Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 28, 2021.

Legal requirement in England[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. clpo13(talk) 22:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was created to fix red link, but that red link no longer exists. This is not a common phrase that someone would type in to get to English law. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 18:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Per WP:CHEAP Qwerfjkltalk 19:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a redirect I think should be created, as piping to the target would be more appropriate, but since it already exists, it seems properly targeted and no benefit will come from deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague so as to defer to search results. I am persuaded by Tamzin's comments below that the way this is worded could refer to many contexts, and various things come up in search results on WP, so let's defer to those (though I agree this is an unlikely search term). Mdewman6 (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This phrase is confusing enough that it could refer to any number of things, and I don't think English law is one of them. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin Like what? ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally any topic in English law where some entity is required to do something. You can see [1] and [2] for the range of examples. (Add -covid -coronavirus if desired to filter out the focus on mask mandates etc.) There's legal requirements that apply to employers, to schools, to license-holders, to the state. In a vacuum, the title makes me think of some requirement that students in some course learn about the law (like a "language requirement" or "math(s) requirement"). Meanwhile the word "requirement" doesn't appear once at the current target. I'm not sure why anyone would be searching this to begin with, but if they do, they won't find anythng helpful at the current target. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:31, 3 November 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.

Megalomania[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 13#Megalomania

Australia (film, Untitled Kevin Feige Star Wars film and You Don't Know Jack: The Irreverent Collection[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 multiple results:

I would like these deleted because no articles by these names exist. 209.221.91.106 (talk) - fixed by Qwerfjkltalk 14:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I took the liberty of (re-)merging these discussions here. Hopefully that helps. Regards, SONIC678 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Australia (film as a malformed redirect. Retarget Untitled Kevin Feige Star Wars film to List of Star Wars films#Unspecified future films, where it's discussed. The You Don't Know Jack collection was formerly mentioned at the target, but the list of compilations was removed from the article in April. - Eureka Lott 00:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete #1, Retarget #2, exactly per Eureka. Delete #3 as unhelpful without a mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #s 1&2 per Eureka, weak keep #3. I think an {{r without mention}} is tolerable here since it's a closely-related target with a closely-related name. If someone types that in and gets the article on the overall franchise, I think they've gotten something decently close to what they were looking for even if that exact compilation is not mentioned. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:21, 31 October 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.

FlyingKitty[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. Any similar redirects will need to be listed on their own. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FlyingKitty is a highly active YouTuber, and is more than just Youtube Rewind 2018. But I don't think they are notable either, so I propose that this redirect be deleted, as there is no apparent purpose. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Notsniwiast: WP:N does not apply to redirects. E. g., Category:Redirects from songs contains almost exclusively redirects from topics not notable on their own. WP:RPURPOSE lists several categories of non-notable redirect. Paradoctor (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paradoctor I believe I was referring to the general concept of notability. One can think in terms of "absolute" notability and "relative" notability. It's true that the usefulness of a redirect is not determined by absolute notability but rather its utility—of which a part is determined by what I would call relative notability. The more absolutely notable something is, the more likely it is relatively notable to some existing article if it does not have its own, but the point is that the more notable a term is relative to its target article, the more likely it is to be created and considered a valid redirect for that article.
For example, it makes sense to redirect Palm leaves to Arecaceae, but not to Christmas tree. Apparently, palm leaves have some absolute notability, but not enough for someone to have created an article for it. Relative to the article Arecaceae, it apparently has enough notability to deserve a redirect. Meanwhile, it has zero relative notability to Christmas trees and everyone would agree that's not a valid redirect (even if the article for palm trees didn't exist). Often the reason given for deleting a redirect is that it's not mentioned in the article (or its mention is insignificant, as in this case). This is essentially saying that the redirect is not relatively notable enough with respect to the target article. You could even generalize and say that absolute notability is just notability relative to users of Wikipedia. Winston (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Notsniwiast: On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Redirects are not articles. It may happen that a notable topic is a redirect, but such a situation should not be permanent. Paradoctor (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paradoctor and @Notsniwiast: Hi all, I would like to clarify that by notability, I meant that this could not be turned into an article. Since the redirect is only pointing at a small part of his work, and it can't be made into an article, I decided to file this RFD. Regards, 98.179.127.59 (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most redirects can't be turned into article e.g. Gardeners. ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for uninhibited search and a potential standalone article. Jay (talk) 17:06, 5 November 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.

List of Freeways length[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 11:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title seems like an implausible redirect. It also seems like an ambiguous title that could link to any "list of freeways" article. There have been 0 views of this redirect in the last 90 days, so it doesn't seem to be used by anyone either. – numbermaniac 04:11, 28 October 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.

JFK station[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 11#JFK station

Kings, New York[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 11:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect from "[County name], [State]" to "[County name] County, [State]" can make sense in situations where [County name] is commonly used on its own to refer to the county (e.g. Arlington, Virginia or Loudoun, Virginia), but nobody uses "Kings" alone as a mononym when it's much clearer to say "Brooklyn". Moreover, New York, New York does not refer to New York County. feminist (+) 02:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's not ambiguous or misleading. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the nom's examples, which make clear that "County" is sometimes dropped in county names. It's reasonable to think that some of our readers, especially outside the U.S., will not know that this norm only applies to some counties. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Kings" alone is rarely, if ever, used to refer to Brooklyn, and that is the difference. feminist (+) 07:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      But if someone sees "Kings County" on a map, and knows that in some places (including parts of the U.S.), "X County" can be reduced to "X", mightn't they think that "Kings, New York" is a valid name? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per both above. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 1 November 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_October_28&oldid=1055916370"