Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 1, 2019.

Fake university[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) 01:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are two types of universities being called fake universities on Wikipedia: actual diploma mills (fake universities that generate bogus degrees for profit), and shadow institutions set up by the US government to catch immigration law violators (e.g., University of Northern New Jersey and today's DYK University of Farmington). The sting-operation universities are fake universities, but they are not diploma mills; they do not grant any degrees at all. Perhaps this should be turned into a disambiguation page? Chubbles (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep we don't need an article on government manufactured fake universities. A short section at diploma mills is enough. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as most likely desired target. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But...the University of Farmington isn't a diploma mill at all, and yet that is how it is identified in the first sentence of the article, through this redirect. Same with UNNJ. Shouldn't we do something about that? Chubbles (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is ambiguous but we rightly have no article about government-manufactured fake universities. The term "fake university" in Farmington and UNNJ should be unlinked rather than leading to an inappropriate article. Certes (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but we should probably also have a different term to describe them than "fake university", because that's likely to get linked again. Why is everyone !voting "Keep" here? I didn't nominate this for deletion; this is redirects for discussion, not redirects for deletion, and I never sought to make this a redlink. Chubbles (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My "keep" was short for "keep pointing to the current target" but, since most search results for "fake university" are currently about Farmington, perhaps I was wrong and we need to do more, even if it's just a {{redirect}} hatnote to Farmington and UNNJ. Certes (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Search results are impacted by what is in the news. In a few days/weeks this will go back to the normal diploma mill topic. Legacypac (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Fake university" redirects here. For 2010s institutions set up by the US government to detect fraud, see University of Farmington and University of Northern New Jersey.
And delink the term "Fake university" in those two articles. Perhaps add a hidden comment to explain why, to reduce chance of relinking.
If a third or more gets created then it's surely time for someone to create an article, or perhaps just a list: Fake universities created by United States Government departments or similar, so the hatnote could point to it instead. PamD 23:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Shut your eyes and think of England[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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The former and the latter have no obvious relevance besides the fact that Oysterband released a similarly titled album named Lie Back and Think of England. The middle I believe is intended to redirect to John Chapman (screenwriter); so far as I can tell this is the title of a play he co-wrote with Anthony Marriott so it could equally apply to both men. PC78 (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't imagine most people typing that into the search box are trying to find an article about a folk punk band. signed, Rosguill talk 05:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The redirect might cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect all to wikt:close one's eyes and think of England. This is a very notable phrase (see e.g. [1] for discussion of it) - hence the album and play titles - and is something that people will be looking for on Wikipedia. We don't have content about it so we should redirect to Wiktionary that does. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With no links in the article namespace currently, I agree with Tavix that deletion per WP:REDLINK is preferable to a soft redirect. --Bsherr (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reading this as having changed into a couple deletes versus a wiktionary + a couple weak wiktionaries, I think relisting is a good idea.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redlink it. I saw this pop on my watchlist as a relist and knew roughly what it means. Finding a page on a band or play would surprise the heck out of me. Legacypac (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Voltron: Defender Of The Universe[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currently Voltron: Defender Of The Universe redirects to Voltron. The Voltron article specifically talks about Voltron as a media franchise and the multiple versions while the Voltron (1984 TV series) specially talks about the 1984 cartoon version Voltron: Defender Of The Universe is the actual name of the first season of the 1984 version that is the reason why I believe that Voltron: Defender Of The Universe should be redirected to Voltron (1984 TV series) Dwanyewest (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Tavix: Voltron: Defender of the Universe redirects to Voltron (1984 TV series) so I don't see why Voltron: Defender Of The Universe should not redirect to Voltron. Plus I think users typing Voltron: Defender Of The Universe expect to read about Voltron (1984 TV series) which is title of the 1984 show. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that Voltron: Defender of the Universe be retargeted rather than this redirect. Why should someone expect to read about the 1984 TV series over any of the other things by this name? -- Tavix (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: Are you being deliberately ignorant you do know that is the name of the 1984 TV series? Dwanyewest (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Tavix: plus the precedent has being set with Voltron: Defender of the Universe being redirected to Voltron (1984 TV series) see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 15. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist, preferably without further insults
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Positive data[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 Statistical hypothesis testing#Definition of terms. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:R#D5: Make no sense between "positive data" and "negative number" B dash (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect led to Negative and non-negative numbers, which has been merged into Negative number later. And I created it (erm… 14 years ago…) because a redlink had pointed there, I guess. It has been apparently fixed in the meantime, so… delete if you wish, I guess… --Mormegil (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Statistical hypothesis testing#Definition of terms with a possible hatnote at Binary classification. "Positive data" is a term of art in both related disciplines. In the first (hypothesis testing) positive data are data that enable the investigator to reject a null hypothesis. In the second (binary testing) it is equivalent to a "true positive". As Statistical hypothesis testing is the broader field, it seems appropriate to make it the target. AngusWOOF is also correct that "positive data" is used colloquially to mean "good news" as in the example Celgene went public in May 2013, and its stock has done extremely well as positive data accumulated for its drug ozanimod. However, that usage is less likely to be cast as a search term. --17:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejnar (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Legal text[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a good redirect – the redirect lemma is not mentioned in the given target, and also cannot simply be regarded as a synonym. Hildeoc (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: That is only a redirect to Legal English. In any case, it should be taken care that the redirect lemma is mentioned in the target, as per WP:R#PLA.--Hildeoc (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, our encyclopedia is read primarily by humans, not computers, so our readers will understand that Legal English covers legal text. Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hildeoc (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Legal research. Legal texts can refer to many different texts relating to law, including primary sources (cases, statutes, etc.) and secondary sources (law reviews, legal encyclopedias, etc.) Pointing this to a broad-concept article is more useful than turning this into a messy and bloated disambiguation page that would have to contain many topics. feminist (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be fine if the broad concept article covered everything people might be looking for, but it doesn't. Someone searching for things like disclaimers would not be helped by that article. Having many topics is not uncommon for dab pages, it's not really a relevant consideration. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I may support a disambiguation page created at Legal text (disambiguation) (with legal text as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to legal research), though be careful not to bloat it to an extent where it starts resembling a set-index or broad-concept article. If a disambiguation page is to be created under this title, it should contain a link to legal research. feminist (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having many topics on a disambiguation page is not a problem as long as they actually share the same name. But a disambiguation page for the term "legal text" would have to contain any topic that could reasonably be referred to as "legal text", and that would be messy and hard to maintain. feminist (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • But that is what will best serve the readers, which is what we should be concerned about above all else. We do not make it harder for people to find the content they are looking for just because that would make things a little tidier for editors. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • A bloated disambiguation page makes it more difficult for readers to find content. feminist (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • A disambiguation page that lists the topics a reader could be looking for cannot make it more difficult for readers than a broad concept article that doesn't even mention several of the most plausible uses. I'm also not sure why you keep describing a disambiguation page for a very ambiguous term as "bloated" as by that logic we should redirect mercury to Mercury (mythology) as several of the other uses ultimately derive their name from the Roman god. Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • The difference is that for a page like Mercury, most of the topics listed have the WP:COMMONNAME "Mercury". This is not the case with "legal text". I'd like to see what a possible disambiguation page for this title could look like, if it's easy for readers to use, etc. A draft would be helpful. feminist (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, with the exception of "legal research" any of these articles could be at this title just as easily as their current ones. Anyway, I've drafted as disambiguation page with all the options suggested here and it doesn't seem at all unweildly - although the summary of "disclaimer" could do with wordsmithing. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet, but there's a recent draft dab in addition to two proposed targets, so worth continuing the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

CountryFest (Ohio)[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) 01:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target article PamD 17:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this could be notable, [2] but redirecting it to the state isn't going to be helpful. Maybe there can be an article for Clay's Park Resort which hosts this event as well as other major music festivals. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, if notable a separate article can be created if not (and a suitable article exists) it should be a redirect but the current target is way too generic (similar to those like Rhives). Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete should not be mentioned at Ohio Legacypac (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Elizabeth O. Lowrey - 2 RDs[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 Elizabeth O. Lowrey to Elizabeth Lowrey, which has already been carried out and delete Elizabeth O. Lowrey (Designer). -- Tavix (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article: this rd was created by a paid editor who created an inflated version of the target article which has since been trimmed. (I moved the redirect to the undisambiguated version before realising that it wasn't justified anyway) PamD 17:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment she originally had her own biography as a principal / director in the business, but that was redirected to the business that same day. Doesn't seem to be independently notable, yet, she is not mentioned in the article either so it's arguable whether or not she is a key person. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw the first: I've now put together an article about her at Elizabeth Lowrey and retargeted it there: I think she is notable. The previous one was done as paid editing and removed as part of a cleanup of that. The second of these "...(Designer)" should still be deleted as an implausible search term because no need for disambiguation. PamD 18:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PamD, that sounds good. If notability is questioned for that, it can now be taken to AFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Evolution News (& Science Today)[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 withdrawn Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of terms in target article. PamD 17:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw now that the redirect has been retargetted to an article to which information about the topic has been added. PamD 16:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as product, but exclude from dabmentions. [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:
  1. Discovery Institute runs the Evolution News [& Science Today] website. https://evolutionnews.org/about/ "The articles published at Evolution News are copyright by Discovery Institute and/or the respective authors..." So anyone talking about Evolution News [& Science Today] is talking about Discovery Institute.
  2. There is "mention of term in target article" (though only as a cite of what turns out to be their own publication): "{{cite news |url= http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/over_3600_floridians_were_trea002673.html |accessdate= 15 February 2012 |title= Intelligent Design Presentation at USF Draws Crowds and Complaints From Darwinists - Evolution News & Views |work= [[Evolution News]]}}".
  3. [Evolution News] was a redlink in two articles. It is short for [Evolution News & Science Today] (which was not a redlink). EN&ST was formerly known as Evolution News & Views, which has no article. Although "Evolution News & Views" is mentioned on 19 pages, no pages redlink to it – only one page links from that phrase, as a piped link at [Michael Egnor]: "the Discovery Institute's [[Center for Science and Culture|Evolution News & Views]] blog." Center for Science and Culture (formerly Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) "is part of the Discovery Institute".
Looking forward, a redirect should be added at [Evolution News & Views], though thought should be given whether it (and the other two) should redirect to [Center for Science and Culture] or [Discovery Institute].
Thanks so much for looking into this and adjusting accordingly, rather than involve busy people.(irony) Instead, "The [nefarious] purpose of this redirect is currently being discussed by the Wikipedia community." -A876 (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@A876: So if you know all about these publications, and have reliable sources for them (because you wouldn't have created the redirects otherwise), please add the information to the article Discovery Institute (or Center for Science and Culture?) so that the reader following the redirects knows why they have got there. Rather than involve other busy people in trying to find the sources you already know about. PamD 19:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@A876: Thanks for adding the new section Center for Science and Culture#Evolution News & Science Today and retargetting the redirect. The reader now gets some useful information by following the redirect, rather than landing on an article which didn't mention it. Happy to withdraw the nomination. PamD 16:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw (as nominator) now that the redirect has been retargetted to a new section which contains information about the topic. PamD 16:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Shirley temple's pussy[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be merely a name which at one point was considered by this band and therefore a very unlikely search term. Pincrete (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not mentioned in article. Seems to be more of a joke acronym. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not helpful Legacypac (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Patently absurd and decently offensive. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Biff (computing)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 10#Biff (computing)

השואה[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew is not a common or official language of Germany Abote2 (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The nominator is technically correct, but there is a massive connection between Hebrew and the Holocaust, and the Holocaust was not just confined to Germany. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cross-languages redirects are typically deleted, but this one can certainly stay. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shoah is a legitimate and useful redirect, but it is hard to conceive of any circumstance in which someone would search English Wikipedia for השואה. RolandR (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Taking a wild stab at a hypothetical, I can imagine that this is something that would presumably would appear in art a lot. Or in graffiti. There's plenty of situations where an English-but-not-Hebrew-speaking person could encounter 'השואה'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Native names for things are often embedded in English-language contexts, especially when written by a bilingual speaker and/or intended for a (primarily) bilingual audience. This is exactly why WP:FORRED notes some foreign language redirects as good - this example falls under the second bullet ("Manifestations of culture with special significance in areas where that language is spoken") Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the first place, the Hebrew word שואה is not the "native name". If we want to link to the term used by the victims, the Yiddish word חורבן would be much more appropriate. And secondly, even when used in an English-language context, the word is invariably transcribed as Shoah. I have never come across an example of the word שואה used, in Hebrew characters, in an English-language text, and I cannot conceive of the circumstances which would lead someone to search English Wikipedia for this word. RolandR (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @RolandR: So, are you saying that the word "השואה" does not mean "Holocaust"? Steel1943 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      ...Wondering since translators seem to translate "חורבן" as "destruction" and "השואה" (the nominated redirect) as "The Holocaust". Steel1943 (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I'm a translator too. The Hebrew word חורבן (pronounced Hurban) does indeed mean "destruction"; I was referring to the Yiddish word derived from this (pronounced Khurbn), which is the Yiddish term for the Holocaust. The Hebrew word שואה (Shoah) has a similar meaning; preceded by the definite article, as in השואה (Ha-Shoah), it is the usual Hebrew term for the Holocaust. In any case, although people might search English Wikipedia for the term Shoah, or possibly Khurbn, it is quite inconceivable that they would search for שואה or חורבן. RolandR (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not a translator, I don't speak any Hebrew, but I can very easily conceive of looking this up on Wikipedia. 50 people used the redirect last year which also suggests it isn't inconceivable. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFOREIGN, the Holocaust has affinity with the Hebrew language. -- Tavix (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per RolandR who convinced me that this word isn't used in Hebrew to describe the Holocaust. I am also convinced by Thryduulf's page view stats which show this redirect is not used much for such a popular target. -- Tavix (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sigh. We've been over this countless times - 50 people a year is a large number of people who will be inconvenienced by the deletion of this redirect - especially if they are following links or bookmarks then instead of being taken to the article they are looking for they will be told that we don't have an article and would they like to create one and/or invited to search - search results might or might not be relevant. I honestly cannot understand why you don't see how this actively harms the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tavix, you misunderstand me. I accept that the word השואה is the Hebrew term for the Holocaust, and I agree that a redirect from Shoah is appropriate. But I am very sceptical of the need for a redirect in English Wikipedia for the word in Hebrew characters. RolandR (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It may be unlikely, but this is exactly what WP:RFOREIGN is for, in particular Manifestations of culture with special significance in areas where that language is spoken. I'd say that pretty strongly encompasses Yiddish and Hebrew words for the Holocaust. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Thryduulf. Debresser (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and trout the nominator for an insensitive and inaccurate nom statement Legacypac (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mó jìng[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. --BDD (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from a foreign language title to a subject unrelated to that language per WP:R#DELETE 8. Created by vandal, so possibly inaccurate. May impede search for Mozi (book). Certes (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until/unless the term is described somewhere. -- Tavix (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pictures on the moon[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. Weakly so ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not the subject of the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly re-targetable to Moon landing, or Moon landing conspiracy theories. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should bubbling in E: All of the above mean delete or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No way to identify a clear target. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why disambiguation pages are a thing. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only if the thing is a thing, which "Pictures on the moon" is assuredly not. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, disambiguation pages are for instances when one search term can refer to multiple topics - exactly what we have here. All these targets are about different meanings of pictures on the moon. Just because this isn't the best title for any of them doesn't mean it isn't a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per UnitedStatesian. Let's assume that in any given search, a user is looking for either (A) a specific topic; or (B) a variety of topics, either because they don't know precisely what they want or because they want a selection. I think we can agree that this is B territory. I am not confident that we can properly curate a disambiguation page for this phrase, nor do I like the idea of creating pages for arbitrary phrases. Why "Pictures on the moon" and not Lunar pictures, Moon pictures, etc.? I'm qualifying my vote because I'm looking at the search results a user would see, and they're not great. There are some pages that are probably relevant, but a bunch that aren't. --BDD (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Media file formats[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 12#Media file formats

Dawn of time[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 10#Dawn of time

HowDoesOneEditaPage[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) 01:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, consistent with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#How does_one edit a page/Redirect traffic from one page to another_page. In the current cases these have very strange article-space targets, and unlikely to be typed as search terms. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. These are both redirects left over after moves from mainspace to project space. The incoming links are very few and are very old. --Bsherr (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per {{R with old history}}. These have been around since the very earliest days of the project so there will be lots of links to them from old revisions, external sites, etc that will be unnecessarily broken. Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first one per my comments above. No opinion on the others. Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Korrek[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 10#Korrek

Wikipedia:VERYFINEPEOPLE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#Wikipedia:VERYFINEPEOPLE

List of First Ladies and Gentlemen of Brazil[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:XY, and misleading: Brazil has never had a First Gentleman. (no prejudice against re-creating should that change). UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this is a {{R from move}} and having this allows procedural linking to articles about various countries without needing to know which have and have not had first ladies and/or gentlemen. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the target page will be renamed once Brasil gets it's first First Gentleman and this has some utility. Legacypac (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Salem-Keizer, Oregon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#Salem-Keizer, Oregon

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_1&oldid=887553322"