Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 15, 2021.

Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria[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 disambiguate. Despite a long thread (bordering at times on WP:BLUDGEONing), this comes down to 4 editors in favor of DABbing, 2 opposed. The argument against is that this will make old backlinks misleading and that the current target is the primary meaning. Only one editor made the latter argument, and their evidence for it was much less direct than the evidence for there not being a primary target; and when it comes to projectspace redirects, to an extent the RfD !voters' impressions themselves are suitable evidence of what the primary meaning is. As to the first argument against, disambiguating does not break any backlinks, and I've added a note to the DAB saying that WP:Notability was the original target. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to delete this redirect; however I am suggesting either a retarget to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria or disambiguating to Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria. My reasoning is that while it does make some sense for "inclusion criteria" to refer to "the criteria that determines what should be included in Wikipedia", based on a search it appears that the vast majority of the exact term "inclusion criteria" on Wikipedia is referring to list inclusion criteria. Indeed, I only came across this redirect when searching for WP:Inclusion criteria, looking for the specific project page regarding list inclusion criteria. My reasoning for including Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in the proposed dabpage is that this used to redirect there and it seems reasonable enough - I would not object to a dabpage without that on it. Best, eviolite (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either of those options sound good to me. AFAIK since I created it, it's never been an important redirect to Wikipedia:Notability. ··gracefool 💬 03:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect has had an extremely long standing consensus remaining in effect without issue for the past decade. Changing it now affects the fundamental meaning of other discussions that have currently been taking place: diff. Also, it doesn't make any sense to disambig WP:Inclusion criteria when we know it will impact other conversations and we also already have the WP:Inclusion disambig which already exists to work from where we could just add both Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria to that existing disambig page without affecting the meaning or the long standing consensus of the other... Huggums537 (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Huggums537: Is there a discussion that demonstrates that a extremely long standing consensus exists for this to go to WP:N, or is it just that it has stayed for a long time? (This is a genuine question -- I was not aware of any discussion of this redirect occuring anywhere.) Also, I hadn't seen that specific VP thread you linked before, but it seems that specific usecase is neither related to notability (in Wikipedia's terms; i.e. whether a topic belongs as its own article) nor list inclusion criteria (since it's not about stand-alone lists, but about sections within articles), so I'm not sure how that relates to your comment at all. I certainly don't see how the target of this redirect affects a discussion about something related to neither options. eviolite (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Eviolite, that is a valid question, but no discussion has to take place. Consensus is presumed. So, having a lengthy history of staying a long time without any objections is implicit consensus. The longer it stays that way, the stronger the consensus is implied. See WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Also, the reason my comment is related is because if the target of the redirect gets changed, then the meaning of my comment gets changed in the process. That is why I suggested we edit the existing dabpage since it is very similar anyway (only one word away from being exactly the same actually) and no meanings where this redirect is being used would be changed and the consensus would not be affected. Also, adding your suggested targets to the existing dabpage do not affect any meanings anywhere the existing dabpage is being used because it is already intended to convey multiple meanings anyway... Huggums537 (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, the fact that I am bringing it to RfD, i.e. expressing an objection to the status quo, shows that there is no consensus. Consensus can be presumed to exist until disagreement becomes evident. By that logic, nothing could ever change since the current version would always have "implicit consensus". The whole thing about bringing a completely different page into this discussion (WP:Inclusion) is patently silly as those are completely different pages. If I go to the Wikipedia project page for "Inclusion criteria", there is no reason for me to assume that what I'm looking for is actually hidden on an arbitrarily different page. How will changing WP:Inclusion change the fact that WP:Inclusion criteria links solely to something that is not the main meaning of that term, unless WP:Inclusion criteria is changed to redirect or link to WP:Inclusion? The statement about there just being one word different is rather confusing since the pages in question have only one and two words in the title anyway. To me, the insistence that a singular usage of this link, used in what reads to me like a petty comment about something you admit to be the finer points, that nobody has even replied to, outweighs, among others, nearly two thousand instances of "inclusion criteria" referring directly to list inclusion criteria (being in talk pages of lists) that would be confusing to somebody who does not know what "inclusion criteria" means in that context is frivolous. eviolite (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        How will changing WP:Inclusion change the fact that WP:Inclusion criteria links solely to something that is not the main meaning of that term, unless WP:Inclusion criteria is changed to redirect or link to WP:Inclusion? As I mentioned below, the fact that we have so many other similar redirects targeting the same guideline is ample evidence that this redirect does target the main meaning of the term. Furthermore, the more than 44,000 who are also using almost exactly the same terminology to redirect to Notability far outweigh less than 2,000. It's not just me using this link, and it's not just this redirect that is the only one saying it is the main meaning of the term. There are several other redirects just like it saying the same thing, and thousands upon thousands of editors also saying the same thing. The thing that would be frivolous would be to disrupt a well established redirect pattern that has been replicated by the community several times as being the main meaning and used by thousands in one of the redirects when there is no good reason for it except that a single user performed a piss poor search and now has an objection to the established redirect pattern after a decade of consensus with no issues... Huggums537 (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at WhatLinksHere, this doesn't seem useful to redirect to WP:N, there are a non-trivial number of uses with a different or unclear intent. Also, there are only 29 links here, it's not going to be seriously disruptive to disambiguate this. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've offered an alternative that wouldn't be disruptive at all. There's no reason whatsoever why we shouldn't add the suggested targets to the existing dabpage and spare users whatever "non serious" disruption you perceive it would be to disambig this. Actively encouraging any kind of disruption is a bad idea when you have a non disruptive alternative. Huggums537 (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out that there is nothing wrong with this redirect in the first place. The OP even acknowledges that it does make sense for WP:Inclusion criteria to refer to "the criteria that determines what [articles] should be included in Wikipedia" (Notability). Further, the search that was conducted by the OP doesn't yield any better results at finding the list selection criteria even when you replace the terms "inclusion criteria" with more relevant terms such as selection criteria or list criteria. This suggests the fault lies with improper search parameters as opposed to a faulty redirect. This is especially true when you consider the fact that the original search includes needless Discussion pages along with other needless File, Template, Category, Draft, Module, and Gadget pages in a search for list criteria. The selection criteria can be found very easily when a more proper search is conducted. Are you quite sure you were looking for the specific project page regarding list inclusion criteria? Huggums537 (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Huggums537: You are misunderstanding what I said. I typed WP:Inclusion criteria into the search bar, like I said, expecting there to be a shortcut to the list inclusion criteria. Then, when researching for this RfD, I searched for "inclusion criteria" in all non-article namespaces to see which was more common; as expected, it was for lists. Redirects are meant to sent the reader to a page they would expect. eviolite (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This redirect is the page you would expect when you compare it to the nearly identical one Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion that is being used by over 44,000 who will be confused and disrupted by the change since we also have WP:Notability criteria and WP:What wikipedia includes redirecting to Notability as well. These very strongly suggest that Wikipedia expects all of these similar type of redirects to send a reader to Notability and this redirect should remain WP:STATUSQUO to avoid any disruption to that expectation or to avoid disrupting the meanings of current discussions as I pointed out earlier... Huggums537 (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care about this redirect enough to debate this any further, especially when my attempts at due diligence have been characterized as disruptive and piss poor based on misunderstandings. It's clear that I have my opinion on where this should go, and you have yours; one person does not constitute a consensus so we'll see what others have to say. eviolite (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, any comments I made about disruption were in response to a point brought up by another editor, and so it was the other editor who characterized this action as being disruptive. I have merely agreed with that point and suggested the disruption is a bad idea. I have no idea what "misunderstanding" either one of us base this assessment/characterization on. At any rate, I do apologize for using "piss poor" to describe your search even though I still think it was not a very good one even in spite of any misunderstandings that have occurred. Also, when the whole community has intentionally developed a grouping of extremely similar redirects that all point to the same target, (essentially saying there is a community consensus that these types of redirects have this type of meaning) then saying, "one person does not constitute a consensus" is far more of an unfair characterization. (Note that every redirect of these types were each created by a different person.) Huggums537 (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, my comment said that the change would not be seriously disruptive. It did not say that I thought the change would be disruptive at all, only that I thought that it would at least not be seriously disruptive. I don't actually agree that the change would be disruptive, but I don't like making overly-broad claims when they're not particularly relevant to my argument. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your comment was perfectly clear and succinct when you wrote it the first time, and I find it to be telling you came after the fact with this translation of "what you really meant", but thanks for clearing it up for us anyway. At least now we can see what you are intending more clearly. Huggums537 (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we disambig the redirect, or do we keep as is, and enhance the already existing disambig page Wikipedia:Inclusion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and enhance existing disambig page because all the other redirects similar to this one support the idea that this redirect is expected to point to Notability. There is way more evidence to support this idea (44,000), than there is for any minor ideas about it being expected to point to list inclusion criteria. If we want to mention a rather small possibility (by comparison) of pointing to list criteria, it should be done from the existing disambig page, not from destroying an existing redirect actually expected to go somewhere else. Just because this particular one isn't used as much as the other similar ones, doesn't make it any more or less part of that group of redirects that are all expected to point to Notability. Huggums537 (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC) Changing vote to just keep because I just now noticed that Wikipedia:Inclusion already disambiguates to WP:LISTCRITERIA!! Huggums537 (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my vote back again because I just realized the only reason the DAB now targets WP:LISTCRITERIA is because uninvolved ip editor took it upon themselves to implement the plan before the discussion was concluded. While I agree with the plan, I am reverting the ip editor to allow consensus to decide. Huggums537 (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit (I assume that's what you're referring to), while it was probably inspired by this discussion, didn't actually have much to do with its actual subject (i.e. retargeting WP:Inclusion criteria), and was an unambiguous improvement to the affected page (as it simply added a clearly relevant page to a preexisting list of pages). Reverting it on (what would seem to have been) purely procedural grounds served no useful purpose. Kindly refrain from reverting my re-addition of Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria to the list (which I'm going to perform as soon as I send this message) unless you actually believe that the item doesn't belong on the list (in which case I'd love to hear why you think that, as it would seem to me it clearly does). 78.28.44.127 (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to add to my argument that because of the very lengthy history of this redirect, disambigging it would essentially have the same effect as deleting it where external linking is concerned. Per guidance: Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. Huggums537 (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support suggested change - I support the OP's suggestion to change the redirect target to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria. I also was looking for list inclusion criteria when I came across the notice for this discussion. Platonk (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 21:46, 15 December 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.
  • I disagree with this close on several grounds. 1) I think an IP editor comment with hardly any contributions is highly suspect and should not be counted so more discussion is required for a close. 2) Closing a discussion using !voters' "impressions" as a form of "evidence" is highly improper since a commenter could then just say whatever it is they want to say their "impression" is that supports their vote. That's no proper way to evaluate evidence. 3) The closer completely ignored the argument that external links might be broken as a result of the loss of such an old redirect. Huggums537 (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the talkpage message, Huggums537. I take this close challenge seriously, so I'm going to respond in depth:
    1. Consensus is judged by weight of argument, not by who makes the arguments. Sure, if a very experienced user !votes a certain way that might get a bit more attention, but there's nothing saying to down-weight or discount an editor's argument just because it came from an IP. "Hardly any contributions", meanwhile, is impossible to say with an IP. Most IPs these days are dynamic. Someone on that /24 CIDR range, though, has been active in behind-the-scenes things for just shy of 2 years. Is it the same person? Maybe, maybe not. But someone making a coherent RfD argument is prima facie evidence that they have some level of experience with how RfD works.
    2. This is a projectspace redirect, so the audience is editors, not readers. Where !voters (a subset of editors) expect a shortcut to point is relevant. Regardless, that was my secondary argument when it came to primary topic. My main point was that Eviolite presented more compelling evidence than you in that regard. The question is "What does 'inclusion criteria' usually refer to?" They presented evidence of 2,000 usages of it to mean list inclusion. You presented evidence of 44,000 usages of a related but different term to mean notability. But you did not show that anyone is actually relying on that related term. It's a logical leap you were asking others to make, and no others seem to have made it. Since you're challenging this close, I have taken a further look. It looks like the vast majority of links to Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion are in old PROD-related usertalk templates. That redirect has only been used 11 times in projectspace. You've asserted that people are relying on Criteria for inclusion and thus would be confused if Inclusion criteria pointed elsewhere, but did not present evidence for either of those assertions. Thus the argument did not persuade me, while Eviolite's did.
    3. Given that you only metioned external links once, out of 11 messages you made in this RfD, I hope you can understand why I didn't see the need to explicitly comment on them in my (already fairly long) close. But since you're asking: The final sentence of my close applies here too. External backlinks, just like internal ones, are not broken, because people will still arrive at a page that tells them where that redirect used to point.
    This is the first time I've had a close challenged, and I was very prepared to reopen this if I saw a case that some other close was reasonable. But I don't see how anyone else could have closed this differently. I actually did make one mistake in my close: I said it was 4 to 2, but it was actually 4 to 1 with 1 neutral. If you think another closer would have looked at this and found your arguments sufficiently strong to outweigh four other editors' consensus to the contrary, then you are welcome to see if WP:DRV agrees with you, but I'm afraid I will not be reopening this. Thanks. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 10:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Computing Desk[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 Computer desk. -- Aervanath (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate mainspace -> projectspace redirect. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The current target is an unsuitable cross-namespace redirect, and other uses are evidently ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of the cross-namespace reason, "computing desk" cannot be equated to reference desk for computing. Delete, as the redirect has not seen much usage, and there are no suitable alternate targets. To borrow the words of User:Matt Deres who commented on a similar discussion: I don't think computing desk is a term much used in English at all, unless there was some kind of situation where the desk itself did the computing. Jay (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the shout out, though my comments were oriented in completely the other direction. "Computing desk" is nonsensical on its own and so is okay (by my standards) to use as a shortcut to the computing reference desk. Very few people entering "computing desk" in the search bar are going to be surprised by what they find there. I understand the technicality of forbidding cross-namespace links, but these really seem harmless. Unlike many WP: pages, the reference desks are meant to be seen and used by all users; they are in no way "behind the scenes" pages. Matt Deres (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to computer desk "Computing" desk makes about as much sense as "gaming" chair, but what can you do? A simple Google search suffices to establish that the phrase "computing desk" is, in fact, being used as a synonym of "computer desk" all over the place, see e.g. this article, this random social media post, this shopping website, or even this story by Theodore Sturgeon from 1953 (p14). The phrase is a viable search term which means it's a good redirect, there's no going around it. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Computer desk per IP78. I'm normally pretty anti-XNR, but per Matt Deres' comment I wouldn't have the hugest issue with this one... But only if it's not conflicting with a valid mainspace redirect, and the evidence here suggests that it is. Reader-facing XNRs are tolerable, but reader-facing content redirects win. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:48, 31 December 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.

Computing reference desk[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 23#Computing reference desk

Computing power[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 31#Computing power

Bruh (slang)[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 Bro culture. By the numbers we have 3 for Bruh, 4 for Bro culture, 1 (the nom) for delete or create article, and 1 comment (from IP65) leaning toward Bro culture. Taking into account the sharp shift toward Bro culture after IP61's !vote for it, and the strength of that side's arguments about the general meaning of bruh as a slang term, I see consensus for Bro culture. To address some of the other arguments made, I will add a hatnote from that article to Brother. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People looking for article on the slang word 'Bruh' are WP:ASTONISHed with the page for Brother. This page is listed at Bruh dab page, which further confounds readers. Either delete or create article. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 22:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Agreement is towards retarget, but there are multiple views regarding the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • One issue with targeting Bro culture is that the term "bruh" may simply be used to refer to "brother". Use of the term "bruh" does not connote reference to or endorsement of "bro culture". Hence, bro culture may be too narrow of a topic to be a suitable target. feminist (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • A redirect doesn't need to point to a synonym, let alone function as an endorsement. OTOH it does need to point to somewhere that explains the term to readers and/or is useful as a target of incoming links for editors. Brother serves neither purpose; nor does the dab page, which does not have any other relevant entry. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bro culture where it is used in the context of a slang word. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bro culture where explained. This does not literally refer to one's brother (as explained in the etymology section), so keeping it or retargeting it to the disambiguation page is not ideal. -- Tavix (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to bro culture for consistency with brah. I strongly oppose the strange idea of redirecting a page with parenthetical disambiguation in its title to a disambiguation page. I'm not saying it's never appropriate to do so (every rule has exceptions), but common sense would dictate it should be avoided whenever possible and it's clearly possible in this case. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 16:18, 29 December 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.

Lombroso's monument in Verona[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 03:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target or any other article; discussion at the target talk page hasn't uncovered any enthusiasm for adding a mention. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 20:31, 15 December 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.

Harold the Simple[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 22#Harold the Simple

2020–21 Bangladesh Premier League Final[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. Unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was mistakenly created as the editor was intended to create a redirect using "2021-22", instead used the phrase "2020-21", hence requesting for deletion of this redirect. Sony R (talk) 14:52, 15 December 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.

Lawrence Cunningham (Shortland Street)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 22#Lawrence Cunningham (Shortland Street)

Kurdish–Turkish conflict[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 22#Kurdish–Turkish conflict

Yoke FM Hilongos[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 22#Yoke FM Hilongos

Dindu Nuffin[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. There is no support for deletion, and opinion is divided between the current target and Doja Cat#Controversies. However, both parties suggested creating the sentence-case variant redirect Dindu nuffin, which I have done. Jay (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete as a clearly offensive or abusive term that is not in wide use. Dindu nuffin does not exist, so there is no reason to have the capitalized version which could be confused with the more unambiguous Dindu Nuffin (song). WP:RNEUTRAL specifies that an "established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources [to describe the article subject]" may be kept, which this is not. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) Retarget to Doja Cat#Controversies per WP:DIFFCAPS; with hatnote. Create the dindu nuffin redirect, redirecting to this target. So it redirects to a page which explains it as a term. Similar to what mainstream media have done. It isn't used by mainstream media, but it is mentioned (use–mention distinction). And if all non-neutral redirects were required to be used by mainstream media, then the alt-right echo chamber would only develop as those encountering the term can not see it being described in a neutral manner on Wikipedia.
    In terms of wikilawyering about WP:RNEUTRAL, I don't see where to describe the article subject is implied in the sentence referenced in the nomination. Paraphrasing; the term is established, even if not in established sources, and perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The use–mention distinction is exactly the reason to delete. Per WP:RNEUTRAL, The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms ... For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. This is what is meant by "used in multiple mainstream reliable sources".
    DIFFCAPS is largely irrelevant since Dindu Nuffin (song) already exists. Loss of this fringe term will not harm readers' ability to search for it in the encyclopedia. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is encyclopedic information, referenced to reliable sources, right in the article. It makes zero sense to not have an unambiguous redirect that directs readers to information on the topic. Dindu Nuffin (song) is an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}; an {{R from avoided double redirect}} in regards to Dindu Nuffin. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason is given by WP:R#DELETE #3. Several other phrases mentioned at Alt-right#Use of memes do not exist as redirects, such as "Rapefugees" (see earlier RfD) and "We wuz kangz n shieet". Readers are unlikely to stumble across these terms in legitimate, mainstream sources; the only people who regularly use them are alt-right trolls. So I see little value, and potential WP:FRINGE and WP:PROMO issues, in making them into redirects. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Readers are very likely to stumble across the term in many places (even if not mainstream) and are very likely, if having not heard of it before, to search it up on Wikipedia. I think it's very short-sighted to claim this isn't a common term. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what the search function is for. What are some examples of sources that use (not mention) the term "dindu nuffin"? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems faintly ridiculous. A term does not need to be used in mainstream media to be widespread, as this one is. The underlined: The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. This is very likely to be useful to avoid readers being sucked into the alt-right wormhole. As we do seem to be wikilawyering rather than using our brains: Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. Your interpretation makes the first sentence untrue. We have articles about many non-neutral terms unused in mainstream media, and apparently we can't have redirects about such terms if they aren't quite notable. The second sentence also runs contrary to your argument. The redirect may be non-neutral, but it is neutral. Also, the search function is notably unreliable and not accessible for all ways of finding content. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a difference between a term being "non-neutral" and outright racist abuse. Whether a term is widespread in the public at large is not the issue. The relevant standard per WP:RNEUTRAL is an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources. These are not. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of an encyclopedia is covering racist abuse. We do this in articles, which of necessity come under racist names. With redirects to sub-sections of articles, I don't see how it isn't the same thing. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with J947's overall logic, but I oppose DIFFCAPS situations where the difference is just the first letter of the second word of a two-word term. In an era of keyboard autocorrect and searchbar auto-capitalization-correct, I think such differences tend to surprise readers more than to help them. Thus keep and add hatnote to both Doja Cat#Controversies and Doja Cat discography in the relevant section. Create sentence-case variant per J947. (And FWIW, five months later I still feel the "rapefugees" RfD went the wrong way. Again, it's a plausible search term that's explained at the target, the quintessential situation to allow a non-neutral redirect.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a term described with sources in the target article. Although said target article doesn't use this exact capitalization, I wouldn't be surprised if the term was frequently capitalized like this outside Wikipedia (e.g. when treating it like the full name of a person). The song with this title doesn't seem all that important either, so I disagree with disambiguating or retargeting this, though we can add a hatnote. Glades12 (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Doja Cat#Controversies per WP:DIFFCAPS, recognizing that the section in question also explains the alt-right meme. -- Tavix (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be soft-redirected to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dindu_nuffin using {{Wiktionary redirect}}. I'd also suggest creating redirects for the alternative forms listed there; I found this RfD when I was about to create one actually, after running into the term for the first time. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 14:28, 29 December 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.

V discography[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 4#V discography

Temetrius Jamel[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. -- Aervanath (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PTM, this is a partial match of Ja Morant's full name. Since Morant does not use his first + middle name in any context, there is no expectation to search using this string. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 12#Ashley Nicolette for a previous example. -- Tavix (talk) 04:15, 15 December 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.

Adi’Zeban Karagiorgis massacre[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 but I will retarget to Timeline of the Tigray War (January–June 2021)#Ari Giyergis massacre to fix the double redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links to here. No edit history other than the creation by a now-blocked spamming sockpuppet. No reason to keep. Platonk (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added a mention of the church of Adi'Zeban Karagiorgis at the target. Jay (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the target is now Timeline of the Tigray War (January–June 2021), and where the mention has been added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:33, 15 December 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.

South American Miners[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. G3 as redirect left over from page move vandalism. Jay (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created during a vandalism attempt of the Max Media of Pennsylvania article. South American Miners has nothing to do with Max Media of Pennsylvania. Esw01407 (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete thank you nom for cleaning up vandalism on Max Media of Pennsylvania. This should be deleted as that article should have never been there and the residual R from move does not need to exist and is very confusing. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 02:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G3 as a redirect left over from page move vandalism. 192.76.8.80 (talk) 12:44, 15 December 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_December_15&oldid=1064304577"