Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 30, 2021.

Interdenominational[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 Non-denominational. A late suggestion for deletion was not discussed by most participants, but it's clear that corecting the inconsistency is an unambiguous improvement. signed, Rosguill talk 22:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Non-denominational. Most of the 159 incoming links deal with individual organizations (most of them Christian) who consider themselves to be beyond traditional denomination borders, not with relations between people and organizations from different faiths and denominations, which is the subject of ecumenism. An alternate target may be Nondenominational Christianity. However, article Non-denominational gives a clear definition of these non/inter/trans-denominational organizations and pointers to more specific targets for Christian, Muslim and Jewish contexts, as the term is not Christian per se. Place Clichy (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree that current target is not appropriate. But I still need convincing on the proposed target, which is a stub. I did not go through the 159 incoming links, but can the nominator list some of them that are NOT Christian-related? Also a Google search for Interdenominational does not give any non-Christian results. Incidentally, one of the first results is the question "Is interdenominational the same as non denominational?", and although the answers are personal opinions from quora.com, the answer is No. Jay (Talk) 20:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, we would redirect to non-denominational but correct links that are specifically Christian to Nondenominational Christianity, which in both cases are better targets than current ecumenism. I'll do it if this nomination is accepted. Place Clichy (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My second and third results when searching "interdenominational" on Google are ministry pages claiming that an interdenominational organization incorporates doctrine or practice from multiple traditions. So, not necessarily the same thing as non-denominational, but it is a related phenomenon. I agree that I'm not seeing any non-Christian results. So I'm not really sure what to do with this one. I think both Non-denominational and Nondenominational Christian are acceptable targets, and I would also be okay with deleting. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The outcome of this Rfd should be consistent with the hyphenated redirect Inter-denominational as well. Jay (Talk) 15:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. This currently redirects to Non-denominational. Place Clichy (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bundled. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bundled Interdenominationally and Interdenominationalism as well. Jay (Talk) 16:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: Remember to tag the redirects when bundling. :) I've taken care of these two. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The hyphenated counterpart of this redirect was added late to the discussion, so relisting one more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. See the 2011 AfD for Interdenominationalism which resulted in the redirect to Interfaith dialog. Jay (Talk) 16:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there are several articles mentioning Interdenominational, I did not find an article saying what it is or stands for at a broad level. There are no reliable sources (including te dictionary definitions provided by nom) equating interdenominational with non-denominational, hence Christian or non-Christian, I don't see a connect between the "inter-" and "non-" terms. Nor do I see benefit in retargeting to a generic article like Religious denomination. Delete all per WP:R#D2 as creating confusion by targeting "inter" (inclusive) to "non" (exclusive). Jay (Talk) 21:26, 1 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.

Bevin Maskey[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 19:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page is an implausible misspelling of the character name, Bevin Mirskey. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 16:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I propose deletion of the redirect - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 13:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Qwerfjkltalk 19:34, 30 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.

Deutschland Airlines[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 all. Qwerfjkl There was no need to relist this one, consensus is clear. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the 2 at § Deutschlandese Airlines, but a slightly less implausible set of search terms, so listing separately. These three were initially targeted to Lufthansa, but Rosguill retargeted them to List of airlines of Germany, which is a better target for sure, but I'm not convinced that any of these is a plausible search term. I would expect a mixed-language, title-cased title like any of these to, if it exists, refer to a specific company (or a DAB page of multiple companies). I think the most likely use case of someone searching for one of these terms is that they expect us to have an article with that title, not that they're trying to find a list of German airlines. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 20:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. This sort of mixed-language titles would only be useful if there was an actual airline called "Air Deutschland" but as there is not, the redirects are useless. I wonder what possessed someone to create them in the first place. JIP | Talk 21:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Useless redirects, partly in a cruelly wrong language. Nobody will ever start a search using the terms "Deutschlandese Airlines", "Deutschland Airlines", "Deutschlandese Airways", "Air Deutschland" or ""Deutschland Airways"". --Uli Elch (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Qwerfjkltalk 19:34, 30 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.

Krayge Tyler[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 19:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as a guitarist or other performer in the personnel/credits sections of a number of album articles[1] but no mention at the target page. There is no obvious target and should be deleted per WP:XY. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:49, 30 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.

She's faking it[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 03:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While this quote is mentioned at the target, an internet search does not suggest that this term is primarily associated with the character off Edna Krabapple, but rather as a generic reference to Fake orgasms. In the interest of avoiding a potential WP:SURPRISE, deletion seems like the best course of action. signed, Rosguill talk 17:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - throwaway gag and not a catchphrase (afaik). No other proper target ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 18:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were to target something, it should be fake orgasms, but it's not a plausible enough search term to warrant that. Delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 18:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a media title. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Target article gives no indication that subject might be referred to by this name, so it is of no help to users trying to locate target page. Internet search for "She's faking it" as an alternative name for subject reveals no results. Delete per WP:R#DELETE, reason number 8 in the list. — Johnnie Bob (talk) 00:05, 7 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.

Miss King[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 03:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, internet search results do not suggest that this is a common alternative name for the target. An internal search reveals some non-notable TV episodes and book chapters by this name, making me think that deletion to allow for internal search results is the best solution here. signed, Rosguill talk 17:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A case could be made for retargeting to King (surname), but there's a WP:COSTLY issue there: We do not seem to have many (if any) redirects on the pattern of <courtesy title> <surname> pointing to surname pages. The people listed on any surname page will often have four distinct courtesy titles among them (Ms., Miss, Mrs., Mr.), if not more (Dr., Rev., Mx., etc.), which means retargeting would justify thousands of new redirects for this set of relatively unlikely search terms. With that in mind, delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 17:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not mentioned at target. Minor Pride and Prejudice character (but not mentioned in article so no redirect) ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 18:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. This is different from Mrs. King which has multiple character names. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:24, 1 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.

Boston Design Center[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. The addition of a sourced mention at the target addresses my concerns, withdrawing discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I've added a sentence and citation. The BDC is a major structure in the Marine Park. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Design Center (and the Innovation & Design Building in which it is housed) is arguably the largest structure within the Marine Park (save for maybe the Cruise Terminal itself, especially when a ship is docked there). Additionally, this is a reasonable search term considering that the Silver Line SL2 route, which operates to the Marine Park, uses "Design Center" or "Drydock Avenue" as its destination, not "Boston Marine Industrial Park". Nick Boppel (talk) 17:53, 30 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.

Pleş River[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. ✗plicit 13:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target article contains no mention of the Pleş. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mention was added to target the day after the nomination and the above request was made. Jay (Talk) 15:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thanks to post-nomination edits. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now mentioned in the target article --Lenticel (talk) 05:04, 4 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.

Red Dead 2[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 7#Red Dead 2

Hoot the Owl[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 8#Hoot the Owl

Sayre language academy[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 List of schools in Chicago Public Schools. ✗plicit 13:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not mentioned in the target article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:01, 30 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.

Amasa Wright[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 restor article. without prejudice to AfD signed, Rosguill talk 19:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not mentioned in the target article. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was an article from 2008 until December, when it was WP:BLARed. It deserves a full discussion. Revert and send to AFD. - Eureka Lott 08:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert per WP:BLAR and Eureka Lott. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert the inappropriate redirection to a target that does not mention the subject. I've added a caps variant to the discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert per Eureka Lott and discuss where it should be mentioned or added. Chicago Loop article? History of Chicago? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:37, 1 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.

مسیح[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, Non-English redirect. PepperBeast (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's given as the native form of the article title of Masih (surname). (No opinion about retargeting or not.) There's absolutely no reason to get rid of a native term just because it's written in a different script; it's more likely that someone seeking the Senate of Pakistan would use ایوانِ بالا پاکستان‎ than Aiwān-e-Bālā, because you're unlikely to know the Latin transcription with diacritics unless you also know the Urdu original. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:11, 3 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.

مسیحا[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, Non-English redirect. PepperBeast (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and mention. The article is about an Arabic word so that word in Arabic is obviously an appropriate WP:RFOREIGN redirect. I note the target is prodded, if it is deleted then this redirect will be subject to WP:CSD#G8 speedy deletion, but if it is kept then it is a good redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-latin redirect Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This Urdu and Persian word is relevant in the context of the target article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was prepared to close this as keep assuming this form was given in the article, but it's not. Google Translate renders it as "christ" rather than Messiah. I don't know how accurate that is, or if perhaps this Arabic form is a faithful translation of both terms. Note that the target article is at AfD, and redirecting it to both Messiah and Christ (title) have been suggested. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Important: this isn't Arabic. Google Translate from Persian gives "Messiah". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary defines this as "a messiah" and transliterates it as "masiha", with wikt:مسیح being defined as "messiah" or "Christ" and transliterated as "masih" . In absence of commentary from anyone with subject-matter expertise, I would say we should retarget to Messiah (the broader of the two potential targets), independent of the AfD outcome. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 18:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus between "keep" and "retarget". In any case, it is worthwhile to relist this pending the AfD outcome, because a "delete" closure for the current target means a "retarget" outcome for this redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (+) 01:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure. When I highlight the redirect title and search for it at the current target, I get no results. (This is different from what happens if I search the other redirect just above this one on the RFD page; it appears at the start of the article.) If it does exist there and I'm making a mistake, keep it of course; there's no way that we should delete a foreign-language redirect to an article that directly covers that subject. But if there's something wrong with this redirect, making it implausible, I see no reason to keep it. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:05, 3 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_June_30&oldid=1032673595"