Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 23, 2024.

Pomosexuality[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 Sexual identity#Unlabeled sexuality. ✗plicit 02:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Sexual identity#Unlabeled sexuality as it's mentioned there and links to Wiktionary. Though I wouldn't oppose retargeting somewhereelse if defined. --MikutoH talk! 02:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget - per nom. Fieari (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible soft redirect. The term "pomosexuality" isn't mentioned anywhere on EnWiki, so converting this into a "hard" redirect makes no sense, since there isn't any plausible target in my opinion. Better to leave as is. CycloneYoris talk! 07:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget. Pomosexual is now mentioned in the proposed target: The term pomosexual is also similar to unlabeled in the sense that it defines the rejection of preexisting or mainstream labels. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 24 May 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).

Hamich[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 02:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed speedy deletion that I'm consquently taking here even though it clearly passes the WP:SNOW test. This is a "surname to individual person with it" redirect, except that (a) it isn't even his actual surname, but instead the article was created at Said Hamich despite the subject being more usually credited as Said Hamich Benlarbi, such that every single article connected to the film he just dropped at Cannes a few days ago completely missed that an article existed until I found and moved it, and (b) he isn't even the sole or primary topic for "Hamich" anyway, because every single inbound link that's actually coming here is expecting a German village just outside Aachen that was bombed in World War II. So using this as a single-topic surname redirect isn't appropriate if he isn't the sole topic and the incoming links are all expecting the other one across the board. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the German town that is being expected by every single article that's actually linking here at all is supposed to just suck it up and live with linking to the wrong thing, I suppose? Bearcat (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness that could be easily addressed by simply piping the links to point at Hamich (village), or similar. Won't be an entirely satisfactory solution for those who believe the village is the primary topic though. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E45A:47:824C:C807 (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And why would the filmmaker get to claim primary topic? The existence of this redirect might be the reason why the village doesn't have an article yet, because it's a blue link in the articles that are looking for the German village so people haven't noticed that it's missing — so the moment we've identified that another topic with this name exists, "he's the only topic that currently has an article right now" is automatically an invalid criterion, and the only acceptable grounds for keeping this would be full-on evidence that even if the village did have an article the filmmaker would still get primary topic rights over the village anyway. So what are the grounds on which he would be primary topic for "Hamich"? Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the recency, I am inclined to doubt the existence of the redirect is why the village has no article but we can only speculate, an exercise that tends to be dissipative; piping the links resolves the concern in any case. The guideline is explicit that "Wikipedia has no single criterion for defining a primary topic", so opinions may differ. And I was quite explicit that it would not "be an entirely satisfactory solution for those who believe the village is the primary topic" an assertion that your reply validates. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E45A:47:824C:C807 (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Piping the links doesn't resolve anything, because piping the links is an automatic banishment of the village to secondary topic status, and the fact that it's not a satisfactory solution is precisely the problem. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said it resolves the concern that the existing redirect inhibits article creation, but not the seperate concern over the primary topic, which you have also raised. I have not examined that issue in detail, and have no intention of doing so, which is why thus far I have only left a comment here, though I suppose I could eventually get around to it if a clear consensus fails to develop. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:6573:F24B:E2A6:BBEE (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I challenged the speedy because this is an unambiguous WP:NOTCSD explicitly covered by point 15 in fact. Template:R from surnames are common and accepted, the issue appears to be whether or not this is functionally the primary target. If an article on the village existed a bold dabification would likely have gone unchallenged, but it doesn't, thus this discussion. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4CF1:7456:BBC:F8B5 (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing a CSD in the page history of Hamich. @Bearcat, where's the CSD? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See the deletion log. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:6573:F24B:E2A6:BBEE (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK (and Voorts). I agree that the filmmaker is not likely to be the primary topic here, and we don't have an article on the primary topic, likely because the link is blue and interested parties are unaware the article is non-existent at this time. When the article exists, a hatnote can be used. Until then, the built-in search feature will suffice to assist anyone looking for the filmmaker. Fieari (talk) 23:24, 28 May 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).

Astounding incident[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 💬 21:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I was RfDing astounding, I noticed this redirect. Maybe delete as too vague/confusing? (A lot of events could be called an "astounding incident", depending on your point of view, and we don't seem to have articles on either the concepts of astoundingness or incidents either.) Duckmather (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't that vague. It is about an incident concerning Astounding Magazine, where in the target story Deadline was published in Astounding and resulted in an FBI investigation for leaking nuclear secrets during WWII. Perhaps reading the article could elucidate why it is called an "Astounding icident" and not an "astounding incident" -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first letter of a given article is not case sensitive, because it's always expected to be capitalized as per WP:LOWERCASE; thus, for all we knew, it WAS "astounding incident". If kept, refining to Deadline#FBI investigation would be warranted, but because of the capitalization issue, my assertion as per vagueness holds. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vague, as above. I did not find that "Astounding incident" is a common way to refer to the FBI investigation into the Deadline story. Incoming links and pageviews seem to agree. If it is, it's drowned out by this being a common phrase. ― Synpath 04:39, 27 May 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).

Astounding[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 31#Astounding

Astonishing[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. I see a consensus for disambiguation here. Any further discussion as to the disambiguation page's content can take place on its talk page. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another astonishing (sorry, I just had to make a redirect for this link) vocabulary redirect. I propose retargeting this redirect to either Surprise (emotion) or wikt:astonishing. Duckmather (talk) 20:24, 23 May 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).

Turkish bath[edit]

The target of this redirect should likely be reconsidered. The most helpful solution may to turn this into a DAB, merging with Turkish Bath (disambiguation). Reason: The term "Turkish bath" in a Western context is fairly generic and might also denote other types of steam baths, in addition to the mainly Islamic ones covered at Hammam. Since this was last discussed in 2021 (see here), a more fully-fledged Victorian Turkish bath article now exists. Other articles might also be relevant to link. Note: This came out of a discussion at Talk:Turkish Bath (disambiguation) between myself and Ishpoloni. Feel free to read there for more context & explanation. R Prazeres (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget: I don't know the correct Wiki terminology to use, but searchers from different communities seeking information on so-called 'Turkish baths' (which no longer appears as an article) could equally be looking for Hammam or Victorian Turkish baths and some type of 'See:' reference should offer these two clear redirecting link options.
Hammam is neither primary nor secondary. Hammam and Victorian Turkish baths only have in common that they are baths, and are both derived from the ancient Roman thermae. Victorian Turkish baths are not steam baths. Nor are they really, as the Hammam article states, "A variation on the Muslim bathhouse"—which is why in France and Germany they are called Roman-Irish baths.
The only guiding principle here should be: 'Save the time of the reader' Ranganathan's 4th law. Ishpoloni (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, we follow our own policies and guidelines, not library science (for better or for worse, I can't say). The guideline for how to deal with ambiguous terms (like Turkish bath) is WP:D. The first step is to determine whether there is a primary topic. One way to do that is to look at page traffic. The page traffic for Hammam shows that most people get to that page via an "other-search", such as searching for the term "Turkish bath" via an external search engine, but that only 15% of people then click away to Victorian Turkish baths from that article. We can infer that most readers were, in fact, looking for Hammam when they searched "Turkish bath". We can also look at comparative pageviews, which shows that Hammam gets far more views than Victorian Turkish baths. Then, if we've determined a primary topic, the guideline tells us to redirect the ambiguous term to that page, with hatnotes to the appropriate disambiguation pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having had time to familiarise myself more with the often complicated Wikipedia guidance notes, I now believe that the most equitable solution is the one suggested above by R Prazeres, ie, to change the current Redirect into a DAB, merging with Turkish Bath (disambiguation). This could either be based on the existing one or, perhaps preferably, like the Mercury page example given in the guidance notes. I believe this is a solution on which we should easily be able to reach consensus.
Reasons:
1. Of the 22 reasons for a redirect given on Wikipedia:Redirect the overwhelming majority relate to different forms of words, grammar, punctuation, etc. Not one exemplifies a redirect of one subject to another subject.[a]
2. On Wikipedia:Disambiguation page the three important points seem to be:
(a) naming articles so each has an unique title, eg, Hammam and Victorian Turkish baths;
(b) making links so that a term points to the correct article;
(c) "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." (My emphasis)
Proposed resolution:
Change the current Redirect into a DAB, merging with Turkish Bath (disambiguation)
An allied matter:
In case there are Western European readers of this Wikipedia, there should be Redirects < Irish-Roman baths and < Roman-Irish baths > Victorian Turkish baths. Ishpoloni (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ For any newcomer to the discussion, 'Victorian Turkish baths' is not a subdivision of 'Hammam', Hammam being an Islamic steam bath and Victorian Turkish baths being Victorian (Roman-Irish) baths using hot dry air. Both are direct descendants of the Roman thermae.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. The identification of a primary topic only seems to apply when there are synonyms for the terms used to name a specific subject, or for grammatical clarifications (see Reason 1 in my previous reply).
B. When there are two completely different and separate subjects, ie, Hammam & Victorian Turkish baths, there cannot be a "primary topic" simply because both are types of hot-air bath, any more than there can be a "primary topic" between Apple & Pear simply because both are types of fruit.
C. Wikipedia's object in the case of multiple subjects (see 2.c above) is to enable readers to speedily find the subject wanted, whichever one it is.
D. The current situation where a reader, perhaps the (wo)man on the Clapham omnibus rather than an academic, seeks information on Turkish baths and is willy-nilly diverted to an article on hammams—and so may never discover the existence of an article on Victorian Turkish baths—cannot be equitable, or helpful.
E. The solution suggested above by R Prazeres to retarget to Turkish Bath (disambiguation) not only follows Wikipedia principles, but provides the speediest route to either of the two subjects sought. It should now be adopted as a win-win solution for both subjects, and will in practice lead readers to articles on subjects they may not previously have come across.Ishpoloni (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The argument in B is off-base, as these two topics can both be referred to as "Turkish bath" in colloquial English. signed, Rosguill talk 19:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - pageviews analysis suggests that Hamam is the primary topic, with that page receiving far more views per day (of which views coming from the redirect are only a fraction). Arguably even stronger evidence is that even sources contemporary to Victorian England identify the Hamam as the Turkish bath (see page 34 onward [1]). Those looking for the Victorian topic can be directed by the existing hatnote at the current target. signed, Rosguill talk 19:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rosguill's arguments are convincing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LATAM[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 1#LATAM

Draft:2025 IndyCar Series[edit]

Redirect in draftspace created as a result of disruptive article creation by an IP user over an existing redirect, and NPP not reverting the disruptive edits, but instead draftifying their "work" (which consisted of a lazy, unreferenced stub). Suggest deletion. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC) HistSplit per 2601:5CC:.... ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • HistSplit or just override the redirect with the previous draft, noting attribution in the edit summary if more convenient. Too soon applies to articles, but drafts are fine. Should have been histsplit the first time as the existing redirect should not have been deleted, but we can remedy that now. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A165:7AFC:68F9:104D (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 17:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Severa[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was move without redirect to Severa (software) and move Severa (disambiguation) to Severa. -- Tavix (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this name should redirect to this person. ★Trekker (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Move or keep at the current title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 17:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • ... an alternative might be to move the name-holder list to a surname SIA at the base name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:25, 4 June 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).

Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp?[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.
Author said they were alright with its deletion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question mark at the end is possibly a typo and not accurate. I double checked with the creator of the redirect and they stated that the redirect's origin is from the infobox (which isn't cited). I'm not seeing results under this title through my search engine. It always seems to be Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. [2] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 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).

Yin-Yuan[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 Yin Yuan a newly created disambiguation page signed, Rosguill talk 19:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any use of this romanization in literature or on Google. Potentially ambiguous with Yinyuan. Game Is (presumably) Wikipedian (tea?) 15:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Ingen has been referred to as Yinyuan. This page says, "The year 2022 marks the 350th death anniversary of Zen Master Yinyuan Longqi (隱元隆琦 1592-1673, Ingen Ryūki in Japanese)." This article says, "Ingen Ryūki (Chinese, Yinyuan Longqi; 1592–1673), although unknown from Chinese sources, was ..."

    The page should not be deleted. I am fine with either keeping the page as is or retargeting the page to Yinyuan which already has a hatnote to Yinyuan Longqi, which redirects to Ingen. Cunard (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There should be dab pages to cover this. I've stubbed up DRAFT:Yin Yuan and DRAFT:Yuan yin to cover it -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 65.92.244.237 (talk · contribs)! I support your proposal to create a disambiguation page with the first draft as well as to create the second draft. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to accept and move the drafts into articlespace. -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As there is an open RfD, moving the drafts into mainspace could be controversial. I hope there is a consensus to do the move so that the RfD closer does this. Otherwise, I plan to do this myself at the close of the RfD. Cunard (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yinyuan is the common romanization of the Chinese 隱元, but the romanization with a dash in particular is what doesn't seem used at all. Is this otherwise a common way of romanizing Chinese names? Separating their characters with dashes? Game Is (presumably) Wikipedian (tea?) 06:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hyphens are used in Wade–Giles romanization. From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#People:

When using a Wade–Giles romanization, a hyphen should used between the syllables of a two-character given name, with the second syllable uncapitalised (unless a different form is clearly preferred): write Lee Teng-hui, not Lee Teng-Hui. Hong Kong names should also generally use the hyphenated style.

However, Yinyuan is a Pinyin romanization, not a Wade–Giles romanization. I think it should be fine to redirect a hyphenated version of the name to a "Yin Yuan" disambiguation page for being a plausible search term. Cunard (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you. I wasn't aware of Wade-Giles romanization. Support Retarget Game Is (presumably) Wikipedian (tea?) 00:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the "Yin Yuan" DAB page after publishing to mainspace. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read somewhere "yuan" is the neutral/third form of yin-yang, but I guess that would be wuji and it was probably an invention. --MikutoH talk! 00:43, 28 May 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).

Aromantisch[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

implausible RLOTE created as an article in Dutch in 2017 and redirected 6 minutes later, barely has any pageviews (113 over 7 years is essentially bot and Special:WhatLinksHere noise). should be retargeted to aromanticism if not deleted. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 05:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto-public, Chaotic Enby, DanielRigal, Dudhhr, and Lunamann: why not retarget to wikt:aromantisch? Wiktionary has an entry for it. --MikutoH talk! 23:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC) nvm I confused with wikt:aromatisch --MikutoH talk! 23:02, 23 May 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).

Consecutive games[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Iron man (sports streak). Rough consensus. I added a hatnote for Chaotic Enby's suggested page. (non-admin closure) Ca talk to me! 00:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too specific a target for a general concept. Not really a notable topic on its own and too vague to make a good search term, so deletion is likely best. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that makes sense as a target. The word "consecutive" is not found at the target, and we don't have the singular consecutive game. The plural form is usually used in the context of sports, it's just that there is no good target in that context for such a broad/vague term. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a good point. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:30, 24 May 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).

Ron Johnson (rapper)[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name of Yuno Miles being "Ron(ald) Johnson" was sourced to WP:GENIUS (see this diff), which is WP:GUNREL, particularly for a WP:BLP. I could not find any other sources that indicate that Miles' name is actually "Ron(ald) Johnson", nor do any of the sources mentioned in the ongoing AfD for Yuno Miles contain that name. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's even worse-- Not even Genius itself supports this redirect (see here and here), referring to Ron Johnson not as a name for Yuno Miles, but as a writer for Yuno Miles-- as in, an entirely different person who's worked with him in the past. It's like saying that Britney Spears's real name is Max Martin. These redirects are Certified Trash. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:56, 23 May 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_23&oldid=1229044133"