dummy edit summary) then there won't be any way to signpost this attribution for anyone who may be viewing the relevant article revision of 15 years ago. On the other hand, I don't see why we would try to bend over backwards to preserve attribution for this. The text in question, which existed on Wikipedia for a brief period 15 years ago and is unlikely to be brought back, consisted in a single paragraph of 84 words of descriptive prose. While that is likely above the threshold of originality, the constituent contributions from any one editor probably aren't (here are the character counts for the text's top contributors: 65.54.97.190: 264 characters (40 %), 63.166.60.2: 141 characters (21 %), Deckiller: 131 characters (20 %), Lsjzl: 93 characters (14 %)). – Uanfala (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wow, the history of the target article is a massive mess. But I cannot find any evidence at all that the material of Christian Biblical Council was ever actually merged into the target (certainly not at the time that the article was redirected, and not at various randomly selected revisions months before then); even if it were, keeping the history would not be sufficient for attribution as WP:PATT requires a link in the edit summary for that to be relevant, attribution could simply be provided with a list in a dummy edit, and we have much bigger issues to worry about than possible copying within Wikipedia viewable only through a few revisions lasting less than a year from a decade and a half ago. eviolite (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

ASDFGH

[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. Despite two relistings and lots of discussion those favouring keeping or deleting are no closer to agreement. Alternative targets were suggested, but these did not get much traction either. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no value in creating redirects for every single combination of letters formed from the rows of a Qwerty keyboard. This isn't even a full row, so there's especially no reason to keep it. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I doubt anyone typing in ASDFGH is actually looking for keysmash, but I don't think retargeting to Password strength#Examples of weak passwords will do much good either. Either delete or keep at current target. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Edward-Woodrow. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since everyone seems to agree that keysmash is a stretch, I'm fine with keep per Ivanvector. Pageviews seem to show regular use since its creation. I think the nominator is wrong to compare this to "every single combination" of keys of a QWERTY keyboard. This is not a random combination and that this "isn't even a full row" is clearly intentional; it's exactly the same number of keys as are in "QWERTY". Keeping this would not open a Pandora's box of key combinations; there aren't that many rows on a typical QWERTY keyboard. It would at worst set a precedent for creating ZXCVBN to complete the set for typeable rows. (123456 already exists and belongs to a disambiguation page.) While this is also a row on a QWERTZ keyboard, that article is linked in a hatnote on QWERTY so I don't think further disambiguation is needed. – Scyrme (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a common name for QWERTY, or anything else. I suspect the views are just curiosity about where this leads. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, and that's precisely why I think it should lead somewhere. J947 † edits 22:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      By that I mean when a user starts to type a query in the search box, they see this and get curious. But it doesn't really mean anything! Users wouldn't search for it if we didn't suggest otherwise. --BDD (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm pretty sure that with Vector 2022, typing asdf etc. will display not the redirect itself, but its target. QWERTY coming up on search results in such a scenario seems pretty good to be honest. Keep as is. J947 † edits 22:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. It doesn't really mean anything and the existence of the redirect falsely implies otherwise. Not everyone uses Vector 2022. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC) ADDENDUM: Delete per WP:R#DELETE number 8: If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. The redirect is not mentioned in the target even once. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • We really should not cater in this manner for users of past skins – no website sacrifices functionality on a new skin for functionality on an old skin. That's putting a small proportion of editors on a pedestal, above readers. And, of course, readers first. J947 † edits 20:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • How does keeping this redirect constitute "putting on a pedestal" to users of past skins? It's completely neutral to Vector 2022 users at worst, but it's actively harmful to every other skin besides Vector 2022 afaik since that's the only one with redirect previews like that. It doesn't harm V2022 users in any way. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you've got this backwards? J947 † edits 20:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you explain? How does removing this redirect harm V2022 users? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because the redirect is helpful, as I said above. J947 † edits 22:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't see how typing 'asdfgh' into the search bar and having it serve up QWERTY is helpful. It is confusing because neither asdfgh nor ASDFGH appear in the target article at all so readers will arrive there and just be confused as to why they were redirected to this article. If a particular random combination of letters does not in fact mean anything and does not actually refer to any concept in the real world, what benefit is there to redirecting people who facesmash that particular combination of letters to any article at all (which would imply that this does refer to a concept in the real world), much less this one in particular wherein the text string never even appears? That's just a redirect for redirect's sake, because we'd prefer if people typing in the search bar don't arrive at a redlink article for some reason? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                • What is the reader meant to expect? I think they'd be chuffed to be served an interesting target rather than search results. J947 † edits 23:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Readers are here to learn about notable things, not be "chuffed" that the random string of characters they mashed into the search bar happened to take them to an article about something completely unrelated. Search results would actually be preferred because that teaches them that the random text string does not in fact refer to anything that exists, real or fictional. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Hmm, no, search results show password strength (and that alone) which is IMO less related to this search term than QWERTY. J947 † edits 00:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It's literally not related to either of those, because it's not a real thing. We should not be in the business of redirecting meaningless search strings, or indeed any search strings, to completely unrelated things just because we can and because we abhor an unredirected term. Readers are not served by arriving at 'some other article' that is mysterious and unconnected to what they were searching for. They may happen to learn something by reading it, but it's not what they were looking for and in fact, they fail to learn that the thing they searched is not a real thing because they were redirected to an unrelated article which they would diligently read and reach the end of, not having found anything about the term they searched for. They may even be frustrated and annoyed by this fact! Axem Titanium (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Look, what do you think the reader who smashes ASDFGH into the search bar is looking for? I'll give you a hint: they'll be looking for something. Anything. Not nothing. They won't be enlightened by the profound knowledge that this doesn't refer to anything educational. Either we give them QWERTY, through a redirect, or give them search results; i.e., password strength. I think QWERTY's more related (well for one, it's an extremely far cry from completely unrelated) and so a better option. I can assure you that what the reader will not be looking for is a puritan "this doesn't mean anything", which is what you seem to propose. Which they won't receive, anyway, as deletion is effectively a soft redirect to password strength. J947 † edits 01:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                          • No, that's incorrect. It is not "effectively a soft redirect to password strength". The first sentence they see on the search results page is The page "Asdfgh" does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. That teaches them that the thing does not exist and gives them the option, if they believe it does exist, to create a draft for it. This is far superior to a redirect to an unrelated article in which the text string 'ASDFGH' literally does not appear even once. This is functionally an instance of WP:R#DELETE reason 8, If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. "ASDFGH" is a synonym for QWERTY that is so obscure that no one here thinks it's actually a synonym. It's also worth noting that the ASDFGH redirect has only been used fewer than 1000 times in the past eight years. Clearly, it is not a terribly common occurrence for hypothetical readers to facesmash their keyboards in this particular way. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Actually, thanks for proving the point there vis-à-vis soft redirects: the vast majority of mainspace soft redirects say something very similar to that search result line.
                              Now you've pivoted to attempting to demonstrate that it's obscure – despite redirect guidelines being explicitly geared, in several manners, to keeping even the most rarely utilised redirects. Oh, and 500 views in slightly over 4 years (it hasn't been bloody around for 8 years) is pretty sublime for a redirect. Many articles would adore to receive so many views – and redirects require significantly less maintenance than articles, of course. Likely circa half of them are from search result clicking per BDD, but it's still an extremely helpful amount. J947 † edits 07:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                              • There are only 10 reasons to delete a redirect enshrined in the page that describes what redirects are on Wikipedia and this redirect matches one of them. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Well, do I need again mention I believe this redirect useful as is (K5) and think it isn't harmful even if it weren't particularly well-used (RHARMFUL), both of which are clearly indicated to trump any D reason. And the premise of D8 is "this is often unhelpful" anyway, and I've explained why I think this redirect is as is slightly more helpful than an effective soft redirect to Password strength multiple times. The situation here is different to normal because it's basically a glorified redirect if it's deleted anyway. It's very simple: which of those two options do you think is preferable (bearing in mind the effect on the search dropdown too)? J947 † edits 08:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Grant Ritchie (actor)

[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. Jay 💬 15:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of Grant Ritchie in this article, or any other article (that I can find). Leschnei (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Matty Healy

[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 speedy keep. This is not within the scope of RfD. I'm following it up on User_talk:Launchballer#Matty Healy. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd quite like to move User:Launchballer/Matty Healy here. 99% sure I've demonstrated notability, but having had one CSD declined, I'd quite like to be certain. Launchballer 12:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the section titled "Controversies" and wording of much of the content is a BLP and NPOV concern to me (see also WP:CSECTION). Take, for instance, he attracted "outrage" after performing a Nazi salute on stage – the context here (not a defense, not a condemnation) is that the salute was performed as he sung a lyric about Kanye West, in reference to West's recent neo-Nazi statements. Healy was accused of using the death of George Floyd to promote The 1975's album Notes on a Conditional Form is the writing style of tabloids: "accused" by who?
While I think Healy is notable and this draft shows it much, much more clearly than the version of the article discussed in 2021 that led to redirection, I also think there's work to do on this draft. — Bilorv (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed outrage to backlash, added context to he attracted "outrage" after performing a Nazi salute on stage, changed accused to accused online, added an extra reference to Healy was accused of using the death of George Floyd to promote The 1975's album Notes on a Conditional Form. I'll integrate the controversies section later.--Launchballer 22:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done; some of the controversies section (which I genuinely had no idea was discouraged) went into Stage, the rest into its own Media career section. I will be putting this through DYK and very, very possibly GA depending on how piri goes down, so this should undergo extra scrutiny.--Launchballer 09:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that if the story is that he "was accused online" then it's not a story that belongs on a BLP on Wikipedia. Take another example: the indy100 source verifying a clip of The 1975's guitarist Adam Hann cutting off Healy from being 'cancelled' went viral. It's not at all clear to me whether this is a planned joke or publicity stunt or Hann genuinely attempting to prevent Healy from saying something earnest. The video and the article make neither clear: it's a very brief clickbait piece with a misleading headline. I understand many of these are sources that would normally be (borderline) acceptable for most uses in music articles, but I'm not convinced of their acceptability with respect to these claims.
Nonetheless, I think this can be put in mainspace and worked on there. The more eyes on this, the better. — Bilorv (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A very fair point re: indy100, I was under the impression that it was simply The Independent by another name. I've taken it out.--Launchballer 06:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why is this listed?: the nominator is free to overwrite the redirect with an article which will stand or otherwise on its merits—the first bullet point of the page WP:RFD: "If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here"—notwithstanding the various prior AfDs. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I rather lost my bottle after finding I could not simply move and overwrite, forgetting that WP:PAGESWAP existed, and having had one CSD declined. I could swap it now if I wanted to.--Launchballer 15:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Roger Velasco

[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. Salvio giuliano 08:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These three redirects were suggested for nomination during a recently closed RfD of a Power Rangers actor. They have acted in more than one Power Rangers production - Power Rangers Turbo and Power Rangers in Space; however some actor pages redirect to one series, and some to the other. If neither is the best target, should they retarget List of Power Rangers cast members instead, or should they be deleted because there are other articles too that have information on them, and a search will be better? Jay 💬 07:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

List of Shoot 'em up game companies

[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 23:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect does not fall within the page's scope at all. Either it should be restored or deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Fuerzas Represivas

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 24#Fuerzas Represivas

Martin Agnarsson

[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. Salvio giuliano 08:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I request the deletion of this redirect because it's incorrect (redirecting a football player's name to the team he plays for). Melquíades (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_17&oldid=1156360207"