Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 3, 2021.

Idoit[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 17:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was originally created by a vandal, and then redirected to idiot. I think the redirect is unnecessary and should be deleted. Un assiolo (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Received over 100 page views last year suggesting this is a plausible misspelling. It also seems to be a spelling that is intentionally used for comic relief e.g. the alternate name of Trainwreck: My Life as an Idiot 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually originally found it while checking whether Wikipedia has an article on the software i-doit (it doesn't). Maybe some of the other views are similarly coming from people looking for something else? This can be confusing for readers. --Un assiolo (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The very plausible typo and alternate spelling is more likely to be driving views than a misspelling of a non-notable bit of software. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Common misspelling (whether ironical or not). Unpunctuating a non-notable piece of software could happen – but not often enough. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to I Do It per the nom's reply to IP86. -- Tavix (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the "keep" arguments above. Plus, the I and O keys are right next to each other on a QWERTY keyboard. Regards, SONIC678 01:16, 4 February 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.

TimedText:Neeraj dulare[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 - this redirect is the result of fixing a page accidentally moved to the wrong location. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible (cross-namespace) redirect. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete G6 - Unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace. This is left over from a newcomer trying to make their first page and accidentally moving it to the wrong namespace, as can be seen in the page history of User:Neeraj dulare. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:46, 3 February 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.

COVID-20[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#COVID-20

Module talk:Sandbox[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 15#Module talk:Sandbox

Cooli Carlito[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 17:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguous advertising and promotion of non-notable performer. Going to XfD after creator contested speedy deletion. Pattern of inserting mentions and photos of subject in inappropriate articles[1][2][3][4][5] is unhelpful at best and has the appearance of advertising and promotion. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget I plan to create this article in the future if the nom is adamant on getting it deleted I will change the redirect to a more appropriate article until I find the time to create it in the future. In reply to your references 1, 2, I thought those images would be appropriate to add because it shows a visual representation of the motorbike - nothing on those pages were to suggest that I have added images as an advert. These insertions cannot be considered inappropriate as the image of the motorbike was in the article (as well as the subject in discussion). In reply to my edit on Rapping, adding the image was not the only thing I had done, there is not much info on UK MCs so I added references and sources regarding the section Emcees, please refer to my edit history to see the significant amount of edits I contributed to that section. With the edit on Neasden, although I understand your concerns with that edit, it is assumptive to say that it was promotional. I have changed the redirect to Scrufizzer as it mentions the subject in discussion. I would also recommend the nom refer to WP:AGF. TwinTurbo (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I initially changed the redirect to Scrufizzer, but for the purpose of this discussion, I reverted my edit and hope that the discussion is in my favour in retargeting this page to Scrufizzer. TwinTurbo (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You attached a photo of the wrong bike on two different articles, both featureing some guy who has nothing to do with the subject. Would we want a photo of a Ninja 250 on an article on the Ninja 1000 just because they're both sport bikes? And if the article is about the bike, we'd want a photo of the bike, not the person sitting on it. It looks an awful lot like someone looking for an excuse to put photos of this one particular guy anywhere on Wikipedia they can. I can't read your mind but that is how it looks. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how this specific redirect is unambiguous advertising - there's no content at all on the page except their name and a link to their commons category - so proposing it for G11 speedy deletion was inappropriate. It is however completely unhelpful to readers to redirect them to an article where the performer is not mentioned, so as a redirect it should not exist. Apart from a few image captions and a name drop in Scrufizzer's discography Cooli Carlito is not mentioned in the encyclopaedia, so there's no good target for for this to point to in my opinion. If the creator wants the page history of this redirect for their planned article for some reason then draftify it. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to WP:R#KEEP section 5. Someone finds them useful. A redirect to Scrufizzer is considered useful as they have both collaborated on a song together. People could refer to the artist in the appropriate genre of music. Deleting it just to recreate it in the future is rather a length procedure which would waste a lot of time imo. Althought at time of nom, this redirect could be considered pointless, I have now moved it to a related article where it proves useful. TwinTurbo (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TwinTurbo:The whole purpose of redirects is to help readers find the content they were looking for. If someone searches for "Cooli Carlito" it's fair to assume that they're looking for content related to Cooli Carlito, which they won't find at either of the proposed target pages. Ending up on the page of a different artist where Cooli Carlito is not mentioned in any of the main article text is more likely to Surprise or confuse readers than to help them. If there was a history of collaboration between the two artists or some prose discussing their work together I would have voted keep, but a single name drop in a list of songs containing dozens of featured artists isn't enough to justify a redirect in my opinion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added information in the career section on this feature with subject. This would suffice reasonable enough for WP:R#KEEP because it does aid (section 3) search on a certain terms (his name and musical collaboration) for the subject mentioned. TwinTurbo (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a redirect to Scrufizzer's discography or career section, the following template will be used on the redirect Template:R from work. I have also deleted the commons cat and categories to fulfil the requirements of a redirect. TwinTurbo (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're not just talking about a performer who would fail WP:GNG and WP:BAND; there isn't even one mention of them in any publication at all; it's all self-published social media: Twitter, YouTube, SoundCloud. As far as we know this is a low-profile private citizen whom we have no business even mentioning by name anywhere on Wikipedia out of basic respect for their privacy. You've posted his photo, added information about where he lives, and we have no independent verification at all that he's even a public figure. It's probably all going to have to be scrubbed via WP:OVERSIGHT. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about a "redirect" as if it is a "written article". This is a redirect deletion discussion not an AfD. I have not created a written article on the subject, but as I have said, I do plan to in the future (in according to all relevant Wikipedia guidelines) and I have made significant changed to the redirect as required for a redirect. You first tagged this as under WP:G11, stating that the article had " blatant advertising and self-promotion" when in fact it didn't. It was just a redirect (probably not the best place to redirect it but it still didn't meet the criteria you tagged it for). The photos have been uploaded on Commons. I, out of good faith, put them in articles I deemed to be relevant (e.g. Kawasaki KX100 did not have a pic of the bike so I thought the image uploaded was a suitable picture - you have clarified that it was the wrong bike and I accept that was a mistake on my part). The photos I placed in the articles had relevance to the title. You have started this deletion discussion on the suggestion that this "redirect" is "advertising and promotion" when this is not the case, please refer to WP:ADS, I have not written a single sentence on the subject to be accused of promoting the subject. It being redirected to Scrufizzer would be the best option right now as there is a link between the subject in discussion and the target page per Template:R from person. TwinTurbo (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite any evidence that this is not a private individual? From what I can tell, we're doxxing a low-profile person who doesn't want publicity at all. Are there any third party reliable sources that suggest they wish to even have their name and image be displayed on a prominent website? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve gone from saying the creation of a redirect I made is an “advert or promotional” to now saying that I’m “doxxing” the individual which are both contradictory assumptions. What I have noticed is that you did not want the images of the subject on the motorbike pages as you have removed them from (that is your speciality in Wikipedia and I respect that). Again, I remind you that I have not created a written article yet for us to get into the debate about the notability of the subject as this is an RfD, not an AfD and should follow the appropriate guidelines. TwinTurbo (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So the answer is no? You cannot cite any evidence that this person is a public figure? It doesn't matter which way we want to look at it, promotion or invasion of privacy. Both rest on the fact that this person has not had any coverage at all in any reliable sources. They are not notable, and they are apparently low-profile. I'm going to request oversight to remove all images and references to them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat myself for the third time. This is a redirect. Changing this redirect to Scrufizzer suffices WP:R#KEEP section 5 and I have not created an article on the subject (yet) for us to be worried about the notability, and if you refer to this page, it specifically states that "redirects be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them." As an associated act, this redirect suffices to relate it to an appropriate article and section as there is information on my suggested target page. It seems as if you have a personal distaste to the subject as how is "requesting oversight to remove all images and references to them" good for the project of Wikipedia? That would be only needed if I actually posted any personal information on the subject (which I haven't), or posted copyrighted material (which I also haven't), committed vandalism (which I did not also do). TwinTurbo (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note The nominator is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling. I added images of the subject on the motorcycle pages (as he was sitting on the motorcycle in question): Yamaha YZ250 and Kawasaki KX100. He removed them as he thought they were "promotional" even though they presented a visual representation of the subject article. He then requested the redirect to be deleted under WP:G11 even though it was only a redirect, and nothing has been written on the page which constitute it to being part of this criteria. He then states my edits were WP:DOX, when in fact I have not made many edits on the subject and the edits I did, only revolve around the images uploaded on comomns and by what you can find about the artist online. TwinTurbo (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is "someone finds it useful" just a thing anybody can claim? Can I create redirect from my dog's name? What about my neighbor? My neighbor's minor child's name? Literally anybody can claim it's useful? Of course not. WP:R#KEEP #5 says "The pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility." Because evidence is necessary. You don't get to just say "it's useful" and keep any redirect you can make up. The page views are zero. Nobody has ever used this redirect, ever. Not even once, until this discussion. If this performer had even a small amount of coverage in reliable sources, I could maybe believe that is evidence someone finds it useful. But we don't even have that.

On the other hand, we have numerous reasons to delete: WP:R#DELETE #4 does apply. You're attempting to take a non-notable performer who has received zero coverage at all, and trying to make them better known. Why? I have no idea. You can deny it's promotional but then what is it? Informational? How can you call it informational when we have no reason at all to believe the information is true? Deletion criterion #8 also applies, "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name" since no one knows who this person is or has any reason to think that name is associated with any topic, whether it be Grime (music genre) or grilled cheese sandwich. The verifiable evidence for redirecting to one is just as good as the other. In addition, deletion criterion #10 applies: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." Again, zero coverage means it could not plausibly ever be an article, and no Wikipedia article can mention this person at all because we have no reliable sources to cite. If anyone did inserted name into an article, it would have to be deleted due to lack of verifiability.

And all that assumes this person is real, and that they are a public figure. Do we even know if they are an adult? Are we putting links to somebody's kid on Wikipedia without their knowledge or permission? Publicizing what town they live in? Posting their photo across several articles? You need to cite evidence that we are not invading someone's privacy, and you need to cite evidence they exist, evidence they really are a performer in this genre, and you need to cite evidence somebody finds it useful. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I went ahead and removed mention of them from Scrufizzer because the WP:BLP policy requires anything we say about a living person to have high-quality sources, and a self-published Mixcloud link is only a good source in rare cases defined by WP:ABOUTSELF. If Scrufizzer used social media to say he likes cheese sandwiches, we can cite that because he is only speaking about himself, but anything about a third party is not allowed, especially about a living person. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is safe for me to assume that you are not a listener of this genre of music and therefore would not find it useful. And using the pageview tool as a measure of outside notability for a redirect that has literally been created 2 days ago is not a good measure. The redirect was created 2 days ago (and funny enough has received 60 views since creation). I understand your concerns with notability, which is the main reason I have not created the article myself, but I do intend to once I personally have time to find the coverage online. I love creating articles on musicians I believe I can write about to a high level of standard (you can check my previously created articles if you want) and when I do create an article on this subject, I will ensure it is of high quality. But Wikipedia is a voluntary effort, I will not create an article on the subject if it doesn't meet the Wikipedia guidelines. But this is a debate for once the article has been created as of now it is a redirect. I would also like to point out WP:R#DELETE 4 does not apply, what is it about the redirect that you actually consider that "constitutes self-promotion or spam". Of course with my reasoning to redirect it to Scrufizzer it makes it less applicable. Criteria 8 does not also apply, you do not know who this person is but others do and like I said when I find the time to create the article, I will ensure that it is made with WP:N and other guidelines required by Wikipedia. And in terms of criteria 10, you cannot say there is no connection with the target article and the redirect, the mention of the single is enough to say there is mention of the subject in the article. The Mixcloud link is actually uploaded by the radio station the single aired on itself. And we can't write about a musician talking about his love for cheese sandwiches per WP:NOTNEWS. You have been stretching quite a bit with this discussion from the point you put it up for a speedy deletion for a criteria it didn't meet. Also, there is enough information on this subject, they have a Google Knowledge Graph (I'm assuming you need some sort of notability to have one of these) with the information already on the internet, nothing new has been added. The photo of the person has been uploaded on commons under the correct fair-use license. What wrong is it when the copyright owner has given their consent to use and edit the pictures as you wish? Maybe everything I did was not necessary, I did not have to include the name of the subject in the motorbike pages (Yamaha YZ250), however the image used did not break any guidelines of Wikipedia and was genuinely put in with good intention. I admire your fight to get your point across but it would be much appreciated to refer to WP:AGF and WP:UCS. Thank you. TwinTurbo (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you could find even one decent citation to support any of your claims, you'd be citing it. We don't keep redirects with zero supporting evidence. Also, you linked to Google Knowledge Graph, but I don't think you read it. Please do so. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:38, 5 February 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.

Anal people[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 11#Anal people

SLCon[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 now that it's mentioned. -- Tavix (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, top internet search results for "SLCon" appear to be unrelated ([6], [7]). Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For your interest: SLCon is an abbreviation for Suckless conference. See [8] —Dexxor (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The slcon name is official, and it's stated on each of the pages at suckless.org, as well as in pages linking to them; in addition to that, it shows up as the third result for me on Google (with anonymous browsing), but that's highly dependent on the search engine and I doubt it has anything to do with relevance as the results can always be manipulated if desired --Ismael Luceno (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - ambiguous. Evidently could refer to many other things besides the Suckless Conferences, and there's no info on the initialism at the target anyway. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now mentioned at the target, and no other uses on Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. Even if it is theoretically ambiguous there is no mention on Wikipedia of anything else with this name so for practical purposes it is unambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 15 February 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.

We console[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 17:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Assuming this is a misspelling, it could as well refer to web console. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:25, 3 February 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.

Jennifer (actress, born 1990)[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 18:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another "Jennifer (actress)" redirect (see these two other discussions below) that doesn't seem plausible, as Jennifer Lawrence doesn't seem to be mononymously known by her first name. Delete unless a justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 17:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my comments on the other discussions. No evidence she is known only as Jennifer. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a plausible way to search for her. -- Tavix (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and mine TheRafaMarc15's contribs for more implausible redirects of this sort, before this spawns another Neelix situation. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:33, 5 February 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.

Palestine Peace Not Apartheid/draft version[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 18:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect/typo from 2007. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I did not nominate this is that the page has some significant edit history. Maybe move to the corresponding talk page? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any significant edit history, are you looking at the right page? It was created automatically as a redirect from a page move, retargeted by a bot then listed for discussion here? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm I should have checked. When I searched for the titles with "/draft", this did not even show up, and I immediately thought we were talking about Lost (2004 television series)/draft, the only left redirect, when I saw this nomination, so I did not even check whether that was the case. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:13, 3 February 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.

Waldorf schools/draft[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 18:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are not drafts but implausible redirects. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete implausible. Possibly from before drafts existed? Or just by an ignorant user. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elliot321: These predate draftspace, which wasn't introduced until 2013 ish. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
good to know. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible search terms. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They are artifacts of history, thrown up by who knows what upheavals in namespaces, it seems. Banish them from hence. Clean Copytalk 19:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Un assiolo (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on technical grounds, unnecessary and no history to preserve. —PaleoNeonate – 23:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 02:44, 5 February 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.

00000[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 18:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical redirect. Page history was formerly at 0.05 before moved by another user in an effort to publish their attempt at an article. G7 not possible due to significant history by other users. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a useful redirect when it was at 0.05, not a useful redirect at 00000. Both are implausible search terms with minimal connection to the topic (the first is just a random number with order of magnitude 10-2, second is a string of zeros with no connection to the target as far as I can tell). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment most google hits for this relate to "00000 Million", a song on the 22, A Million album. I'm currently undecided if that would make a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say probably not, since it doesn't seem that anyone actually refers to the song as "00000", it's only showing up because it's a partial title match. once you get past the 10 or so YouTube results the remaining pages seem to mostly be random noise. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:39, 3 February 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.

Category:Mountains of the the Graian Alps[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 18:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from (rather implausible) typo; this is not usually done with categories. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, notice the duplicate "the" in the title of the redirect. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:28, 5 February 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.

No. 9[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#No. 9

Fractional charge[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 Elementary charge#Quantization. signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The term fractional charge is not mentioned at the current target and I believe the primary topic is instead fractions of the elementary charge. Most Google search results pertain to quarks and particle physics, and indeed the Wikipedia articles in that field discuss this term. I propose a retarget to Elementary charge#Quantization, which seems to have the most information in one place about fractional charges. ComplexRational (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to partial charge, which is specifically about when elementary charge is fractional. DMacks (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 3 February 2021‎
  • Retarget per nom. The current target is clearly unsatisfactory. I do think fractional charge refers more often to the physics concepts, whereas in chemistry the term partial is most often used. Given the ambiguity and overlap of concepts, I have added a hatnote at the proposed target to partial charge. I also encourage the two articles to link to each other more where appropriate to better integrate the topics across disciplines. The target could also benefit from a more direct discussion of fractional charges, with appropriate links to other related physics articles. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 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.

Anarchism in Somalia[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. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, generally this defaults to keeping things intact. However, most people agreed that History of Somalia (1991–2006) is a more proper target, so that is what I am going to leave it with. The possibility for deletion remains open in a subsequent discussion, though. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of this redirect implies that the politics of Somalia are inherently anarchist, or that there exists a notable anarchist movement within Somalia's political system, which doesn't appear to be the case. There also isn't any mention of "anarchism" within the article itself. Grnrchst (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Czar. signed, Rosguill talk 23:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to History of Somalia (1991–2006) as such a retarget helps the readers the most IMO. While it is not strictly about anarchism, it is still better than delivering readers onto a search page devoid of helpful information (as this one is). — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above or retarget to Anarchism in Africa. Charles Essie (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to History of Somalia (1991–2006). We could perhaps tag with {{R from incorrect name}}, because the point that this doesn't reflect proper anarchism is valid, but Somalia had such a well known example of a functional anarchy that I think it more likely a reader is looking for that (and using a misnomer) than looking for information on a philosophical-political movement. I don't think Anarchism in Africa is suitable, but I think the Somalia situation at least merits a see also listing, which I'll add now. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A redirect to History of Somalia (1991–2006) would not be useful because failed states have nothing to do to with anarchist ideology. It doesn't help users, as J947 claimed, because someone who typed Anarchism in Somalia will find no information on anarchism in that article. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree completely. Equating anarchism with state failure is misleading at best, propaganda at worst. Charles Essie (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps, but plenty of external reliable sources have done so. --BDD (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree. While redirecting "state failure" to "anarchism" would be wrong, it seems to me from the uses in non-specialist works that many people call the absence of a state following a failure "anarchy" and "anarchism" interchangeably without any hint of meaning a political philosophy. Accordingly very few people, if any, will not be surprised to end up at the article about Somalia's history, and indeed that will be what a goodly proportion will be looking for. For the others, a hatnote will point them towards what other content we have. Thryduulf (talk) 02:50, 16 February 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.

Metropolitan Tabernacle Police[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 defaulting to retarget as participants agree that the retarget is superior than a straight keep. As the active RfD admins have voiced their opinion on this nomination, I have decided to close this (I hold little opinion over the merits of these redirects). (non-admin closure) — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of police at the targets, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of defunct law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom#Other police forces (or the more specific subsections) where they are mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks defamatory. This has no place in an encyclopedia. Delete. Cpsoper (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Metropolitan Tabernacle Police, as I'm honestly struggling to find evidence it exists or ever has, unless it goes by a different name. Searching for it in quotation marks shows up basically nothing in a web or books search, other than incidental crossovers between "Metropolitan Tabernacle", "Metropolitan Police", and the separate words "Tabernacle" or "Police". It's certainly mentioned in the section Thryduulf suggests retargeting to, but with no further context, and at this point I think I'd be happier removing both the redirect and the list entry unless someone else can find something. ~ mazca talk 14:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget per Thryduulf. A recent Rfd did the same for Larne Harbour Police, though that entry both had years of activity and a reference, compared to just years of activity for one of these forces (and nothing but a name for the other). We can at least tell readers "this agency is defunct, and we don't have an article", which is something. --BDD (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't like redirecting to a bare list entry without a reference, which is why I was fine with the Lorne Harbour Police outcome, but I am hesitant about doing the same for these. My search for "Metropolitan Tabernacle Police" came up empty, so I agree with Mazca that the best way forward (unless a reference can be found) would be to remove that entry from the list and delete the redirect. My search for "Eton College Police" also was lacking, but I did find this which would be evidence of existence, but not much else. I'm weaker on deletion and removal for that one, but I'm still uncomfortable having the entry without a reliable source. -- Tavix (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: this is a WP:INVOLVED relisting to clear the 6 January log page, it can be closed whenever someone uninvolved determines there is consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alcremie (talk) 14:29, 3 February 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.

Template:Källa behövs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 11#Template:Källa behövs

Template:要出典[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 11#Template:要出典

Cecil Nicholls[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 some to disambiguation pages, delete others. signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful XNRs; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. Neither of these seem to have mentions on Wikipedia. Delete to encourage article creation, unless an appropriate target can be found. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget G. Campbell to Campbell (surname) (where there are twelve individuals with that name mentioned, along with links to five disambiguation pages of G. Campbells; I did find Greg Campbell (cricketer) but I'm not sure he's the one the redirect is meant to refer to) and M. Marks to Marks (surname)#M (there are three M. Markses mentioned there), and delete the rest per nom. We don't need to have circularly linked cross-namespace redirects to categories. Regards, SONIC678 15:11, 9 February 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.

Jennifer (actress)[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 18:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no evidence that the target is known mononymously as Jennifer, nor apparently is anyone else primarily notable as an actress (there are multiple notable actresses with the first name Jennifer). Indeed, Jennifer (the dab page) lists only two people as being known by the single name - Jenifer (singer) and Jennifer Warnes. The latter formerly used it as a stage name, but her article does not indicate that she has had any notable acting roles. The former's article describes her as a "singer and actress" in the lead and a "singer, songwriter, actress" in the infobox but contains no information about that part of her life other than a short filmography table so I'm unsure if the "(actress)" is a plausible and useful search term for her (the "Jennifer"/"Jenifer" spelling difference is an extremely plausible error though.) so retarget to Jenifer (singer) or delete. Thryduulf (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is not useful as a search term. -- Tavix (talk) 16:54, 6 February 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.

"light 'em up"[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#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to create this page without quotes (Done at Light 'em up), this one should presumably be deleted. QuietHere (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @QuietHere: for future reference, if you want a page you created deleted you can just tag it for speedy deletion using the {{db-G7}} template. Thryduulf (talk) 03:59, 3 February 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.

Military First[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#Military First

Space policy of the Joe Biden administration[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 Presidency of Joe Biden#Space. This outcome is a refinement of the preexisting redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 18:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find anywhere that discusses such a space policy at the target, at Political positions of Joe Biden, on any of the other Biden policy subpages, nor at United States Space Force. -- Tavix (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There is also no mention of the Biden administration at Space policy of the United States at present. Thryduulf (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pre nom. No mention of space policy at any pages on the Biden presidency and no mention of Joe Biden at any space policy pages, so there's nowhere this could sensibly point. Searching online the only coverage of Joe Biden's space policy I can find are some opinion pieces about how he doesn't have a space policy, so there's nothing to add to articles at the moment. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added some recent information to the page. Obviously he won't have a substantive policy yet but there are already developments. His cannabis policy page is also light for now but doesn't face deletion. Why delete a page that already has developments and will just need to be added again in the near future? Caleb 1223 (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw and refine to Presidency of Joe Biden#Space now that Calmecac5 has written the relevant section (thanks!). -- Tavix (talk) 19:17, 7 February 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.

Jennifer (actress, born February 1969)[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 18:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are ridiculously implausible redirects. I can't think of a situation where you would have someone's first name, profession and the month they were born, but not their last name. -- Tavix (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there are multiple people known (exclusively or most commonly) by the same first name who have the same profession then this would be one plausible way of disambiguation, indeed this pattern is frequently used for sportspeople - see plenty of examples at David Smith#Sports. I've not investigated these specific redirects in detail yet, but while my gut feeling is they aren't useful I wouldn't describe them as "ridiculously implausible". Thryduulf (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find no evidence that either of these people are known mononymously by their first names so these redirects are not useful. See also #Jennifer (actress) above. Thryduulf (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf; this is a very unnatural way of disambiguating considering that they are not known mononymously as Jennifer. (As a side note, some footballers are known mononymously and are disambiguated by birth year (for example, Jorginho (footballer, born December 1991)), but this is probably a consequence of naming customs. So it does happen, but most likely not in the context of actresses named Jennifer.) ComplexRational (talk) 15:12, 3 February 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.

Asmik[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the target article is not known by the mononym, and deletion would unable uninhibited Search to find the other unrelated mentions of this word (eg Asmik Shiroyan). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Disambiguation would be another option, but if none of the targets are known by the mononym, then dabifying would be unwarranted. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CrazyBoy826 00:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set indexify. Used to be a dab, probably should be a {{Given name}} with Asmik Shiroyan. Asmik Ace could go in the see also section. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The disambiguation draft is fine by me. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:10, 3 February 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 presidential trips made by Joe Biden (2022 & 2023)[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 18:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading because the target does not discuss future planned presidential trips in 2022 or 2023. There are a number of scenarios in which Joe Biden would not serve a full term, so these also seem too crystal ball-y. -- Tavix (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nom until Biden officially announces plans to make trips in these respective years (and enough reliable sources can be used to verify this). The target article doesn't even mention the years. Regards, SONIC678 02:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both per WP:CRYSTAL. No mention of these years is present at the target article and there's nothing that can be said about these topics at the moment except "2022/2023 are years that will happen and Joe Biden will probably make some presidential trips". 86.23.109.101 (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Too far in the future, too many variables at play. Hog Farm Talk 03:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 86... (although it could be added that if he does make trips in those years, at least most of them will be to places in the United States of America). While it is not implausible that some presidential trips are planned a year or two in advance (the logistics involved in a full state visit to a far away country can't be simple) there is presently no information about any on Wikipedia, and unless and until that changes the redirects are misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --Lenticel (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per my argument on a very similar nomination. Note that (as fair as I can ascertain) WP:CRYSTAL only applies to content so therefore does no apply to this redirect. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:16, 5 February 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_February_3&oldid=1008535096"