Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 19, 2021.

Khafif[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 29#Khafif

Dodo Bin Khafef Soomro III[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 29#Dodo Bin Khafef Soomro III

Ror dynasty[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 29#Ror dynasty

DadBod[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. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Dadbod is a track on the album, but I think that people are more likely to be looking for Dad bod if they type this into the searchbar. I heard this slang term for the first time yesterday and didn't think to seperate the words so I was confused for a while when I was lead here. Clovermoss (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is, if you search dadbod in the search bar (which is what I did) it automatically goes to DadBod (the redirect) because of how the search feature treats different capitalizations. Clovermoss (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Never mind, I reread your comment and I think I better understand what you mean. I think that this could be a viable option. Clovermoss (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and created the non-CamelCase redirect. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 21:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the creation of differently capitalized redirects pointing to Dad bod makes the original problem moot. signed, Rosguill talk 02:49, 29 August 2021 (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.

Ongar, Sindh[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 02:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No longer mentioned in article. This was an unreferenced stub that was redirected in 2012 as an unattributed copy of content added to the target, then the content at the target was removed in 2016 for the same reason. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not mentioned at target, and no sources have been added to confirm its validity. CycloneYoris talk! 00:12, 29 August 2021 (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.

List of highways numbered 27-28 Link[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. ✗plicit 03:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have a list when there seems to be only one highway with this name. Appears to have been created solely to prevent a project backlog page from having a redlink. Dubious redirects should not be created to make project pages look pretty. Hog Farm Talk 20:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unlikely search term. Dough4872 20:49, 19 August 2021 (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.

List of highways numbered 24-28 Link[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. ✗plicit 03:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find evidence that one highway with the uncommon name exists, so there's no point in having this redirect if there is not content to have a list of them anywhere. Hog Farm Talk 20:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unlikely search term. Dough4872 20:27, 19 August 2021 (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.

Christ myth theory/Quotes on the historicity of Jesus[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. ✗plicit 03:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target is not in the article namespace, but the redirect's history shows that there previously have been targets in the main namespace, so I don't feel comfortable tagging it as {{db-r2}}. I don't see any plausible redirect targets in the main namespace and I don't think that the redirect's title is a plausible search term, so I propose deleting the redirect. Stefan2 (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2021 (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.

Quotes on the historicity of Jesus[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to point at a no longer existing section in an article. I don't think that there is any other plausible target and I don't think that the redirect's title is a plausible search term, so I suggest deleting the redirect. Stefan2 (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2021 (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.

C-Ride[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. Under criteria G5 and R2 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that a page originally was started as a redirect under this title, and the target changed several times, always to somewhere in the article namespace. Someone later made it into an article draft, and the page including the history of the redirects moved to Draft:C-Ride. While we don't want a redirect from the article namespace to the draft namespace, we maybe wish to restore one of the old redirects to the article namespace, although I wouldn't know which one. Stefan2 (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged for speedy deletion per R2 (redirect from mainspace to draftspace) and G5 (created by a sockpuppet of a user blocked in 2019). 192.76.8.74 (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2021 (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/Champion Island Games[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 27#Draft/Champion Island Games

List of highways numbered S3 Spur[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. ✗plicit 03:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same situation as Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_11#List_of_highways_numbered_4_Parkway - created to rid a backlog list of a redlink by making a dubious utility redirect. There is no such list at the target, and as the "S3 Spur" mentioned at New Jersey Route 3 seems to be the same thing as the current target, I'm not seeing any basis for such a list. Hog Farm Talk 19:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unlikely search term. Dough4872 19:51, 19 August 2021 (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.

Gotterdamarung[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 02:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The missing diacritics are not a reason for deletion; {{R to diacritics}} are useful. However, this redirect contains a double spelling mistake (one too many IMO), and - worse - it's the top offering on typing "gotterd" into the searchbox. Delete as unhelpful. Narky Blert (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This misspelling does seem to get some usage. The first page of Google results is mostly sites copying us, but by page two you see a fair number of people using the term organically. For misspellings that are based on mis-guessing a foreign spelling (rather than a pure typo), a fair amount of deference is due. It is annoying that it's the top search suggestion, but at least it will take people to their intended target, so not much harm is done—less harm than would be done by deleting a useful redirect. (Currently I get Götterdämmerung as the top result, but perhaps the algorithm changed the rankings due to the RfD.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dudhhrContribs 16:49, 19 August 2021 (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.

D(singer)[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. Hog Farm Talk 02:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this is a common nickname for the target, and there's a typo to boot. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Useless redirect with an implausible typo. CycloneYoris talk! 22:50, 27 August 2021 (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.

Racism in Nepal[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. Relevant content added at the target, so my rationale is moot. signed, Rosguill talk 14:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion of Nepal at the target (although the treatment of Nepalese people elsewhere is mentioned). Delete due to lack of useful information for readers and to encourage article creation. signed, Rosguill talk 16:33, 19 August 2021 (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.

List of Indian singers[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 02:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is too broad in scope for the target, which is only for playback singers. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:16, 19 August 2021 (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.

Pearl shell[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 30#Pearl shell

People food[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) CycloneYoris talk! 22:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bit... silly. No incoming links. Father Goose (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Valid search term; our article food is tagged for being excessively human-centric (the most creative use of a globalize template I've seen) but at this time it is the place where a reader looking for information on "people food" is most likely to find useful information (Human food redirects there). It would probably be better to have food be an article on the broad concept and a separate article for human food, but that's out of scope for this discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Commonly used to distinguish between human food and animal feed (mainly with pets, from the usage I've heard). The concept of food covers both human and animal consumption. Hog Farm Talk 19:50, 19 August 2021 (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.

Americanwaymag.com[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 02:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This currently goes to American Way, the inflight magazine of American Airlines. The domain for that magazine is americanway.com. This domain is for a separate American Way Magazine, for which Wikipedia does not have an article. Until American Way Magazine is considered notable and is created, this should be deleted.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SchreiberBike: - From this wayback machine capture in September 21, 2003, it formerly did serve as the AA in flight magazine site. By 2016 the site redirected to aa.com. Now the domain is unrelated. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to avoid confusion with current site, but consider retaining americanwaymag.com as an archive site prior to 2016 in External links? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @AngusWOOF: Additionally if American Way mag gets its own article the wikidata entry can list all current and former relevant URLs WhisperToMe (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure people have taken a close enough look at the new site. It's either some random person's pet project, or, more likely, part of some sort of black-hat SEO scheme. The about page is suspiciously generic. The content page is just a form to submit. Titles are stuffed with search terms like "Wellington New Zealand Peter Jackson Adrien Brody" At least some of the content seems to have been copied from somewhere (although nowhere I could find through Google) or written in a semi-automated fashion. For instance, there's an interview with "Ellen [sic] Page" asking the question There’s a lot of mystery surrounding Inception. What can you share without blowing its cover?, even though this website well postdates the release of Inception. I'm extremely confident that we will never have an article on this "magazine", given that I'm not even sure it has any human contributors. Meanwhile, as the former URL of a notable magazine, it's a straightforward combined {{r from domain name}} / {{r from former name}}. Keep. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the history. Jay (Talk) 10:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the new site does appear to be some sort of spam blog with at least some content from previous issues of the magazine, see this document and the same article is on the homepage of the new site, so it's not really that confusing. CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:37, 26 August 2021 (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.

2031 Atlantic hurricane season[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. ✗plicit 13:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is too soon, there is nothing that can be said about these seasons. The naming lists are currently only known through 2026. -- Tavix (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. Too soon indeed. CycloneYoris talk! 02:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – Clearly too soon for an article where not one of these years is so much as mentioned. Support reinstating them sequentially, however, as soon as their respective names are added. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The name lists for these years have not yet been set, and won't be for some time. No reason to have them until then. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Fails WP:CRYSTAL. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think by tradition we just ... don't do this. Looking at pages like 2024 United States presidential election I can see why someone might think creating these hurricane pages is a big help, but it's different because there are things we know about the election that we can't know about the hurricane season. —Soap— 10:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I support those redirects to be deleted I'm sorry for creating redirects to the 2027 through 2031 Atlantic hurricane season I should've known it was too soon to create those, I but don't know who created the 2027 through 2031 Pacific hurricane season redirects and I support those to be deleted. Wikihelp7586 (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2021
  • Delete all per nom. They are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. AKK700 09:17, 22 August 2021 (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.

John S. Slocum[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 27#John S. Slocum

Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 27#Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church

Nido Taniam Death Incident[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 02:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect grammar, unlikely that this search term in particular will be used. Tube·of·Light 13:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have no idea how, but somehow this was actually this article's title for over two years (February of 2014 to June of 2016). Last year this redirect still got 453 views. Maybe pageviews will drop off in a few years and we can delete this, but for now, it's harmless, and deleting it would be harmful. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are only two hanging links to this term, which I've just fixed. Otherwise not a notable or usefully independent search term. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. Unless and until the redirect stops being used (and it will be at least 2-3 months after this discussion is closed before we can know whether they have) this redirect remains useful and deletion would be harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the incorrect grammar, is it the capitalization? Jay (Talk) 10:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Harmless and plausible search term. CycloneYoris talk! 22:45, 27 August 2021 (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/2021_August_19&oldid=1041835299"