Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 15, 2020.

Wikipedia:Freedom of speech[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. Keep !votes have a majority, and the disambiguation camp has not made a convincing argument for why the status quo hatnoting is insufficient. The lone !vote for retargeting makes a valid point, but did not gain wider traction with others. signed, Rosguill talk 19:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should this redirect to the WikiProject or the policy? Interstellarity (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep targetting the WikiProject. This has existed since 2012 and all but two of the inbound links are clearly intending the WikiProject, and of the two that aren't one dates from 2003 (and has the implication that neither WikiProject nor policy existed at the time). Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: The free speech policy page has existed longer than the WikiProject. Because of that, I was considering changing the target there, but thought the right thing to do is get community input. Freedom of speech seems to be more formal than free speech. We could also consider moving the policy page to WP:Freedom of speech which I don't think would pass. Those are my thoughts. Interstellarity (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which has existed longer is completely irrelevant, what matters is what people are looking for when using the shortcut. All the evidence is that people are looking for the WikiProject, but if they are not the hatnotes already at the target are more than adequate. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate this isn't in article space, so 2DAB isn't relevant. Just list whatever project pages relate to this concern -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify – There can be many other things to be disambiguated. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is very common for shortcuts to be ambiguous (see e.g. pretty much every one that is one or two characters long), the current target is where the inbound links point and hatnotes are already in place so I explicitly oppose disambiguation. Disambiguating shortcuts means they are not longer useful as shortcuts, so especially where there are only very few options (contra Soumya's bizarre assertion) and one target has established usage hatnotes are best. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a legacy link; changing this now would make existing links less helpful, while a hatnote can solve the ambiguity issue. — Bilorv (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the information page (not a policy), which is magnitudes more important to users of Wikipedia than a moribund WikiProject. Any potential confusion can be resolved with a hatnote. -- Tavix (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate There's few links and few views. Wikipedia editors would generally be using a shortcut to get to the targets, not this.—Bagumba (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, neither an informational essay nor a sleepy wikiproject warrant any particular preference, but in the absence of a compelling reason to change it, we should maintain the current target to avoid messing up historical links. A disambiguation page for a seldom-used link would serve nobody. If Wikipedia:Free speech was a policy or guideline, there would be a compelling argument, but that statement in the nomination is a false premise. ~ mazca talk 22:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. --BDD (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2020 (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.

Wolfe Sr.[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 23#Wolfe Sr.

Punjab, region[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Implausible misspelling inspired by Punjab, India and Punjab, Pakistan. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the nominator's explanation of why this is a plausible search term. Punjab (region) redirects to Punjab so this can marked as a {{R avoided double redirect}}. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note the nominator edited their nomination statement after I left my comment. This is not a misspelling (plausible or otherwise) but an unamibguous search term that uses different formatting than Wikipedia typically uses. The question is whether it is a plausible search term for the Punjab region or not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not a "misspelling". A bit awkward, sure, but it definitely takes a would-be searcher to what they are looking for (and it gets a few views a month so I think someone must be searching this). A7V2 (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The views could have been a page that was linking to the redirect, which I have now removed.[1]—Bagumba (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Or they equally might not have been, we have no way of knowing. If all the views were coming via that link then keeping and deleting will both be harmless, but if some were coming via a different route then deletion would be harmful and keeping beneficial. Indeed, that it was linked suggests that for at least some people it is plausible search term and thus a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2020 (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.

Hindhu river[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 24#Hindhu river

Türk Sanat Müzgi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 24#Türk Sanat Müzgi

Cotsworth calendar[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 International Fixed Calendar. signed, Rosguill talk 21:54, 22 December 2020 (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.

New calendar[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 Calendar reform. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:03, 23 December 2020 (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.

Gregorian redirects[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. I also don't think that it's plausible to redirect those to the Gregorian calendar adoption. Soumya-8974, if you think these need to be retargeted, you should give a valid reason instead of using the default comment. I'm going to refine the third redirect to a specific section. (non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Adoption of the Gregorian calendar. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 17:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. First of, Adoption of the Gregorian calendar is a controversial, undiscussed split from Gregorian calendar, and as far as I'm concerned, they should be merged. In any case, "Adoption of the Gregorian calendar" concentrates on when it was adopted in each country or region. That is not the meaning of any of the terms that are proposed for change, they concern the Gregorian calendar as it is, so they should stay as they are. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, refining the third to point to the same section as the second. Regardless of whether the article on the adoption should or should not exist, it is almost certainly not what readers using these search terms are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2020 (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.

Old Style calendar[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 23#Old Style calendar

Old Style and New Style redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 23#Old Style and New Style redirects

Julian time[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 as ambiguous to the period of consulship of Julius Caesar. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 17:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't know what "Julian time" means and there are several equally good (or bad) choices to redirect it to. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same reason as Jc3s5h. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but retarget (or disambiguate if there really are multiple possibilities that are hard to differentiate). The term is in use, so there really isn't a good Wikipedia reason to delete it. I'm thinking specifically of the astronomical usage as at Julian day, which includes both a date and a time component. Julian calendar doesn't seem very likely to be of interest wrt "Julian time". Lithopsian (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lithopsian, I can't see anywhere in Julian day article where the term "Julian time" is described, let alone defined. The closest is Julian day#Finding Julian date given Julian day number and time of day, which converts a given Gregorian date and time into JD format: days plus decimal fraction of a day. As a general principle, do we set up disambiguation pages for misnomers, attempting to guess what the visitor wants? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article doesn't mention it or define it explicitly, but that doesn't change that the term isn't used. I just don't see any criteria to delete it. It isn't abusive, spam, misleading, nonsense, broken, cross-space, or implausible. Keep it and do something sensible with it. I agree that the current target is not the best, but a poor target is not a reason to entirely remove a redirect. I'm familiar with its informal, incorrect even, usage for Julian date, and Google agrees with that as the most common usage. There are occurrences in books, but they're fairly obscure and uncommon. Usage in academic papers is even more rare, the more correct 'Julian date" almost always being preferred. Lithopsian (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setindexify per Lithopsian, linking to Julian day, indicting Julian date and Julian time for that; and listing Julian calendar. A see also can be added for the consulship of Gaius Julius. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2020 (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.

Goodnet[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 23#Goodnet

گاه‌شماری ژولین[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. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a case of WP:RLOTE, no particular connection between Persian and the Julian calendar signed, Rosguill talk 17:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong erase WP:FORREDs per nom. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 17:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; I had a good look because I could definitely believe there might be some Islamic interaction with the Julian calendar that might warrant some specific Persian or Arabic name for it, but I can't see anything to suggest as such. ~ mazca talk 00:17, 23 December 2020 (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.

English language reform[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 List of language reforms of English. signed, Rosguill talk 17:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling is not the only English language reform that has been put forward. There are proposals to purge foreign words from English, (see linguistic purism in English) which can be argued as an "English language reform" as well. I suggest either dabification or deletion. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2020 (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.

American Wikipedia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 17:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

America does not have an official language, nor is American Wikipedia an alternative name or incorrect name for the English Wikipedia. I would suggest retargeting to either Wikipedia or List of Wikipedias. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question that should be driving this: What would readers who aren't from the United States expect this to point to? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people in the United States speak other languages like Spanish, French, Greek, and other languages rather than English. For example, if people in the United States spoke Spanish, they would go to the Spanish Wikipedia. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It was a mistaken name for the English Wikipedia from http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-01/20/wikipedia-spanish-fork - "Since the American Wikipedia began from scratch, I thought we should do just the same. " WhisperToMe (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WhisperToMe. Secessionist synonym of English Wikipedia. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setindexify to all Wikipedias of languages that are indigenous to the Americas; or who have dialectal Wikipedias for dialects that are native to the Americas; plus English Wikipedia. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a List of Wikipedias. I'm not aware of any sub-lists of that and I'm unsure about the merits of creating them. Thryduulf (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alternately, just redirect to that list article. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, going down the list, I see Haitian Creole, Quechua, Navajo, Nahuatl, Aymara, Hawaiian, Papiamento, Pennsylvania German, Jamaican Patois, Atikamekw, Sranan Tongo, Guaianan Creole, Samoan, Cherokee, Greenlandic, Cheyenne, Chamorro, Inuktitut, Inupiaq, Cree, Choctaw, and Muscogee. Like Thryduulf, I'm not sure of the merits of creating such a list. I don't think retargetting to List of Wikipedias is particularly helpful either -- if you are not familiar with the names of hundreds of languages to remember a glance where they're spoken, you'd have to read each language article to check whether it's spoken in the Americas. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 10:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The nominator is correct in the technical sense, but it is very likely anyone typing this is looking for the current target. If any change is needed, mayhaps this would best be remedied with a hatnote. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There isn't an "American Wikipedia" and as the above comments reveal, any retargeting is problematic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The more I think about this the more I realise that there just isn't any suitable target for this as it's too ambiguous. It could mean the English language Wikipedia, it could mean any one of the many other languages spoken in the United States and/or other parts of the Americas, it could be referring to or making some sort of comment about bias in the English Wikipedia (either relating to American English or American culture/world view) or seeking some other encyclopaedia written about America (in any definition), from an American perspective (the country or or the continent(s)), in American English and/or in some other language of the Americas. Even though they may be several clicks/taps away, I think search results are the best we can do here - either the searcher will find what they are looking for or they will be prompted to try an alternative (hopefully more specific) search term. Thryduulf (talk)
  • Keep. It's a valid {{R from an incorrect name}} in my opinion. This name generally comes up per the confusion between language Wikipedias vs national Wikipedias (the latter isn't a thing, but people have a habit of thinking of things like that). English Wikipedia is simply the Wikipedia most Americans use and which follows American laws (some other projects like German Wikipedia voluntarily follow German copyright laws). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term shows up enough times in news that a redirect from an incorrect name is warranted. In English, "America" typically refers to the United States, whose official language is English. This isn't Spanish, where "America" is more generic and the US is Estados Unidos.—Bagumba (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bagumba: Again, the United States does not have an official language. Also, see my reply above: Some people in the United States speak other languages like Spanish, French, Greek, and other languages rather than English. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're correct re: "official", although effectively its "de facto" per Tavix below.—Bagumba (talk) 06:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WhisperToMe showing usage of the incorrect name and Bagumba, although I would add that English is the de facto official language of the United States. Yes, other languages are spoken in the United States, but not as ubiquitous as English. -- Tavix (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2020 (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.

St. Pauls school,Winchmore Hill,London[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 St Paul's School, Winchmore Hill. No clear consensus between deleting and not, but there's a clearer consensus that if not deleted, it should be pointed to this more appropriate target. signed, Rosguill talk 17:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not used or needed - it's grammatically incorrect and not likely to be used Leschnei (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is a very old redirect, we don't remove old redirects unless they are harmful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete due the spacing error. I've added one more for completeness. -- Tavix (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for spacing and unusual capitalization and typo (St. Pauls school). AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not deleted, these should be obviously retargeted to St Paul's School, Winchmore Hill. They got out of sync when the article was redirected at one point. --BDD (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to St Paul's School, Winchmore Hill as they get some views. What's the harm in having these redirects around? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a maintenance burden, as BDD pointed out, for no gain since this is not a natural search term. Any page views would be incidental. -- Tavix (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Rich Farmbrough and BDD. The maintenance burden here is tiny (perhaps one human edit will be needed in the next decade, maybe not even that) and does not rise to the level of causing harm - especially given the lack of any evidence of harm caused in the past 13 years this has existed. Thryduulf (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2020 (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.

Al-Hamidiyya (Egypt)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 17:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no evidence that El Hawamdeya (الحوامدية‎) (or its various spellings) is known as Al-Hamidiyya (الحميدية‎). I think this redirect arises from a page move from an incorrect title. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The English spelling could refer either to الحامدية or الحميدية neither of which bear relation to الحوامدية so the redirect should be replaced with some other clarification if these two locations are important--عبد المؤمن (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2020 (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.

LBJ (basketball player)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 22#LBJ (basketball player)

Talk:International Vocal Competition ´s-Hertogenbosch[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. The keep vote doesn't provide a real reason to keep the redirect, just a reason to not nominate similar ones. I endorse the sentiment, but the cheapest solution at this point is to delete this and move on. signed, Rosguill talk 17:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the unnecessary redirect. Left by a page move, no links to it and wrong punctuation. Seanetienne (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Good-faith nomination, but these discussions take more resources than any benefit gained. It would be different if someone was intentionally creating redirects from implausible typos, which we would want to discourage, but this was a real case that got moved. FWIW, it's counterpart International Vocal Competition ´s-Hertogenbosch still exists too.—Bagumba (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2020 (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.

George S. Patton III[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 George Patton (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no George S. Patton III. The son of George S. Patton Jr. was George S. Patton IV; see the latter article for an explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:13, 15 December 2020 (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.

Janus cosmological model[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. signed, Rosguill talk 17:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unuseful and confusing redirect: former target section has been removed from target article leaving no mention of model. —teb728 t c 05:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with teb728's comment that both redirects are confusing and unuseful. They both should be deleted.
The target article last had Janus and twin universe descriptions, dated September 5, 2019, here. That content was removed as part of a cleanup of text that failed WP:RS, text failing both primary and promotional guidelines. One editor proposed there be a separate article on the Janus cosmological model, but it was apparently never forked, or drafted, or it may have failed due to then lack of reliable secondary sources.
The target article has been the subject of rancorous debate and edit wars on at least two continents. If you want your eyes to bleed, in addition to the Jean-Pierre Petit article's talk page and archive, see the French WP article, or the French WP talk ("Discussion") page, where Petit originally submitted his preferred version of his life story!
Another article on one of Petit's theories, Bimetric Gravity was nominated for deletion, then kept and reverted to "the most recent version that looks reasonable". There is no previous version that "looks reasonable" here, because of WP:RS failures.
Thus, ipso facto, there is no appropriate, notable target for either of these redirects, because the section of the original target has been deleted. Both redirects qualify for CSD G8. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Makes no sense if not mentioned at the target.—Bagumba (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2020 (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.

Mac's Brewery[edit]

 Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 22#Mac's Brewery

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_15&oldid=996141124"