Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 9, 2021.

Kidnapper,[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. --BDD (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these 2 redirects as errors in the act of disambiguating (as recommended by WP:COSTLY). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just noting that the essay the nominator cites also opines that sending redirects to RFD is costly, which is relevant in this nomination. It also only says that creating such errors in the act of disambiguating is unnecessary, and never opines for the deletion of such redirects. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless clutter. Narky Blert (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible spacing/punctuation errors. one got 8 views in the last year, the other 4. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:59, 10 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.

Nimona (film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 19:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The film was cancelled by disney via the shutdown of its studio. Starzoner (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The film may have been cancelled, but that's not a reason to delete the redirect. People are still searching for information related to the film - this redirect got over 2500 page views in the last year. The cancelled film is discussed both in the lead and in the section "Adaptations". 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Lennart97 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know the nomination has been retracted, but I'd still still like to say that the redirect should be kept, with the content moved back to the Nimona page. Historyday01 (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01: What content are you talking about? There’s never been any sort of content on this redirect as far as I'm aware. CycloneYoris talk! 20:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the content on the draft page, not the redirect. Historyday01 (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01: Oh I see! But since this discussion is about the redirect, then comments about the draft should be made elsewhere. CycloneYoris talk! 21:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you are right. Just revised my comment to reflect that. Historyday01 (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I retract this nomination. Starzoner (talk) 19:08, 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.

British variant[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 19#British variant

Spirit Kingdom[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. The current target has no support, and while there's some reasonable suggestions that this phrase is general enough to warrant pointing to a more general article on the concept, there isn't a particularly great target at the moment outside of a disambiguation page. ~ mazca talk 13:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover R from move of a disputed renaming of Martin Empire, which lasted one hour and four minutes before being reverted. Not mentioned at target, nor was the name ever present in the original target, which this is now an avoided double redirect of. No better target seems to exist, so delete. Paul_012 (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm surprised that there is no blindingly obvious target for this redirect, but Spirit world (a disambig) lists at least some of the topics associated with the meanings of the term that get passing mentions in other articles so maybe redirect there? Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my comment with respect to "Spirit realm" above, Spirit world should be an article on the concept rather than a disambiguation page, and these titles should redirect there. BD2412 T 18:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at least for now. BD2412's suggestion regarding Spirit world is a good one, but with only two uses of the phrase right now (Mount Merapi and Tokimeki Tonight), retargeting to a disambiguation page doesn't seem especially useful. --BDD (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concurring with BDD. -- Tavix (talk) 20:41, 20 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.

Full screen editor[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 19#Full screen editor

Frederick Kindermann[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 unmentioned ones, no consensus retarget Birkett, Blain, and Hornby to their respective lists. --BDD (talk) 23:22, 18 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) 08:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Inappropriate cross-namespace redirects. It seems as if the creator was confusing the practice with redirection to a list, where members without articles may be mentioned. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, no opposition to retargeting if appropriate targets exist. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • William Birkett is included in List of English cricketers (1851–1860)#B, and E. G. Blain is included in List of English cricketers (1861–1863)#B, but the others don't have any mention on wikipedia as far as I can tell. Possibly retarget those two to their respective list articles and tag with "R with possibilities" while Deleting the rest? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for finding them; apparently, looking only for mentions that "Gentlemen of the North" leaves out quite some results. I'm not sure about keeping them though, as Tavix pointed out yesterday that first-class cricketers should not be redirecting to a list like this. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consider my vote to be a very weak Retaget - I would also be fine with deleting the lot of them to encourage article creation. I think it would be slightly more useful to readers to send them to a list page where they can find out what years they were active and find a couple of sources than the search results or a circular redirect in a category, but I don't feel particularly strongly about keeping them. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hornby and Birkett also appear on List of English cricketers (1851–1860) and could be retargeted to the relevant sections. In almost every case here, the bloke will have played one first-class cricket match for a really quite insignificant side. In general redirection to a suitable list has sometimes been seen as an alternative to deletion - although, as you can see by the cluster... of cricket articles at AfD just now, there are still plenty of arguments that one first-class match = automatic notability. I'd suggest that promoting article creation in these cases is probably a fairly bad idea - at some point someone might get around to adding notes to the list linked above in a similar way to the list at List of English cricketers (1841–1850) and other earlier articles. I'll check the others and see if they appear on any of our other lists. I do intend at some point to work up an 1861 to 1870 list, but that's a long job and isn't going to happen just yet.
So retarget to a suitable list where possible seems the best solution. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bird is also on the 1861 to 1863 list fwiw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:RFD#DELETE, item 10. Creating redirects to contextless lists doesn't help readers or editors. - Eureka Lott 02:35, 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.

Listy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 18#Listy

1999 Romanian protests and 1999 Romania protests[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#1999 Romanian protests and 1999 Romania protests

Muslim Nayak[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 18:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly part of the Muhajir people as the redirect was included (until I removed it) in Template:Muhajir communities. However, the redirect's target is about a Hindu caste, not a Muslim one. Other groups listed at Nayak aren't Muslims either, Nayak (title) is unrelated, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that this group or caste exists in general. Even if it does, there is no suitable target, so this redirect should be deleted. Lennart97 (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Don't see enough connection with "Muslim". Azuredivay (talk) 02:46, 12 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.

Marty Eels[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 18:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target. The search finds two passing mentions in actors' articles that don't seem to be appropriate retargeting options. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Named added in target article. Apokrif (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the mention added by Apokrif. In addition this redirect got over 1000 page views last year, so it seems heavily used. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:26, 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.

Fear on wheels[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 18#Fear on wheels

GDBrowser[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 18:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No explanation at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete best I can tell that it’s to was an unofficial site for people to search and download Geometry Dash levels [[1]]. It’s not mentioned on the article and likely never will be.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 00:15, 10 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.

2ch[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 2CH (disambiguation). signed, Rosguill talk 18:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to 2channel. The redirect is from a page move, which occurred because "2ch" in English is WP:COMMONNAME for the Japanese forum 2channel, not the Russian forum Dvach. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No RfD is necessary. 2ch was already a redirect to 2channel when Dvach was created there, so WP:BRD designates us to restore that redirect, and it is only if someone suggested targeting it elsewhere or deleting it that an RfD would be called for. Nardog (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 2CH (disambiguation). I can't see a clear primary topic for this capitalisation with a google search, the japanese forum and australian radio station seem to show up at about the same frequency, with a few results for chemical companies and the russian image board thrown in. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 2CH (disambiguation) per 86…. My search results are dominated by a dashcam, but excluding that the Japanese forum and Australian radio station are about equally prominent and even together do not overwhelm other uses so there is no clear primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect target of 2channel which was the stable target until the redirect was overwritten by an article on 7 Jan 21 [2]. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 2CH (disambiguation) per the arguments above. The term doesn't seem to have a primary topic. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:42, 12 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.

Experimential[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Experimential

Draft:Mike Lindell Day[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. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's two issues with this one. First, the target doesn't seem to be known as "Mike Lindell Day". Second, this isn't old draft content - it's always been a redirect directly from the draft namespace to the article space. There's just nothing plausible about this one. Hog Farm Talk 05:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No point redirecting from draft space to article space if there was never an article at this location. I wonder if this was supposed to be created in article space? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a plausible search term. A neologism at best. Obvious BLP problems too, connecting a person's name to a highly controversial event. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for hopefully obvious reasons. A fractally implausible redirect. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete No mention of "Mike Lindell Day" at the target article (what does it even mean?). Also, since when do we have draft redirects to mainspace? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:RDRAFT, redirects from drafts that have been moved to mainspace are normal. Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 10 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.

Pixelnacht[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) 12:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently not used in the target article, and based on internet searches this seems to be an obscure neologism that is also used for various online gamer-related things well before 1/6/21. This doesn't seem helpful. Hog Farm Talk 05:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as creator. I may have been crystal-balling with this a bit; it didn't take off the way I expected it to. StAnselm (talk) 05:33, 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.

Us insurrection[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Us insurrection

George washington carter[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. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While this may have some value as a misnomer, see [3]. George Washington Carter was a university president, Confederate officer, and was briefly Speaker of the Louisiana House of Representatives in the 1870s. At a minimum, the last part should indicate a WP:NPOL pass. I'm not convinced of the value of this misnomer when there's a likely notable individual with this name. Hog Farm Talk 05:21, 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.

Suffusion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#Suffusion

Wikipedia:Notability (redirects)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 19#Wikipedia:Notability (redirects)

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Trivial coverage[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Procedural close. Prisencolin, this nomination is malformed and since it's not obvious what redirect this nomination is referring to, I'm closing this discussion. Feel free to renominate whichever redirect you intended to nominate here.. Hog Farm Talk 05:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

=could refer to Wikipedia:Handling trivia or Wikipedia:Trivial mentions, or an example seen on the same page under WP:IDONTLIKE Prisencolin (talk) 04:04, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_9&oldid=1008473516"