Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 14, 2021.

Chimpout[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) feminist (+) 18:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an offensive or abusive term not used in mainstream sources. Non-neutral redirects are allowed for terms that are in wide use; this one is only used by alt-right trolls. Readers can use search to find the term in the encyclopedia. See related discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 10#Chimp out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary (second choice keep). Who uses a term is completely irrelevant, all that matters is whether it is a plausible search term and, if so, whether a suitable target exists. The answer to the second question is yes, as it is mentioned at the current target (albeit briefly) and there is a good entry at Wiktionary both of which convey that it is offensive and an ethnic slur. My google searches suggest that this is a term that someone may well come across and look to Wikipedia to learn about, so I think it is a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does matter who uses the term per WP:RNEUTRAL, where the standard is usage by multiple mainstream reliable sources. Failing that, being "offensive or abusive" is a clear reason to delete such a redirect. Loss of this fringe term will not harm readers' ability to find it in the encyclopedia. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf's rationale, it's described at the target in a context which clearly establishes its racist connotation. Second choice soft redirect to Wiktionary. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My delete !vote at the mooted RfD was based on the assumption that this would be an {{r without mention}} wherever it pointed; I'd neglected to search for the one-word spelling in establishing that. Since it's mentioned at the current target, sourced to a book by an established journalist, IMO that's enough sourcing for a redirect. The thing we want to avoid is redirecting slurs to articles about the concepts they represent, and that's not happening here. (Funny coincidence: A few years ago I briefly corresponded with said journalist, Mike Wendling, after he reached out to me with a Wikipedia-related question.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:52, 15 June 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.

Draft:Foo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 23#Draft:Foo

Baby Monster discography[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 User:DragonflySixtyseven (presumably as WP:G7). (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 17:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Baby Monster at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to it being deleted. It was my mistake to create it so soon. --Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 16:51, 14 June 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.

3.11[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. Dab hatnote added (non-admin closure) dudhhrContribs 06:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3.11 is just a number, not an earthquake. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... citation needed? I've heard the incident (not just the earthquake but the tsunami that caused virtually all the human casualties and property damage, including the nuclear event) called "three eleven" (spelled either "3.11" or "3/11") or "san ten ichi-ichi" (spelled "3.11") hundreds of times. Here it is on the Japanese national broadcaster's website. Here it is on a Japanese government website. Here it is on the website of a widely-circulated English-language newspaper in Japan. If you want to make an argument that outside of a Japanese context it could refer to other things, then create a disambig page or propose a retarget. While English-speakers may not, on average, "care" as much about 3.11 as they do about 9.11, pending the existence of a better redirect target there is no need to delete the current redirect. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My Google searches for "3.11" are dominated by software version numbers (Windows 3.11 is the most notable), then comes a couple of references bible verses, more software version numbers, then on page 3 I get a couple of results related to Japan amid yet more software version numbers and paragraph 3.11 in various documents and a non-notable musical project related to a DJ/producer from Denmark. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I'd be cool with the creation of a disambig page if enough English-language reliable sources refer to Windows 3.11 etc. as simply "3.11", but from where I geolocate to (or perhaps my Google language settings or some such) I'm definitely not seeing the same results -- nothing but tsunami... On an aside, your speedy close below cut me off before getting to post this. Do you think there's anything to it? Why would the eight-year-old redirect page suddenly get "reviewed" by an accounted user immediately before or immediately after it gets TRFDed by an anon user? (Sorry, I don't know how to check the exact time; my notifications say "5h" right now as they did about 30 minutes ago) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied on your talk page regarding the redirect below. Based on my google searches alone there is no call for any content at this title as there is no strong connection with any topic at all. If that's different in Japan then that would be a reason to keep the redirect, but from someone outside Japan this is not at all obvious as the event is just not referred to as "3.11" at all. Searching for "3/11" finds an equal mix of the earthquake/tsunami and bible verses on page 1, before devolving into all sorts of incidental mentions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear what you mean by "google searches", but a blank Google search for me brings up nothing but Japanese-language pages on the incident that everyone in Japan calls 3.11. Google News and Google Books searches are a bit more varied and a bit less region/language-specific (news results given below), but I think it's pretty irrelevant whether some or even most sources in English that feature the "3.11" string of characters are referring to an arbitrary number that has no particular relevance to any topic with a Wikipedia article: if even one or two sources use it with the specific meaning of "the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami" that should be enough, and I've already linked 10. Hear are two more from a Google Books search, one from a British publisher and one from an American publisher, both simply using "3.11" as an unambiguous reference to the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami in their titles. I am not sure if these two are among the top five GBooks hits for "3.11" "is" ("is" being included to weed out non-English results) for people not searching from inside Japan, but anyone with access to Google should be able to search for "3.11" "earthquake", "3.11" "tsunami", "3.11" "TEPCO", "3.11" "Fukushima", or "3.11" "Japan" and see plenty of similar results. Some of these have titles that include "the 3.11 Earthquake/Crisis/Etc." in their titles, but those appear to be in the minority, and even if they are not, the presence of two books (actually three) that simply refer to "3.11" in their titles should be enough to justify keeping the redirect, no? It may indeed be the case that this name has only become "intuitive" for Japanese natives and non-Japanese who have been living in Japan, but several such people have apparently been publishing English-language books that use the name in their titles with an apparent expectation either that their readers will already be familiar with the name or intuit its meaning from other elements on the book covers.
Sorry if I seem agitated. I'm not, but I am a little confused: as you noted on my talk page, I'm unfamiliar enough with RFD that I repeatedly misnamed it as "TFD" without even noticing. At AFD (a venue with which I have a little more experience), three full-length books (two from academic publishers) devoted to a topic would more than verify that topic's notability, so I've been assuming that if the same books' titles refer to said topic by a particular name, that name would be assumed to be a good redirect.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that, while I'm reluctant to add the text The event is often referred to simply as 3/11 or 3.11 (pronounced san-ten-ichi-ichi in Japanese). to the linked article proper given that I am now very confused as to whether this is something that is completely unknown to practically everyone outside Japan (even those who remember reading about it and seeing it on the news back in 2011) or if anyone with a casual interest in the topic would be aware of this (and only those who [a] don't live in Japan and [b] are generally unfamiliar with the topic), as this would affect how such an addition is written (i.e., whether a Within Japan, ... is needed}}), "3.11" does already appear unambiguously three times in the article anyway, twice in the titles of English-language "Further reading" entries and once in the title of a Japanese-language source cited inline. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, Google News has a slightly higher proportion of software, but also a lot of mortgage rate percentages, amounts in millions of USD (apparently 20 million yuan as of 14 hours ago was 3.11 million USD), COVID-19 global death totals as of four weeks ago, but still at least seven (English-language) results out of the first 30 relating to the 2011 earthquake and tsunami.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] I'm definitely biased here as, among the non-English results I can see, every single one of the Japanese ones relates to the 2011 earthquake and tsunami while the Korean, Chinese and Malay ones uniformly refer to other things, but at the same time all of those other things seem to be "just numbers" rather than referring to a specific encyclopedic topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I search "3.11" on Google, I see pages and pages full of software version numbers. When I search the same thing on Google News, I only find mortgage rates and coronavirus cases in India. Nothing else. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looking. Or do a Google Books search. "3.11" is literally the title of multiple (English-language) books on the 3.11 disaster in Japan in 2011. What your Google search settings result in is frankly irrelevant, as Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable published sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is "3.11" a likely search term for any of them? Bear in mind that the redirect to the 3.11 disaster has been stable for eight years, and in the 12 years before that no one thought to redirect it to March 11 or November 3 or create a disambiguation page for them, and this does not seem to be standard procedure for any of the 13,000+ other such pages. I just looked around for another random example and typed 6.4 into the search box: should that be RFDed as well? 7.5 does not redirect to either July 5 or May 7. Your IP geolocates to Quebec, and while I have family in (and coworkers from) Canada I must admit ignorance of that nation's history, and I cannot think of any such incident from my own country's history, but comparable examples of incidents in both modern Chinese and American history, where "MM.DD" is apparently used as a common abbreviated reference to "that incident": can you give an example of an MM.DD title where the based title is a disambiguation page between a bunch of random day and month articles and one is on a very well-known incident (widely recognized as a key date in the modern history of the country where it occurred) that is commonly referred to simply as MM.DD? If such disambiguation were needed, wouldn't we already have it for the 13,000+ other such titles, or at least the 366 days of a leap year in American order? Did 9.11 and 6.4 experience these problems? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WfW 3.11 is likely to be known that way. And as for pure numbers, all dates are written variously and known that way, and all pure number pages should be disambiguation pages (or redirects to such) first in all cases, IMO; including all famous numbers (911 included). In Quebec a variety of date formats are found, and some people use full stops instead of dasshes or slashes. There are government TV adverts about confusion between MM[/-.]DD and DD[/-.]MM date formats. (ie. U.S. style vs European style). -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a vote on the question, but just wanted to note that disambiguation could probably be accomplished by retargeting to the existing 3/11, if we choose to go that route. --BDD (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Plenty of discussion, but no clear outcome yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 3/11 and add possible uses there, per BDD. No need to create a separate dab for this, users are likely to confuse the two anyway so they may as well be in the same place. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question for both BDD and Ivanvector: Is disambiguation really necessary, in your opinions? The other meanings of 3.11 that have been brought up are software versions, which to the best of my knowledge are never called 3/11, and the other meanings listed at 3/11 do not seem to be widely referred to as "3.11" (the Madrid train bombings would likely, if called by such a name, be referred to as 11/3 or 11.3 -- the lead of our article says people in Spain often call them 11M, though -- while 3rd Battalion, 11th Marines are referred to as "3/11" multiple times in that article and never as "3.11"). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to communicate this above, but to be more explicit: I have not rendered an opinion on this discussion and am not currently following it. As a potential closer, I saw disambiguation suggested, and thought if disambiguation is chosen, it could better be accomplished by a retarget to an existing disambiguation page. But again, not an opinion on whether we should disambiguate. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree with BDD's rationale, except that I explicitly endorse disambiguation. Generally there seem to be more topics that could be referred to with either a period/decimal or a slash than there are topics which would only reasonably be referred to as one or the other, so to me it seems to be less maintenance/monitoring required to put them all on one dab page rather than two. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as a disambiguation page, possibly using BDD's suggestion, above. There seem to be other possible meanings for it, so I see no problem with a disambiguation page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. May be too late, but I just added this Rfd notice at the target talk page. So that there is more local context. - Jay (Talk) 21:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 3/11 can sure be a DAB to the target, but this Rfd is for 3.11 with the dot format. From the discussion I don't see Windows 3.11 or the Bible verses being specifically called by the name 3.11. Just as 9/11 or 26/11 are symbolic names for the terror events, and not mere dates, why should 3.11 be any different and target to a date? - Jay (Talk) 21:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In almost a month of discussion, I don't see that anyone's provided a single example of "3.11" being used to refer to anything other than its current target, besides the fact that some people write their dates that way. But there's no rule that every potentially-valid date format redirect to one of the articles on the date in question. In fact, in the recent RfD for 1.1 no one even suggested mentioning January 1st at the DAB we wound up creating. A hatnote more than suffices. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:47, 23 June 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.

Balfor:Stub[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) 22:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target article, and no obvious connection to it. Had a single pageview in all of 2021 before I came across it. Vahurzpu (talk) 15:03, 14 June 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]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 21#Puneet Vashisht

Jeremy Jordan (actor, singer)[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! 10:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Jeremy Jordan (actor) should be deleted, since Jeremy Jordan (actor, born 1984) should be moved there. Also, I think that Jeremy Jordan (singer) should be deleted, since Jeremy Jordan (singer, born 1973) should be moved there.Wallglobemat (talkand contribs) 14:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Steel1943 did this, evidently because both Jeremies Jordan are both actors and singers. Jeremy Jordan '84 is a musical theatre veteran who transitioned to television a few years ago, while Jeremy Jordan '73 is a seemingly not very successful singer who transitioned to film and television acting but doesn't appear to have any particularly notable roles. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the squirrel. Doubly-disambiguated titles are never ideal, and it's unusual to use one in a case where no other title uses the same first level of disambiguation, but in this case any other approach would be misleading to our readers. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 16:49, 14 June 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.

Malmo 2012[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 11:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing deletion: the redirect is orphaned and there is no way one would search for “Malmo 2012” when looking for a 2013 contest. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 09:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:XY, or weak retarget to 2012 Malmö FF season. The 2013 Eurovision contest was held in Malmö because Sweden won the previous year's contest, which was held in Azerbaijan. Googling "Malmö 2012" brings up the Swedish Wikipedia's article on the football club's season, even though an English article exists (not sure why). Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like this was created by accident, and then moved to Malmo 2013 to "fix" the mistake despite still leaving behind a redirect. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a redirect created in error. Grk1011 (talk) 13:01, 17 June 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 Campfire Song[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 all. The Campfire Song to Campfire songs (disambiguation), and the other two to SpongeBob's Greatest Hits. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "The Campfire Song" nor "The Campfire Song Song" is mentioned at either article. A suitable target for the first redirect is Campfire songs (disambiguation); delete the second. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:09, 14 June 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.

Stadium district[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#G8. The target has been deleted and there is no consensus in the discussion below for retargetting.}} Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to a neighborhood of Richmond, Virginia. There is Stadium District, Tacoma, Washington (and other neighborhoods/areas, none with articles); the concept of an entertainment district around a stadium as represented at Draft:Stadium district; and the legal concept of a stadium district (notably in Arizona, Colorado and Wisconsin law). Not sure how this should be structured, but the status quo isn't it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD Thanks for the ping. I have moved the article to draft namespace as it seemed not ready for Mainspace as it was not adequately supported by Reliable sources. It would be nice if someone can come up with reliable sources to support the article. signed, Iflaq (talk) 15:57, 20 June 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.

Lin Long[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. Delete has a narrow !vote lead and somewhat stronger arguments. signed, Rosguill talk 20:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page on which neither person is alternatively known as Lin Long. Lin Long is linked in International Amateur Pair Go Championship, and is apparently someone else altogether. Delete, to encourage article creation if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:53, 14 June 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.

Syrian Orthodox Church & Orthodox Syrian Church[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 25#Syrian Orthodox Church & Orthodox Syrian Church

Opposition to trade unions[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. After three relistings, two of which (including the most recent) failed to attract more comments, I think it unlikely that doing so again will be of much benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could Union busting be a better target? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – The suggestion definitely has merit, and I'm inclined to support it. But I'd be interested in seeing what reasons, if any, there are against it. Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 04:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I like the idea but I feel like there should be an opposition section under Trade union for opposition as opposed to this. Union busting is direct action, but you can also find commentary and indirect action against it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UppercutPawnch (talk • contribs) 12:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I think that would be a reasonable redirect. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Opposition is not same as busting, per Talk:Opposition to trade unions#Article title is misleading. The alternate name suggested there "Criticism of trade unions" is not appropriate per Talk:Trade union#"Impact" section. Looks like "impact" is what we have for now until that section can be forked into its own article, and we have discussions around its title. Jay (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Jay (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Union busting. I agree with Jay that "opposition" could mean criticism instead of concrete efforts to thwart unions, but the current target doesn't discuss criticisms at all. Right now, someone looking for info on criticisms of unions is unlikely to find anything helpful there (which is a rather significant omission from the article, but that's another discussion), so union busting is perhaps the only valid target right now, and if we ever get a criticism section, we can retarget it back or disambiguate. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not favour criticism over busting. In fact, I favoured neither of those, and suggested Keep because of lack of alternatives. Jay (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I took a look at some similar redirects:
(Big caveat: I found these on the "what links here" from Trade union, so if there are similar redirects out there pointing to a different place, I didn't find them.) This says to me that this redirect is pointing to the right place. As has been expressed above, union busting is just one specific aspect of opposition to trade unions. That said, the Impact section is almost entirely positive, so I can see how these could disappoint readers. Ultimately, that's a problem for the article rather than the redirects. The two "criticism" redirects above should probably be repointed to Impact as well, but I'm going to go ahead and retarget Anti-unionism to the disambiguation page Unionism and replace the few existing uses of it. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem with keeping the redirect(s) at Trade union is that there is not enough coverage of opposition in that article (especially at the current section it's anchored to), and the problem with retargeting to Union busting is that it's not the same thing. I think the ideal solution would be to add a (short) paragraph to the Trade union article summarizing the opposition with a prominent link to union busting. -- Tavix (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:44, 14 June 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.

Shawano (mythology)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 21#Shawano (mythology)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_14&oldid=1030447065"