Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 9

January 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 9, 2024.

Devine Retribution (American Civil War)[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 14:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devine Retribution (American Civil War) → Charleston in the American Civil War (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Please delete. This is a newly created redirect with a spelling error in the first word. The phrase is "divine retribution", not "devine retribution". 123.51.107.94 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; harmless, plausible, phonetic misspelling. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; The fact that this rather simple mistake can be made is exactly why there should be a redirect Vghfr (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since "Devine retribution" has never existed, so there's no reason for this to exist. Steel1943 (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Divine Retribution (American Civil War) does not exist, and I have no prejudice against it being created. Steel1943 (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating ... After I posted that comment, Divine Retribution (American Civil War) was created by the same editor who created the nominated redirect as a redirect towards the same target as the nominated redirect. @Luke10.27: Are you indirectly saying you created the redirect nominated in this discussion, Devine Retribution (American Civil War), in error? Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe never mind on that, I guess. Looks like the nominated redirect's creation may have been intentional per Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories/2024-01#Redirect request: Devine Retribution (American Civil War). Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I created the "Devine Retribution" based on that AFCRC request. I created the correct one and began typing out a response here to your initial comment when I read this discussion, but had to go unexpectedly before I could post my reply. The redirect under discussion is a typo, but since at least the requester made it, it might be common enough to be worth having a redirect for. I don't have an opinion either way on keeping or deleting the "Devine Retribution" redirect. Luke10.27 (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain that the requestor who wanted this redirect created misspelled "devine" on accident, considering on the linked page, their goal was to request a lot of redirects that included the phrase "American Civil War", not misspellings. Everybody accidentally making errors. Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mention added. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the edit referenced here spells the word as "divine", not "devine". Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Steel1943. Unlikely and uncommon misspelling. No reason for this redirect to exist. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be an accidental misspelling by the requestor, with no indications that this is an especially likely one to justify having a redirect. ^Complex/_Rational 01:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Saltburn[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. A page was already drafted by Crouch, Swale. (non-admin closure) Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saltburn → Saltburn-by-the-Sea (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Is this the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? GnocchiFan (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate for now between the film and the two cities. It is likely that the film will be shown to be the primary topic, but it feels TOOSOON to retarget. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per above. Dank Jae 15:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate for now between Saltburn-by-the-Sea, Saltburn, Ross and Cromarty and Saltburn (film); the film is not the primary topic yet although this might change in the future. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate the film has 6,805,396 views, Saltburn-by-the-Sea has 87,659, the soundtrack has 47,804 and the Scottish place has 534[[1]]. This clearly makes the film primary by usage but its likely not by long-term significance so disambiguation is best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously a recent phenomenon that will probably fade eventually, but with this high an amount of reader interest, using a disambiguation list makes sense to avoid potential confusion from even a small portion of this huge mass of moviegoers who might not be accustomed to hatnotes. I'm not sure that there's many people who would miss the first line under the title, but there could be a few who get distracted by an infobox or something. Any discussion whether the film would be primary topic should be done much later to avoid WP:Recentism. --Joy (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate - the name is now clearly associated to this popular film.Hjamesberglen (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Glorification of Palestinian terrorism[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. After two relists, no further arguments have materialized against deletion following clarifications of the deletion argument. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glorification of Palestinian terrorism → Martyrdom in Palestinian society (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It's not even nominally about the same subject. No pages link to it, it serves no purpose other than to be inflammatory. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. – GnocchiFan (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It could be working to stop dubious articles with that name continually reappearing? Irtapil (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the potential benefit of this redirect is that its existence prevents new articles from being made with that particular title, I think salting is a better solution. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand the problem. The article deals with the glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society right? This includes glorification of groups considered terrorists in the West. Is it not best to have it just as a redirect than an actual article title or article? Homerethegreat (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The article deals with the glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society right?" No, it does not. It did, and then we discussed it at two venues with overwhelming results in favor of dropping the "glorification of" from the title and remaking the page from the ground up to be about martyrdom, not the judgmental "glorification" prepended to the title, as one editor put it. Results at the move discussion were unanimous, and at the AfD, most editors on either side of the keep/delete question all agreed the title had to go and the article needed some serious NPOV work (though you were one of the few voices that praised the old title). At the heart of the NPOV issues was the interchangeable use of "martyr" and "terrorist." Before other editors discussed and started improving the page, it was not an article about martyrdom, but a polemical essay written to dehumanize a nationality. Any remaining material that conflates the two concepts (martyr and terrorist) will have to be cleaned up. The old title is now a redirect, which is still questionable, but this particular redirect - which has never been linked to from any page - is especially inflammatory and serves no purpose. It is better to salt it than to keep it around. Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input, and since consensus is not entirely clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 21#Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society

FBS Olomouc[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was restore article in accordance with WP:BLAR, without prejudice to AfD. ^Complex/_Rational 01:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FBS Olomouc → Extraliga žen ve florbale (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete: It's remainder after deleting the article. There's no link anywhere pointing to the redirect. Except for the actual redirect target: Extraliga žen ve florbale, where the link to redirect had to be removed (to avoid self-redirect). But that creates an inconsistency in the list of teams, where now FBS Olomouc is the only team without a link, contrary to other red-linked teams without articles. Prikryl (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and send to WP:AFD per WP:BLAR, especially since the WP:BLAR occurred only about a day ago. RfD is not the place to discuss WP:GNG issues, which seems to be the basis for the WP:BLAR in the first place. Steel1943 (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prikryl: This is a valid redirect, and need not be deleted. However, if you are disputing JML1148's contention that the article fails WP:GNG with all sources being routine coverage or statistics, then this needs to be discussed at AfD. But if you agree that the last good content wasn't good enough, and there are sources available for the article to be enhanced, it may be restored or draftified. Jay 💬 12:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know the practices, so I cannot argue about this. But you didn't address my concern, that now due to the redirect, in the team list at Extraliga žen ve florbale, the FBS Olomouc is without a link, inconsistently to other red-linked teams. In my eyes this is an actual issue, not whether the redirect exists or not (as no one will ever use it anyway). Thanks. Prikryl (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And, I do NOT dispute the WP:GNG. Prikryl (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:REDLINK, we can create a redlink if a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable. So if you agree that there is not going to be an article, then it should not be a redlink. Regarding consistency with other redlinks, then each redlink needs to be analyzed on its own merits. Jay 💬 14:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore without prejudice to AfD per Steel1943. Essentially the only time this is not the correct response to a contested undiscussed BLAR is if the restored content would be subject to speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore With WP:BLAR, the policy is that if an editor wishes to contest the redirect, it is to be reverted to its original article form and then sent to AfD for discussion. This RfD should be immediately closed and the article reverted; it's obvious what the outcome will be. 22:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JML1148 (talk • contribs)

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

Lesnes Abbey Conservation Volunteers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 16#Lesnes Abbey Conservation Volunteers