Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 19, 2020.

אוצר הספרים היהודי השיתופי[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 20:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there is an appropriate local target for this page. Sending readers to non-English content is not helpful. Additionally, the plain soft redirect template is not used in the mainspace. Precedents: Mohamed Chabani|, Saint Michel Boulevard, Bonne Nuit les Petits, Kumagai Morikazu, Éditions Fides, Daehan, and François Mathet. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Hebrew Wikipedia article is about a Hebrew-language website whose subject is Jewish books (presumably mostly in Hebrew). There is no corresponding article in any other Wikipedia (based on Wikidata links), nor can I find any relevant target in a different article here. The presence of this redirect does nothing to help English speakers, who will find no useful information here or at the target, while those who do speak Hebrew will not be looking for information in that language here. Thryduulf (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirect to non-English content offsite -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 04:01, 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.

Wikimedia Incubator[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 27#Wikimedia Incubator

Spaceless[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 27#Spaceless

Brain fog[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 27#Brain fog

Market position[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 20:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is misleading, as two distinct concepts are intermingled: Market position merely denotes the "position within the market", whereas market positioning describes the actions and processes of striving to improve one's market position. Hildeoc (talk) 20:41, 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.

Old Shop, Newfoundland and Labrador[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 restore article as there is a consensus that this redirect is not currently helping, and participants suspect that, while minor, this place probably meets WP:GEOLAND. Permission is explicitly granted by this discussion to AfD this article if there are continued concerns regarding it. ~ mazca talk 14:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Old Shop is not mentioned in the target article. This is a part of a major cleanup of List of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, where loads and loads of creeks and bays have been added as "settlements", although this was not a bay and has been a stub article before. (See examples of cleanup.) While Old Shop might exist as a... well, workshop, it should not redirect to a place where Old Shop is not mentioned. Geschichte (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then it should probably be made into an article. Geschichte (talk) 11:12, 13 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 20:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore stub and either send to AfD or add sources. I agree the current target is inappropriate and cannot find a better one. (See where else it is currently linked). It should not be retargeted to one of the list pages where it is currently linked. These lists are collections of blue or blue and red links, not targets of redirects. But if deletion is the best option here, a blank and redirect followed by an RfD nomination is not an appropriate alternative to AfD. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Mdewman6. I suspect designated places meet WP:GEOLAND. With respect, the redirection was done by a new editor, who may not have been aware of GEOLAND; absent it, I'm sure it wouldn't pass WP:GNG. --BDD (talk) 21:15, 29 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.

Fire in space[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 / retarget to Flame#In microgravity. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many people will think of sparks onboard real-life spacecraft when searching for this term, not the science fiction Battlestar Galactica. Delete this redirect to encourage article creation. Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 13:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support because for an episode, it's incorrectly capitalised. Geschichte (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fire in Space also exists (with capital S) and redirects to the same place. MB 18:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect is ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fire in Space is the correct redirect and the name of the episode in question. Fire in space is a general topic. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Retarget to Flame#In microgravity, which is closest in meaning. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I appreciate that we tolerate and include coverage of fiction, but there is no excuse for conflating fiction with what is sure to be associated with a real-world topic like this. It seems we always have to guard against the intrusion of science fiction into WP:WikiProject Spaceflight. And the nature of this topic happens to be that fire doesn't burn very well in a microgravity environment, so I don't think an article on real-world "Fire in space" would get very far. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I...don't see any "conflating" going on here. I see a good-faith redirect that was simply overzealous. Also "we tolerate...coverage of fiction"? I would certainly hope we do more than "tolerate" it. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per the above and add reciprocal hatnotes. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 19 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 20:38, 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.

NH90[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. The page name doesn't align with other helicopter pages, the name of the manufacturer is unnecessary in the title (+it's incorrect and unofficial) and the redirect was created in 2004, I wish to move the NHIndustries_NH90 page to the redirect page NH90 Blackbirdxd (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if it's ambiguous then it requires disambiguation, not deletion. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Soumya and Deeday retarget to the existing dab page at NH 90 -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this may or may not need to be retargeted to the NH 90 dab page - if it does, that can be boldly done - but the proposed deletion-and-move is wildly contrary to consensus on article titles for aircraft. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion per above. However, neither the National Highway 90 nor the NHIndustries 90 are primary topics, so retarget to NH 90 per 67.70.26.89 as this is an ambiguous term. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. The helicopter is overwhelmingly primary topic for "NH90" - I have go out of my way to explicitly exclude results relating to it (-helicopter -nhi -Nhindustries -copter -rotor -"nh-90") and even then I get results for it alongside tracking for a domestic airline flight in Japan and no results for the Indian highway. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note NH-90 also redirects to the helicopter, if this discussion is relisted then it should be added to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: And adding NH-90 to this discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was this relisted? There seems a pretty clear consensus. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is - this is following standard convention as per WP:Aircraft. Removing it would break numerous links (including one I just used what eventually led to this discussion) and does not seem remotely helpful, not does the rational for deleting make much sense to me. Kyteto (talk) 04:36, 21 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.

Xbox 2[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 Xbox#Consoles. signed, Rosguill talk 20:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox Two redirects to Xbox Series X and Series S, and Xbox 2 is phonetically the same as Xbox Two. Since Xbox 360 is the second generation Xbox, I can see how this can be confusing, but Xbox 1 doesn't redirect to the first generation Xbox, but rather redirects to Xbox One, so Xbox 2 should have the same target as Xbox Two. User:milkmankarlson (Talk) 08:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Xbox Series X and Series S and add a hatnote about it. Dominicmgm (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As overly vague. It could refer to the Xbox 360 (or "2nd Xbox") or the Xbox Series X/S (or "the Xbox that comes after Xbox One"). The best thing to do is delete and let the search function do its job.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Xbox#Consoles which will undoubtedly contain whatever console the hypothetical searcher is looking for, either the 360 or the Series S/X would be reasonable meanings. Delete would also be fine - I could write an essay on the broad-spectrum stupidity of Microsoft's naming of these consoles, but suffice it to say this title is definitely very ambiguous. ~ mazca talk 18:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to just "Xbox", since this is for all purposes a redirect for search convince - "xbox two" has no widespread media as a term for any console but is a plausible term for two of the Xbox console line. --Masem (t) 03:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have created an article called Xbox naming to clarify the horribly confusing naming structure of Microsoft consoles. User:milkmankarlson (Talk) 10:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • REtarget to either Xbox base article or the new naming article -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The new naming article has been deleted, so the best option is to target the base Xbox article -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close Comment. Nominator has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly inappropriate given that there's almost universal disagreement with the current target. Regardless of the motivations of the nominator it's clear there is an issue to solve with the redirect. ~ mazca talk 14:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Xbox#Consoles as that will list whichever of the various consoles that the searcher could be looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several different redirect targets have been proposed, but no single proposal has gained a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Xbox#Consoles - I agree with Mazca and Thryduulf that "Xbox 2" is ambiguous, and this solution covers everything.--AlexandraIDV 11:38, 27 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.

Expulsive[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 Expulsion. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced this is the primary topic, and would suggest retargeting to Expulsion (disambiguation). However, since this has pointed to this general target since 2009, I think this needs some discussion. FWIW, it's an old Neelix creation, which I don't find particularly surprising. Hog Farm Bacon 07:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • God help me but keep. For once, Neelix's stopped clock has it right; this is the primary use of the term. Tending or having the power to expel. Chiefly with reference to the action of drugs and medical appliances for the expulsion of morbid influences or deleterious substances from the system. if you want chapter and verse from the OED. ‑ Iridescent 07:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to retarget; pointing to anal expulsiveness is correct, but our anal expulsiveness article itself isn't about the primary topic of things being expelled from the anus. I'm certainly not blaming Neelix for that mistake since I've just made exactly the same error. ‑ Iridescent 07:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to DAB page per nom, and tag as {{R from adjective}} and {{R from ambiguous term}}. Narky Blert (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Expulsive" as a single unmodified word is not even remotely the same as "anal expulsive", any more than "retentive" as a single unmodified word is related to "anal retentive". The usage of "expulsive" as a single unmodified word is not mentioned in the target article as a synonym. (If it were, and was cited as a synonym, I might change my mind.) This is simply more Neelix bollox and reflective of his juvenile obsession with titillation and scatology. I do not even recommend retargeting, since none of the terms on that disambiguation page relate to "expulsive". Softlavender (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • REtarget as a {{R from adjective}} -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Hog Farm, Iridescent, Narky Blert, and IP: What word(s)/article(s) on the disambiguation page do you see that "expulsive" would apply to or ever be used in connection with? I don't see any. Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The various migrant items can use expulsive, as in expulsive migration, which is about half the general section -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Mainly the missing Wiktionary field. It's an uncommon word, but uses include The Expulsive Power of a New Affection by Thomas Chalmers, Medical Expulsive Therapy for Kidney Stones, "expulsive breath" in The Power Of Speech And How To Acquire It by Edwin Gordon Lawrence (1909), electro-expulsive separation in The Globe and Mail, and the two medical definitions in Merriam-Webster.
      That DAB page is a mess. It's full of free-association synonyms which aren't even WP:PTMs. Narky Blert (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • DABs should contain synonymous topics, since that would be exactly what people are looking for, when they type in a term looking for a subject. The problem is that Wikipedia is missing a way to document synonyms at target articles so that incoming redirects and dabs can properly be associated. It should have something like a hidden template that documents synonymous terms for the topic of the article. Obviously just dumping a list of syns would look odd, so it would need to be hidden (perhaps a hide/show thing) -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 04:39, 14 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 20:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Expulsion, marginally better than deletion. Pageviews shows about a hit every three days on average, so not a big deal either way. MB 01:58, 26 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.

Pad (music)[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 Pad (music), no consensus on the others. Those who've expressed an opinion have generally found that Pad (music) is definitely ambiguous and lacks a good single target, as it has some wildly differing meanings even within a musical context. The other two links to the nonexistent section have not reached any kind of useful consensus to enforce here - if someone wants to have another try at restoring Synth pad and preferably sourcing it, then that's very much permitted by this discussion, as is any other attempt to incorporate a useful mention somewhere else. ~ mazca talk 14:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion. The target section "Synth Pad" does not exist in the target article. The target article also does not mention pads (in the sense of a certain kind of synthesizer tone, not in the sense of a piece of hardware) at all. Unless somebody amends the "Synthesizer" article, this redirect is therefor completely misleading and should be a redlink. Taschenschieber (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Adding synth pad and synth pads to this nomination, as they point to the same non-existent section. The target section was removed from the article about a year ago by User:Popcornfud. FWIW, synth pad has a totally unsourced stub in its history before it was redirected. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article per WP:BLAR and retarget the others to it. Neither being a stub nor being unsourced are reasons for deletion in themselves, and the former article does not meet any actual speedy deletion criteria - indeed if it's correct (and a 1 minute google search suggests it's at the very least plausible) this is the sort of thing we should have an encyclopaedia article about. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would oppose restoring the standalone synth pad article - what there is to write about it could basically be summarised in a sentence or two, and I think it's extremely unlikely that anyone's going to collect a lot of notable sourced information to fill an entire article any time soon. But "synth pad" is a term that someone might plausibly enter into the encyclopaedia and expect to read something about. Ideally, it would be covered in the synthesizer article as part of some explanation of the assorted sounds synths are typically used to make (basslines, leads, percussion etc). The synthesizer article used to cover those things, but I removed it as part of some other drastic tidying - it was poorly written and unsourced, and had been for a long time.
Also - "pad (music)" needs disambiguating. If you google "music pad" most hits are about physical pads you hit on midi controllers, which is not what "synth pad" refers to. Popcornfud (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As the person starting this discussion, my 2 ct is that this term should be defined in an encyclopedia, it probably could have enough written about it to be more than a stub, and that it should *not* be shoved into a section of the "Synthesizer" article because, tbh, it is a fairly minor topic and I feel like it would bog down that article - especially if the same policy were applied to every term of a similar complexity. I fully agree that "Pad (music)" is a weird title, "Pad (synthesizer tone)" or something like that might be better. --Taschenschieber (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Pad (music) is in a different category from the other two, and is ambiguous. Wind instruments (flute, oboe, bassoon, clarinet, sax, etc.) have pads which stop the keyed holes. Our best description seems to be at Clarinet#Pads. Narky Blert (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this has some mention in the Disco article about padding. Also listed officially as a term in the Roland glossary of synthesizer terms.[1] AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:59, 12 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 20:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first as too ambiguous / no clear target. Restore Synth pad per Thryduulf. I have doubts as to its long-term viability, but it's not so obviously bad as to run afoul of CSD criteria or anything. No prejudice against swiftly sending it to AfD. Logically, then, retarget the third to the restored article. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 29 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.

Sweetest Memories[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 20:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This appears to be a bad {{r from song}}. Anderson's album Dive Deeper includes a song titled "Sweet Memories", not "Sweetest Memories". [2] - Eureka Lott 21:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Eureka Lott is completely right: I goofed up the spelling when I created the redirect; “Sweet Memories” is indeed the correct title. AllMusic discusses the song; I mention the song in that context in the article, but since AM mistakenly calls the song “Sunset Memories,” that’s not immediately apparent. (As an aside: since it’s abundantly clear that AM is simply mistaken regarding the song title, is it OK to include a parenthetical note saying so in the article? Or would that be too close to original research?) Apologies, and thank you for catching my error! — Historical-idealist (talk) 04:19, 20 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.

Our Power of People's Party[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 27#Our Power of People's Party

Woolong (fictional currency)[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 19:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, not to mention it isn't exclusive to Cowboy Bebop; Space Dandy and Carole & Tuesday used the currency too. Dominicmgm (talk) 18:27, 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.

Targetism[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 20:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Searching on Google Scholar, the term seems to be used in all sorts of contexts (no Turkish results in the first few pages though). Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Absent some sort of justification for this recently created redirect, this seems ambiguous. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:07, 26 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.

Some of the redirects ending with "redirect"[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 19:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A subset of the redirects from the nomination immediately below: these appear to have all been created either in error, or as placeholders resulting from moves. – Uanfala (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fwiw, I'm not sure there's any need to keep any of the other redirects from the nomination below: for gathering usage statistics on dab pages, I'd imagine people should ideally go for plausible (if otherwise unused) redirects. If a dedicated implausible redirect is created, I'd expect that after the experiment is over and the results summarised and acted upon, the person responsible would simply WP:G7 it as basic cleanup. – Uanfala (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that Paramount Network (UK redirect) serves no purpose as far as I can see. I'd entirely forgotten creating it to begin with, seemingly to facilitate a rename of the intended article onto the title it was previously using; perhaps this was not the correct approach. Either way, deletion seems eminently sensible. Bonusballs (talk) 23:19, 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.

Redirects ending with "redirect"[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 Speedy keep per WP:SK point 3 - The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the page in question. Tavix's comment also suggests this has the potential to be a WP:TRAINWRECK. This closure is without prejudice to properly researched re-nominations. Seventyfiveyears, this is far from the first time your contributions to RfD have been significantly below the standards expected, you are not new here and have been given lots of advice by multiple different editors about where you are going wrong and how to improve, if you don't start acting on that advice then a topic ban is not unlikley. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirects. Creating redirects just to have a title end with "redirect" or "(redirect)" is not what it's for. What's next, "Wikipedia (redirect)"? Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep because it is clear that the nominator had not done a proper WP:BEFORE to see how and why these redirects were created. Some were created for statistical research like the Tylenol redirect as a result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 20#Tylenol (by me) or the Parachute redirect per Talk:Parachutes (Coldplay album)#Requested move (by Dohn joe). Deletion of these redirects would make it harder to find the page view stats these redirects were tracking. Others were created as an intermediate step in page moves, and they can be G6 deleted if not preserving history. What is clear is that if you were to actually look to see why these redirects were created, there is no way you would have gotten to your conclusion—that they were simply created to have a title ending in "redirect" and somehow if we don't delete these redirects now, someone is going to create Wikipedia (redirect) (a poor WP:OTHERSTUFF argument). -- Tavix (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tavix: Is WP:OTHERSTUFF a community consensus? I don't think so, since essays usually represent minority viewpoints. If you still think the cited essay documents a community consensus, verify it thru WP:PUMP. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 15:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, other stuff exists is commonly cited as a poor argument in deletion discussions. I disagree that essays "usually represent minority viewpoints" nor do I feel it necessary to "verify" it at the village pump. Per WP:ESSAY, this essay is simply documented advice by (in this case) several Wikipedia contributors. If you disagree with the advice, please explain why. However, dismissing it out of hand because it does not represent consensus to you is not at all conducive to the point being made. -- Tavix (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - FWIW - As OA (apparently) of "Mars 2020 redirect" - don't recall creating this "redirect" - may have been an error on my part at the time - nonetheless - *entirely* ok with me to speedy delete the "redirect" - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:19, 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.

Biosciences[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 life sciences. signed, Rosguill talk 19:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think these ought to go to the same place. I suggest List of life sciences. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to the other target above. I would take Bioscience as a synonym for Biology for search purposes, and Biosciences is certainly best targeted to List of life sciences. Alternatively, I would be fine targeting both to List of life sciences per nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:20, 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.

American Airlines Flight 1420[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 19:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are redirects for people presumably associated with American Airlines Flight 1420 crash, but they are not mentioned in the article. Such redirects are confusing and potentially ambiguous and should be deleted. A separate case is listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 16#Susie Kroencke. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – per my reason in the linked case for Susie Kroencke. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the above. Dominicmgm (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:57, 20 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_19&oldid=1124349764"