Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 11, 2022.

Fleet (Republic of Singapore Navy)[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. While it was understood that the current target may not be appropriate, there was no agreement on any particular course of action. Jay (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "Fleet" consists only of the 1st, 3rd, 7th and 8th flotillas. The "current fleet" terminology on the RSN's page has a broader definition that encompasses all the flotillas. The current redirect is misleading as it does not lead to a specific formation page (like the United States 7th Fleet) and to the generalised term. Seloloving (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The page in question is only presently linked in Template:Singapore_Armed_Forces, which lists the operational commands. The template is present at the bottom of the RSN's page, and I am not entirely sure of the value of linking to itself, especially since "Fleet" is a very generic name for a command and unlikely to be googled without context. Seloloving (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably changing the redirect target to RSN per Shhhnotsoloud. However, MINDEF website states the above named flotillas are in-charge of specific missions and the remaining 3 are for maritime security. So listing the latter as per of RSN's fleet makes sense as well. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 08:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. The org chart at Republic_of_Singapore_Navy#Organisation makes clear that "Fleet" in this context refers to a specific division of the Navy, on par with Maritime Security Command but there are no further details of this division on that article.-- Aervanath (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:59, 11 January 2022 (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.

Estancia Grande[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 disambiguate. -- Tavix (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target; is mentioned at the linked esWiki article but only as part of the name of a bicycle club (Club ciclistas Estancia Grande) that does not appear to be WP:DUE for inclusion and thus not useful as a redirect. Searching online did not turn up any conclusive information about the redirect. I would suggest deletion unless a duly sourced mention can be added to the target. signed, Rosguill talk 23:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page because of polo and chess championships that take place there in Argentina San Luis. This town really exists. See https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estancia_Grande_(San_Luis). But I believe a better title is Estancia Grande, San Luis Arado (talk) 06:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not quite sure how to interpret WP:PRIMARYRED here. If there is no primary topic, then the disambiguation page should be the primary landing page. ... Okay, yes, that makes sense. But any red-linked entry must still have a blue link to an article that covers the redlinked topic. That doesn't appear to be the case here. San Luis, Argentina does not mention Estancia Grande, San Luis. What's to be done? {{ill}}-link Estancia Grande, San Luis [es]? Seems like that might be the least worst option. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, wait, it'd be a SIA, not a DAB, right? And SIAs are allowed to have only one bluelink. So... Maybe do that? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: I have added a mention of Estancia Grande, San Luis, to the article Coronel Pringles Department, San Luis, so we can use that as the bluelink in the DAB page. We may as well include the {{ill}}-link too. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've drafted a DAB page at Estancia Grande. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per Mx. Granger's draft. Jay (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2022 (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.

C12H18BrNO2[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 setindexify. I've never written a molecular formula setindex before, so @1234qwer1234qwer4 and Mdewman6: Please take a look if you have a moment, in case I've done anything wrong. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also the sum formula of N-Ethyl-2C-B. Suggest disambiguating/set-indexing. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2022 (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.

Non-US[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. Jay (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear why this would be most associated with US taxation, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I don't even understand the relevance of this search term to the current target, which deals with taxation of US citizens and residents, but even if it is relevant to that it's also relevant to every person, place or thing in or from somewhere other than the United States - which is most of the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: too vague and broad to be useful. Veverve (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete current target doesn’t make sense and I can’t of a better one.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too vague and broad. Non-US can be everything not associated with US (duh). Neo-corelight (Talk) 04:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The only reasonable target I can think of would be United States as a Template:R from antonym, but it seems like a stretch to think that would be useful to anyone. The current target is too narrow. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - worked in tax for awhile, and can understand the rationale for this (some parts of US tax code apply differently to US residents or corporations that non-domestic corporations or non citizens), but this is clearly too ambiguous here. Hog Farm Talk 19:20, 17 January 2022 (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.

Canis wikilupus[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. Jay (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A pseudolatin redirect from article space to a fictional species that exists only as a minor piece of internal humour is not something that we should have. This is especially the case given the significant number of genuine encyclopaedic topics that start with "Canis". Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, absolutely no place in main space. Cavalryman (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Move to WP:Canis wikilupus -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. We should avoid redirecting from mainspace to projectspace material that's not aimed at readers. This one in particular is likely to be very confusing if a reader types "Canis w" into the searchbox and sees this as a search suggestion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The target page has a bloated sense of self-importance and is not very funny. We don't need to advertise that in mainspace. SpinningSpark 17:36, 16 January 2022 (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.

Brussels naming conventions[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. Jay (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A WikiProject page detailing internal conventions is not the sort of thing a reader should stumble on to. Given the sensitivity of the language issue in Brussels (see Francization of Brussels) this strikes me as a plausible search term for someone looking for an encyclopaedia article. The Francization of Brussels article doesn't quite cover the topic, so I'm not recommending a retarget there (although I'm not opposed) but I've not found anything better. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the mainspace and the rest of Wikipedia should be kept separated. Veverve (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:XNR to non-reader content for the editorship -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. We should avoid redirecting from mainspace to projectspace material that's not aimed at readers. Likely to be very confusing to any reader who is unlucky enough to search for this when trying to find an encyclopedia article about language policy in Brussels. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:08, 14 January 2022 (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.

Baseball notability[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. Jay (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines are not something that we need to redirects in the aritcle namespace to. This is the only redirect to the target outside project space. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:XNR to non-reader content for the editorship -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. We should avoid redirecting from mainspace to projectspace material that's not aimed at readers. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The purpose is to help people understand what makes a baseball player notable, and possibly grow our editors. BlackAmerican (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:XNR. Generally not a great idea to redirect in the mainspace (reader-facing) to nuts-and-bolts material for solely internal usage (not reader-facing). Hog Farm Talk 19:18, 17 January 2022 (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.

Anyone can edit[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#Anyone can edit

Steve Brule[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#Steve Brule

Lofi hip hop radio - beats to relax/study to[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#Lofi hip hop radio - beats to relax/study to

Albanians in New York City[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#Albanians in New York City

List of Old Catholic churches[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 21#List of Old Catholic churches

Isabella of Jerusalem[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! 01:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the dab page should be restored. I overwrote the RD and fixed most of the links, but was reverted with the edit summary: "pageviews shows I gets three times the views as II, so better to redirect to PT and rely on the existing hatnote". I think it gets only twice the pageviews and I think forcing editors not to link to the undab'd term is better in the long run. Srnec (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have notified of this discussion at the target talk page. There has been no discussion on the pageviews (hence no support for the 3 times pageviews claim). It is not clear why Sibylla, Queen of Jerusalem can be listed as a See also.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a redirect and move/add the disambiguation items to Isabella of Jerusalem (disambiguation). In book sources, Isabella of Jerusalem nearly universally refers to Isabella I.[1][2][3][4][5][6]. In fact, in the first 30 gbooks results only one [7] refers to anyone other than Isabella I. SpinningSpark 13:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. If you turn a redirect into a content page (including DAB page), and someone reverts you, the appropriate next step under WP:BLAR is to revert them and tell them that they can take the page to AfD if they want. It is not RfD's place to give (or deny) people permission to create content pages. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But AfD is not appropriate either as no one wants the page deleted. I don't think BLAR prescribes that as the procedure either. It suggests it as one of a number of possible ways to resolve a dispute. Settling it here seems perfectly in order to me. SpinningSpark 18:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD is the correct venue to turn a content page into a redirect if someone has objected to a BLAR. MB BLAR'd Srnec's redirect, and Srnec has objected to it. They should express that objection by reverting, rather than asking RfD to decide a content page's merits. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2022 (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.

Pionic deuterium[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. Although there is no mention of the exact term at the target, the reader is expected to infer it. Jay (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently described anywhere on this wiki. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment exotic forms of deuterium should be discussed in the deuterium article, so we are missing information there, for antiprotonic deuterium, muonic deuterium, kaonic deuterium, etc. These should be added as a section for exotic forms; there is already a section for antideuterium there. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I agree, but unless pionic deuterium is already mentioned within the article for deuterium, then the correct redirect is the more generic "exotic atom" instead. The article for deuterium would need to be updated first before changing the redirect. Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nicole Sharp What is the benefit of a redirect when the target is not explaining the reader the topic they have searched up? ~~~~
      User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)       01:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The article does explain the nomenclature. Thus one can infer that pionic tritium is a tritium atom where an electron has been replaced by a pion. Someone unfamiliar with that nomenclature needs to be redirected to the section on hadronic atoms. Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Although the target does not mention pionic deuterium specifically, it does explain what a pionic atom is in general. Hence this is still useful information for the reader who will be able to deduce the meaning of pionic deuterium at least. If something is added to the deuterium article, it can be retargeted, but honestly, I think it would be WP:UNDUE there. Exotic matter is a different area of study from nuclear isotopes. SpinningSpark 11:45, 11 January 2022 (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.

Brandywine Trail[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. -- Aervanath (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect appears to be the result of some old confusion. Once there was a proposed Brandywine Trail to run 30+ miles in Pennsylvania and Delaware, but it has not yet come together and the same name is used for several different short trails in nearby parks. The proposed long-distance trail would have intersected the existing Horse-Shoe Trail, which is the current target of the redirect, but the redirect is now invalid. There is no Brandywine Trail that intersects the Horse-Shoe Trail, and that would have been a tenuous connection anyway. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which is the Brandywine Trail referenced in Mason-Dixon Trail? Should that be modified or unlinked? Jay (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jay: Bear with me, this is going to require some hiking/biking geekery. There is a defunct railroad line in PA and DE that has long been unofficially promoted as the "Brandywine Trail", but only a few discontinuous snippets have been upgraded into organized bike paths, and there is no reliable documentation of it as a continuous long-distance trail. Long ago when folks were trying to promote a proposed "Brandywine Trail", it was described as connecting the Horse-Shoe Trail (PA) and Mason-Dixon Trail (DE). That never happened, though statements are still appearing online with poor verification, which by the way is the source of an incorrect statement at WP's article for the Mason-Dixon Trail (I will fix that). For WP's purposes, the Brandywine Trail redirect remains nonsensical and I recommend simply deleting the namespace altogether, especially because it can cause confusion with some local trails of the same name. Thanks for reading. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per DOOMSDAYER's explanation, and he will be fixing Mason Dixon Trail. Jay (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think two things have gotten mixed up here. I was under the impression that the Brandywine Trail, as mentioned in the Mason-Dixon Trail article, does exist as a defined route (partly on-road, like the HST), but is not open to the general public--it's limited I think to members of the Wilmington Trail Club and the Chester County Trail Club, and is mainly used for the Brandywine End-to-End event. See e.g. [8]. That's different from the abortive proposals for turning part of the Octoraro Branch into a rail-trail. Choess (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, but just remember that this is a discussion about the redirect. If someone searches for "Brandywine Trail" in WP, it is pointless to send them to Horse-Shoe Trail which is a completely different entity on which someone walks by the junction with Brandywine Trail in two seconds (if that junction actually exists). This is like redirecting Interstate 80 to Interstate 81 just because they may or may not have an interchange. Given the ongoing confusion (not helped by any reliable sources that I can find), and the existence of other trails of the same name, my stance on all of this remains the same. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Doomsayer, it's clear that while there is much confusion about what (if anything) the Brandywine Trail is, it is not the current target and neither that article nor any other we have will actually help someone searching for information. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the Brandywine Trail is not the Horse-Shoe Trail. We can delete per WP:REDYES and per WP:SURPRISE. TartarTorte 17:11, 21 January 2022 (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.

Political conflict[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#Political conflict

Dogmatically define[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 for Dogmatic definition, Delete the rest. The discussion turned to focussing only on Dogmatic definition, and there is a strong argument for targeting to Dogma in the Catholic Church as opposed to Dogma. If it's only a question of which of the two is the more appropriate target, the discussion may be taken to the redirect's or an appropriate talk page. Jay (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The expressions are way too broad and vague to redirect to any article, be it on Christianity or anything. I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change Dogmatic defintion to Dogma, it has number of mainspace links. delete Dogmatically defined & Dogmatically define. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In addition to papal infallibility the Catholic Church recognizes conciliar infallibility, magisterial infallibility, and the infallibility of revelations to prophets and of the inspired writers. Conciliar infallibility is the source of numerous Catholic dogmatic definitions. So "Papal infallibility" is at best a temporary target until something better exists. As far as claims of Catholic bias go, I wonder who else uses this term? Maybe the Eastern Orthodox church? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget dogmatic definition to dogma, delete the rest. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 20:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget dogmatic definition to Dogma in the Catholic Church delete the rest unless someone can show that the phrase dogmatic definition is used in non-Catholic contexts, it is not an NPOV violation to have a technical term within the theology of one group take you to a page on that one group. Dogmatic definition is a specific concept within Catholic theology that references the act of a council or the Pope declaring something to be dogma. Papal infallibility isn't appropriate because councils can issue dogmatic definitions as well, but associating the term with Catholic theology is not in itself a bias problem.
    I am not aware of any other religious group using this phrase as a technical theological term. I'm happy to be corrected if someone can point it out, in which case it can be retargeted to dogma. The rest are unlikely search terms if you have dogmatic definition. Pinging Rubbish computer since he was the first to suggest retargeting to get his thoughts on the new target I'm proposing. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi not sure either way, letting you know I have seen this. TonyBallioni
@TonyBallioni: Dogmatic definition is a specific concept within Catholic theology that references the act of a council or the Pope declaring something to be dogma: that is false, as can be seen on Google scholar and on Google books, it is indiscriminately used for any definition of dogma for any denomination, including the Catholic ones. You have not provided any source that it would be a Catholic technical term either. Veverve (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the usage in the CDF document on dogma the act of definition and defining is a technical concept regarding to very specific formulations, and it that's how it tends to be used. The CDF doesn't define it, because they don't need to define their own terms they are using in a technical manner, but its quite clear that they have specific moments in time and formulations in based on how they use the term.
Its an extremely important concept because it is not the theological explanation in the document surrounding the definition by a council or pope, but the actual definition itself, that requires assent by the faithful.
Scanning through the scholar and books links, the authors are overwhelmingly Catholic and addressing specific definitions at points in time by councils or popes and using it as a technical term, because that's what it is. It looks like there's Orthodox usage of it surrounding the Council of Chalcedon, though (I actually find that really interesting that in both the scholar and books searches, the Orthodox usage of the term appears limited to that, not anything to do with Wikipedia, but it is really interesting.)
Since the usage does appear to exist in Orthodoxy to a lesser degree in literature, the solution here also appears to be a hatnote on the Catholic page as the overwhelming usage in sourcing is referring to the Catholic concept. Retargeting to dogma would actually not be the NPOV position since the sourcing is so overwhelmingly Catholic, you'd be giving excessive weight to the concept outside of its main use. Regardless, these shouldn't be deleted. I'm not entirely opposed to retargeting to dogma, but the Google Books and Google Scholar searches you provided are actually very strong arguments to keep it pointed at a Catholic concept and introduce a hatnote. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2022 (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 Thailand[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. -- Aervanath (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While fascism is discussed at the target, a GScholar search, as well as a cursory knowledge of Thailand in World War II suggest that the scope of fascism in Thailand is much broader than just post-2014. If it were mentioned at all at Politics of Thailand that would be an appropriate target, but in the absence of content there, deletion to allow for search results and encourage article creation seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 16:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is that I don't currently know enough about the topic to know how such subtopics should be structured to give due weight. What little I do know would almost certainly be UNDUE as a few disconnected claims about the presence of fascism in Thailand, with no real information about its continuity or lack thereof. I will say that it does sound like an interesting topic and I may try to work on it in the future, but I can't commit to doing that right now. So long as there isn't substantial content about fascism at that target article, I think the redirect shouldn't exist (and it can always be recreated later if/when it becomes appropriate). signed, Rosguill talk 19:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 23:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.; WP:REDYES. Veverve (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no mention at the target, and no mention of the Plaek Phibunsongkhram era as well. Jay (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2022 (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.

Digital bank[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. As two relists have failed to get people's attention for the past 24 days, I don't think I can justify a third relist. Try again in a few months, maybe. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to digital banking; seems to be the most sensical route. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, or at least don't retarget to Digital banking As I noted earlier to Godsy, the title refers to the bank, not to banking. Traditional banks have been engaged in digital banking since long before there were digital banks. What distinguishes a digital bank is not digital banking itself but that it engages only in digital banking. That sort of bank appears to be covered under the title Neobank. (And I'm wondering whether the article there should be moved to Digital bank, but that's a separate matter.) Largoplazo (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One might refer to money stored digitally or through online banking, as being in a digital bank (e.g. as a concept imagine a digital piggy bank). Moreover, it does not seem prudent to have "digital bank" and "digital banking" lead to different destinations. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The merge suggestion came up an the #Online-only bank discussion as well below. Jay (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 23:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2022 (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.

Online-only bank[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 due to lack of quorum after two relists. No prejudice against speedy renomination, provided the renomination contains an explicit proposal to retarget/delete. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should these target direct bank, neobank, elsewhere, or nowhere? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is the difference between Neobank and Direct bank? Jay (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some (non-RS) sources imply that a neobank operates exclusively over the Internet, through a website or mobile application, while a direct bank can also offer telephone service. It makes me wonder whether neobank needs its own standalone article rather than a direct bank section. MarioGom (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to propose merging neobank into direct bank. Jay (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 23:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2022 (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.

Monika.chr[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. -- Aervanath (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filenames associated with the game's storyline and progression, but that's it. Although the mechanic is explained in the target article, the filenames themselves is not. These titles are only known to people inside of the game's fandom and are not standalone terms/searchwords that are known separate to the game's title, thus highly unlikely to be searched for. Delete as niche and unhelpful. Gaioa (T C L) 21:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:RCHEAP -- {{R from search term}} / {{R from subtopic}} / {{R from character}} -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment all these characters appear in the article, and it's just this particular form of their names that don't appear as such, however, the characters are there, and not every variation of the character name needs to appear in every article that a redirect is created for. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not mentioned in the target article under that name.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The target mentions about the character files for all, although not in the format in which the redirects are titled. In the absence of specific disambiguated titles, the current redirects aid in search and are helpful. Jay (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. These are too specific to redirect to a general article. I would imagine someone searching these would already be familiar with the game, but would be wanting more specific information than Wikipedia can provide (cf. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE). -- Tavix (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine to § Plot. I disagree with Tavix' premise; per Jay, we do provide readers with some information on these character files, and thus we should help readers find that information. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all: I have no idea what the ".chr" are for and do not know what this video game is about beyond having heard of it. Veverve (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Veverve: Why is that a rationale for deletion? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin: The ".chr" are not in the target either. Veverve (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I understand they are parts and elements within the game, but I can't think of any casual person who is searching up this to find information for the character. If I was looking up Microsoft Solitaire, I wouldn't be looking Solitaire.Exe Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine per Tamzin. Someone using these search terms will find what they are looking for at the target. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2022 (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.

Mobile-only bank[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. There is a consensus against retargetting to Mobile banking, but no consensus regarding whether keeping or deleting is better. This has already been relisted three times, the latter two not attracting any more attention, so I don't think it likely a consensus will emerge any time soon. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While all mobile-only services may be online-only, not all online-only services are mobile-only. The target article doesn't specifically mention online banking services that can only be used through smartphones. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also—Internet-only bank. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if there is no other suitable target. Oppose targetting to Mobile banking per Godsy. Jay (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2022 (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.

Mr. Biggs[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 Mr. Biggs to Ronald Isley; Keep others. -- Aervanath (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Mr Biggs" is a Nigerian fastfood restaurant chain and a stage name of Ronald Isley. It seems that Isley is the primary topic. I think that variations of Mr/Mr. and Bigg/Biggs/Bigg's should all go to the same place - either to Isley with a hatnote there to the restaurant, or maybe to a dab. MB 21:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget "Biggs" versions to Biggs (Disambiguation) and add "Biggs" and "Bigg's" entries there. Retarget "Bigg" versions to Bigg (Disambiguation) and add "Bigg" and "Bigg's" entries there. Link the two dab pages to each other. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current situation is not confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the current situation is fine, and the proposed alternatives seem confusing to me. In particular, we probably shouldn't send the reader to a different article based on whether or not they type a period or apostrophe. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There has been no consideration of PT. searching indicates the Nigerian restaurant may not be the most likely target. MB 15:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That might be an argument for moving Mr Bigg's to some other title, but I think it would be confusing to change these redirects if the article isn't moved. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To me that sounds confusing for readers. As a reader, I would not expect Mr. Bigg's and Mr Bigg's to take me to different places. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Biggs (with the dot) is the name the singer chose to use, and the restaurant chose not to use the dot. I was looking for common ground between the names of the restaurant and the singer, which is why I suggested Mr. Bigg's for the dab page. For readers, we can have the hatnote to each other at Ronald Isley and Mr Bigg's. Jay (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is unsatisfactory, and disambiguation can be achieved with a hatnote rather than a separate page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have struck off the disambiguation option in favour of the hatnotes (now boldened). Jay (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Mr. Biggs to Ronald Isley and Keep the other two. "Mr. Biggs" refers to Isley, not the restaurant. "Mr. Bigg's" is a possesive referring to the restaurant of "Mr. Bigg" but would not refer to Isley. -- Tavix (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget/keep/keep per Tavix. While WP:SMALLDETAILS situations like this often lead to a high chance of our readers being misdirected due to misremembering how something is spelled, there's only so much we can do when we can't magically read the minds of every person typing something in, and hatnotes exist for a reason. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2022 (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.

Nef (ship)[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 ship types#nef. I guess it's safe to say that after three relists there's a clear consensus for retargeting, while the keeping suggestion did not gain much support. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the French "Nef" in the context of ships is not exclusively related to Carrack. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's a mention of a type of ship with the name at List of ship types (though it's unsourced!), and there's also Nef (metalwork) (which, though not an actual ship, is in the shape of one). – Uanfala (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of ship types#nef with an anchor at the appropriate place until such time as we have an article. It appears that nef could be applied to any large ship in medieval times, but inasmuch as it refers to a specific type, carrack seems inappropriate. This book has "the carrack differed from the nef in that it was bigger, of greater draught, and had higher top-sides." This book depicts nefs of the Cinque Ports as single-masted square-rigged ships developed from Viking trade ships but with the addition of fore- and aft-castles. That is very different from the three-masted carrack. SpinningSpark 10:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 09:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Spinningspark and mention at the target the similarity to carracks. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since it's a French term, I'll defer to the French who use it as synonymous at fr:Caraque. I appreciate the sources showing a difference, but I don't think it's enough of a difference to retarget somewhere else. If anything, perhaps note the difference in usage at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Spinningspark and Tamzin. Veverve (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re Tavix's comment. How it is used or defined in French is not really all that relevant on the English Wikipedia. It is how the term is unsed in English that counts. SpinningSpark 15:05, 11 January 2022 (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:2020[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. -- Aervanath (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article was never originally a draft. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the sentiment at WP:SRED. Often, such a solution is employed instead of unwantedly burdening miscellany for deletion with it (or e.g. to avoid granting drafts which are of low quality heightened visibility before the wild hunt of G13 overtakes them). There is certainly no need to shift that burden to this venue. An extremely vast number of redirects exist from draftspace to pages that were never drafts in the traditional sense. Moreover, it doubles as a navigational aid; anyone who is considering drafting on the subject and arrives at this title will know that our encyclopedia already covers the topic (though this is just a side effect which happens to be a boon, as creating such a redirect for all draftspace titles would not be beneficial). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection to speedy deletion if the page is deemed eligible. The overarching principle behind my argument is that the regular listing of such pages here for contemplation would be an anti-productive endeavor (a similar sentiment to the reason why speedy redirection exists for mfd). There are many cases much more worthy of consideration at this venue; pondering and discussing items like this is an unnecessary maintenance burden. The only reason I am opposed to a non-speedy deletion outcome here is that a "bad" nomination should not yield the sought after (i.e. "successful" or "rewarding" if you will) outcome, thereby potentially encouraging more nominations of the same caliber. Moreover, this should not be taken as an impugnation of the nominator, but rather as a simple learning opportunity (i.e. "article was never originally a draft" is not a good reason to list such a page here).— Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep essentially per Godsy. There's a reason WP:SRE is a guideline. These redirects help our novice draft creators and other potential newcomers find the pages where they should be contributing. Redirecting is quick, efficient, and does not take up any community time; it's also less BITEy for the newcomers who make these and they also get to keep their history. Regards, 85.172.31.16 (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no reason to keep around an eleven year old's musings of why 2020 was a bad year. Btw im 11 plz blow this up people need to know the challenges the world is facing really says it all... -- Tavix (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure the initial revision is junk, which describes nearly everything in draftspace, but there's no need to conceal the history which is all deletion does, the revisions live on in the server regardless. In order to justify the maintenance burden of additional xfds there should be a compelling reason to conceal the history in question, but in nearly every case those are already covered by the csd. Regards, 85.172.31.16 (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am perfectly fine with this being deleted as WP:G3. -- Tavix (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm near certain that would've been declined, recalling that the csd (and crd) are to be construed narrowly. Let's be real, there are a truly staggering number of junk revisions currently sitting in visible page histories; I don't see anything that makes this case special, but I'm about 2 minutes away from calling it a night and starting a well-deserved wikibreak, so I guess will just have to agree to disagree for now. Regards, 85.172.31.16 (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • And I'm all for cleaning out "junk revisions" and anything else that is contrary to the goal of creating an encyclopedia. The only thing "special" about this particular redirect is the fact that it was nominated at RfD. So while we're here, I believe it's in the best interest of the encyclopedia to get rid of it. -- Tavix (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is no benefit to the encyclopaedia from deleting pages like this, and we should never delete pages unless there is a benefit to doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JalenFolf: what is it that you want to discuss about this redirect? IP 207.81.187.41 had tagged it for deletion, and you reverted it, so I assume you don't want this to be deleted? Or did you want a discussion on the IP's question Do we really need such a redirect? (On a side note, I don't see how this covers G3 (Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes)). Jay (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jay: Per WP:RDRAFT, Redirects that are a result of page moves from the draft namespace to the main namespace should be retained. This redirect is not the result of a page move, and while the page history shows copied content from the existing article, the target's edit history shows no evidence of it ever being a draft (i.e. no move from draftspace exists). Jalen Folf (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I get all of that, but you have not answered any of my questions! Jay (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, in that moment, I had sided with the IP on the question of whether the redirect was necessary, however the IP had not filled out the {{Delete}} template they added with their reasoning (which was already in their edit summary). I brought up RDRAFT cause I wanted to add to the IP's question by adding a question of my own: should future draftspace redirects like this also fall under RDRAFT? I realize now that I had failed to do this in my original reasoning. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          If a page that was in draft space is moved to the article namespace under any title then, as a general case, the resulting redirect should be retained. If a page is moved within draftspace then, as a general case, the resulting redirect should be treated like any other {{R from move}} and not deleted unless there is some specific benefit from doing so, regardless of what happens to the content later. So, unless there is some specific issue with an individual redirect that means deletion will benefit the project in some identifiable way, then it should not be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          As I understand, you wanted to contest the IP's delete request by retaining it as a possible RDRAFT, but then you were not sure if RDRAFT applies, so you brought it here to RfD. I don't see RDRAFT applying here. I don't know why this is a redirect. Pinging Ahmetlii who made it a redirect while the draft was being actively worked on by 103.206.228.244. Jay (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          @Jay: IP103 just copy-pasted the existing article 2020, adding a single entry. See comparison. They overwrote an unencyclopedic rant that had been at that title for two months (again long postdating the existence of 2020 as an article), which has now been OS'd. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          IP103 made 3 revisions, and from what I see, they were working on the draft, unless copy-pasting an existing article is considered as a misuse of the draft process. Jay (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Copy-pasting an existing article (with attribution) to work on it is generally allowed, but only really makes sense when one wants to completely rewrite an article. If you fork the article on the current year to work on it, by the time you're done working it will be quite a few revisions past where it was when you forked it. So there's really no good reason to do it. It's reasonable to funnel someone back to the article through redirection. Ahmetlii could have merged IP103's changes back into the article, but I don't think any of them were of suitable quality for that to be appropriate. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Is it a general perception, or is it the intention of WP:Drafts, that for an existing mainspace article, the draft be used for rewrites, and not for enhancements or increments? If it can be used for increments, especially for lists, or the type of year page being discussed, with all its sections, sub-sections and bullets, how else does an editor work on the draft, if not by duplicating it first? How they keep it in sync with the corresponding article content is the draft editor's responsibility. Jay (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          @Jay To be clear, I don't remember why did I act as such either (almost a year has passed since my edit). I barely guess that was because that IP editor has probably just added some nonsense on the edit that has been oversighted, or/and the IP didn't make any substantial contributions other than just copy-pasting the article. I also may have been acted so quickly, but as Tamzin said before me I probably couldn't see any benefits in keeping the draft content while patrolling the recent changes at the same time.
          Just as a note I've found a similar discussion from the last year, about Draft:2019. ahmetlii ✉ (Please ping me on a reply!) 19:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to pre-redirect revision, so that someone can tag it for deletion again, or it can be deleted as an abandoned draft. Per Tamzin, as part of the redirect, IP103's changes could have been merged back into the article, but this was not done, and the redirect was done within 10 minutes of the previous edit, thereby giving no chance for anyone to improve on the additions. Agree with Godsy that is is a "bad" nomination, but only in the sense that the nomination statement was unclear, but now the nom has clarified that it was not the kind of nomination, to discourage which the Keep vote was made. Jay (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't restore. No preference on keep vs. delete. Literally all that IP103 did was add some unreferenced, unclear information about television in India, likely all of which would have been reverted if added to the actual article. This isn't a case of a BLAR of an article that needs to go to AfD. There is no encyclopedic benefit to preserving content like ** All 81 Channels has those Signals back. If that really does make a difference, then keeping is an acceptable outcome, since people will still be able to look at the page history to salvage any portion they want of the edits... Although I'm guessing they'd be quickly reverted if they tried to merge those changes to the article. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the sake of all that's good, delete. Having gone through the above discussion I couldn't find a single argument for why this particular redirect is useful. A child wrote their musings, which got oversighted, then someone else copied an article here, adding a single sentence of near-nonsense, and then an editor turned it into a redirect. That redirection would have made sense if there were some relevant page history, but there isn't even a byte of it. If the draft had been left alone, then by now it would have long been deleted per WP:G13. But no, one year later we should be sitting here debating this, making sure to spend as much time on it as possible just so that we can spite the nominator for having wasted our time with this nomination. If a council of RfD elders can't get to decide on the deletion of an (almost) speedy-deletable page, then I frankly don't know what we're here for. As for the argument that the redirect supposedly isn't harmful: yes, it is harmful. Any sufficiently diligent editor who ventures into creating an actual draft for 2020 or who sorts through its incoming links, will have to waste time digging trough this page history, only to find out what apparently took us three weeks to uncover: that there isn't a gram that's salvageable there. – Uanfala (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uanfala and Tavix. No idea why the draft wasn’t deleted in the first place. Converting it into a redirect clearly made no sense. CycloneYoris talk! 10:01, 20 January 2022 (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.

Communist holocaust[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 24#Communist holocaust

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_11&oldid=1067551807"