Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 20[edit]

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

Flashlite[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, which means status quo ante, but I will put the dab at (disambiguation) and propose its move to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Flash Lite is a discontinued software application that has not been relevant in several years now. A Flashlight is a device which many people use (even in this day) and has semi-historical symbolic importance. FlashLite I get being targeted to this page (WP:DiffCaps), but not why flashlite has stood this way for 10+ years now. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Flashlight and mark with {{R from misspelling}}. Senator2029 “Talk” 05:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. I think it's more likely that a reader will have spelled "Flashlight" incorrectly than formatted "Flash lite" incorrectly. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Flashlight has a hatnote to a disambiguation page where the current target is listed so it can still be found by those who are searching for it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The redirect seems more appropriate to the target page as is. It feels too far different to Flashlight. Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Captain Galaxy. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The current target already has a hatnote for those looking for Flashlight. I don't see why we need to retarget this. Should we also retarget flash lite to flashlight? --Pandakekok9 (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Captain Galaxy. --Micky (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't seem to be coming to a consensus for either, and since misspellings really shouldn't be seen in hatnotes, split the difference and disambiguate per my draft at Flashlite. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:30, 26 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.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republic[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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) There is already a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics article so largely unneeded, 2) There were multiple republics so there would be a s, 3) Not mentioned in target article; all mentions have a s at the end. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 20:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep – Redirect is cheap. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - This got 865 hits last year, so it's clearly a very plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hits? People are just lazy and don't want to type the "s". {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 14:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While it is not impossible that people being lazy are one source of the hits for this term I think it significantly unlikely that is the reason for all of them. And even if it were the only reason, that isn't a justification for deleting a redirect that is unambiguous and not in the way of anything else. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, that's a plausible grammatical error, and I can see people forgetting the S at the end of the term. Regards, SONIC678 14:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does EVERY RfD I make, people go "keep!" "keep!!!" It's uncomfortable seeing me being opposed every time. Do you want every one of your RfDs being opposed? {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 15:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep because the singular is a very common error (esp. for folks for whom English is not their first language.) But please don't take it personally; I know it can be frustrating, but also know your contributions are valued no matter what the outcome of a particular discussion or discussions. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @3125A: Assume good faith. You are mostly nominating the redirects that are just plausible misspellings of the target article. Keep Calm and Click [edit]. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems to me like a very obvious redirect to make for people who usually type 'republic' instead of 'republics'. Captain Galaxy (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Agreed with Soumya-8974. --Micky (talk) 23:51, 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.

Ettersberg[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) Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not in target. Has dewiki article, Ettersberg [de]. buidhe 20:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've now incorporated it into the target, but eventually it needs an article of its own similar to or translated from the dewiki article. Bermicourt (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because now mentioned in the target. R with possibilities also added. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as content in target now. --Micky (talk) 23:51, 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.

Bonjwa[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 28#Bonjwa

Indusface Pvt[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 3#Indusface Pvt

Indus Face[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. Deryck C. 23:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, I can't find any evidence that this is an alternative name. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Title is misspelled and is written with no space in between. CycloneYoris talk! 22:31, 27 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.

Sasebo (disambiguation)[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 G14. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete please. Sasebo was a disambiguation page with only the primary article and partial title matches. I turned it into a straight redirect, so there is no disambiguation page anymore. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 18:52, 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.

Kitab al-Fitan (Book)[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 wrong venue. Use WP:RFPP instead. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the protected redirect as the article is becoming notable recently and We wish to expand it. Kabristan1 (talk) 15:23, 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.

Internet Security Barrier X6[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 27#Internet Security Barrier X6

D. Hoffmann[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 Hoffmann#D. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"D. Hoffmann" is ambiguous, among other things with others listed at David Hoffmann. This redirect was clearly created to manage bibliographical links to the works of David Zvi Hoffmann. I have now fixed all these links. This redirect should be deleted as ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:03, 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.

* Meadow Hall School, Lekki, Lagos[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. Personally I'd be fine with G6 for these because they are "unambiguously created in error", but either way we have a deletion result here. -- Tavix (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete G7 G6 speedy declined on all 3; the creations of these pages with the spurious asterisk (along with other titling problems), followed by a move to the correct title, are almost certainly errors in all three cases. Difficult to see how the asterisk is a useful search/link term. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • <wonk>It was G6 that was declined, not G7. G6's purpose isn't "the button you push on Twinkle that lets you explain why you want something speedy deleted when there isn't a more specific one", it's for genuinely uncontroversial maintenance. If there is a more specific criterion for the situation and it explicitly excludes a given page - as WP:R3 (implausible typo or misnomer) does in all three cases here (not recently created - 2007, 2009, 2012) - it's not uncontroversial. The main idea behind excluding non-recently-created redirects is that there's occasionally external links into Wikipedia to these redirs, and good netizens that we are, we don't want to break them, so they go to RFD for analysis instead.</wonk>
    Stats on these redirs don't suggest external use, and nobody's going to type these titles by accident (even without the asterisks, for the ones with parentheses). Delete (nonspeedily). —Cryptic 06:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as creator of the redirect from "*Meadow..." when I moved the page to its correct title while stub-sorting it in 2012. PamD 07:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (whose assessment of controversiality chimes with mine). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • But not mine. R3 is time-limited for a reason and G6 is not a dumping ground. Long-extant redirects should always be discussed before deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-speedily per the entirety of Cryptic's comment. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, it doesn't seem likely that people will type titles like this (although some, like * Mañana, are worth keeping because their topics are stylized that way, in this one's case the band Mañana is styled as "*Mañana," that being said those topics don't appear to be stylized that way). I also found three more such redirects, which I'm adding to this discussion. Working on it...done. Regards, SONIC678 14:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of these seem to be stylizations, and having a leading * messes with the searchbar, since * is a wildcard character. Hog Farm (talk) 00:52, 22 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.

Draft:Glória a Hong Kong[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 minesweeper, delete Gloria. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy deletion declined (and my bad for not noticing an earlier one), on the basis of WP:RDRAFT ("Redirects that are a result of page moves from the draft namespace to the main namespace should be retained") The problem is, this reason is mistaken: neither page was moved to the mainspace; instead it was Draft:Glory to Hong Kong and Draft:Democrația-class minesweeper that were moved to the mainspace; these redirects resulted from earlier within-draftspace title-correcting moves where the creation of these useless redirects should have been suppressed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draft:Glória a Hong Kong isn't an RDRAFT situation, it was a draft copy of Glory to Hong Kong that UnitedStatesian changed to a redirect and immediately attempted to get deleted as a G6, nonsensically as "created with incorrect name, then moved". If it's to be deleted, it belongs at MFD, not here. —Cryptic 05:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? Drafts resulting from articles copy-pasted from the mainspace into the draftspace (usually by inexperienced editors) are changed so they redirect back to the mainspace article All. The. Time. (which maintains the history, keeps a page located at the draft title: all good outcomes) We really want these to go to MfD instead? UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do if you're trying to get it deleted immediately after changing it to a redirect. Stuff like this is usually kept there, unless it's been abandoned long enough to G13 or is being tendentiously resubmitted to AFC or something similar. —Cryptic 05:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RDRAFT and Cryptic. Ultimately redirects from Draft space to identically or similarly titled articles are not harmful and can be useful, so there is no benefit to deletion. Converting a page to a redirect and then immediately sending it to RfD is almost always a bad idea as it strongly suggests an attempt to game the system. If you think the page should be deleted then nominate it at the relevant XfD directly. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Draft:"Democrația"-class minesweeper per above. Delete Draft:Glória a Hong Kong as having neither a useful title (per WP:RLOTE) nor useful content. The creator first overwrote the main Glory to Hong Kong article with a Portuguese version (seems machine-translated) and an edit summary "I translated the subject 'Glory to Hong Kong' into Portuguese, I'll continue momentarily. Thx", and then, when that was reverted, created Draft:Glória a Hong Kong with an unattributed copy of Glory to Hong Kong in English. None of this mess is useful either here or at pt:Glória a Hong Kong. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Draft:"Democrația"-class minesweeper per above and WP:RDRAFT, as that was its starting title when it was created back in late May 2016 (and, as this policy says, we should retain redirects like this except in certain cases), and delete Draft:Glória a Hong Kong per nom and 59.149.124.29, this march doesn't have a connection to Portuguese. Regards, SONIC678 14:49, 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.

Vile vortex[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 21:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. Having done some digging, I see that the target article is the author. However I also see that the article itself appears to meet WP:GNG; my restoration was loudly reverted so I'm coming here for a wider hearing.

Also, for future reference, please advise as to whether I should have gone here or WP:AFD. Launchballer 04:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Frankly I would delete it totally. This is wholly and solely one mans theorise that have received some coverage in the Fringe press and some (significantly lesser) coverage outside the fringe. Its not enough for a stand alone, and I am not sure even for a redirect.Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim is that there are reliable independent sources which identify this concept. If there are any that comply with WP:FRIND to the extent that it justifies a standalone article, I cannot find them. jps (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete here. If you think an article that has been boldly converted to a redirect should not be a redirect then you should revert to the article. If you or someone else believes it should not be an article either then it should remain as an article and be discussed at AfD. RfD should never be used to delete content that has never been discussed at the appropriate XfD (unless that content would definitely be speedily deleted). Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anyone is asking for the redirect to be deleted. The redirect was in place for weeks before it was reverted with a simple comment. I reverted back asking for an WP:ONUS check. Then the person who wanted the article reinstated came here. While I agree that this is an unusual place to discuss this, it has at least garnered the attention of other people. jps (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually I did.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On a point of pedantry, I don't want the article reinstated, I don't think deletion is that clear-cut that it should have been carried out unilaterally. Within the article I see that it has apparently been the subject of a series of a series of articles, a TV episode and a number of books, and I haven't yet left the article. I do take your point that RfD was the wrong place though.--Launchballer 14:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Redirect to Ivan T. Sanderson. Simply not enough WP:FRIND independent sources to justify a stand alone article. Ivan T. Sanderson#Vile vortices adequately covers the subject. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as a redirect). It is now discussed at its target, so it's a plausible redirect. Advice to the nominator and others: RfD is poorly equipped to handle notability disputes, because there's very little overlap between notability and redirect-related policies and guidelines. If you want to discuss whether this topic should have a standalone article, I would suggest taking it to the talk page, involving WP:DRN, or reverting to an article and immediately nominating for AfD (which does handle notability disputes regularly). Normally we try to avoid putting the same page through multiple XfDs in rapid succession, but I think that would be a reasonable thing to do in this case. --NYKevin 07:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this redirect, it's a one man mad idea. Guy (help!) 13:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a redirect Another possibility than AfD would be a merge discussion, in any case it's fine as a redirect and may help people searching for this still unusual name to find the author's article... —PaleoNeonate – 06:10, 22 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.

Coma (2018 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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 03:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. Film was actually produced for a 2020 release (note that Coma (2020 film) already redirects to Konstantin Lavronenko, the only sensible target where there's a mention of the film). Jalen Folf (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as confusing. According to IMDb, two or more films called Coma were released in each of 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2020 (most of them look WP:NN), but none in 2018.
(I've tagged Coma (2020 film) as {{R with possibilities}}, and added an {{ill}} link to Konstantin Lavronenko: the Russian article is well-developed and -sourced. According to ref. 1 (2017) in that article, the film was originally scheduled to release in 2018.) Narky Blert (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with Narky Blert, this is a confusing redirect and not included in target. --Micky (talk) 00:20, 22 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_20&oldid=1145951145"