Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 7

< November 6

November 8 >

November 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 7, 2019.

Creepy porn lawyer

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) 13:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Creepy porn lawyer → Michael Avenatti  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect may meet WP:RDELETE criterion 8 as a novel synonym for the target. "Creepy porn lawyer" is apparently a label for Michael Aventi that was used by Tucker Carlson in a September 2018 Fox News interview. The incident received some media attention ([1][2]), but I'm not seeing much usage of the monicker outside the context of the interview. This contrasts with redirects for other derogatory nicknames—such as Crooked Hillary or Snowflake-in-Chief—that are more widespread (and that are actually mentioned in their target articles). – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Retarget to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump#Creepy porn lawyer, if adopted from Tucker Carlson by Donald Trump, to Donald Trump Jr.#List of nicknames used or List of nicknames used by Donald Trump Jr. per this or to Tucker Carlson#List of nicknames used on his Fox News program per nom's examples. It's a very reasonable search term, but the solution of linking to list of nicknames used by Donald Trump makes sense and is more neutral. --Doug Mehus (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Trump hasn't used this nickname, as far as I'm aware, so redirecting to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump makes no sense. And are you seriously suggesting creating List of nicknames used by Donald Trump Jr. based on a single tweet? I doubt that there are enough sources to even create a section about this in Trump Jr.'s article. Same thing goes for the Tucker Carlson article. You'll need to provide some sources to convince me that any of these suggestions are viable targets for the redirect. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Lord Bolingbroke, when I posted that originally, I hadn't checked whether Donald Trump used the nickname or not. It appears not, but I think it's a reasonable section to add to either of the Donald Trump Jr. or Tucker Carlson/Tucker Carlson Tonight (perhaps the latter is best) articles given how frequently Tucker Carlson uses it on his program (it's still in active usage, fully a year later) whenever Michael Avenatti comes up in the nightly news again. His television program is the highest rated U.S. cable news program, both in total viewers and key demographics, in its timeslot. So, it holds that his audience would use his adopted nickname to search for Mr. Avenatti. Aside from that, in your own nom, you provided two reliable sources which highlighted its usage on Tucker Carlson Tonight—I'm seeing lots more. Thus, there is merit to it getting its own sub-section of Tucker Carlson Tonight. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Lord Bolingbroke There's even a political science book published by Simon & Schuster and another printing (earlier or later) by Bombardier Books/Post Hill Press. --Doug Mehus (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete This is a BLP violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• More sources outlining usage Note also that I have excluded questionable or partisan sources (i.e., ThinkProgress, The Daily Caller, and SteynOnline.com) and even other sources like Politico, The Washington Times, and the sources you've previously cited. My point is...there's significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources to merit mentioning this on Tucker Carlson Tonight and then retargeting (or re-creating) this redirect to there. You are to be commended for bringing this redirect for discussion as, at present, it seems to be a WP:BLP violation by redirecting to Michael Avenatti's biography, but the nickname is in common usage and/or it generated significant mass media attention such that it would be helpful redirect targeted to another, more appropriate page consistent with your List of nicknames used by Donald Trump examples in your nom. --Doug Mehus (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Close this BLP violation This is nonsense, a smear and UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 03:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  Given the plethora of sources presented that demonstrate this name is used in many sources to refer to this person, this is not a BLP violation. See WP:RNEUTRAL. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, very interesting. Good examples at that policy shortcut (i.e., one re: a non-neutral redirect which redirects to Barack Obama that is very similar to this situation). Nevertheless, if you guys would prefer retargeting as opposed to keeping this redirect directed where it is, I have added fully cited detail to Tucker Carlson Tonight#Criticism if consensus is to retarget there. --Doug Mehus (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

References

• Delete per WP:RDEL 3 and WP:RNEUTRAL. Non-neutrality is not sufficient for a redirect to be deleted, but neutrality needs to be weighed against usefulness. We do not keep redirects which are abusive especially when they are not useful (see, eg WP:G10). Calling someone a "creepy porn lawyer" is obviously intended to disparage, and all the links presented here make that obvious: its use was intended to disparage and the target found it disparaging. The question is whether this is an "established term" commonly used to refer to the subject. It is not; the sources which use this term are largely reporting on a single use of this term to disparage the individual, not refer to the subject as "the creepy porn lawyer". For that same reason, I don't think this redirect is particularly useful; it has received 24 page views since creation which I'm willing to bet are entirely from this deletion discussion. So we have a disparaging redirect from a term used to refer to an incident rather than the subject which is not widely used outside of that singular context. I do not think its usefulness outweighs its non-neutrality, and so it should be deleted regardless of what other stuff exists. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  Respectfully disagree with editor Wugapodes's citing criterion at WP:RNEUTRAL as a deletion reason in light of admin Thryduulf's comment (see above) that it's not a WP:BLP. Disagree, too, that it is meant to disparage. Per WP:RNEUTRAL, it is a useful search time someone might search for Michael Avenatti on in light of the popularity of Tucker Carlson Tonight. Nevertheless, if the issue that it is unflattering to Michael Avenatti, then why wouldn't Wugapodes support retargeting per the Barack Obama examples cited at WP:RNEUTRAL?Doug Mehus (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  Being non-neutral and being sourced are two different things. I agree it's not in violation of BLP, that's why I didn't cite it and talked about WP:NPOV instead. The term is literally meant to disparage and I cannot imagine how being called "creepy" is either neutral or endearing. Unless Tucker Carlson repeatedly rather than once refered to this person by this title it's not remotely close to a useful search term. We aren't discussing Barack Obama redirects here, so as I said in my original comment, I don't care what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  Wugapodes, as a semi-regular Tucker Carlson Tonight viewer due to the bias and repeated factual errors of CNN, despite being a left-leaning editor, I can confirm that I have indeed seen Tucker Carlson use the phrase "creepy porn lawyer", both in on-screen graphics and verbally, as recently as this summer (i.e., whenever Michael Avenatti is in the news). Similarly, his semi-frequent guest host, Mark Steyn, used it on an episode in which he guest hosted in the August-early October 2019 period (can't remember which off-hand). As for Barack Obama, I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but since it's mentioned at the policy (WP:RNEUTRAL), it's very relevant to cite the comparison here. --Doug Mehus (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  There is a wide gulf between "Barack Obama Muslim rumor" and "Creepy Porn Lawyer". Islamic terrorist president doesn't redirect to Barack Obama because that is a disparaging, despite tons of Fox News broadcasters speculating that Obama was Kenyan, we do not direct US president from Kenya to Barack Obama. The example given in RNEUTRAL is nothing like this one, and focusing on that completely ignores the part I cite: The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral. The sources presented, regardless of your personal experience, do not show that this is an established term used by "multiple mainstream reliable sources". They mention a specific instance of the use by Carlson, but they do not use it (see use mention distinction). The Telegram source you gave literally quotes Tucker Carlson describing this term as "unflattering", and it presents the situation as one deliberately meant to provoke and not as legitimate journalism: Tucker Carlson promised Stormy Daniels’ attorney Michael Avenatti that he would not use his inflammatory nickname for the lawyer on his show — then immediately went to a chyron that read: “CREEPY PORN LAWYER TOYING WITH 2020 RUN.”. The term is not used, but quoted, to report on someone else's use and the news outlet explicitly avoids using its editorial voice to refer to the person by that same disparaging phrase. It's not even clear that Tucker Carlson counts as a reliable source; the Toronto Star describes him as such: "Carlson isn’t a TV host so much as a party clown." Unlike nicknames used in official government communications (i.e., presidential tweets), this isn't a widely used term so much as one guy's personal mudslinging. Nothing about this redirect seems useful since it is not in wide use, and it is glaringly obvious that it is a term meant only to disparage. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  Wugapodes Indeed, I do know the difference between a use and a mention and I'm not saying that it is actively used outside of Tucker Carlson Tonight and Fox News. I would say that, while Tucker may not be a reliable source, Fox News still very much is (especially their top-of-the-hour news updates, radio headline news service on SiriusXM). Tucker does have some editorial discretion, but ultimately, Fox News does have some editorial oversight over his program; thus, it's fair to say that it is in use on a reliable source news network. I would disagree that he means it to be "inflammatory," though; it's more likely for cheap laughs somewhat akin to when late-night TV host mocks someone (i.e., Donald Trump). So, I would characterize it as a combination of playful ribbing+mocking+humourous term of endearment the way wife might refer to her husband by an otherwise pejorative nickname. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete This is only mentioned at Tucker Carlson Tonight, but I'm not convinced that a thorough, "complete" encyclopedic article on the show would cover the term (i.e., this is WP:RECENTISM). Assuming no changes on the content side, a reader searching this term would still find Tucker Carlson Tonight as the only result and be able to read up accordingly; if the term does get added elsewhere, they'll also get access to those other articles without us having to maintain the redirect. I'm sure we can all agree that this phrase is incredibly unlikely to be used in other contexts. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

BDD True, and I'd have no problem with deletion for now, with the usual caveat that consensus can change and it may merit a standalone article in the future and/or a redirect to some other target. Though, it's good to know from administrator Thryduulf that this redirect isn't a WP:BLP violation, particularly if the "R from non-neutral name" tag is used. And, Mr. Avenatti probably subconsciously likes the nickname that Mr. Carlson has coined for him, with the former having reportedly tweeted about being upset that none of the final Jeopardy! contestants knew his name as the question to a final Jeopardy! answer. Doug Mehus T·C 17:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Space cruiser

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 Space Cruiser. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Space cruiser → Space warfare in fiction  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previously deleted redirect. I doubt that it is very useful as "space cruiser " is an ambiguous term best dealt with by search result. Zerach (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

If you say so, but it's commonly used in science fiction.--Noah Tall (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's an example of a space cruiser from that context. --Noah Tall (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral for now, but noting List of fictional spacecraft as a potential redirect target. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Per Black Falcon, List of fictional spacecraft works. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Retarget to List of fictional spacecraft per Black Falcon. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Also fine with the DAB page that BDD created. Probably better even. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I'm sympathetic to the retarget thoughts, but unless I'm mistaken, there's no specific "space cruiser" in that list, but rather just a few vehicles in "space" that are called "cruisers." That list is for specific, named ships from fiction, and this is just too generic. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • See below, but changed to RT. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment There is also a car called Toyota Space Cruiser. Not a very active user (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Interesting... if retargeted, there should be a hatnote at the target article. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
• 2DAB the other way round. Retarget Toyota Space Cruiser, hatnote to List of fictional spacecraft. An internal search Special:Search/"Space Cruiser"~ appear to show that the Toyota topic is rather prominent. Deryck C. 11:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I support User:BDD's proposal to disambiguate at Space Cruiser too. @Not a very active user, Killiondude, Amorymeltzer, Randy Kryn, Wugapodes, Noah Tall, Black Falcon, and זָרַח: Any thoughts about this new option? Deryck C. 12:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Retarget to Space Cruiser, a disambiguation page I just created after I found a third use. FWIW, the Toyota vehicle is less prominent than a quick search suggests Since it's in the main Toyota navbox, it's given in the search results for a lot of articles that don't actually discuss it in their bodies. Of the top 20 results, all mentions of the vehicle are via that navbox, save Toyota LiteAce, where it redirects. --BDD (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Retarget to Space Cruiser, as there doesn't seem to be a primary topic. Not a very active user (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow consideration for Space Cruiser, a new disambiguation page created after the discussion was initiated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• RT as above per DC and BDD, reasonable enough. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Retarget to BDD's new page. Airbornemihir (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Ngân Sơn (town)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 26#Ngân Sơn (town)

Josh Murty

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) P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 05:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Josh Murty → Echosmith#Band members  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Presently NN session musician, could be redirected to one of 3 articles he is mentioned; this one, Living Hope (album) and Latina (album). No benefit to readers. Richhoncho (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep or retarget - Keep or retarget to the most prominent album, as he has performed on these albums. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Do not retarget to the albums. Performer-to-performance redirects are problematic. A performer can have multiple performances, and it is better to let readers select from Search results instead of arbitrarily deciding that one performance is more significant than others. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 14:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Classic WP:XY. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. I disagree with User:BDD's "classic XY" argument, because there is only one relevant Josh Murty. Special:Search/"Josh Murty"~ reveals exactly three results, as described in the nomination, all referring to the same Josh Murty (assuming AllMusic is reliable in this regard); one of the hits is a group of people that Josh Murty belongs to and the other two are both pieces of artwork. Along the same vein that Perrie Edwards redirects to Little Mix and Clyde Barrow redirects to Bonnie and Clyde, we should keep this redirect pointing to the only notable group for which Josh Murty is a named member. Deryck C. 11:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per Deryck Chan. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Celebration(Game song)

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. Deryck C. 16:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Celebration(Game song) → Celebration (The Game song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Missing space, and the band is "The Game". Note Celebration (Game song) also exists. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:RDAB. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Acid terror

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:INVOLVED close, but I'm ruling against "my side" (which is only me!), so I hope no one will mind. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Acid terror → Acid attack  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I've been looking thorough a few sources now, and I see no evidence that this redirect is a synonym of the target in any form. Most third party results for the redirect are for some sort of subject in Ragnarok Online. Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, concur with nom. PC78 (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Weak keep This is where I'd expect it to go, even if the word choice is a little funny. I will note that terrorism as such isn't mentioned there, and acid attacks aren't inherently terrorist attacks any more than, saying, bombing. There are no other redirects to the article that use "terror" or related words. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. This is one of those relatively rare occasions where I think search results are best. It could mean terrorism, it could mean acid attacks, it could reference a tabloid/local paper headline following an acid spill somewhere, or possibly something else. Its too vague for a disambiguation page to work. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

VANDALISM IN PROGRESS

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. A majority of participants seem to think this is an unhelpful cross-namespace redirect to a defunct page, and no particular consensus for any other target has emerged. ~ mazca ^talk 21:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• VANDALISM IN PROGRESS → Wikipedia:Requests for investigation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Violates WP:XNR, page has been shut down long ago funplussmart (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (the present name for what used to be titled Vandalism in progress). This redirect has existed since 2002 and gets nearly 200 hits a year, so it's much better to point it to the most helpful location than to delete. As for XNR, that's not an absolute and reporting vandalism is something that we want to make accessible to as many people as possible, even those who are not familiar with namespaces, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • See new suggested target below. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:XNR and WP:RCAPS. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:XNR keep argument 8 and WP:RKEEP 1 and 4. I think this redirect predates the Wikipedia namespace and is older than the requests for adminship process. It was where vandalism was reported to administrators before WP:AIV existed. You can see an archive of reports at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Old alerts. Old redirect from a page important to project history, so it's likely to be targeted by external links and some internal links; keep per WP:RKEEP #4. It's probably worth keeping the target at RFI; I believe VIP was merged into RFI, and then RFI was shut down; AIV arose as a separate process and so historical links to VIP would be best directed to RFI where the page history explains the moves and discussions relevant to VIP and RFI. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I encourage people citing WP:XNR to read that page. I've added the part of that essay which my earlier comment is related to and also want to point out the 3rd argument to keep XNRs. To paraphrase, this redirect is an unlikely search term when looking for articles. If someone searches for VANDALISM IN PROGRESS, it's only logical that they are looking for an internal page not for any encyclopedia article. The specific spelling makes it unlikely that it will show up in search results, and that it's such an unlikely string to type into the bar by accident is probably why it was chosen as the title before project space existed. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
    • If it weren't all caps your argument may have some merit, but the all caps makes it seem like the redirect itself is vandalism when seen in the search bar. Besides we have a rather high bar for redirects from mainspace to project space, and the page Vandalism on Wikipedia already has a hatnote that tells users to report vandals to WP:AIV. funplussmart (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:XNR and WP:RCAPS. Steel1943 (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Given the minimal incoming links, I'm comfortable deleting this. It strikes me as a magnet for mischief, and I suspect many of the page views are curiosity to see such a title suggested in the search box. --BDD (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Following Funplussmart's comment, I'm going to change my recommendation to retarget to Vandalism on Wikipedia, which maintains the valuable history, avoids breaking any incoming links while avoiding any XNR issues. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  Doesn't that somewhat make Vandalism on Wikipedia into a primary topic? Regular-old vandalism can be "in progress" too. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  • When searching for "vandalism in progress" on Wikipedia, I would say that Vandalism on/of Wikipedia is indeed primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per applicable CSD criterion above. --Doug Mehus (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Dmehus: What CSD criterion are you talking about? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Pppery: I was thinking of WP:R2. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  except the ... Wikipedia: ... namespace[]. R2 doesn't apply. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Pppery: Oh, interesting! So you mean we can create a main namespace redirect to a Wikipedia: namespace page? That seems odd. Do you think there's be support for a Wikipedia:Village pump proposal to have WP:R2 apply to the Wikipedia: namespace? Doug Mehus (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  No. <sarcasm> Perhaps you would like to mass-rfd all of the hundreds of mainspace redirects to project space first. </sarcasm> * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, Pppery, thanks. Yeah, you've allowed me to see a reason for the cross-namespace redirect to the Wikipedia: namespace: search engine indexing. That is, it allows me, and indeed other editors, to find a particular Wikipedia project, policy, or template easier than Wikipedia's internal search function. In this case, it seems like WP:CAPS might be a reason to delete? Doug Mehus (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

JNQXAC9IVRw

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 18#JNQXAC9IVRw

Lynn Cheney's Controversial Book

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. The combination of misspelling and non-standard capitalization seem to have pushed this over the line. This discussion did not seem to have reached a consensus on whether "Lynne Cheney's controversial book" is a good descriptive name for the target, but I don't think the outcome of this discussion should preclude anyone from creating such redirects with correct spellings of the author's name and standard sentence-case capitalization. Deryck C. 16:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Lynn Cheney's Controversial Book → Sisters (Lynne Cheney novel)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Reason 3 of WP:R#DELETE. This redirect title violates basic grammar and spelling rules (it's Lynne Cheney with an E) and WP:NPOV (possibly WP:BLP) as well. Anyone looking for info about Lynne Cheney would automatically see this in the search results, drawing disproportionate attention to a minor part of her life. Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Weak keep while spelling is an issue it is a plausible misspelling, and there are no problems at all with the grammar of this redirect nor is it an NPOV or BLP problem to call a book "controversial" if there has been any controversy about the book. The target article is poorly written but it does seem to indicate that the label is not entirely incorrect. The search results argument is completely irrelevant, as they are only seen by people using some (not all) of the possible ways to find Wikipedia content and it is a plausible search term for someone who cannot remember the title of the book. Yes it might draw a little bit more attention to it than otherwise, but it's not a negative part of her life it's just (according to the target article) something she considers to be not her "best work". Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Thryduulf explains it well. There's nothing controversial about calling a book controversial if there is controversy surrounding it. Even if it were non-neutral, WP:RNPOV requires there be some other reason it's unhelpful, and missing a silent "e" is not sufficient. Wug·a·po·des​ 01:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:RNEUTRAL redirects are permitted when such term is well-established and used in reliable sources. However, the article is silent on a controversy, and doesn't even contain any form of the word. Besides, this is misspelled and miscapitalised, thus I don't think this is a plausible search term. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Lynne Cheney book controversy would've been the most proper title to redirect if we wanted to make the very reasonable accommodation for readers not aware of the book's title. Moving to that title without leaving a redirect might be an option, but the current redirect is old. This is a pretty typical tension between "not likely search term" vs. "exactly what the reader is looking for". I'll try to remember to create Lynne Cheney book controversy when this discussion is over if it's not already done. If you're reading this discussion and I've forgotten to do so, feel free to beat me to it. --16:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDD (talk • contribs)
• Delete as an ambiguous, implausible search term (the misspelling is plausible but the entire search string is not). Cheney has published a number of books (see Lynne Cheney#Books), and we should not arbitrarily designate one as the controversial book, especially when the target article does not even address a book controversy. Redirects are not intended to deprecate the Search function, and we hardly need to try to anticipate a reader's thoughts to this extent. Anyone searching for this unlikely search string would see Lynne Cheney at the top of the Search results and could navigate from there. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  The alleged portrayal of a lesbian relationship, rape, or graphic depictions of sex would have been controversial—especially in 2005, especially from this author. All of that is discussed in the article, even if there isn't a separate "Controversy" section (which isn't always a good approach anyway). --BDD (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete what's stopping her from writing more Controversial Books? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Not an alternative name for the target, and thus fails WP:RNEUTRAL. Steel1943 (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Rename to Lynn Cheney's controversial book, without leaving a redirect, per WP:MOSCAPS, as it's a plausible search term (I often search in Google when I haven't thought through my search strategy). My understanding is we can have non-neutral redirects, if they're plausible, and there's an {{R from non-neutral name}} tag we can use, no? --Doug Mehus T·C 21:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• Move without leaving a redirect to Lynne Cheney book controversy and tag with {{R from non-neutral name}}. I want users to be able to find the topic even if they don't know the book's name. I prefer "Lynne Cheney book controversy" since that's what we'd likely use as a title if the subject had its own article, but if we want some sort of continuity, Lynne Cheney's controversial book would be fine. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I support BDD's proposed move target. I am indifferent to the target, but feel a rename/move, without redirect, is the most helpful here. So consider me a "move/rename," without a redirect, and a support the prevailing consensus target. Doug Mehus T·C 16:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Party (TV series)

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. Deryck C. 16:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Party (TV series) → Tom Basden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The article says that Party was a stage play and radio adaptation but there is no information about a TV series. Enwiki has no information about a TV series Party. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and as potentially misleading: it is current linked from the article Rakhee Tandon (actress), in reference to her 2006 appearance on Party, but the dates suggest it is an altogether different work than Basden's Party. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Computing platform (version 2)

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 resolved. This should have been a page swap of Computing platform and Platform (computing), but Anthony Appleyard neglected to complete the final step, leaving this intermediate page in place. I have now done just that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Computing platform (version 2) → Computing platform  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as housekeeping: probably created during a page swap/move. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to have been created; see the history for Computing platform (version 2). Guy Harris (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

First-party software

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 20#First-party software

First party software

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 20#First party software

Second party title

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 20#Second party title

First-party titles

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) 16:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• First-party titles → Computing platform#First party software  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target section no longer exists and the article contains no information about "first-party titles". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Center Line

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) 14:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Center Line → Center Line, Michigan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Why would a fairly unknown community in Michigan be the prime topic for this? As the trail is rather jagged, if a missed the consensus on that, please let me know. Or if this is the wrong way to do this. Can't say I've ever had to do anything like this before. John from Idegon (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Ok...Center line (disambiguation) exists. Shouldn't that be the target? John from Idegon (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. The place is the primary (only?) topic for that capitalisation, but WP:NCPLACE prefers it to be at Center Line, Michigan. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per Shhhnotsoloud. It's also the primary topic for the exact "Center Line" on Google, even in the UK. There is no primary topic for "Centre Line" (British spelling) and so Centre line correctly targets the Center line disambig, Centre Line is red but if it weren't I'd say the dab should be the target. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

J'Nan Brown

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) 07:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• J'Nan Brown → New Democratic Party of Prince Edward Island candidates in the 2003 Prince Edward Island provincial election#J'Nan Brown (Charlottetown-Rochford Square)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Similar implausible redirect with extremely low usage (7 views in the past 365 days). Never existed as a standalone article. As far as I know, we don't ordinarily create redirects for non-notable candidates. Tagging Bearcat (a) for his usual wisdom and (b) as redirect creator. Doug Mehus (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. In the Nick Boragina discussion below, I've already explained the reasoning behind why these redirects were valid at the time they were first created — so I won't repeat the whole thing here. But as I also explained below, our practice around this has changed in the past 15 years, and the redirects are no longer warranted or valuable. Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Nick Boragina

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) 07:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Nick Boragina → New Democratic Party of Prince Edward Island candidates in the 2003 Prince Edward Island provincial election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Stumbled this redirect which redirects to a Prince Edward Island election results page. It had been originally deleted in 2005—the result of which was a unanimous delete (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Boragina)—and then it somehow got re-created as a redirect. However, looking at the page view stats preceding today, it seems like it's an implausible redirect. We don't generally create redirects for non-notable people, but perhaps Bearcat may have some insight here as he is a pearl of wiki wisdom. Doug Mehus (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. In the days when Wikipedia was still in diapers, the practice used to be that a candidates list like this was allowed to contain full-on minibios of the candidates, effectively serving as a compilation of all the deleted articles that the candidates weren't able to keep as standalone titles — so the candidates' names were redirected to the list accordingly. That practice was later deprecated, so that the lists are now only allowed to provide the people's names and electoral districts but not to serve as full mini-BLPs anymore — and as a result of that, it's no longer clear that the lists even retain any encyclopedic value at all anymore, because they no longer offer any information that the election results table isn't already giving, but past attempts to get the lists deleted have landed no-consensus. So that's the story here: the redirect exists because the list used to contain a full paragraph of information about Nick Boragina, but it no longer does. So the redirect is basically just a zombie remnant of a different time in Wikihistory, and serves no real purpose anymore. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Bearcat: Your description above makes quite the contrast with today's practices! When you refer to "deleted articles that the candidates weren't able to keep as standalone titles", is there an implication that the candidates themselves or their supporters used to show up at deletion discussions, asking for a minibio as a compromise? Airbornemihir (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  Surprisingly, not as a rule. We mostly managed to come up with that obvious fustercluck all on our own, on the grounds that information about candidates was useful even if they didn't warrant their own standalone articles. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Fan city

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 speedy keep. A justification was provided, withdrawing nomination. (non-admin closure) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Fan city → Fancheng District  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I can't find any indication that "Fan city" is a name for the target or for anything related to it. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - "Fancheng" literally means "Fan City" in Chinese (Fan is a surname). See the Peking Opera "Guarding the Fan City" (Zhan Fancheng), a dramatization of the Battle of Fancheng. -Zanhe (talk) 06:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Karlsruhe is nicknamed "fan city" (Fächerstadt), so disambiguation or hatnotes are probably the way to go (cf. WP:TWODABS). There does not appear to be a third usage. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep with a hatnote or disambig per BDD. It's not impossible that "Dan's Fan City" (a US chain retailer selling "ceiling fans, ceiling fan parts and accessories") is notable (I've not looked in any detail), but that would rate a hatnote or a see-also on a disambiguation page if someone were to write an article. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Nom comment The keep arguments are sufficient to make me retract my deletion suggestion. I think that just having a hatnote at Fancheng is enough for disambiguation at this time. If no one else feels differently I think we can move to close. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sounds fine to me. --BDD (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Besanzone

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) 07:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Besanzone → Besançon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems like a case of WP:FORRED; Besanzone is the Italian name for Besançon, but it doesn't appear that the city has any relevant Italian history. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Based on a quick search, Besanzone appears to be used almost exclusively in pre-20th-centuary Italian-language sources. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Minneapolis station

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. There was a brief side discussion on deleting, but following clarification from Thryduulf, Rosguill concurred. Hat tip to BDD for drafting the dab page below the Minneapolis station redirect. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 17:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Minneapolis station → Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Depot Freight House and Train Shed  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It would appear to me that there are several other stations in Minneapolis that could easily be contenders as targets for this redirect. I would suggest disambiguation, and would do it myself except that I wanted to make sure that this target didn't have a special claim to "Minneapolis station" before putting in the effort. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: The issue has been corrected here. The redirect was used as an invocation on St. Louis Park station in a navigation template. The redirect can be deleted now. Cards84664 (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Sounds like it should be disambiguated, which is common for ambiguous "[Place] station", e.g., Greensboro station. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Disambig. There appears to be no one station that is primarily known by this name. Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Given Cards84664's comment above, G7 deletion could also be appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • G7 is not applicable when there are people who have recommended actions other than delete in any discussion about the page, as here. Disambiguation is definitely better than deletion in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

You're right, at this point it would just be a regular deletion. Still, the point stands that deletion may be a preferable option if none of the stations in Minneapolis are really called "Minneapolis station". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

That is not what the search results show. There is no one station that has "Minneapolis Station" as its official name, but there are several which get called this, and it is a very plausible search term for an overlapping set of stations. c.f. New York City station, Dublin railway station, Belfast railway station, Brussels railway station, and many others in Category:Station disambiguation pages. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Disambiguate I've drafted one below the redirect. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Wood log

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 Log. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wood log → Lumber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Wood logs → Lumber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Log (wood) → Trunk (botany)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These should all target the same place. I have no preference where. Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• comment before having read the articles I would have said that Trunk (botany) was a surprising location to arrive at, but after reading them I see that there is a small amount of relevant content there and essentially none at Lumber - but that might be because I associate "log" with portions of felled trees, usually round and with bark but the Lumber article is all about processed planks, beams, etc. I would also though like to add Firewood into the mix, possibly not as a primary target but as an article that should be directly linked from wherever is primary if it isn't that one. Maybe adding all these targets to the log dab page and pointing this there as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} would work? Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect all to disambiguation page Log. Good idea from Thryduulf. I've cleaned up the disambiguation page and added the likely targets mentioned so far. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Retarget to Log per Shhhnotsoloud's good work and my comment above. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Timber truck

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 Logging truck. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Timber truck → Lumber  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Retarget to Logging truck as a plausible synonym/ alternative term --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Retarget to Logging truck per Lenticel, Timber lorry already redirects there and is bolded in the lead. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Retarget to Logging truck per above. I would've said delete, but seeing nearly 600 pageviews in the past 365 days, it's a plausible, and used daily, access URL.--Doug Mehus (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Wikipedia:AIVU

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. While I also can't find a "Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Username" or "Wikipedia:AIVU" that have existed, the same abbreviation is used as a shortcut to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot, at least. --BDD (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:AIVU → Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused, nonsensical redirect Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• From looking at the page history, this is short for Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Username. - Eureka Lott 05:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep the page view stats show 167 hits this year, so it's clearly not unused. There are also some inbound links that would be unnecessarily broken. Shortcuts don't have to be logical for everyone, and as Eureka Lott has explained the origin of this one there is no reason to delete, unless you are proposing reusing it for a different target? Thryduulf (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak keep based on the fact that Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Username never existed (as far as I can tell), but shortcut is lightly used and appears to have some potential value. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Wikipedia:UFA/BOT

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 15#Wikipedia:UFA/BOT

Wikipedia:AIVU/BOT

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 15#Wikipedia:AIVU/BOT