Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 27, 2019.

John D. Kelly[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 10#John D. Kelly

Wikipedia:REFLIST[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. Set to Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to create the list of citations. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of being an WP:XNR, this would probably be more helpful targeting Wikipedia:Citing sources since most other "Wikipedia:Ref..." redirects target there. Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 27 November 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.

Template:Fns[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 9#Template:Fns

Lists of High School in Taungoo[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. -- Tavix (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of the lack of plural on "School", plus the unnecessary capitalization make this redirect unnecessary, unlikely and WP:COSTLY. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Reyk YO! 21:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as an unlikely and little-used (~20 page views in 2018) search string with three errors (plural "Lists", singular "School", and unnecessary capitalization). The article was at this title for ~10 days, so the risk of breaking incoming links is minimal. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:00, 29 November 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.

Alleged harm done by vaccine critics' successes[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 Vaccine debate. There's a definite consensus against the existence of this specific title, which is long, clumsy, misleading and an unlikely search term. There's also a valid argument regarding preservation of history for attribution purposes, and the suggestion via MJL and Knowledgekid87 to simply move this redirect to a different, more harmless, and reasonable search term solves both problems and has not encountered any visible objections or concerns in this discussion. ~ mazca talk 16:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No target location in article, long and nonsensical title. Aspenkiddo (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deleting it. In addition to being verbose and clumsy, the title also strikes me as misleading. There is very clear harm done by anti-vaccine groups' rhetoric. I would also question how the term "vaccine critic" is being used. If this is being used for legitimate criticisms of actual shortcomings/areas for improvement in vaccines, that's one thing, but I could easily see that terminology being inappropriately applied to anti-vaccine groups that refuse to be labeled as such. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'vaccine critic' is weasel words specifically chosen, used and introduced here by anti-vaccinationists, in order to camouflage their resolute and irrational opposition to efforts to reduce mortality and morbidity by immunisation in general. Anti-vaccinationist is a better term for people who oppose vaccination, and it would be sensible to replace the weasel words here and everywhere. If you have a taste for history, go and look through the history of the article I started years ago, and called "Antivaccinationism" You'll see it got saveged and redirected. antivaccinationism Midgley (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
each of these faults above has been caused by antivaccinationists continuing to sabotage articles about the phenomenon, the actions, and the causes. It is sensible to change titles back or to better titles, it is not sensible to respond to a fault introduced into the title by deleting the text. Keeping, merging elsewhere, turning it into an article with for instance the Measles deaths in Samoa in the current weeks also referred to are far more sensible. Midgley (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Confusing, and poor wording, and I agree with TylerDurden8823 ---Avatar317(talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 20 in part for procedural reasons and in part because it's not clear whether the page history is needed for attribution purposes - it might be that content at Vaccine hesitancy originates from here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, I'm not quite sure exactly. Perhaps Tavix can clarify as he or she specifically mentioned that...oh wait, nevermind, Tavix mentioned WP:MAD, which I assumed was because of attribution requirements? Do you know what the WP:MAD issue might be, S Marshall? Doug Mehus T·C 23:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Wikipedia's terms of use require us to give people credit for their contributions. Normally we do that by way of the article history, so you can see a list of revisions and the usernames of the contributors who made them. Nowadays we sometimes loosely call this "attribution". In this specific case there's suspicion that some of the content could have been cut and pasted from one article to another -- which has the side effect of wiping off the usernames of the people who wrote the content. It's fixed by an administrator reconstructing the article history. This used to be a complex and difficult task although nowadays there are automated tools that help them do that.

Separately, and historically, there was a rather well-thought-out proposal to revise our sourcing policies and guidelines that nearly-but-not-quite gained consensus. That too was called attribution but it was to do with sources and references not creator contributions. WP:ATT points to that old proposal, not to anything to do with article contribution history reconstruction. Hope this makes sense—S Marshall T/C 00:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Tortuous concept that belongs, if anywhere, in the context of the proposed target article. Alexbrn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where would you like this to be redirected? Geolodus (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be okay with a retarget of all the redirects to Vaccine hesitancy proposed by Alexbrn, but I still think we should properly complete a destination talkpage history merge in the event these are summarily re-nominated for deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 16:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Ah, thanks. Yes, then at least the page history for this redirect would be moved. I thought we'd have to do a manual talkpage history preservation. I'd support this proposal noted by MJL. At any rate, this RfD should be closed as an administrator, or at least an editor with page mover permissions. --Doug Mehus T·C 14:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Mehus: Solving complex solutes with creative solutions that gets us through our nightmarish bureaucratic process is my middle name! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the ping. Delete per the reasoning expressed in the DRV.--WaltCip (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or move without redirect, I suppose. That accomplishes essentially the same effect.--WaltCip (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move without leaving a redirect to more helpful Vaccine debate, per MJL and Knowledgekid87, the latter of which at deletion review in order to preserve history identified by administrator Tavix and editors S Marshall, Geolodus, and Midgley (also at DRV). Doug Mehus T·C 14:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per original nominator User:Aspenkiddo that the title is long and confusing, and it isn't clear who the term is alleging is done what to whom. Redirects are cheap, but they don't need to be kept if they are useless and stupid. The fate of this redirect should not be conflated with a debate over the title of the article, which should be a Move Discussion. Let this run for 7 days, kill the stupid redirect, and then discuss the title of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon:, the problem, though, as I understand it is Midgley and others have contributed to the current redirect target's article by way of original contributions to this redirect. Thus, their contributions are not being properly attributed by way of the editor history on the target article page. So, that's why I think we strongly need to move Alleged harm done by vaccine critics' successes to something more helpful (i.e., Vaccine debate) rather than an outright "delete". Doug Mehus T·C 15:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question for SportingFlyer, as I understand it, Vaccine hesitancy had contributions to it, some significant or quasi-significant, by editor Midgley, which aren't being attributed. I agree that this long redirect is an implausible search term, but would you, secondarily or as a second choice, support moving (without a redirect) to Vaccine debate or some other target per WP:ATT? (I ask only in case you'd not seen the whole discussion.) --Doug Mehus T·C 22:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move without leaving a redirect to Vaccine debate (or a similar title) as above. It will, at least temporarily, solve the attribution problem, while also removing a title that is indeed clumsy and unhelpful. ComplexRational (talk) 23:23, 5 December 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.

Sources of naturally occuring acids[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. -- Tavix (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unlikely search term because of the typo. Additionally, there are also non-organic acids occurring in nature so the target is a bit weird. Reyk YO! 19:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, an an unlikely and little-used (27 page views in 2018) search term. The higher-than-expected number of views is probably due to it showing up ahead of Sources of naturally occurring acids in the Search drop-down. The article was at this title for ~1 day, and then was redirected, so the risk of breaking incoming links is minimal. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-plausible search term redirecting to a poor target, as per nom. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 29 November 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.

Lists of Google Doodles[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 9#Lists of Google Doodles

Eric Johnston (engineer)[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. Ruslik_Zero 20:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since although the target article does mention this engineer, actually it is too little to be considered sufficient (e.g., it does not contain the fact that he invented a pixel-art scaling algorithm), and the algorithm article also mentions him, which means that the redirect's target can be that as well. RekishiEJ (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC) altered wording a bit 14:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC) changed "articles" to "article" 16:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, as a performer-by-performance-type redirect. These redirects are inherently problematic for a few reasons. First, individuals are generally not defined by a single work or performance, and this type of redirect arbitrarily gives primacy to one over others. Second, they result in misleading links within articles, because a (blue) link to the biography in one article will lead to an unrelated article that usually contains merely a passing mention of the person. Third, to the extent the performer is notable, these redirects discourage article creation by showing a blue link instead of a red link. The bullet in Eric Johnston (disambiguation) should be modified to: "Eric Johnston, software engineer and developer of Ben's Game and the Eric's Pixel Expansion algorithm", or something similar. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per Black Falcon. He really shouldn't have an entry on the disambiguation page at all in that case, but this wouldn't be a bad time to WP:IAR. Since he's usually identified as a former LucasArts employee, retargeting there could make sense if it had coverage of him, but it currently doesn't. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 9 December 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.

Revolution 5 du nom[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 9#Revolution 5 du nom

AutoMod[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. With the term added to the target article, the redirect should no longer be deleted, making this discussion redundant. (non-admin closure) Lordtobi (✉) 13:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect's title is not found on the target article. Lordtobi (✉) 13:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain. The section on "semi-automated chat moderation tool" is still there but the word "AutoMod" (its public name) was missing. It's now in the article. czar 13:32, 27 November 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.

Academic and Scientific Publishing[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. Almost nobody in the discussion seems to dispute that this is a very strange and non-standard redirect. A few reasonable good-faith alternatives to it have been proposed, but none have gained any particular level of consensus to make any change. Further adjustments to hatnoting and other redirects made by Headbomb, Tryptofish and BDD during the discussion seem to have also resolved some of the lingering flaws with this rather odd solution to a rather odd problem. Hence, it appears that we've reached some kind of reasonable outcome that improves the situation without unnecessary re-hashing an already confusing CfD. ~ mazca talk 16:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:CNR from mainspace to cat space. The cat page is maintenance-y ("we could create an article if it meets GNG") so the trapdoor analogy at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects#Arguments for deleting CNRs #1 applies. Incoming links are intended for an article rather than a cat.

The alternative would be to make the cat page text into a proper article. The second ref is a research paper that I cannot access but the abstract makes me think it is a start for GNG. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep / Speedy keep, per previous CFD/RFD (and notice). This is a bit of an WP:IAR situation (see Signpost for a bit of background for what WP:CITEWATCH is), but nothing has changed since those discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) @Headbomb: Maybe I missed something in those links, but what I see is an irrelevant CfD (I am not suggesting to delete the category, just the mainspace redirect pointing to it) and an RfD that was withdrawn or procedurally closed because it was intended as a notice for a wave of G8s should the CfD conclude in the direction it did not. I do not think it establishes that main -> cat redirects of academic journals should be kept. (At best, it establishes that nobody jumped on the RfD to ask for deletion based on CNR issues, but that's an argument from WP:SILENCE, hence a weak form of consensus.) Anyway, pinging those who participated in the RfD: @UnitedStatesian and Steel1943:. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The CFD is relevant, because if you delete the category, then you delete every of those redirects, including Academic and Scientific Publishing → Category:Academic and Scientific Publishing academic journals. This was known and understood by everyone at the CFD. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you want to ping people, then ping everyone, not just those that argued to delete. @BrownHairedGirl, DGG, David Eppstein, Doc James, Enterprisey, Graeme Bartlett, Headbomb, Izno, JL-Bot, Jrfw51, Jytdog, JzG, JzG, Marcocapelle, Ozzie10aaaa, Peterkingiron, QuackGuru, Randykitty, RevelationDirect, Rlendog, Shhhnotsoloud, StAnselm, Steel1943, Stuartyeates, Tavix, Tokenzero, TokenzeroBot, Tryptofish, UnitedStatesian, WhatamIdoing, and XOR'easter: Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now that I looked at the contents of the CfD, I see it actually adressed the subject a bit. My opinion is still that we should delete the redirect without deleting the cat. I had pinged those who participated in the RfD, not the CfD; but seeing that the CfD touched about redirect matters, I understand how this could be seen as canvassing. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The introduction text at the category gives information about the target, including references, explains why we don't have an article and provides information useful to the reader - none of that would be possible with a redlink (indeed a redlink might encourage the creation of an article about a non-notable subject). I can see value in leaving the category just for articles and moving the redirects to a subcategory, but that would be a discussion for another venue (probably CfD) not for here. Headbomb's comment that nothing has changed since the last discussion is also relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, fair enough, but I think it's a problem to have a pseudo-article ("information useful to the reader") this way. Either we can make an article that meets GNG and stuff, and we put it in the mainspace, or we cannot, and we do not put it hidden from GNG rules behind a CNR in cat space. The current situation looks to me as an end-run around GNG even if involuntary. (I agree it should be delinked, not redlinked, in mainspace.) TigraanClick here to contact me 13:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC) edited to clarify that the problem is visibility from mainspace, not that the cat page contains article-like content TigraanClick here to contact me 13:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tigraan: Answer this, does turning every redirect in Category:Academic and Scientific Publishing academic journals into redlinks make Wikipedia better? Or should we WP:IAR because the benefits (detecting citations to predatory journals, e.g. here) far outweigh the costs (undetected citations predatory journals passing as WP:RS in our articles). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing has changed since the previous discussion at CfD. XOR'easter (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget (and all associated redirects) to Beall's List per the citation included in the current category; include mention of it there accordingly with the external citation. The previous discussions don't convince me that we need the XNR. --Izno (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Christ no, that would make it a complete nightmare to identify to which publisher an entry belonged and why exactly it was on WP:JCW/Beall's list in the first place. Beall's list would also not mention the publisher, per WP:UNDUE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A) Kick the hyperbole. It is not likely to convince anyone. B) You still have the category, in which the individual publications are still categorized. So, no, it is not a complete nightmare--exactly the opposite. As for "undue", I don't see how. Why shouldn't it be mentioned there? This was my consensus suggestion; I am also amenable to deletion entirely of the redirect. --Izno (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What distinguishes American Journal of Agricultural Management and Economics from Academic and Scientific Publishing as far as XNRs go? What rationale is unique to Academic and Scientific Publishing that doesn't also apply to any other entry in Category:Academic and Scientific Publishing academic journals? What is so special about Academic and Scientific Publishing that warrants a mention at Beall's list that doesn't also apply to the other 1163 publishers on Beall's list at the time of its demise? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Headbomb's reasoning. Not an ideal solution, but at this point it's the best available. I dislike IAR, but it definitely applies here. Retargetting to Beall's List is indeed a nightmarish idea. --Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing has changed. Why are we back here? Yes Wikipedians are able to do things that are not explicitly spelled out in some policy. This improves not only our ability to build a reliable encyclopedia but our readers access to information about the subject. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. If it wasn't for the ping here, I'd never have recalled closing the January CFD. Re-reading that discussion now, I see that was all so out-of-the ordinary that all I could really do was count votes.
Having closed before, I don't want to even consider trying to make a !vote here, but I will note that:
  1. this isn't so much IAR as move to a different planet than the one the rules are on
  2. there seems to be some very entrenched views here
This case which might benefit from a lot of previously uninvolved eyes, so I will leave a note at WT:CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a note[1] at WT:Categories for discussion#Category-related_redirect_discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment I think I found a link to here by perusing WP:RSN or something, got CNR-trapdoored-surprised, went back to the redirect to hit Twinkle without considering the category contents much (it's a CNR, WhatLinksHere shows the links are intended for the journal name and not the category, end of story). I did not find the other discussions (no trace of which can be found at the redirect's or category's talk page, mind you).
Had I realized this had been discussed before, I would not have nominated the redirect. I think fake articles behind CNRs is horrible practice, and I believe moving them to some internal place (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Predatory journals/By publisher or something) would both preserve documentation for editors and avoid presenting problematic "articles" to readers, but clearly this has been litigated to death the last time around and I am unlikely to change anyone's mind on the matter. Count me as withdrawing the nomination if this allows a low-heat closure. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify the categories and retarget the redirects there, which is the usual way to handle groups of non-notable things in main space. Alternatively, delete per nom. -- Tavix (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, do not listify. Does not meet list notability guidelines, but useful as a resource to address attempts by editors to use these bad journals as references. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to point to an article that mentions ASP (e.g. Beall's List if some of the info from the category page is moved there) or delete. If (reader-facing) facts about ASP belong anywhere in wp they belong in mainspace (we don't normally put references on cat pages). DexDor (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for the simple fact that WP:XNRs like this exist elsewhere when related list articles do not exist. But ... I still believe that creating a new namespace or a new Wikimedia project would be a better option than the current setup for the other XNR redirects to this nominated redirect's target, as I mentioned in the CFD discussion ... Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment on keep vs delete. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong objection to basing the explanation on Beall's list. Beall's list has been withdrawn by it's author and publisher amid huge controversy (disclaimer: I've authored and navigated through peer review a journal article which called the list racist.); there are currently maintained alternatives which everyone seems to agree are at least marginally better. I'm happy to rewrite the explanation if the !vote is kept (closer please ping me). Anyone who wants to be kept in the loop on that rewrite, feel free to leave your names below. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Stuartyeates: Beall's list is not racist, as has been explained to you several times, and the existence of the category is not based on inclusion in Beall's list alone, there are other sources clearly labeling these publishers as predatory. Sources which are in the category. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: The point is that it has been withdrawn and there are better, current, less controversial sources which cover the same ground and they should be used. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using Beall's list is a worst practice because its contents embedded serious antiscientific prejudices, as Stuartyeates correctly reminds above. However I don't have a problem with the redirect itself. Nemo 22:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons that flow clearly from my "keep" opinion at the previous CfD. This is not the place to discuss sourcing, but I find the comments about racism bizarre. I can easily understand that subsequent lists were better researched than Beall's original list was, but to attribute it to racism seems outlandish. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Academic publishing. I think we've lost the forest for the trees big time here. Mainspace redirects need to serve readers first and foremost. Yes, editors are readers too, but think of how SURPRISEd and confused your average reader just looking to learn about academic publishing will be when they stumble upon this. If we need to create Academic and Scientific Publishing (company) or something to fulfill this purpose, fine, but I can't fathom using this base title for a maintenance category because of a publisher who we've explicitly defined as non-notable. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, what they would find is a list of articles that pertain to what they were searching for. It's not that different from being redirected to a disambiguation page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's assuming they're looking for a publishing company, which I think is less likely with such a generic name. Creating Academic and scientific publishing as a redirect to Academic publishing may help, so we can at least rely on WP:DIFFCAPS to prevent users from being improperly routed to the maintenance category. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a good point, and I do care about putting readers first, so I'm willing to partly change my mind about this. What would help is if, when redirected to the category, the first thing that readers see is Academic publishing, your recommended replacement target. I've made this series of edits to try to accomplish that: [2], [3], and [4]. That does make the relevant page the first thing one sees at the target of the redirect, which I think is an improvement. It also removes the redirect we are discussing here as the main topic of the category page, since that really does not make any sense. I'll hasten to admit that there is a flaw in what I did: Category:Academic and Scientific Publishing academic journals now appears on Academic publishing, alongside Category:Academic publishing. I'd prefer that it didn't, but it also is not a serious problem in my opinion. I think that this trades a somewhat significant problem for a trivial one. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Academic and Scientific Publishing academic journals does not appears on Academic publishing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That's because I just reverted myself on it. Right after I posted that, I thought of something better. I did this: [5] and [6]. That returns Academic publishing to the correct categorization that it had before. And it puts that page at the top of the category page, telling readers who were redirected there that it is the main topic they were looking for. It slightly contradicts the intended meaning of the category as a maintenance category, but I don't think that that should trouble editors who are using it as a maintenance category. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This, however, made Academic publishing appear as the main article associated with Category:Academic and Scientific Publishing academic journals, which it is definitively not. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, you reverted me, I tried something else, and you changed it to this: [7], which I fully support. The end result of all of this is: no change in how anything has been categorized, but now our readers see a very clear "for information about" at the top of the category page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An irregular hatnote for an irregular category. But I can live with it. I'll go ahead and create the sentence-case redirect to point at Academic publishing. This still feels like it would've been better dealt with in the project namespace, but it sounds like that's already been settled. I appreciate the change. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 2 December 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.

MSI wrapper[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 Windows Installer. Consensus throughout seems to be that this is an inappropriate redirect as it stands, but later in the discussion a more appropriate target was identified that has had no objections. ~ mazca talk 16:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing, non notable software which has nothing to do with the target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator; this is also promotional. Geolodus (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. AFAICT an MSI wrapper is a generic thing and Google Chrome's is just one example. I'm not sure I understand how this is promotional, but it certainly isn't useful. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 27 November 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.

Miscellaneous redirect drafts created by 14.207.205.115[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. Anyone in good standing is welcome to create any mainspace redirects they feel useful, but these sockpuppet creations will not be moved. -- Tavix (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely a cross-namespace redirects, draft namespace. 180.183.20.2 (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On top of duplicating his own vote, the IP was blocked for block evasion as a sockpuppet. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 13:24, 28 November 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.

IEEE 754-related drafts by 14.207.205.115[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. Anyone in good standing is welcome to create any mainspace redirects they feel useful, but these sockpuppet creations will not be moved. -- Tavix (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirects from IEEE 754-related redirects 180.183.20.2 (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to the main namespace without leaving a draft-space redirect per above. 180.183.20.2 (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per my reasoning above. 94.21.78.76 (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Draft:Nan (floating-point), Draft:IEEE 754-2019, Draft:IEEE 754/2008, Draft:0.30000000000000004. I think the others should be moved to mainspace. --Izno (talk) 14:38, 27 November 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.

Andrew Neather[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 New Labour. (non-admin closure) Gagwef (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section that it redirected to wasn't really related to the article since it couldn't really be called criticism, so I deleted it. Now there's a dead redirect hanging over the article. Gagwef (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • That criterion does not apply. The target page definitely exists. Geolodus (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he meant the target paragraph. Gagwef (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant what WP:TARGET means for the "target section" of a "targeted redirect". 94.21.38.126 (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No longer useful, since there's no mention. Geolodus (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This name apparently has a few mentions in British politics-related articles, though most seem rather passing. Maybe it should be retargeted? Geolodus (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they're only in passing, then I don't think this person is notable enough to have a redirect. Gagwef (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That section seemed to have originated from the New Labour article, or at least that's where its inclusion makes some degree of sense. Gagwef (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted to the New Labour article. Gagwef (talk) 22:03, 27 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_27&oldid=955612785"