Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 2, 2021.

Wikipedia:BOOK[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose a retarget to Wikipedia:Books. This is the primary topic associated with this redirect. Even though Wikipedia books are deprecated for the most part, the page still provides information on what Wikipedia books were, and so the shortcut should link there. Aasim (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This has 659 incoming links, as a result of a status quo that goes back 15 years. There's a strong reliance interest on backwards compatibility and on not astonishing editors who have relied on this shortcut for, plausibly, their entire lives, absent a very compelling reason to change. Linking to a software feature that I often forgot existed even before it was deprecated, and that in another 15 years will be as forgotten as the UseModWiki era, is not very compelling IMO. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BOOK is an established shortcut, per above, while Wikipedia:Books is in the process of deprecation. It wouldn't make sense to retarget there. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 00:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. We needn't retarget a longstanding shortcut to a page about a deprecated feature. 142.161.113.242 (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone above. We should always be very cautious when retargetting shortcut redirects because the potential for harm is significant. In this case that harm is almost inevitable and the benefits of retargetting are very few, so keeping is very clearly in the best interests of the project. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Hatnote points to Wikipedia:Books so no issues --Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 5 July 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.

8 FF[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems too ambiguous. ―{{u|Qwerfjkl}} | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂 20:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Mentioned and explained in the article. "Seems too ambiguous": with what? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 2 July 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.

The Outcast (manga)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, was created by Neelix who has a history with making questionable redirects. Link20XX (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Neelix has a history of making questionable redirects. He also has a history of making not-questionable redirects, and we deleted about 70,000 of the first group, making surviving ones more likely to fall into the second. In this case, The Outcast is mentioned at the target page, and given that a number of pages exist with that title, this is indeed the most plausible disambiguator—linked, I'll note, from the DAB page Outcast. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Tamzin, I thought we already went through all the Neelix redirects, so the ones that survive are generally valid. 01:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
  • Keep But slight retarget to Seven Seas Entertainment#Original_series, which is where the subject is listed. --Ipatrol (talk) 05:21, 9 July 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.

Bigo Barnett[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 Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a duly sourced mention or other justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who or what is Bigo Barnett?, and what relevance does it (or they) have to the article?Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 2 July 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.

Judo at the Southeast Asian Games[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. First, the redirection makes no sense. Second, it makes links in navboxes seem viable and therefor is misleading. Deancarmeli (talk) 13:40, 2 July 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.

Brahmachari (actor)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect of an actor to a film with the name in the title. Unsourced credit in cast list with circular link. noq (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in favour of standalone article creation. He has acted in several movies, redirecting to just one is unfair. Jay (Talk) 16:22, 2 July 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.

Ritu Vashisht[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to the TV series she is in, where she is only mentioned in the cast list. MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if this cannot be made a stub. She is in the recurring cast of Naamkarann as well, hence current redirect is not fair. Jay (Talk) 16:26, 2 July 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.

Anisha Kapur[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to article with only an unsourced cast list. No significant coverage of this person and no sources about them. noq (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Added a citation for the subject's cast. If this is her only significant role, then it is non-ambiguous. Jay (Talk) 16:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete if this cannot be made a stub. She is in the cast of Banoo Main Teri Dulhann as well, hence current redirect is not fair. Jay (Talk) 04:35, 6 July 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.

Puneet Vashisht[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 deleted by Materialscientist per A1. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated redirect for actor. Original redirect was to his brother, now redirecting to a film he was in (unsourced in the film article claim about most of his contribution being cut is only mention other than cast list). Same arguments as previous discussion apply. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_21#Puneet_Vashisht noq (talk) 09:54, 2 July 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.

Refugee Olympic Team[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 10#Refugee Olympic Team

McAfee didn't Epstein himself[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. Editors are split between keep and delete, and this discussion seems unlikely to benefit from a relist given the amount of participation thus far. signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this as an implausible misnomer, but The owner of all insists that this is a useful search term. I have restored it and am posting it here for discussion. I'll note also that the term is not found in the target article and does not appear in any reliable sources. – bradv🍁 06:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep My rationale as I explained to Bradv: it obviously wouldn't be found in a WP:RS, but Wikipedia has redirects for terms found in other types of sources. Such as U$C, or UNC-Raleigh. Similar to how U$C would be used as a satiric reference to USC, McAfee didn't Epstein himself is found such as at redbubble com/i/sticker/McAfee-didn-t-Epstein-himself-by-Borg219467/80995706.EJUG5, 9gag com/gag/arM8zXX, etc [The WP blacklist prevents me from listing the exact links]. As has been explained to me during redirect discussions at RfD, the idea of redirects such as McAfee didn't kill himself or McAfee didn't Epstein himself, is that if someone noticed that reference somewhere (even if on a shirt or in a meme) and they searched for it on Wikipedia, they should be directed to the relevant information. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 06:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As silly as it is, The owner of all has provided some examples of its usage (for the purpose of establishing a redirect's usefulness, those don't need to be in RS) which suggest it is a useful search term, so WP:R#KEEP #3 and #5 are met. Moreover, I'm not seeing a valid WP:R#DELETE reason in Bradv's nomination. ― Tartan357 Talk 07:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the target section cites WP:RS discussing comparison of McAfee's and Epstein's deaths, which seems sufficient even if this exact phrase doesn't appear at the target. However if that content were not in the target article (e.g. there is a future consensus among editors of that article to remove it), I would support deletion regardless of the fact that some non-WP:RS happen to use the phrase. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as Epstein is mentioned, per 61.239. Tag with {{r from non-neutral term}} and {{r from phrase}}. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia requires reliable sources. 9gag, err, isn't. We don't need redirects for transient slang. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:RS applies to content. When it comes to plausibility, unreliable sources that use a term are a good resource, since all we need to show is that a term is used. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, this feels like a pop culture/meme term that, while maybe worth mentioning within an article, I don't think warrants a redirect unless there's wider coverage of it outside of people making memes and putting it on shirts. I'm not sure I buy that people are typing the text of random shirts or memes into Wikipedia either. I'd think that'd be more of a KnowYourMeme or Urban Dictionary thing. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Relatively plausible redirect, and has some mentions.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reason number 3. From RNEUTRAL: "The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion." Without attestation that this is an "established term", its strong non-neutrality tips against its inclusion. --Ipatrol (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. If the meme is not mentioned at the target then I see no reason why we should keep this. CycloneYoris talk! 23:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This looks more like an internet meme than a predictable search term on Wikipedia. If a reader knows the person's name is "John McAfee", why wouldn't they just search for his name instead of using this contrived expression? Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of course. Not an established phrase, unlikely search term, far from neutral. There are thousands of phrases people could come up with to spread conspiracy theories about McAfee's death, e.g. McAfee didn't suicide himself or $WHACKD (based on his own wording). No source supports the claim that this phrase is more common than thousands of others. Google searches for "McAfee didn't" or "McAfee didn't himself" don't bring up the phrase. When I start typing "McAfee didn't", Google suggests McAfee didn't uninstall himself, which seems to be more common than the "Epstein" version and has the advantage of being funny, but it isn't an established phrase – and thus doesn't warrant a redirect – either. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:44, 11 July 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.

California attack[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 12:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, this is far from the only notable attack that has happened in California. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 05:21, 2 July 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_July_2&oldid=1033132402"