Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 1, 2020.

Kill Them All[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 Kill 'Em All (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) feminist; you can't silence us 03:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of "Kill Them All" at the target. Investigation shows that the content was moved to Game of Thrones: Season 1 (soundtrack) in 2016, although all that is there is a single line in a very large list (the anchor there is "Kill Them All (Game of Thrones)") and I'm not certain that is the primary topic (see also #Kill Them All (film) below). Kill 'Em All (disambiguation) exists and so it might make sense to expand that and target this there. Or it might not - I'm bringing this here for discussion without a preferred course of action in mind. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this per Rosguill's comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(I think it's also a line in some versions of "Pirate Jenny".) Narky Blert (talk) 13:15, 2 July 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.

Five-Day Revolution[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 without prejudice against future recreation if either prospective target article begins discussing this term. Deryck C. 02:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While this event did indeed last five days, I can't find any evidence that it's commonly referred to this way. Searching online, the Five Days of Milan seems to be the most prominent event referred to by this name, whereas Google Scholar's top result is about the Tulip Revolution ([1]), although it's not clear to me which phase of the Tulip Revolution this paper considers to be the "five days". I searched the Ukrainian- and Russian-language versions of the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution article and didn't see any sign that they referred to it as the 5 day revolution (and in fact, the Ukrainian article lists it as only being 3-days long).

Given the above, I think that deletion may be the most appropriate, although retargeting to Five Days of Milan also seems like a workable solution. signed, Rosguill talk 19:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this for a second time since there's no clear consensus and the advice of a sockpuppet doesn't really count.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate I think the sockpuppet did bring up a good point. There are likely more than 1 revolution that lasted 5 days. Captain Galaxy (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Given that the phrase is unused on Wikipedia, it feels too much like WP:OR to disambiguate or retarget based on events that could be called revolutions and lasted five days. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. I wouldn't mind recreation to a target that has a reliable source for a certain revolution being called "Five-Day Revolution", but I do agree that Milan is the closest match. -- Tavix (talk) 17:10, 15 July 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.

Health care desert[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 Medical desert. (non-admin closure) feminist; you can't silence us 03:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to encourage article creation, we shouldn't be redirecting from a general term to an article about the phenomenon in the US. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and started a stub at Medical desert, which can be fleshed out with content from the US-specific article as needed. Do so with caution, literally the first sentence of the article had an extremely strongly worded claim that failed verification in the provided source. I think the article needs a closer inspection. signed, Rosguill talk 05:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Medical desert where Rosguill has started an article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Medical desert per above. It's a term that could apply to many countries (especially those with remote populations), but which is generally used to refer to the US. This avoids the issue of having an article which almost entirely discusses its application within the US, with an aspiration that it be globalized, but which never occurs. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked through Scholar results, I'm actually not sure that this term is primarily associated with the US; there's a lot of articles about France, African countries, and historical periods in the first few pages of results in addition to the US-results.signed, Rosguill talk 17:08, 6 July 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.

Focus FM (Ghana)[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 Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology#Radio. Now mentioned at the target; will be refining the redirect to the section where this is mentioned. (non-admin closure) pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 06:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note This was the outcome of an AFD just last month. The station's operations are on the university campus and the university is a partial stakeholder. Raymie (t • c) 23:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It could've been relisted in the first place instead of concluding to delete it since the first nominator and I were the only ones who voted. I voted for a redirect in the AfD. Anyway, my search indicates that Focus FM is a campus radio station of KNUST. Hence, the redirect. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 08:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that if it isn't mentioned at the target, someone searching for this term is not going to find anything useful. It's not clear to me whether mentioning Focus FM is due for the target article. signed, Rosguill talk 22:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can create a segment about the station in the target article. A segment in a magazine talks about the station. Kojo Akoto Boateng, NY DJ and Lexis Bill are among the personalities who had their stints at the station. This article even mentions some of the station's programs. Therefore, the redirect deserves to be kept, IMO. I have explained more than enough. And I won't reply from hereon. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned in the target, therefore a reader will find no useful information there. No prejudice against keeping if someone actually gets round to adding a sourced mention to the target. Narky Blert (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this for a second time since a clear consensus has yet to be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:54, 1 July 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.

⧖[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 Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B. Since this is a mathematical symbol and not an emoji, I find the arguments for retargeting stronger. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly to ⋈, this is not a pictogram (see ⌛) but a mathematical character whose use is not explained in the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep these characters are U+29D6 WHITE HOURGLASS and U+29D7 BLACK HOURGLASS. The nominator may be getting confused with similar looking symbols? If so then add a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: Um, no. These characters are in the block Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B and refer to mathematical relations. The white one also has the informal alias "vertical bowtie", which refers to the "bowtie" relation symbol ⋈. Redirecting this to "hourglass" would be like redirecting "∇" to Nabla (instrument). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The names I quote are what the unicode symbols are defined as and so where they should redirect. What unicode block they are in isn't really relevant, hatnotes are a thing. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Thryduulf: Maybe also check out other Unicode properties? They have the general category "Symbol, Math", which is quite a good tip that this is not used as a picture of a hourglass in the intended context. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Thryduulf: Any comments concerning my argument? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B, which offers the reader more information than the current target: it tells them the name of the character (if they mouse-over it in the table), and it also tells them that it's a mathematical symbol. As far as I know, mobile phone keyboards don't produce these symbol as an "emoji" if you type in "hourglass", so the most likely use-case is someone copy-pasting it from a source. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Captain Galaxy (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Captain Galaxy: That does not make sense. This is a mathematical symbol with no emoji properties defined in the Unicode Standard (for that, there specifically is ⌛), and there is no way somebody would search this up not looking for the mathematical meaning (especially as an actual emoji for the object does exist). Also see my argument above, which nobody has disputed yet. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B, odds are anyone coming across this symbol and searching with it is looking for its use as a math symbol and will not be interested in its visual similarity to hourglasses. signed, Rosguill talk 20:58, 10 July 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.

⧓[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 Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B. Since this is a mathematical symbol and not an emoji, I find the arguments for retargeting stronger. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly to ⋈, this is not a pictogram but a mathematical character whose use is not explained in the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is U+29D3 BLACK BOWTIE (⋈ is U+22C8 BOWTIE). If there is a similar looking mathematical symbol a hatnote can be added to the target. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The mathematical symbol is not "similar looking"; this is a mathematical symbol and is therefore part of the Unicode block Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B. There is no reason to have this as a redirect to the object this is named after: the ring operator "∘" has nothing, except the visual similarity, to do with a ring. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B, which offers the reader more information than the current target: it tells them the name of the character (if they mouse-over it in the table), and it also tells them that it's a mathematical symbol. As far as I know, mobile phone keyboards don't produce this symbol as an "emoji" if you type in "bowtie", so the most likely use-case is someone copy-pasting it from a source. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Captain Galaxy (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Captain Galaxy: The symbol has no emoji properties in the Unicode Standard and is of the "Symbol, Math" general category. Someone searching for this is ways more likely to look for the mathematical meaning, and using this as a pictograph is even incorrect in the way that it is absolutely not the usage intended by Unicode. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B per IP and 1234qwer. The nature of this symbol as an obscure unicode character means that anyone pasting it into the search bar is likely to have come across it in a math-related context. signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 10 July 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.

Wikipedia:UNSOURCED[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) feminist; you can't silence us 03:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect. It gives the impression that 'unsourced' equals 'no inline citations', and disregards general references and external links (which, according to WP:BLPPROD, do count as sources assuming they actually support content in the article). I think this is a big part of the reason so many editors get confused between 'unsourced' and 'no inline citations'. It's extremely common to see an article tagged with {{unreferenced}}/{{BLP unsourced}} where a tag such as {{no footnotes}}/{{BLP no footnotes}} would be more appropriate. The other sections of Wikipedia:Citing sources describe the types of citation, so I suggest that this is retargeted to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Dealing with unsourced material. Adam9007 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The section in question (which of course was worded different back when the redirect was first created in 2008) says All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3] (emphasis mine). The original wording should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation was clearer in that regard but still, the equation "no inline citations" = "unsourced" is not supported by the policy. The current wording is a result of this RFC from 2012 but as far as I understand it, the RFC did not intend to change the meaning. In fact, multiple editors explicitly commented that the wording does not mean that inline citations are required, just that they can be used to satisfy the requirement to provide a source. This shortcut is mostly used by users reverting unsourced additions, so it makes sense to point users to the section of WP:V that explains why unsourced additions can be removed. Regards SoWhy 18:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SoWhy: Then the voice needs changing, because with the way it's worded right now, I'm not surprised that some don't see the difference between 'source/reference' and 'inline citation' (it sounds as though an inline citation is the only way to satisfy the requirement). But that's a subject for another discussion. My point here is that I'm fed up to the back teeth of people getting it wrong (only the other day, an editor who clearly hadn't read the policies got a bit narky with me and insisted that 'source' means 'citation', and wouldn't listen when I corrected them), and I'm jiggered if this redirect isn't part of the reason why this happens. Adam9007 (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SoWhy - the current target is clearly what the great majority of currently existing links intend to reference. Whether the target should be reworded is out of scope for this page. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SoWhy and Thryduulf. Narky Blert (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Dealing with unsourced material per nom. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not broken imo. Actually it will break a lot of links if we don't keep the redirect as it is. Let's just keep it simple please. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 01:15, 7 July 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.

A list of local Ugandan television stations.[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 20:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both the definite article and the ending stop make this an extremely unlikely search term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. per nom. While I can see the nonexistent A list of local Ugandan television stations (without the period) as a plausible search term (like with all these other "A list of" redirects on Wikipedia), this...not so much, because of the period at the end, since it's a general topic without need for such stylization. Regards, SONIC678. 18:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A delete. ​Per nom, the indefinite article and full stop make it a quite unlikely search term; the correctly stylized title is (slightly) simpler anyway. ComplexRational (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This redirect was created from a page move. However, the move was done shortly after the article was created, so it is unlikely that anyone would be using this redirect. So delete per above. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 10:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UNNATURAL. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:53, 4 July 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.

Cape Verdean Spanish[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 8#Cape Verdean Spanish

TCL Communication[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 13#TCL Communication

Mount Washington (Massachusetts)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 8#Mount Washington (Massachusetts)

⋿[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. (non-admin closure) pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 06:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, but could be retargeted to multiset if corresponding information is added (per Unicode name "Z NOTATION BAG MEMBERSHIP"). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC) 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or delete. "Z notation" is a specific formal specification language that is known only by specialists of specification language. I am not even convinced that it is commonly used in this area of computer science. So, retargeting to an article of mathematics would be confusing for almost all readers, an would give WP:UNDUE weight to this specific specification language. D.Lazard (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:14, 1 July 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.

⨾[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. There's no clear consensus for any of the options here. There's a 2/3 majority to keep the redirect as it is though, so I will default to that. (non-admin closure) pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 06:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Should probably point to Composition of relations. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or retarget This is U+2A3E Z NOTATION RELATIONAL COMPOSITION, so either target seems relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete. "Z notation" is a specific formal specification language that is known only by specialists of specification language. I am not even convinced that it is commonly used in this area of computer science. So, retargeting to an article that is not about formal specifications would be confusing for almost all readers, an would give WP:UNDUE weight to this specific specification language. Composition of relations is an article of mathematics, and this symbol is not used in mathematics: Z notation belongs to applied computer science and there is no mathematics there (except, maybe, some mathematical logic for proving that the language is consistent, but I am not sure that this has ever been done). D.Lazard (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:14, 1 July 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.

Poverty draft[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. ƏXPLICIT 00:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This phrase does not appear in the target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - seems to be an unofficial and infrequently used term which refers to recruiting poor people for the military - it is not mentioned in target (and shouldn't be) and applies to a specific theoretical phenomenon and is not synonymous with the target. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 01:16, 7 July 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.

ChinA[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recently-created CamelCase redirects are not allowed on Wikipedia. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is not even CamelCase, just unnecessary capitalization of the A, which is still not very helpful for a redirect. ComplexRational (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FairlY weaK deletE thiS thinG, which while it got decenT pageviewS both lasT yeaR and thiS yeaR, it kinda looks like searcH baR clutteR, since the correctlY capitalizeD counterparT will appear in the searcH baR in mosT caseS, and I doubT many people would intentionallY capitalizE the A in this contexT. AlsO, maybe there's somethinG elsE they're looking for that might use this particulaR capitalizatioN? RegardS, SONIC678 16:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reason to create this after the UseModWiki era ended, or to retain it. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as helpful and harmless per RHARMFUL. @Soumya-8974: there is no rule that post-UseModWiki CamelCase redirects are not allowed. This redirect has decent pageviews and isn't search bar clutter – if I search up Chin, then ChinA does not appear in the drop-down options. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless clutter. Thoroughly implausible typing error. This looks like a trademark or the name of a rapper, not a country. Narky Blert (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Narky Blert. As alluded to by Nyttend, this is not a historical CamelCase link like nost:FrancE; Wikipedia's article on China wasn't created until October 2001 (see nost:China), after the February 2001 decision to transition away from CamelCase links). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947. The redirect indeed doesn't appear in the first 500 results of a Wikipedia search of "Chin", and the redirect has some decent pageviews. It does appear like WP:PANDORA (meaning the reader could expect redirects like PhilippineS or CanadA because of this redirect), but it's not as bad as Who is the Philippine president with the longest tenure redirecting to Ferdinand Marcos. I believe keeping this redirect will not set a precedent for PhilippineS, CanadA, and other similar future redirects, as we deal with redirects listed in RfD case-by-case. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 10:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Incorrect camel case not even from the time that was used in page titles. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • dElete incorrect camel case. {{3125A|talk}} 18:45, 6 July 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.

China (People's Rep.)[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. The nomination's argument has been made moot by the arguments of WhisperToMe, Thryduulf, and Nyttend. The nom also failed to provide a good reason to delete this redirect according to the RfD guidelines. I see no reason to prolong this discussion further. (non-admin closure) pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 10:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation of "Republic" in the disambiguator!? Delete per arbitrary WP:PANDORA. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as the person who created it) I reviewed Wikipedia:Redirects are costly and I'm not sure how it would relate to this. "People's Republic of China" is a disambiguation compared to "Republic of China" (Taiwan). BTW I received this from https://www.ems.post/en/global-network/ems-operators/ems-china WhisperToMe (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:30, 1 July 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_July_1&oldid=968877742"