Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 15[edit]

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

40 Eridani A b[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. Nominator removed the RfD template with other participants being unanimously in favour of keeping it. ~ mazca talk 19:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate redirect. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a duplicate of 40 Eridani Ab? That would be OK, no harm in having both correct and incorrect (typo, spelling, etc.) redirects to help people out. On a procedural point, since you are the creator of the redirect and the only substantive editor of it, you could blank the page and ask for a speedy deletion. Not saying you should, but you could. Lithopsian (talk) 15:22, 17 January 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.

EPIC 249631677b[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. Nominator removed the RfD template with other participants being unanimously in favour of keeping it. ~ mazca talk 19:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No pages link here. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. So what if no pages link to it? It's still a valid alternative name for the target (see e.g. [2]). SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: actually I realize now that the redirect was created by the nominator, so this could be considered a WP:G7 speedy deletion. I still think the redirect should be kept, though. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As there has been a good faith recommendation to keep this is no longer eligible for G7 speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy close as the nominator has apparently withdrawn the nomination: [3] SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why does that matter? -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 08:15, 18 January 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.

Allma[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 22#Allma

Drive pulley[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 23#Drive pulley

Shaheen Afradi[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. There is good faith disagreement over where the line is drawn regarding plausibility. In this case consensus leans towards this not being a useful redirect on balance. ~ mazca talk 11:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created from a page move for a reason that while creating the page a typo occured in title which was corrected by moving the page to current title. [4] USaamo (t@lk) 17:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Afradi is an unusual typo. This redirect is unlikely to be helpful. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirects are cheap is a flawed policy. It may make sense to some, but imo, plenty of the redirects that are "cheap" make no sense and do not add to Wikipedia in any positive way. Get rid of it. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Normally I would close this sort of !vote split as delete, but given that a very similar redirect has less of a consensus I think that this should be given a relist as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Transliteration of either the quoted Urdu or Pashto would not give Afradi. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:31, 18 January 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.

Shaheen Shah Afradi[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. There is good faith disagreement over where the line is drawn regarding plausibility. In this case consensus leans towards this not being a useful redirect on balance. ~ mazca talk 11:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakenly created double redirect, not a plausible typo either. Afridi is a well known family name. Afradi in Roman Urdu is plural word which means individuals and its quite irrelevant to here. USaamo (t@lk) 17:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Afradi is an unusual typo. This redirect is unlikely to be helpful. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirects are cheap is a flawed policy. It may make sense to some, but imo, plenty of the redirects that are "cheap" make no sense and do not add to Wikipedia in any positive way, like this redirect. Get rid of it. Lettlerhello • contribs 22:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't make sense for this to exist when there already is a redirect from the full name, Shaheen Shah Afridi. Highly unlikely that someone might find this helpful. ☎️ Churot DancePop 06:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, implausible typo. Lennart97 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Transliteration of either the quoted Urdu or Pashto would not give Afradi. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:32, 18 January 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.

Moral Government Theology[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 22#Moral Government Theology

Isabel Guzman (politician)[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 Isabel Guzman to bypass the double redirect created by the technical consensus here, which is keep. "Politician" may not be an entirely accurate descriptor, but participants are happy that it's within the bounds of reasonableness - and not derogatory or otherwise problematic. ~ mazca talk 18:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While "Isabel Guzman" is a likely search term for Isabel Casillas Guzman, "Isabel Guzman (politician)" is not. This individual is not a politician or political candidate and this redirect is misleading. KidAd talk 03:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Administrator of the Small Business Administration is not an elected position, but there are many people who have held such unelected positions in government that most people would agree are politicians, such as Colin Powell, who has never held an elected position. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oiyarbepsy. Redirects are not bound by the same strict naming standards as articles. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is a political appointment, not a bureaucratic promotion position -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete. If Guzman is not described as politician in the target article, the redirect does not adhere to BLP policy, which applies to all pages. All BLP material should strictly adhere to NOR. A redirect such as Isabel Guzman (official) would be supported by target content, though that would be an example of unnecessary disambiguation. If Guzman is (with proper sourcing) described as politician in the target, it would be possible to use "politician" redirect, in which case the redirect should be tagged with {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}.
    Many nominations in the US go through political process, yet the persons do not become politicians until described as such in reliable sources. E.g. judges obviously do not become politicians through nomination. I am not even sure why Colin Powell is called politician in our article. Politrukki (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Isabel Casillas Guzman was moved to Isabel Guzman in the middle of this discussion, so obviously those who wish to "keep" the redirect mean retargeting to Isabel Guzman. Politrukki (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oiyarbepsy (i.e. retarget per Politrukki). There are no BLP concerns here, regardless of whether she is described as a politician in the target or not as at worst this is a {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} and is a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 23 January 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.

Wikpedia:Draft namespace[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. Whether we call these G6, R2, or just "no one is ever going to use these to search", there's no reason to keep them around. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect titles have typos in the Wikipedia (project) namespace, but all the redirects are in the main (article) namespace. They don't seem very necessary, useful, or helpful for a cross-namespace redirect, as they have less than 100 pageviews. Therefore, delete unless justification can be provided. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Seventyfiveyears, what is in mainspace? I don’t see that any redirects or targets are in mainspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redirects are all intended to be in the Wikipedia namespace but because all of them have a typo before the colon they are actually in mainspace. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly speedily as G6 (pages created in the wrong namespace due to an error) but I haven't checked that. The typos in the word "Wikipedia" mean these are not useful redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 16 January 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.

Shawshank (disambiguation)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target does not disambiguate "Shawshank" (because "Shawshank" is not ambiguous). Shawshank redirects to Shawshank State Prison, the only use of "Shawshank". Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shawshank tree may qualify, though it's included in the prison's hatnote. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - there are a lot of partial title matches for Shawshank, leading to some somewhat cluttered hatnotes, but this redirect is doing nothing to help that. ~ mazca talk 12:01, 22 January 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.

Incitement of insurrection[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 Sedition. Consensus is clear. -- Tavix (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to sedition. This search term is not specific to the second impeachment of Donald Trump. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Retarget to sedition, per nominator's reasoning. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retarget Lembit Staan (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Generic terms like this should not target a specific instance. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retarget: agreed that it's an unhelpful redirect, as is. —WingedSerif (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retarget per nom. Vikram Vincent 15:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remark: RSs pertaining to the impeachment, e.g. [5], are treating the charge and sedition as separate concepts, so seems potentially misleading to conflate them via this redirect. AnonQuixote (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AnonQuixote: the point of this discussion is that "incitement of insurrection" as a term is not specific to whatever is or isn't happening with regards to one person. As a general term out of context readers will be most helped by being taken to the general article on sedition. If the term is being used differently in a specific circumstance (and consensus doesn't seem to agree with you that it is) then that is something which, if WP:DUE, should be mentioned in the target article or other appropriate location. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, however I still think it's worth pointing out as, if this redirect is changed to point to sedition, it will likely be used primarily in articles dealing with Trump's recent impeachment, which could be misleading. I vote to Delete per WP:R#DELETE point 2 / WP:RNEUTRAL. AnonQuixote (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any redirect can be used in a misleading manner, that's only reason to delete the redirect if it is itself misleading and cannot be retargeted to avoid that. In this case if someone links to the redirect intending a target specific to Donald Trump then the correct course of action is just to change the link to point to whatever the correct target is. As for RNEUTRAL - the violation of that would be to imply that Donald Trump is the only person to have incited insurrection (whether he has or hasn't it is unarguable that other people have done so on other occasions). If the redirect is used in a non-neutral manner in an article then fix the article, deleting the redirect will not resolve the issue and will just make it harder for people looking for general content (and possibly break any other uses). Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing. I think we're done with this digression. El_C 02:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with the ad-hominem attacks and stay on topic. Your attempt to get me banned for disagreeing with you is not relevant to this discussion. AnonQuixote (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AnonQuixote, there is no ad hominem attacks here that I am able to immediately identify. That said, Tartan357, AnonQuixote is not only entitled to argue against consensus, they are encouraged to do so if they feel it to be in the interest of the project. Trying to censor their view is a bad look, IMO. El_C 20:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I'm definitely not trying to censor their view, but we have a consensus on this issue and they know it. As you have said, their next step is to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. What do you believe I have done that amounts to censorship? ― Tartan357 Talk 20:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tartan357, because you are making it incumbent upon them to connect the consensus as seen in that BLPN close with this RfD. But that is not, in fact, their cross to bear. They can say whatever they wish about the content, despite whatever expectation you or whoever may feel they ought to otherwise exhibit. They are not required to tow the line or even acknowledge it. El_C 20:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, It is an ad-hominem argument because it seeks to invalidate my argument by casting aspersions on my conduct rather than addressing the substance of my point. Tartan357, I politely request that you edit your comment to simply state your point and refrain from making accusations against me. For example: "The consensus of a BLP/N discussion was that it is acceptable to equate these terms per the dictionary definition." Then I think we can remove the rest of this "thread" as off-topic to the RfD discussion. AnonQuixote (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AnonQuixote, again, there is absolutely nothing that is ad hominem in Tartan357's statement. Your conduct is very much subject to comment and review — that it was in error is besides the point. El_C 02:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom, or in any event not the current target which is too particular for this general term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Original target is too specific. Politrukki (talk) 20:15, 18 January 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_January_15&oldid=1138583147"