Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 31, 2021.

User:Ivanvector/Ogedengbe of Ilesa[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. I said G6 but you can pick your favorite CSD from the discussion below.. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall why this was briefly in my userspace but I think it had something to do with a WP:REFUND request, or something to do with one of my entries in the title blacklist. None of the speedy criteria quite seem to apply here but I can't see a use for it; it's just clutter in my userspace. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 20:20, 31 May 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.

First Second Gentleman[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 7#First Second Gentleman

Little Portugal, Los Angeles[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 8#Little Portugal, Los Angeles

The Editor (Doctor Who)[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 The Long Game. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The Editor" is not mentioned here. Is there a better target? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:43, 31 May 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.

Lab leak[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 7#Lab leak

Aceh 2005 earthquake[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 7#Aceh 2005 earthquake

Terra Research[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! 08:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, this organisation is clearly not notable in 2021, can find 0 Google results for it, max 1 page view per day. 122.60.46.122 (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is mentioned in the "Other effects" section which the redirect targets, and so it is correct and harmless. I can't see what benefits would arise from deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is sufficient description at the target, and regular pageviews (1 view per day, but regular, meaning someone is looking and not complaining with what they are getting). Non-notability in 2021 is no reason to delete. Jay (talk) 18:57, 5 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.

Wikipedia:NOTFANDOM[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) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to WP:Wikipedia is not Fandom, with a hatnote to the current target. dudhhrContribs 03:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - this nom should probably include WP:NOTWIKIA (Wikia became Fandom about five years ago, I just learned) but the essay is underdeveloped and I think it's premature to potentially direct editors to this rambling restatement of the existing policy. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair to the nominator and the essay's author (because I think my comment might be misconstrued) I definitely see the value in an essay specifically contrasting Wikipedia with Wikia/Fandom, as it does seem to be a common problem that experienced Wikia editors come here and get in trouble because they think everything is the same between the two platforms, and this problem is not really addressed by WP:NOT. The essay in its current form isn't quite suitable for this purpose, but if it were then I would support redirecting to it - changing the target would not change the meaning of past uses of the shortcut. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 22:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is - users are more likely to have intended links to the relevant section of the policy page WP:NOT (and this would break previous uses of this, looking at them) than to an obscure essay. It's also better to direct users to a well known policy page than to an obscure essay. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the prior arguments. Conflating essays with PAGs is a problem already -- don't worsen it. Vaticidalprophet 21:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. If people refer to WP:NOTFANDOM or Wikipedia:NOTWIKIA, then they probably mean the contents of essay. It's confusing the way it is now. At the very least, WP:NOTWIKIA should be retargeted. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it may be worth linking the essay in the policy text as a see also or something. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First of all, if a redirect is not going to a good place, rather than casting about and looking somewhere else to point to, maybe just delete it, hmnh? Second of all, it is completely opaque -- what is "fandom", what is meant by "fandom"? Is meant "fancruft" or something?? It points to "Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site", what does that have to do with fans or fandom or fancruft or fandom.com or whatever is meant?? What do dating sites and web hosting services and memorials etc have to do with "fandom"?? Maybe rename it it WP:NOTRUNCIBLE, it would make as much sense. Unless is meant "fancruft". In which case, delete with fire as that's entirely polemical, insulting, and class-ridden and there's no upside. Editors do insult each other's work but there's no need to have official structures in place to make that easier.
If it must be kept for some unfathomable reason, then yes, redirect. Redirect somewhere less toxic -- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Fandom, or Special:randompage, or just outer space, anywhere but the current situation. Herostratus (talk) 22:48, 4 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.

Minecraft SMP YouTubers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 7#Minecraft SMP YouTubers

Filipino Traditional Food:Bagoong[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 10#Filipino Traditional Food:Bagoong

Moue[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 7#Moue

King Bob-omb[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 Characters in the Mario franchise#King Bob-omb. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While Bob-ombs are mentioned in the target article, King Bob-omb is not. Additionally it's ambiguous, because while he was first introduced in this game, he has appeared in many other games since. – numbermaniac 01:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Character is mentioned in passing in several of those other games, such as Mario Golf: Super Rush, but does not appear on any character list. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I thought at first this might be an {{R with history}} as so many fictional character redirects are, and I'm loath to delete those, but it isn't in any meaningful sense. (It technically is, but the prior article is of no conceivable use to anyone and existed for eight minutes.) The nomination and Laundry are persuasive as to the merits of the redirect by itself. Vaticidalprophet 19:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Characters in the Mario franchise § King Bob-omb. I made this section since it appears it is needed. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was not. I merged it to the existing appropriate section and updated the redirect. — Smuckola(talk) 19:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:47, 31 May 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.

Ladadadada[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 12:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single mention of source in target page. Besides it seems spam. signed, Iflaq (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's a memorable lyric from the song. I wouldn't be surprised if someone who had heard the song but didn't know the name would try to search something like that. Mlb96 (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for one thing song lyrics are almost always copyvios. This one is so generic that it's probably not copyrightable, but it's also so generic it could plausibly refer to numerous unrelated titles. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Redirects from lyrics can be helpful, but this is too generic to refer to anything. Dominicmgm (talk) 09:50, 1 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_31&oldid=1027929235"