Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 20, 2020.

Huổi[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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created by error. The correct name is "Huổi Só". "Huổi" itself does not have any meaning. 6characters (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The target article was at this title for three years and five months, so old links to it would break if the redirect was deleted (K5K4). This is backed up by evidence of usage since the article was moved. Huổi is indeed not a correct name, but I have tagged the page to clarify that (and redirects from wrong names are allowed). Finally, the nominator has provided no evidence of this actually being created in error. Glades12 (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Glades12:, it has been existing this long simply because it is not a popular enough article for someone to notice it incorrectness. Here's a meeting of the commune's government http://tinhdoandienbien.vn/news/Hoat-dong-doan/Doan-thanh-nien-Hoi-Nong-dan-Hoi-Phu-nu-xa-Huoi-So-tong-ket-cong-tac-nam-2019-trien-khai-nhiem-vu-trong-tam-nam-2020-653/
There are plenty of communes with "Huổi" as their incomplete name, like Huổi Lèng, Huổi Luông, Huổi Lếch, Huổi Mí, Huổi Một... The user who created this, Dr. Blofeld also created hundreds of other articles about Vietnamese populated places, many of which he made mistakes (and this is understandable because he is not a local). However, I would like to emphasize that the commune's name has always been "Huổi Só", and it has never been referred as "Huổi" in short. Also, you can verify that this redirect is orphaned now, so there should not be any link break if it is deleted 6characters (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not all links are internal ones listed at Special:WhatLinksHere. External sites exist. Glades12 (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Glades12: Can you name one? All pages that links to Huổi includes some WikiProjects, and two portals, and the reason they link there is because of this discussion going on. Isn't that clear? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Hu%E1%BB%95i 6characters (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, but there is also no certain way to know if there are any besides those. WhatLinksHere only lists internal links on the English Wikipedia. Glades12 (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huổi Lèng was never at this title, so it is not likely that someone would be linked to Huổi by a text referring to Huổi Lèng. Huổi Só, on the other hand, was for quite a long time. (Huổi is indeed not a correct name for anything, but it has certainly been linked in the time between 2011 and 2015.) Glades12 (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate – Glades12's concerns about the redirect's age and usage are valid and cannot be dismissed simply because the redirect is misleading. However, the redirect is misleading, so keeping it as is not ideal. Thus, I'd suggest disambiguating between articles that have Huổi in their names. signed, Rosguill talk 23:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC) 17:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill As mentioned above, it should not be a disambiguation per WP:PARTIALMATCH. The disambiguation page with partial match should only exist when those objects may be referred as that partial match name in short. Meanwhile, in this case, none of the communes Huổi Só, Huổi Lèng, Huổi Mí,... are referred as "Huổi" in short. Therefore, it doesn't make any sense to create such a disambiguation page. Moreover, the total view is 172 over 4 years (this also included the views of some people in this discussion), and the average is 0 per day, which yields that it is totally insignificant, especially compared to other articles that has thousands of views per day 6characters (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Glades12, Rosguill If the external sites is what you are concerned about, then I disagree. At least give an example of one external site that links to this redirect. For this redirect, I nominated it for deletion because neither keeping it nor disambiguating is a good solution.
There's another fact that needs to be taken into consideration here, that is the article Huổi Só does not cite any sources since it was at the name Huổi. Before any external sites decide to link to a Wikipedia article, at least they will have to verify the information first. Thus, if there's any site that links to Huổi, it can only mean that whoever created that site just simply linked there without having to verify the information at all. Thus, those sites can be dismissed. 6characters (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm swayed by this argument and struck my vote. While there's no rule forcing external sites to behave this way, the state of the article does mean that any incoming links are unlikely to have been terribly useful to begin with. signed, Rosguill talk 17:42, 23 February 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.

Learn to Fart state[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 Bart vs. Lisa vs. the Third Grade. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article, 28 pageviews in 2019 [1], and little to no utility. Retarget to Bart vs. Lisa vs. the Third Grade where the phrase "Learn to Fart" is mentioned in the context of a state flag, or delete. Hog Farm (talk) 19:42, 20 February 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.

The Windy Apple[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 27#The Windy Apple

Jan Paweł II (film)[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. I've written something for both deletion and no consensus now and can see an argument for either result. However, without a definitive consensus, it's probably safer (read: better) to not call one. -- Tavix (talk) 19:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE -- This is the title of the Polish dub of the English-language TV show. The original language is English, and this is not the Polish Wikipedia WP:UE, nor WP:NOTDIC a translation dictionary for translating TV titles into other languages. The page was created by a permablocked user. -- 65.94.171.6 (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFFL. Narky Blert (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep If we're looking at RFFL, there's certainly affinity between Polish and John Paul II! I realize this is sort of one step removed, though. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per BDD. WP:RFFL is a reason for keeping redirects from foreign languages. An average of ~5 people per month find it useful so this actually closer to a borderline keep, per WP:R#K5/WP:R#D2, I think. Which rcats should we add to this, though, assuming it's kept? Doug Mehus T·C 12:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} for sure, which will automatically mark it as unprintworthy. Probably {{R from alternative language|pl|en}}, even though the Polish equivalent of "Pope" is absent. IMO once you've appropriately marked a redirect as unprintworthy, the rest of the Rcats are much less important. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, and that's a good point re: {{R from unprintworthy}} as I usually still worry about the other Rcats. Doug Mehus T·C 14:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:29, 20 February 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.

Revelation of Christ[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 Book of Revelation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing retarget to Book of Revelation, which opens with either "The revelation of Jesus Christ" or the "The revelation from Jesus Christ", depending on translation. A Google search indicates this term is more commonly used to refer to the Book of Revelation than the Second Coming. Hog Farm (talk) 19:27, 20 February 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.

Possum lady[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. I note at User talk:Guy Macon#George Spelvin (disambiguation) that Guy Macon has requested deletion of the disambiguation page he created, so I have fulfilled that request. With the deletion of the disambiguation page, that leaves only one expressed option extant, which is deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Internet search results for "Possum lady" didn't turn up anything about George Spelvin that I could see. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reference to ME Pearl. https://www.kqed.org/arts/13864473/who-is-the-glamorous-opossum-lady-of-youtube I'm kind of surprised we don't have an article on one of the weirdest and funniest YouTube "phenomena" I've ever seen, but I'm perfectly fine with deletion. Vexations (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this one is seriously weird.

There is indeed a hilarious opossum lady on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/user/MEpearlA/videos?view=0&sort=p&flow=grid

(Don't miss "Another Exotic Opossum" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAXedFDsjIs !)

The woman in the YouTube videos goes by the name of Georgette Spelvin[2] ("ME Pearl" is a dead squirrel... don't ask.)

George Spelvin, Georgette Spelvin, and Georgina Spelvin are traditional pseudonyms used in programs in American theater -- but that's not where you end up when searching for the latter two names. See our George Spelvin page.

One such use was pornographic actress Georgina Spelvin. Another it appears, is our opossum lady[3][4].

My suggested solution is to create a disambiguation page and have all the redirects point to it. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone object to me just going ahead and fixing this as I described? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: You had me at "disamb...". I 👍 Like disambiguation pages, always, and if my deletion rationale is per WP:R#D2 or WP:XY, then I will always support disambiguation if we can create a passing disambiguation page. Feel free to draft a proposed dab page below the target. Doug Mehus T·C 16:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please check my work. I don't have a lot of experience with disambiguations and redirects. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean, Guy Macon. You wanted to create a disambiguation for George Spelvin (disambiguation), and have possum lady redirect there. Yes, that's fine as well. I am, however, undoing your close as we typically close with XFDCloser to insert a closing rationale. I would recommend adding {{R from ambiguous term}} to the possum lady redirect, then we can close this as retarget to George Spelvin (disambiguation). Doug Mehus T·C 17:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I generally don't like closing things as speedy retarget unless the creator of the redirect has said that they're in favor of that as well. Additionally, the proposed dab page as written doesn't conform to WP:DABREF; either we should start a stub on Pearl the Possum Lady or not disambiguate with it. signed, Rosguill talk 18:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: Okay, fair enough. I would be supportive of a stub article, but how come it doesn't conform to WP:DABREF? Is it because all the bluelinks are related to the same subject? Doug Mehus T·C 18:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not include external links, either as entries or in descriptions, from the section on external links immediately below the DABREF anchor. signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think ME Pearl is notable, sadly. There are a few short articles about her on clickbaity sites (Cracked, Jezebel, etc.) but that sort of coverage falls short of WP:NENT/WP:NBIO, IMO. I suspect that if a stub was created it would be uncontroversially deleted at AFD, if not A7'd. So I can't support redirecting to that dab page.SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Oh dear, I'm so sorry for wasting everybody's time. Please delete the redirect. I do hope you enjoyed the videos. Vexations (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK with either deletion of possum lady (opossum lady?) or retargeting to the disambiguation page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The possum lady isn't discussed at the pseudonym article and probably shouldn't be. I've also expressed my concerns to Guy Macon that George Spelvin (disambiguation) is an improper disambiguation page. It's also WP:MALPLACED. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 28 February 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.

Loboan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 27#Loboan

Ska Tune Network[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 My bad, didn't realize that it could be one word too. Withdrawing. signed, Rosguill talk 05:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided or if a DUE mention can be added to the target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally I only added it since it's a popular ska/ska punk music channel and its mentioned in that section so I redirected there St. Jimmy (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Skatune Network" is mentioned at the target article. Hog Farm (talk) 20:45, 20 February 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.

TMNT Nickelodeon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 28#TMNT Nickelodeon

Chirpici[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 28#Chirpici

Dyke Nuns[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. Consensus is clear. kingboyk (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article, all peripheral slogans of the organization, and limited pageviews. Pageviews in 2019: Dyke Nuns and Fag Priests 17 Dyke Nuns 40 God Hates Canada 22 God hates Sweden 23 Godhatescanada.com 38 Godhatessweden.com 53 Godistheterrorist.com 30 Thank God for IEDs 17 Thank God for Katrina 26 Thank God for the Tsunami 21 Yourpastorisawhore.com 35 Smellthebrimstone.com 60 Priestsrapeboys.com 67. I don't think any of these redirect shows enough pageviews to demonstrate utility given the lack of usage and the terms not being mentioned in the article. Hog Farm (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all if they were mentioned in the article then maybe, but these are potentially (inadvertently) promotional redirects. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all These belong in a list. Lacking evidence of being encyclopedic, such a list should not exist here. As long as there is no list, these redirect serve only as SEO for WBC vitriol. Paradoctor (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Polyamorph is right, these are actually promotional, even if not intended as such when created. Delete them. Don't give these hateful bastards one iota of promotion. oknazevad (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Almost worthy of G10 (or G11 per the above comments, but more so for the websites) in my opinion, but unencyclopedic in any case unless their notability or utility as redirects can be firmly established. ComplexRational (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Hoggie, these are the ones I meant for you to combine. Nevertheless, they're on the same log date, so it's fine. Some of these, arguably, could probably be speedily deleted. Doug Mehus T·C 21:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's SNOWing orange snowflakes in here. Just saying...in case a patrolling administrator wants to close this early. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 21:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. My opinion on WBC is not – shall we say – exactly supportive, but redirects like this with no mention in the target have no value at all. I or anyone else could dream up insulting redirects to WBC with no support in anything WP:RS. So far, I've resisted the temptation. Narky Blert (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Promotional link spam for a notorious hate church. Maybe check for others? Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:47, 21 February 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.

Active roster[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 28#Active roster

Languages of the Britain[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These were all created yesterday. Re the first two: redirects that omit the definite article from a descriptive phrase are helpful given the way people search, but redirects that insert an aricle where none existed are not. GB's languages is plausible but GB is also commonly used as an abbreviation for Gilgit-Baltistan (a territory where quite a few languages are spoken), so WP:XY applies. The last two redirects are in all caps: these are not useful in the way e.g. an all-lower-case redirect like Languages of cornwall (created at the same time as these), can be. – Uanfala (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete GB's languages as potentially confusing (D2) due to the ambiguity of GB. The former can also refer to the languages of other places (such as Guinea-Bissau) or the ones used by any of the organisations listed at GB, and it would itself be an odd title for a disambiguation page. I am currently neutral regarding the others. Glades12 (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The first two have grammatically incorrect titles (I've never seen "the Britain"); the third is a case of WP:XY or otherwise ambiguous as above, and the last two are unnecessary all-caps that will help neither in searches nor links, noting that the properly formatted ones exist. ComplexRational (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I couldn't put it better than ComplexRational has. Narky Blert (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - unlikely search terms, per ComplexRational --DannyS712 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cornwall? This sounds fishy. feminist (talk) 13:09, 27 February 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.

Maharashtrian English[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 27#Maharashtrian English

Wikipedia:Dead letter office (proposal)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 28#Wikipedia:Dead letter office (proposal)

Electric vehicle conversion chapter: technologies[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 12#Electric vehicle conversion chapter: chassies, suspension, and running gear. This includes the following redirects:

Where? Why? Did you read this? Paradoctor (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: Did you see these questions? --BDD (talk) 17:11, 27 February 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.

Warm pillowy flatbread[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Warm pillowy flatbread" is not discussed at the target article, and Google searches don't bring up much related to Taco Bell for this. Hog Farm (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It seems to be a phrase used on some Taco Bell menus, e.g. 1. It's also a generic phrase, e.g. 2 and 3. Narky Blert (talk) 16:34, 20 February 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.

"Dixie"[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing retarget to Dixie (song) on this one. Songs are often displayed in double quotes, like "Amazing Grace" or "Beer Never Broke My Heart", so it would be logical for this to redirect to the song with that setup. Hog Farm (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: No, that's reasonable. Also, feel free to add the others you mentioned, per Tigraan's comments above. It's still the same day. Doug Mehus T·C 19:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fersure, go ahead, identical argument. Narky Blert (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added 'Dixie', the other two examples apparently don't exist Hog Farm (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC) trout Self-trout[reply]
@Hog Farm: Strictly speaking, "fersure" refers only to the three-way California Boolean, notorious in computer science, whose possible values are "true", "false" and "whatever". But I couldn't resist the opportunity. Narky Blert (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Sounds reasonable, my comments are equally applicable. ComplexRational (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as well (same cause, same effect). Procedurally, I tagged the 'Dixie' page as well so that in the (unlikely) case someone is watching 'Dixie' but not "Dixie" they are informed of the discussion. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:18, 21 February 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.

Creation Safaris[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Safaris of any sort are not mentioned in the target article, and this redirect actually redirects to the external links section. None of the external links seem to have anything to do with safaris, and not sure why we'd redirect to an external links section in general. Hog Farm (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - C56C created the redirect and added the external link at the same time.[5] It was a link to a non-notable business selling creationist themed trips. The link fails WP:ELNO and later removed. The redirect shouldn't have been created even if the external link had remained. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SummerPhDv2.0. This would not be useful even if we added the link back (which we shouldn't). Glades12 (talk) 18:08, 20 February 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.

Dyke Sows Wed Here[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. (see #Dyke_Nuns) kingboyk (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article, although I would say this is most likely a slogan related to the target at some point in the past. 28 pageviews in 2019 suggest that this isn't of much use to users [6], and it's likely that this slogan is too tangential to be mentioned in the article without being WP:UNDUE. Should we have redirects to peripheral topics not mentioned in articles? There's a bunch of similar redirects going to the WBC page, including Thank God for IEDs (17 pageviews in 2019) and Yourpastorisawhore.com (35 pageviews in 2019). I'm using this one as a test nom, to see if the community determines these redirects to be useful. If this comes through as not useful, I think we should look through the other targets to this article. Hog Farm (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We could spend the next month creating redirects for thousands of "God hates _____" slogans, but the relative handful we have for WBC's most used should cover it. If the slogan doesn't merit sourced discussion in the article, it doesn't merit a redirect. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as silliness and per the low pageviews, per nom, thus failing WP:R#D8. It's, at best, a neologism, and, at worst, juvenile humour orchestrated by a few editors for giggles. Doug Mehus T·C 15:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't do test nominations, though, Hog Farm. Deletion discussions do not set precedents. Just add those in. I support deletion of those, provided the pageviews are similarly low. Doug Mehus T·C 15:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I failed to find the operating policy but essentially you should batch-nominate redirects if they are related and it is fairly uncontroversial that the fate of one should be the fate of all (if you list together disparate nomination, this risks a WP:TRAINWRECK of "keep 1, retarget 2, delete 3" !votes). For the how-to, see WP:RFD#HOWTO step II "To list multiple related redirects...". TigraanClick here to contact me 16:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a good point, Tigraan. I should bookmark WP:TRAINWRECK for reading. Doug Mehus T·C 16:21, 20 February 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.

Proscuittini[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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article. Apparently, the subject of this redirect has a very high WP:REDLINK potential: it's apparently a cut of ham like the target subject, but it's from a different part of the pig. Or ... it's peppered ham. Honestly, various sources state that it's different things, apparently, but either way, it's not the same subject as the target. Steel1943 (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meh I'm not sure we need two articles on a type of ham because they're from different pigs; I do see this redirect being refined to a future section of Prosciutto on the differences between this cut of ham from a different breed of pig. That said, its low-ish pageviews of 44 in the past 365 days preceding the nomination indicate this as a weak keep/weak delete per WP:R#K5/WP:R#D8. So meh is my result. Doug Mehus T·C 15:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Obscure if it's a synonym, and likely to cause confusion with other dishes. --BDD (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What part of the animal the cut came from is actually very important in meat identification. Hog Farm (talk) 20:18, 27 February 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.

The dirty dirty[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This name is not mentioned at the target article. Originally redirect to New Orleans before an IP moved the target in 2010, but this name is not mentioned there, either. Delete unless justification can be provided. Hog Farm (talk) 02:38, 20 February 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.

Hadassah (Bible)[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 Esther. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing retarget to Esther. Hadassah is the Hebraic name of Esther, so it would make more sense to me to retarget to the person known by this name, not her eponymous book. Hog Farm (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. (Any reason to list it at RfD rather than try a WP:BOLD retarget? It looks noncontroversial to me.) TigraanClick here to contact me 16:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tigraan: - I thought since someone had believed that it should have been targeted to the other target in the first place, then that it was noncontroversial. Hog Farm (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. JohnThorne (talk) 00:24, 27 February 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.

The journal Science[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. This nomination effectively split the discussion over the same topic, so one consensus will be determined in one location. It can be found at this currently ongoing RfD: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 17#The journal Nature. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 02:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally noticed that this redirect existed when I used it as an example of a redirect that DOESN'T exist at this similar RfD discussion. It's too late to merge the two, so it'll have to be kept separate in a separate discussion it seems. Could potentially have a different outcome than the other discussion. (Note: This redirect and The journal Nature are the only two redirects to journals that use this naming scheme for "the journal [blank]") Utopes (talk / cont) 02:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Page creator's comment: This string exists as a workaround for media where the word "science" is unclear, as in "as reported in science". Here are many examples: [7]. It is not intended to set a precedent for all magazines. Fuddle (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While that may be a method of introducing the journal, it does not follow the standard procedures for presenting subjects with the qualifiers at the end of the subject. "Science (journal)" would be the correct way to show that "science" is a journal and not anything else. However, I don't want to be too verbose, especially when the other discussion on "The journal Nature" is as long as it is. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't create redirects for the color of album covers ... except when we do (The White Album). If the string is in common usage, it should be used by Wikipedia. Users shouldn't have to know the rules before searching. Fuddle (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like The Journal Nature/The journal Nature, this one seems to have widespread usage, so it's both harmless and potentially useful. It's also a more natural query than Science (journal). Doug Mehus T·C 14:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the same as for Nature I do not care much either way (the argument rests over whether it is a plausible search term, I would think it is, but that redirect has had zero page views in its week of existence). But consistency has value here - both are the same kind of journal, both have a name with a different primary topic. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments at the other RfD. Just because it's likely to be used as in introduction or description in prose doesn't make it a useful redirect. We don't do this for every possible case; the inclusion of "the" makes it even less likely; and readers unfamiliar with the journal are adequately served by search results, hatnotes, and proper disambiguation in the form of Science (disambiguation). ComplexRational (talk) 16:20, 20 February 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_February_20&oldid=943242867"