Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 18, 2020.

Allscripts Healthcare Soluti[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 delete and keep. Allscripts Healthcare Soluti has already been speedy deleted by Fastily per CSD G7. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. has a clear consensus to keep, and as SONIC678 says, the redirect got 110 pageviews last year, which is definitely a sign that this redirect is a useful and plausible search term. I see no reason to prolong discussion to 7 days. (non-admin closure) Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search terms and unneccessary duplications of Allscripts Healthcare Solutions. Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:22, 18 June 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.

Electronic monitoring of immigrants[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 Electronic tagging. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be redirecting from a general term to a specific country's context. Looking at Google Scholar, it seems that at a minimum electronic tagging of immigrants also occurs in the UK. However, we don't have any general article about this concept, and Electronic tagging only mentions this phenomenon briefly, with an internal link to Electronic monitoring in the United States placed following the creation of this redirect. I'm leaning towards deletion, but could be convinced to point this to Electronic tagging (or another target if someone can find one). For the juveniles example, I think there's slightly more content at Electronic tagging that would justify targeting there (and I'd lean toward that solution over deletion), but the cases are similar enough that I think they should be discussed together. signed, Rosguill talk 19:44, 18 June 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.

Jules César[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#Jules César

NHB[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 Procedural close - this belongs at WP:RM. Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am by no means convinced that this is a suitable WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT; not least because when I came across it, one of the four links-in was intended for National Housing Bank. I suggest that NHB should be a basename, and that NHB (disambiguation) be WP:ROUNDROBIN swapped with it. (Until just now, NHB (disambiguation) was completely inaccessible from No holds barred.) Narky Blert (talk) 15:53, 18 June 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.

Hazara province movemment[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 delete per WP:CSD#G6 unambiguously created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When this article Hazara province movement was created, the title mistakenly had a spelling mistake so was moved and this became redirect. So I think this redirect makes no sense. WP:CSD#1 USaamo (t@lk) 14:43, 18 June 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.

Yugoslawia[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 20:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_25#Jugoslawia. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. buidhe 09:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as 'v' and 'w' aren't near each other. Captain Galaxy (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Could be that the creator used a Dvorak keyboard layout, but I think most Wikipedia users use QWERTY, AZERTY, or QWERTZ layouts instead. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not harmful, and WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. If it helps people get to the right page, it's fine! Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paintspot. Just because most people don't use Dvorak doesn't mean someone doesn't find this redirect to be useful. IMO, it's not as implausible as other redirects that got deleted for the same reason. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In several languages (e.g. German and Quechua), the name of the country is spelled with the letter w. ESL-speakers might easily misspell the name as Yugoslawia .  --Lambiam 19:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    German use Jugoslawien, not *Yugoslawia. If the misspelling gives advantage only to certain language, then it falls sharply to WP:RFFL. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is (obviously) not about a redirect in a language other than English, so WP:RFFL does not apply. This is about a redirect of a misspelling in English, one that some ESL-speakers might more readily make than others.  --Lambiam 21:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Galaxy (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from misspelling}}. I agree with Lambiam's analysis. Narky Blert (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm swayed by Lambiam's and Tenryu's arguments above - Having looked at Dvorak keyboards on Google the v and w are next to each other so it's certainly a plausible typo, Keep & add {{R from misspelling}}. –Davey2010Talk 18:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am also swayed by the arguments about the Dvorak keyboards. Remember, redirects are cheap. --Xannir (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; though I think the most probable use of this redirect is as a misnomer rather than a typo. — J947 [cont] 21:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Several good arguments above, no need for this to extend 7 days and confuse anyone with a Dvorak keyboard. --Micky (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 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.

History of Jupiter[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 Jupiter#Formation and migration. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous. Could also mean the formation of Jupiter. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pandakekok9 (talk) 14:02, 18 June 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.

By Request (Niki Evans album)[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 20:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects no longer useful as the first redirect (Niki Evans was redirected to List of The X Factor finalists (British series 4) which was redirected to the generic X factor acticle. Ajf773 (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not sure I understand the nom, but if the subject is mentioned at the target and the subject does not have the notability to have their own article, then that is what matters here. --Micky (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are NOT mentioned at the target. There is no section even about this person. Both have been automatically redirected twice due to their target being redirected. Ajf773 (talk) 02:38, 20 June 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.

Jimmy Rustling[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 20:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Jimmy Rustling" is not mentioned at National Report (noting that the section link is broken), and is not mentioned at the article Paul Horner either. Google would seem to indicate the term isn't a real person at all, which makes this redirect confusing and should therefore be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There might be scope for a mention of this name in an article related to fake news, as it was apparently a by-line used by a prolific writer of that, but at present there is nowhere this name is mentioned on Wikipedia so there is nowhere to point this that wouldn't be confusing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Imagining myself as a layperson searching for this name, getting redirected, and not seeing the name on the page, I would be confused. --Micky (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:03, 20 June 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.

Talkng to Myself[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 26#Talkng to Myself

Brightest Messier Galaxy[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 deleted by GB fan per G7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "Brightest" at the target, past discussions have generally had consensuses to delete redirects of the form "Superlative X". Delete unless a satisfactory counterargument can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Andromeda Galaxy. According to Messier object, M49 has an apparent magnitude of 9.4, while Andromeda's apparent magnitude is 3.4, and the only brighter Messier objects are a couple of clusters in the Milky Way, Messier 45 and Messier 7. How is Superlative X a problem? Messier's been dead for 200+ years, and apparent magnitude doesn't change on a human timescale, so it seems to me like Andromeda isn't going to stop being the brightest Messier galaxy — what's the problem? It unambiguously refers to the subject, it's not going to change, it doesn't cause confusion, etc. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "brightest Messier Galaxy" is indeed the well-known Andromeda Galaxy (M31), and in no danger of changing, but someone searching this would likely think "what is the brightest after Andromeda" (or after Triangulum (M33)), since Andromeda is more well-known and a naked eye object in contrast to many invisible Messier objects that amateur astronomers would be curious about. I wouldn't flat-out oppose a retarget there, but it wouldn't address the most likely reason for searching, and keeping miscellaneous superlatives lying around is seemingly arbitrary (per my other comments, and Wikipedia isn't a search engine). ComplexRational (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ComplexRational, I'm a little confused by your reasoning. Why would your hypothetical searcher be disappointed to find that it's Andromeda, and why would this person type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightest_Messier_Galaxy if he didn't simply want the brightest object in the catalogue? If you're sufficiently familiar with the subject to know about Messier's catalogue, why wouldn't you instead look for "brightest Messier object invisible to the naked eye" or something like that? Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nyttend, I might be wrong on this, but I get the impression that someone interested in the Messier catalogue is not unfamiliar with Andromeda, its designation, and its brightness. They might overlook that, and instead be inclined to search for "brightest Messier object invisible to the naked eye" as you say or realize the answer may have been obvious, so this existing redirect would not help with that. And also as you mention, M45 and M7 are brighter objects in the catalogue, so Messier galaxies would be a subset that does not contain the brightest Messier object.
      • If this redirect ends up kept (again not flat-out opposing that), I would agree that the only reasonable target is Andromeda. I'm !voting delete because it responds to a question that would not really aid an amateur astronomer seeking other objects—namely the brightest of all or the brightest not visible to the naked eye—unless they were unaware that Andromeda is the brightest Messier galaxy (in which case, probably they'll realize the answer was right in front of them). Also, keeping this opens a door as far as what other "Xest Y" readers may be curious about (in astronomy or elsewhere), so we need to draw the line somewhere before a large number of questionably useful redirects of this sort are created (this argument was made at past RfDs). I hope this clarifies for you. ComplexRational (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Messier object#Messier objects which is a list of the objects that can be sorted by apparent magnitude, which seems to rank Andromeda as third after Pleiades and Messier 7. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thryduulf, note that Andromeda is the brightest galaxy, while the others are a couple of clusters in the Milky Way. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh - Retargeting to Andromeda seems unlikely to cause any problems, but I would not be thrilled if someone then came along and created Brightest NGC galaxy, Brightest NGC nebula, etc. because the New General Catalogue has thousands of objects to keep track of (whereas Messier is just over a hundred or so). Regardless, M-49 is obviously the wrong target as a matter of simple fact. --NYKevin 20:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • NYKevin, part of my reason for voting to keep is that Messier is stable: since the creator is dead, there's no chance of an object brighter than Andromeda getting a Messier classification. It sounds as if the New General Catalogue periodically gets revised, and if that's the case, we might not be able to assume that the brightest NGC object of this-sort-or-that would remain the brightest NGC object of its type. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, i am extremely sorry for making this redirect, it's that im not a expert on types like, Luminosity, Stars, Supernovas, and etc. I am not that smart in Astronomy for some reason. I promise that i will be more smarter next time. --StaleGuy22 (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete noting the apology from the creator of the redirect. – Fayenatic London 14:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; for above reasons and it seems G7 applies since user is requesting deletion; also it is miscapitalised (I might !vote differently on Brightest Messier galaxy). UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete creator seems to agree. --Micky (talk) 00:18, 20 June 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.

Template:Ainur[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 20:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template that redirects to another template. However, there's no single best target for this: Ainur (Gandalf, Sauron, Saruman, Balrogs) also play a role in the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, which have their own templates. This was technically "merged" per AFD, but it only consisted of names, many of which were already at the target template. Per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_18#Template:Middle-earth_dwarves, there is a consensus that transferring names from one template to another does not cross the threshold of originality needed for WP:ATT to kick in. Hog Farm (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There could be attribution issues, and there are definitely oldid issues, as Nyttend says. Deleting will clearly do more harm than good. --NYKevin 09:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend and NYKevin. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 21 June 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.

Irelia[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 20:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a League of Legends character mentioned on the pages of two voice actors Cherami Leigh and Jo Hyeon-jeong, and of course not mentioned at League of Legends where it originally pointed, so we have a WP:XY problem. There's also an unrelated fictional character in Age of Fire, or a potential misspelling of Irelya (a real-world location which doesn't have its own article, just a mention at Wabag Rural LLG). Since my attempt to make it into a dab page was reverted, I suggest just deleting and letting the search engine do its job. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:33, 18 June 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.

Music of the Gran Turismo series[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. There was no clear consensus on what to do with this redirect. Restoring the article and nominating it for AfD seems to be the way forward here. (non-admin closure) Pandakekok9 (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected for being gamecruft but no mention of subject matter in the target. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 19:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect, merging any relevant commentary - I created the article, but was new to Wikipedia then. Really the article should be a proper encyclopedic article, with topics like the development of the music itself, how/why it was chosen for the given game(s), reception of said music, etc. I have no issues with a redirect to Gran Turismo (series) with any encyclopedic content from the article being merged into a Music or Soundtrack section there. --Teancum (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Teancum, could you clarify? The bolded "support" makes it sound like you're fine with deletion, but your comment is more about keeping it as a redirect and merging. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edited my bolding above. Definitely redirect. If there is any good content, merge it into the series article. --Teancum (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect in agreement with Teancum. --Micky (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator: Current status quo of the page is a redirect - anyone saying redirect would be basically saying "keep the redirect as is" unless we're sure we're able to add (parts of) the formerly redirected page lest it get purged again from the target for being a gamecruft (the rationale why it was redirected in the first place). FMecha (to talk|to see log) 22:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't keep the redirect as is simply in hopes of a potential future merge. If that's the way we want to go, it would be better to restore the article and move it to draft space. As long as this remains a mainspace redirect, readers may find it and follow it, only to be confused or disappointed. --BDD (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. The former article had some acceptable content, so redirecting, while in good faith, eliminates this content without good reason while creating a problematic redirect in its place. No prejudice against taking the article to AfD of course, but I don't think that's necessary. -- Tavix (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Tavix signed, Rosguill talk 19:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: I am the one who redirected the article. There is no acceptable content from the article at all. All track lists is WP:GAMECRUFT. Most other conent is also WP:UNSOURCED and WP:OR as well. OceanHok (talk) 04:22, 28 June 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.

Entertainment industry response to George Floyd protests[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to George Floyd protests#Media industry. (non-admin closure) feminist | freedom isn't free 13:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion per this AFD, as the closer said “the title isn't an obvious search term “. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. buidhe 11:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP, as the former article has a great deal of useful history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
great deal of useful history Which has been deleted. Pandakekok9 (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because everything in this page's history is not useful. A proper encyclopedia article would rely on books, journal articles, and other scholarly secondary sources, not news reports and other primary sources. Nyttend backup (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand why this is not regarded as an obvious search term given that the target is the entertainment industry's response to the George Floyd protests. It seems obviously correct and useful to me. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC) recommendation struck in favour of new one below the relisting. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to George Floyd protests#Media industry. It's dangerous to redirect a broader term to a narrower one, especially so when we actually cover the broader concept. There are many more aspects to the entertainment industry's response than just Blackout Tuesday, which is linked in that section anyway. --BDD (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD. signed, Rosguill talk 20:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Though I had commented on this discussion, I haven't provided an explicit opinion on what to do with this redirect, so I guess I'm still allowed to relist this discussion. Each participant provided their own suggestions. I count 3 supporting deletion (including nom), three who want the redirect to be kept as it is, and two retargets to George Floyd protests#Media industry, each side providing good points. There is definitely no clear consensus formed here yet, though it seems retargeting has less consensus than the other two. Let's see how this option would fare with the other two.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:25, 18 June 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.

Yarn theory[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 20:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this term exists as an alternative name. Only 6 pageviews in the past 90 days, compared to 243248 for the target. Google and Google Scholar hits are mostly about actual yarn, not ST. Created in December 2006 by a user blocked for trolling. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. One of the results doesn't even relate at all to physics. If ever we get some WP:RS coverage for this term, we should recreate it as an article, not a redirect. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete adorable confusion, but not a valid search term - maybe for someone ESL? --Xannir (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, joke page. Its creator was blocked for trolling. – Fayenatic London 08:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete if its creator was blocked for trolling, how has it been around this long? --Micky (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:MADEUP.
(On a lighter note, a patent agent colleague was asked what should be done with a UK provisional patent application filed on behalf of an employee who had left within the priority year, we mustn't abandon valuable intellectual property, etc etc. My colleague pointed out that he had deliberately filed it with the title "Spinning a Yarn".) Narky Blert (talk) 20:19, 20 June 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_June_18&oldid=964906243"