Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 8

June 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 8, 2021.

Italy gate[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 Italygate conspiracy theory. ✗plicit 03:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italy gate → SISMI-Telecom scandal (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Should this, and Italygate, now redirect to Italygate conspiracy theory? Bangalamania (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Enwiki has no use of this term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shhhnotsoloud: Wikipedia clearly does have a use of this term at Italygate conspiracy theory, as the nom indicated. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PEIsquirrel: There is a difference between "Italy gate", gate of Italy (no mention), and "Italygate", derived from Watergate. Incidentally, I see Italygate is not at List of "-gate" scandals. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shhhnotsoloud: I have only recently created the Italygate conspiracy theory page, so that's why. I've since added it there now. (Curiously, the Pizzagate conspiracy theory was also not mentioned there, but this "Pizzagate" was, so I added that there too). I assumed the space was a typo in the original redirect, more to do with the -gate suffix as used for scandals (which this seems to be), as there is nothing to do with actual gates in Italy on the SISMI-Telecom scandal page. Although as mentioned below, there is no mention of the term on the page, so it's a little confusing. --Bangalamania (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Italygate conspiracy theory as proposed. There is no mention of "Italygate" or anything-gate at SISMI-Telecom scandal and I see no evidence that it was ever referred to by that name. No opinion on the redlinked title since it doesn't exist. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Italygate conspiracy theory as an obvious {{R from short name}}. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Italygate conspiracy theory is currently prodded. dudhhr_Contribs 20:46, 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.

Jim Meyer (businessman)[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 05:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Meyer (businessman) → Sirius XM (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete&nbspreta;]

Delete. Subject is not mentioned at target. I added a redlink to Jim Meyer (businessman) at Meyer Shank Racing last night because Jim Meyer the football player is a different human. Redlinks are OK. Alternatively retarget to Meyer Shank Racing. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Meyer Shank Racing. I made it redirect to Sirius XM because Meyer was the companies' CEO, but the retarget is OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MainPeanut (talk • contribs) 13:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris: GhostOfDanGurney suggests in his nomination rationale that although he prefers deletion, he is okay with retargetting. The only other participant favored retargetting. I'm not convinced this requires or really benefits from a relist. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: Well I sure am convinced that your closure was inappropriate per WP:BADNAC. The nominator is clearly in favor of deletion, just because he is suggesting that a retarget would be OK doesn't necessarily mean that consensus has been reached. He still prefers deletion, as proven by his rationale, and further input from other participants is definitely needed here. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris: Well, the record shows that I was wrong. Thanks for correcting me. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY due to multiple possible targets without an obvious "best" target, with a possible WP:REDLINK because CEOs of major corporations are usually notable (however I haven't investigated deep enough to give a definite opinion on his notability). Mr. Meyer is mentioned a couple times at SiriusXM, however both times are as "James", not "Jim", so that's probably why GhostOfDanGurney concluded that he's not mentioned. Meanwhile, Mr. Meyer's mention at Meyer Shank Racing is also not ideal since he's only mentioned as a bare-bones namedrop as an owner; one would not learn anything additional about him from being redirected there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending an article if he (or one of them) is notable. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:21, 9 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.

Fascism in India[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 16#Fascism in India

Siege of Thionville (1870)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 16#Siege of Thionville (1870)

Operation Flying Eagle[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 Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake#Singapore. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Flying Eagle → 2005 Nias–Simeulue earthquake (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There is no such thing as "Operation Flying Eagle". 122.60.46.122 (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not mentioned at target, but according to the WHO, Operation Flying Eagle is the relief operation conducted by the Singapore Armed Forces to help people affected by the earthquake. To my knowledge, this article is the only suitable target for this redirect. -- dylx 14:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dylx' link seems to show that Operation Flying Eagle was about the '04 tsunami, not the '05 earthquake. Retarget to Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake#Singapore, where "Singapore" is an anchor to be created at the Singapore entry in § Asia and Oceania. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 12:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dylx's link is a draft with proposed revisions, so I'm fairly certain it doesn't meet RS requirements. I'm not sure that actually matters for the purpose of this discussion, though. Anyway, the description of this operation clearly matches the operation listed at Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, so I think retargetting there is prudent. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake#Singapore, where the operation is mentioned, described, and footnoted to a reliable source, albeit primary. --Bejnar (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake#Singapore. Reasonable navigation aid. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 00:57, 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.

Shiro SAGISU Music from "Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone"[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 05:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shiro SAGISU Music from "Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone" → Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is a redirect from a pagemove that removed the name from the article title. The original Eva soundtrack album articles were all merged and redirected to Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion in 2010. This now only shows up as a weird secondary suggestion in the search box drop down when inputting Shiro Sagisu, and since the article only ever existed under this name for about six months from 2007/08, I think we can safely get rid of it. AngryHarpy‍^talk 09:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as incorrect stylization. http://cura.art/310435/Are-Not-Alone-Soundtrack-CD-EVA/ If you're going to all-caps SAGISU, you should also all-caps EVANGELION and YOU ARE NOT ALONE. The quotes should also be around Evangelion 1.0 and not the entire title. Okay with creating Music from Evangelion 1.0: You Are (Not) Alone or Shiro Sagisu: Music from Evangelion 1.0: You Are (Not) Alone AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:52, 8 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.

National TV[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 18#National TV

Little Portugal, Los Angeles[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 13:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Portugal, Los Angeles → San Pedro, Los Angeles (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There is no information in the article about a Little Portugal in Los Angeles. The entry at Portuguese-American neighborhoods refers to San Pedro, Los Angeles, which might be a better target, but there's no mention there either of a neighbourhood actually known as "Little Portugal". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked www.Newspapers.com, and there is no mention of a "Little Portugal" neighborhood in Los Angeles at all, ever. I have no objection to the redirect as long as we know there is actually a neighborhood (and not just a couple of restaurants) in San Pedro called Little Portugal. Otherwise, I would say to delete it entirely. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not finding any mention in anything on ProQuest, Google Books or other search engines. No mention at the target article, in any case, is good enough for me, with no prejudice against recreation if reliably-sourced content on the area (which I'm guessing is a local nickname for a population of a couple of thousand people) is introduced to the target article or any other. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 8 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.

Free State[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 Free state. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Free State → Free State (province) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This currently targets the same title but with a disambiguator, which is not correct because it means that the title Free State (province) has unnecessary disambiguation. It should target the disambiguation page Free state (which lists articles with both capitalisation styles) as an alternative capitalisation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Free state per nom. It used to point there but was changed in 2015 without explanation. - htonl (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom and Htonl. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per above ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
retarget per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:06, 10 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.

Carte blanche[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 15#Carte blanche