Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 24, 2018.

Cultural influence of psychoactive substances[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unlikely target of a search (leaving an incomprehensible rationale on the redirect page still doesn't justify it) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale isn't necessary, (I deleted the addition in any case) but does contribute to knowledge of the route of creation of the redirect, is not the actual reason for the redirect creation. The redirect is certainly possible, by anyone who might just want to find the connection, for example from different disciplines - anthropology, students of the East and West - people who don't have access to the actual term "drug culture" but do know of "Culture" and or "influence" and or "Occidental culture" and or "psychoactive substances". 23h112e (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale was to indicate, I know something of this topic (this topic being the redirect and the destination) therefore the redirect is something I think is necessary. Unless the contesting user knows something of the identified elements i.e. "Culture" and or "influence" et cetera, then his contesting of the redirect is based simply on his lack of knowledge of the possibility of the redirect being necessary. 23h112e (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll retract the opinion I held before and support deletion, (to integrate the description into the article instead), on the grounds as given by Deacon Vorbis. 23h112e (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This seems worded awkwardly, and deletion makes sense to me as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

AR-15[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 AR-15 style rifle

To start with some facts:

The comments here largely mirror the arguments made at these various pages, but allow me to summarize them:

  • Colt AR-15 is the original, is trademarked, and is "correct" by those who know
  • AR-15 style rifle is what the average reader wants and what most sources mean
  • Disambiguating is always good, especially if there's no PRIMARYTOPIC

Even setting aside the numerical results, the AR-15 style rifle folks presented more compelling arguments. Redirects are not just to correct errors, they should serve users' wants. We cannot expect all readers to be proficient in every subset of knowledge, and while nudges for common typos are reasonable, we should not be "correcting" readers if what they want is available. I have been convinced that the average reader of both en.Wiki and English-language media thinks first of the generic.

I'm deleting AR-!% and AR=15 as suggested by some below, as they appear to be unhelpful and unlikely typos. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects have been the subject of repeated retargeting over the last few months. In November, discussion at Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation)#Update Redirect resulted in rough consensus to use the target Colt AR-15 instead of List of Colt AR-15 & M16 rifle variants. I later reverted the retargeting of some of these redirects to AR-15 (disambiguation). Subsequently the target for most was changed again, and a note at Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation)#Redirect of AR-15 to AR-15 style rifle didn't receive any feedback. But a new discussion took place at Talk:AR-15 style rifle#Redirects with ambiguous results. I'm neutral on this issue, but it would be best to get this cleared up all in one place. Dekimasuよ! 21:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are also a number of redirects to the list here (AR-15 variants, Colt AR-15 variants, etc.) that could possibly be aimed at AR-15 style rifle. Dekimasuよ! 21:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very recently, the "Modern sporting rifle" article was renamed to "AR-15 style rifle". See Talk:AR-15 style rifle#Requested move 22 February 2018. As part of that discussion, most editors seemed to think that, for the typical reader searching for "AR-15", the primary topic would be the AR-15 style rifle, and not the specific original model manufactured by Colt's, which is at "Colt AR-15". Based on this, I think redirecting "AR-15" to "AR-15 style rifle" is the best approach -- although doing it the previous way made sense at the time. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AR-!%, AR=15, as redirects necessitates the mistyping of a search criteria (unless I'm mistaken), therefore are inadmissable. 23h112e (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had redirected "AR-15" (and Ar-15 & AR15) to the AR-15 (disambiguation) page, (I wasn't aware 3 or 4 guys had made a decision about this earlier). The dab page seems like the logical place as it lists every related article, including every possible one that could be suggested or selected here in this discussion. We have so many different "AR-15" articles now, it's best to present readers with the list as there's likely to be one or two they otherwise wouldn't be aware of. Direct readers to the dab and let them decide which article to select from there. Isn't this why we have dab pages? - theWOLFchild 23:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AR-15 (disambiguation) - Other shows 3 articles, USS Deucalion (AR-15) might be an actual return from a search "AR-15" - although the number of people who might make this search description are relatively few in number (perhaps). 23h112e (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What "other" is that? - theWOLFchild 06:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he's referring to AR-15 (disambiguation) § Other. wbm1058 (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider AR-15 style rifle to be the primary topic. The header "'AR-15' redirects here. For other uses, see AR-15 (disambiguation)" is sufficient for anyone searching for the ship, highway, Colt AR-15, etc. –dlthewave ☎ 23:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"AR-15 style rifle" has only existed foe a few hours. For years it was "Modern sporting rifle". Would you have considered that the "primary topic" before today? (The content hasn't changed). - theWOLFchild 06:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 345 links to AR-15. These will need disambiguation if we redirect this to the disambiguation page. In a source article that refers to "AR-15" it will be necessary to determine specifically what the source meant by that. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colt AR-15 is the primary topic. Anyone referring to an AR-15 style gun would be incorrect to do so without a style suffix.Icewhiz (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Incorrect"...? How are readers supposed to know that? - theWOLFchild 06:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look at how it is used by proper sources. The analogue here is perhaps IBM PC - which would always refer to IBM's computer - with clones and compatibles appended with a suffix. Here we aren't even talking about clones - some of the "AR-15 style" guns are widely divergent - the share some features - hence "AR-15 style". AR-15 by itself - would always refer to (in any decent media or publication) to the Colt AR-15 or the prior ArmaLite AR-15 (which colt purchased and re-branded as Colt - so pretty much the same).Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One should also note that AR-15 is a registered trademark of Colt - which has implications possibly for Wikipedia, and further enforces use of this term (as other manufacturers can not refer to their own weapons as AR-15, and media and other publications generally respect trademarks). My opinion is that it should point at Colt AR-15 irrespective of the trademark - as the proper model this refers too - but the trademark is relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Zamboni machine is a generic trademark, as is Dumpster. This seems like it has become one too. Personal Computer doesn't redirect back to the original IBM versions. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be redirecting to the Colt article, since that is their trademark. Most gun familiar people know this, and those that don't know this should learn it, as it is a specific model, not just a style of gun. We already have an article for the style. Second choice would be a dab page. There is some confusion about COMMONNAME, but within that industry, that is the common name for the Colt version. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • When someone uses the term "AR-15" they are talking about the "Colt AR-15 and their copies". In that order. All "AR-15" type searches should go to the Colt AR-15 page. All "AR-15 style", "AR-15 type" and "AR-15 pattern" like searches should go to the AR-15 style rifle page. Hatnotes and Disambiguation can redirect readers to the other pages. Trying to shoehorn everything to the AR-15 style rifle page will not work in the long term and will result in continuous redirect warring. Which will be left to other editors deal with.--RAF910 (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that when people talk about or search for "AR-15", they often mean "AR-15 style rifle". –dlthewave ☎ 18:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are simply parroting what they were told, by people have no idea what they are talking about. We can provide accurate information or NOT.--RAF910 (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to AR-15 style rifle. It's clearly WP:COMMONNAME and primary topic for the subject. That's what people are looking for when they visit Wikipedia: page views for Colt AR-15 vs AR-15 style rifle. Please see recently closed RM discussion there, and other talk page discussions, both at AR-15 style rifle and Colt AR-15. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Page views from the last week or so are clearly influenced by the current news cycle. Media focus for the last week or so is not the correct way to make a primary topic call.Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    All redirects should be sent to the Colt AR-15 page where they belong. Even with the majority of the above "AR-15" links currently being redirected to the AR-15 style rifle page, on 02/25/2018 the Colt AR-15 page got 31,395 hits while the AR-15 style rifle page only got 10,351 hits [1]. Clearly the Colt AR-15 page is the primary page while the AR-15 style rifle is the subordinate page. On the same day that AR-15 style rifle page got 10,351 hits, of those most 5,769 hits were redirects from the AR-15 redirect page [2]. If it were not for those redirects the AR-15 style rifle would be viewed about 4000 times, and most of those are links from the primary Colt AR-15 page and the Modern sporting rifle redirect pages. The numbers don't lie.--RAF910 (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all and every related redirect to AR-15 style rifle, with a note somewhere at the top or in the lede linking to Colt AR-15. It may be well-known among firearms enthusiasts that all AR-15 designs follow from Colt's original, but most people don't know that, and readers aren't expected to have specialist knowledge to find the information they're looking for. We're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia for everyone here. Except delete AR=15 and AR-!%; unlikely search terms - these aren't shift errors, a user would have to push and release shift while typing to get these. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. Have you even read these articles? The Colt AR-15 page very careful describes what an AR-15 rifle is. The AR-15 style rifle page does not, it simply refers/links to the Colt AR-15 page. The Colt AR-15 page even has a entire section devoted to "AR-15 style rifles". As for the AR-15 style rifle page, now that the knowledgeable gun editors have abandon the page to the mob, it's very quickly turning into nothing more than a New York Times and Washington Post quotefest. Nobody, is going to learn anything of substance there, only that AR-15s shoot fast and kill people.--RAF910 (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why not merge the articles, then? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good merge. Colt AR15 is a specific weapon with specific specs and variants. AR15 style refers to a very wide variety of guns that are not clones but have some similarity in the mechanism and rails. As an additional note I think some editors are swayed by low quality sources (for guns) coverage that coms in bursts as opposed to higher quality expert sources.Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 'AR=15' and 'AR-!%' since they seem unhelpful. The rest should all go to 'AR-15 style rifle'. Yes, that article needs a lot of expansion and additional work. That's not rare, though, and the vast majority of Wiki pages need considerable improvement. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't exist or shouldn't be used. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to AR-15 style rifle. If you google "AR-15", most of the results talk about the style, not one brand. This is true for both things related to recent shootings and also for gun shop sites. Derekt75 (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Colt AR-15, the main article, except the last two gibberish as unlikely misspellings. — JFG talk 18:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amended !vote → move DAB page to AR-15. — JFG talk 23:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move AR-15 (disambiguation) to AR-15 and target all applicable redirects there per the lack of consensus for a primary topic. (In other words, I'm not opposed to deletion of any of the non-title matching redirects nominated here.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to dab per Steel1943 – Actually, that sounds like the best solution so far. — JFG talk 23:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I would oppose moving the AR-15 redirect to a dab page. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC,
A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
People are clearly looking for information on the generic AR-15 when they come to Wikipedia, not on a specific brand, Colt AR-15. I also note that until 2016, Wikipedia did have a page on generic AR-15 at the AR-15 location. It was -- inappropriately, IMO -- moved to a branded name, "Colt AR-15", in August of 2016. There was no formal RM discussion and the conversation was limited to a consensus among just a few editors. More details on how it transpired can be found here:
In summary, I don't believe that disambig is the right solution here. It would not be helpful to readers. A redirect to "AR-15 style rifle" is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. The original article as of August 2016 was not about a "generic" AR-15 but rather about the original ArmaLite + the subsequent Colt designs - the lead explicitly stated Other manufacturers make AR-15 clones and variants marketed under separate designations, although these are frequently referred to as AR-15s. This article discusses the original design as well as variants intended for both military and civilian users.. What was split in August 2016 were the ArmaLite AR-15 and Colt AR-15 articles. Note that in the case of the non-Colt "AR-15 style" guns, these are not clones or branding only, but in many case designs that differ in significant details while retaining some similarity to the AR-15 - hence the "style" prefix.Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to AR-15 Style Rifle. The point of a redirect is to get the reader to where they want to get to (Redirects are used to help people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read), not for us to tell what they should be looking for. Pointing it anywhere else would be reader-hating. Articles should use the highest-quality sources, "proper" sources or whatever. But that doesn't determine redirects, which are navigational aides, not content. But delete those two per Ivanvector. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to AR-15 style rifle. Nobody has yet begun disambiguation of the 340+ links I pointed out above. Some of these will be a bear to disambiguate. For example, the infobox of 2017 Plano shooting says that shooting was done with an [[AR-15]]. But was it a Colt? The article doesn't say. To disambiguate it will be necessary to dig into the sources and hope that they more specifically specify the model. A redirect to AR-15 style rifle avoids the need to resolve this ambiguity because all Colt AR-15s are AR-15 style rifles, but the reverse isn't true. If an article means "Colt", it should specifically say so, and link to the model-specific article. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Weapon silencer[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. feminist (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

I do not see any widespread use of this term in reference to its target, or for that matter, at all. Due to the lack of established connection, thisbredirecf us ambiguous since it could technically refer to something that silences all types of weapons; I don't think the target will effectively silence bombs, missiles, or swords. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviuously retain the redirect as is indicated by Suppressor c.f. [3] 23h112e (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a reasonable redirect and common enough term to make it useful to the reader. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a reader searches for a technically inaccurate term, we should still help them get where they need to go. Are there any bomb/missile/sword silencers in common usage or is this a purely theoretical argument? –dlthewave ☎ 16:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • My nomination statement should have clarified the answer to the last sentence, considering the content at Weapon. Steel1943 (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well, there is such a thing that some folks call a "crossbow silencer" ("limb dampener" is the more correct term), discussed at Crossbow#Accessories. And there's also katana silencers =). But I suspect the current target is still WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. E.g. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Firearms, uses the term "weapon silencer" to mean "suppressor" [4], whereas I can't find any source which uses "weapon silencer" to mean "crossbow limb dampener". 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a commonly-used synonym — JFG talk 18:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually know it as Gun silencer. But redirects are cheap so no problem to keep it. --Petar Petrov (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

高塔[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. A tower does not have affinity to any language. Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete tower is an inappropriate target, per nominator. The former target, a French TV series whose Chinese translation used this word for some fictional location, is even worse. (See also this RfD, where we deleted redirects from the Chinese translations of the characters' names in the same series.) Nowhere else on English Wikipedia would be an appropriate target for this ordinary word. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN — JFG talk 18:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Barge, and Italy[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 Looks like it was incorrectly used at Cavour, Piedmont? Weird redirect. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Italy is not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Silver Wish 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 delete. WP:REDLINK ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not in target article, not in sources (actually, sources suggest that the two are not related). Lordtobi (✉) 11:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sources do make it clear they aren't related, so delete makes sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

LS3D engine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 5#LS3D engine

Bussing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 6#Bussing

Dae kim[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per strong consensus on previous middle+last redirects (e.g. the whole bunch starting at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 7#Carlos Santacruz). Miscapitalised; "Dae" is not his given name either in English or Korean; and sources do not use "Dae Kim" to refer to him, they use it to refer to people whose names are actually Dae Kim. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2030 Winter Olympics[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The target article contains no information on the 2030 Winter Olympics. -- Tavix (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • For a less lazy rationale, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 23#2032 Summer Olympics. -- Tavix (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:CRYSTALHAMMER. No information to support information on this topic, but revisit when there is, like when the process starts for the bidding. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should unprotect the page and begin editing it, as there is a bit of information to go on the page. The United States Olympic Committee has ruled out bids for 2026 and so some cities are considering bids for 2030 instead, and NBC in the USA and Grupo Globo both have the broadcasting rights for the Olympics until 2032 at the moment. The 2026 Olympics are the soonest Olympics in which a host city is not confirmed, and the next Olympics with no confirmed host city after that at this time are the 2030 Olympics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greshthegreat (talk • contribs) 15:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at this time. Since last month's Games ended there has been some "slow news day" style reporting of speculative potential bids for 2030, exclusively (AFAICT) from U.S. media outlets, and none of it even remotely close to the level of confirmation we would want to see for an article on the topic. None are actually preparing bids, these stories are all just "could this city do it?" type fluff. It will probably die out completely in the next week as buzz from the Games wears off, and we won't hear about it again until cities are actually preparing bids. WP:CRYSTAL was written for this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 06:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jerry Lundegaard (Fargo character)[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is no longer necessary as it no longer links to article space, only to a user's sandbox. The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The character is mentioned in the target article. (No incoming links is not rationale for deletion if the redirect itself is useful.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is going to search for "Jerry Lundegaard (Fargo character)" and "Jerry Lundegaard" already exists as a redirect to the film. How is this redirect page necessary or useful? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It leads readers to their intended target since we don't have an article about the character. Steel1943 (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When doing a search for "Jerry Lundegaard" here at Wikipedia, the redirect with "(Fargo character)" pops up in the search bar, and that automatically lets the reader know this is the right link to click on to get to information about that character. Redirects are cheap, and this one is actually quite useful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep since a search for "Jerry Lun" brings up a similar name Jerry Lundergan and this would help clarify without a dab page which one is from Fargo. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2018_February_24&oldid=1037876235"