Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 12, 2022.

Vache Marine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 20#Vache Marine

Zeekoe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 20#Zeekoe

Untitled third Fantastic Beasts film (soundtrack)[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) 04:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding that the target now has a title, it also doesn't have a soundtrack section or inline subject identified. Steel1943 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: it should never have been created, WP:Crystalball. Veverve (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. It's creation was even ill-conceived - why would people be searching for details on a soundtrack for a movie that didn't even have a name yet? Sergecross73 msg me 02:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if the article has a soundtrack section, that is an implausible search term now. Neo-corelight (Talk) 03:34, 13 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.

Red Luigi & Green Mario[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 20#Red Luigi & Green Mario

Alex 3[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) 04:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a neologism, I can't find any instances of Alexander III being referred to this way online. I did, however, find several papers about a protein named Alex3 ([1], [2], [3]) and one about a political simulator ([4], probably not notable). I think that deletion is the way to go here. signed, Rosguill talk 21:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete. @Rosguill, you beat me by seconds to nominating this. ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:14, 12 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.

Yaraana (2014 film)[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. As a misunderstanding by the redirect creator. Jay (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that this film was re-released in 2014, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what that link is supposed to prove, could you explain? signed, Rosguill talk 21:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you edited your first comment, I'll add: the article linked does not state that the film was altered in 2014, and was in fact originally published in 2013 according to the website. The article was apparently last updated in 2014, but that in itself doesn't tell us anything. signed, Rosguill talk 21:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neel, since you cited "speedy keep", please review WP:SKCRIT and explain how it meets the criteria for speedy keeping. -- Tavix (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Please ping me if a decisive argument is given for keeping this redirect. Veverve (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete There are some search results in Google published in 2014 which show that the film was altered in 2014. Neel.arunabh (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear how or why you're drawing that conclusion from these search results. signed, Rosguill talk 23:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please check each reliable source in the search results. Neel.arunabh (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, I was prepared to type something about needing to do your own legwork and not demanding others do your research for you...but genuinely I don't even see any reliable sources in that list, I see a bunch of youtube videos that appear to be clips of the film itself, followed by lyrics websites and social media. Farther down we have this article, which is reliable I guess but again doesn't say anything about 2014 and barely even says anything about Yaraana. signed, Rosguill talk 23:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill And then scroll down further and check the next results exluding the SoundCloud and Quora. And some of the sources might be referring the 1981 film. The Business Standard page you linked is also mentioning a particular song from the 1981 film. The only reliable source mentioning the film is NDTV. Neel.arunabh (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No justification — DaxServer (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neel made a series of edits to the target article, including the claim that it was rereleased in 2014 using this article as the reference. However, the article was "updated" in 2014—not the film itself. The prose makes no mention of a year. Therefore I have reverted these edits. -- Tavix (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tavix I had not realized that the India Today article was actually about the 1981 film.
Tavix Why did you revert my edit of December 2021. That was a completely different edit where I changed the heading from "Songs" to "Soundtrack". Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because I do not trust your competency to edit that article constructively. -- Tavix (talk) 01:36, 13 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.

Decline of classical polytheism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 20#Decline of classical polytheism

History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 20#History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism

Domestic church[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 20#Domestic church

Boaz Trust[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 19#Boaz Trust

History of The Church of Jesus Christ[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 19#History of The Church of Jesus Christ

His Church[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) 03:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very vague (not sure what it is supposed to designate; whose "his" is it?), unused.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I'm no expert on religion, but AIUI many mainstream Christian denominations regard the church as God's and/or Christ's church and would understand "His" to be referring to that, however that's vague enough as is without considering any other Christian denominations or even non-Christian churches. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:55, 13 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.

Ecclesia (church)[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 Ecclesia#Religion. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first redirect seems to be the result of a merger. The current target is way too narrow for an expression used either for a Christian denomination, a Church (building), or Christian Church.
Both redirects should be retargetted to the DAB Church. Veverve (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC) EDIT: Or retargetted to Ecclesia (disambiguation)#Religion. Veverve (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also support this proposal. I had not thought about this target. Veverve (talk) 02:30, 13 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.

Giggle water[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 19#Giggle water

Suburban station[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. Jay (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term in sentence case is generic. Per WP:DIFFCAPS, is there a better target? Certes (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Suburban railway redirects to Commuter rail, but doesn't really discuss stations. Railway station doesn't really go into detail about different types of station, but does mention suburban stations in passing a few times - and this assumes that it's a railway station and not some other type station (e.g. bus station). For all capitalisations, the current target seems to be the primary topic anyway so alternative topics (if there are any suitable, everything else seems to be specific stations that are in suburban areas) would be better as a hatnote anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This redirect is used to aid navigation per WP:USSTATION. I also wonder if there is a better target for this, but the nominator does not seem to have brought anything up, so a hatnote on the target page should suffice if there's any possible confusion with anything else. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems like the most suitable target. A hatnote to Commuter rail might be reasonable. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:41, 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.

UCI 2019[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 19#UCI 2019

Mainspace redirects to meetups and editathons[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 have not gone through the history or checked incoming links for the entries because of the large number. Contact me if there are specific entries to be reviewed. Jay (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
73 additional redirects
  • Delete. I created this in order for the event's attendees to have an easy way to access the wiki meetup page. It's unnecessary to retain SPIE2020 and I'd be glad to delete it; should have done so a long time ago. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I created this in order for the event's attendees to have an easy way to access the wiki meetup page. It's unnecessary to retain SPIE 2020 and I'd be glad to delete it; should have done so a long time ago. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as its creator: I moved the redirect out of mainspace into WP space but forgot to specify "no redirect". PamD 16:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These 74 redirects, most of the cryptically named, are all in the article namespace and point to project space pages about meetps and editathons that took place between 2017 and 2021. While the utility of such redirects making it easier for participants to find details before, during and shortly after the event can be argued, any utility these once had has now gone. I speedily deleted 5 similar redirects that were clearly created in error but these all appear to have been created intentionally, and I will be nominating the one redirect that I think has a plausible alternative target separately. They were created by multiple people, so a single G7 is not possible either. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. Veverve (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all shouldn't be creating links to meetups in article space, and most of them are so random or cryptic that no-one would be looking for them in article space. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, delete. I created several of these. Event organizers get a real benefit from putting these in article space. We have to spend a lot of time getting new editors set up with their account and sometimes a dashboard, and we want to save every last second getting them to the event page, which is itself a new idea to them. We want them to understand our system and create some useful edit before time runs out. But it seems fine to clear these out a year later. I support the framing used by Thryduulf. -- econterms (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, several are just leftovers from page moves. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 00:56, 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.

Redirects to Superficial charm[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 I think I got these all correct except I handled each one manually before discovering the closer option. I've never created a disambiguation page before so if someone could check Charm offensive, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC). Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

41 nonsense links nominated for deletion. All were created by the lead contributor of the article Superficial charm to redirect to his work, however, the article does not discusss these concepts (e.,g empathy, compassion, smiling). Most of these word combinations are unconventional and most have virtually no pageviews. They do, however, clutter search options on Wikipedia. (Updated comment on January 11)Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This link is 1 of 41 that were posted by a currently suspended editor who was apparently promote an article he had originated. The link is an unused in the past, highly unlikely to be used in the future, and has little relevance to the article to which it points. Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Bundled 41 nominations made by Wiki-psyc with identical rationale and target article. N.b., I also tagged every single one of these redirects which were missing an RfD tag. CycloneYoris talk! 23:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was going to do the tagging after a conference call. Appreciate the help. Wiki-psyc (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple:
    • Keep Superficial sincerity, Superficial compassion, Fake charm, Fake compassion, Fake sincerity and Insincere compassion as plausible synonyms/search terms.
      The concept of compassion, sincerity, and charm are different and each has numerous Wikpedia articles. The compassion and sincerity redirects probably shouldn't be redirected to any of the charm articles. Wiki-psyc (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      What matters is not whether the concepts are different, but (a) whether these terms are plausible search terms, and (b) if so, what the best target for them is. I believe the answer to (a) is clearly yes for the ones I've recommended an action other than delete. The answer to (b) varies, but for those I recommend keeping the current target is both better than any other current Wikipedia article I found and better than nothing. If you think other specific articles would be better targets then please list them and I will take a look and, if I agree, I will change my recommendation accordingly. Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree, if we can find articles that discuss these concepts, then the redirect is valid. As I look at Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting it is clear that deletion is appropriate when "the target article contains virtually no information on the subject".
      - Superficial sincerity and Fake sincerity are oxymorons. Pageviews shows that no one is searching these terms. There is no content in the body of "sincerity" or "fake" articles that discuss this concept. Insincere redirects to Sincerity, but there is no content on insincerity. If you find an valid target article, that will be great.
      - As for the "compassion" titles... I don't see that any compassion articles that discuss superifciality or fakeness, either. There is no content in Compassion or Emotion. Disingenuous - giving the false appearance of being honest or sincere - would be good except it redirects to Deception, which is not the same. Of course, if we find content, then the redirect is valid.Wiki-psyc (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disambig Charm offensive between Die! Die! Die!#Discography, Armando Iannucci's Charm Offensive and wikt:charm offensive.
    • Retarget False smile to False Smiles.
    • Delete the rest. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert Glib back to redirecting to GLib Christian75 (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix it Thryduulf's way, except also keep False charm, False compassion, and False sincerity, and retarget Glib back to GLib per Christian75. Some of these are potentially useful, others are just...nonsense. Regards, SONIC678 19:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The concept of compassion, sincerity, and charm are different and each has numerous Wikpedia articles. The compassion and sincerity redirects probably shouldn't be redirected to any of the charm articles. Wiki-psyc (talk) 01:23, 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) 15:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strange how these are all? tagged with {{R from shortcut}} {{R to Wikipedia namespace}}. ― Qwerfjkltalk 12:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strange how you only ended up removing one of those from all the pages. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was going through mainspace R from shortcuts. ― Qwerfjkltalk 08:42, 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.

Wikipedia:AAR[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 22#Wikipedia:AAR

Texas United States state elections, 2006[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) 21:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Completely pointless redirect (nonsensical redundancy, no one would ever type this) created by someone who was banned at the time (and still is). Elli (talk | contribs) 18:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note the requested G5 of this redirect has been declined so it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep this does occasionally get a cluster of views (presumably around the time of other elections in Texas, but I've not verified that) and it is also harmless so I'm not seeing what benefit deletion will bring. Simply being created by a banned editor is not a good reason on it's own to delete a page, there has to be some actual benefit to doing so and deleting a 15 year old harmless redirect seems to lack that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since tracking began this has gotten 112 views. A decent portion do coincide with elections in Texas, but the target article would likely be found without it. This also is just not a meaningful way to refer to the target page. You could say "Texas elections" or "Texas state elections", but "Texas United States state elections" doesn't make sense -- the "United States" implies it's a federal election (as is generally done, for example with Senate or presidential elections). And I agree that being created by a banned editor on its own does not necessitate deletion, but I don't see how this redirect is helpful to the project. It's a bunch of words with dubious meaning. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this a bunch of words with dubious meaning? What else could it refer to other than 2006 state elections in the US state of Texas - i.e. the target? The question is not "what benefit does this bring the project?", because it obviously helps some people find the target they are looking for, the question is "does the benefit from keeping this outweigh combination of the benefits of deletion and the harm caused by deletion?". The answer to that is "yes", because although the benefits from keeping are small, deletion has an equally small harm and no apparent benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Texas United States state elections" does not have meaning or usage in English. Google it, this redirect is the only thing that comes up. This is the only redirect in the format of "STATE United States state elections, YEAR" on the project, readers don't seem to be having any trouble finding our other articles on similar topics without the existence of similar redirects. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lack of google hits for an exact phrase does not speak to whether a phrase has meaning or not - "seven elephants quietly ate tofu" has no google hits as an exact phrase but the meaning is perfectly clear, "2006 Texas elections to the United States senate" is also unused as an exact phrase (as far as Google knows) but the meaning is unambiguous. WP:OTHERSTUFF existing or not existing is not relevant. The only thing we are concerned about is whether deletion brings more benefit to the project than keeping, but as, despite all your words, you've still not identified any benefits at all (the redirect is not confusing, ambiguous, in the way of other content or otherwise harmful) the answer is no because small but non-zero benefits are greater than either zero benefits and small harm let alone both. Thryduulf (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with what Thryduulf has said, and I won't repeat all that he has said. However, the essential point is that even if it seems unlikely that it will be helpful to anyone, this redirect, which has been in existence for over 15 years, cannot possibly do any harm, so nothing whatever can possibly be achieved by deleting it. It just may be helpful to someone, and if so it's better to keep it, whereas if it is never helpful then no harm will be done by keeping it. Our time would be better spent on doing things which will actually be helpful to users of the encyclopaedia rather than putting time into trying to make pointless changes which cannot possibly confer any benefit whatever. JBW (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that this redirect causes "no possible harm". If a reader did happen to find the article via this redirect, they'd expect similar redirects for other articles to exist -- and become confused when they don't. All utility that this redirect potentially has is counteracted by the confusion caused to anyone who would successfully use it. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a nice theory, but it has never held up in practice - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. In the unlikely event that someone is confused by the lack of a similar redirect then they can create it, or ask for it to be created, and that redirect will be just as harmless as this one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the substance of OTHERSTUFF. The only case in which this redirect has utility is a case in which it causes greater harm than the utility it provides. There's no reason to expect someone to use this to find an article -- it's not a sensible rephrasing of the title -- but if someone were to do so, it has the potential to confuse them due to it being the only redirect of its type. Redirects similar to this certainly should not be created to any other articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G5. The sockmaster was blocked 30 August 2006 and the redirect was created by the sockpuppet on 12 October 2006. -- Tavix (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As previously noted, this redirect is not eligible for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And as I previously explained, this redirect is eligible for speedy deletion. The reason given for the decline is not actually an exception to G5. -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Every objection to speedy deletion made in good faith means that the page is not eligible for speedy deletion according to policy. Even if it wasn't an exception to G5 (which it actually is - G5 only permits, not requires, deletion). That there are recommendations here to do something other than delete further invalidates speedy deletion. The speedy deletion policy explicitly says that only pages that uncontroversially meet a criterion may be speedily deleted, any good faith objection to a speedy deletion request means that deletion is controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That it was declined simply means that it not going to actioned without consensus to do so here, but I still think it should be deleted "per G5" because it still meets the speedy deletion criterion for G5. -- Tavix (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You thinking it should be deleted is fine, but "per G5" is not because it does not meet the criterion for G5. Speedy deletion criteria only apply when deletion would be uncontroversial - when there are objections it is not uncontroversial so the criterion does not apply. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Uncontroversial" as a criterion is only for G6. It is not used for any other criteria. -- Tavix (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You might need to reread the policy page then, as the introduction makes it clear that speedy deletion may only be used when deletion is uncontroversial. That applies to every criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the process, not the criteria. We're past the step where ...the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used, which is why this is being hashed out at RfD—another deletion process. -- Tavix (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly - it is being hashed out at another deletion process because it is not eligible for speedy deletion due to being controversial. Arguing for deletion because it meets a criterion when it objectively does not meet that criterion is the issue here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am advocating for deletion because it meets the criterion for speedy deletion as laid out at WP:G5. It is not being deleted through the speedy deletion process because that was objected to. -- Tavix (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that it doesn't meet the criterion. Being uncontroversial is a requirement, it fails that so the rest is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The editor proposing deletion has taken the time to call it to our attention. Unless we have a substantial reason to disagree, or a controversy, we should support him. And yes, I agree and respect Thryduulf's point that the benefits of keeping are small and the benefits of deletion are equally small. For this reason I error on the side of the editors good faith efforts. I trust that he took this into account before nominating and his request is reasonable. We here to make sure there are no grievous errors - not micromanage and second guess every request. Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the relevant part of the reaosn we are here is to ensure that the only redirects which get deleted are those where the benefits of deletion outweigh the costs of deleting and the benefits of keeping. Nobody has yet managed to articulate any actual benefits to deletion. We are not here to just rubber stamp requests. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as speedy G5, and because it actually helps: at the moment, if you start searching for "Texas United St..." in the dropdown search box, you get this nonsense redirect as first result, ahead of 6 redirects which actually make some sense (like Texas United States relations and Texas United States Senate election, 2006). Making searching for correct things easier is a clear benefit of deleting this incorrect redirect. Fram (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a case where there is a tiny benefit and no harm. This is a case where there is zero benefit. If there were no harm too, I'd say "meh" and ignore this discussion, but Fram provides a concrete example of a harm. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are conveniently going to ignore the benefit to those people who use the redirect? Every time it is brought up, redirects that some people dislike appearing in search suggestions has never reached consensus as actually being something that harms the project because it doesn't actually make it any harder for people to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not "conveniently" ignoring anything, I don't believe that these benefits you claim (without evidence it seems) actually exist, while I have demonstrated a real disadvantage. Because yes, in this case, it does make it harder to find the right content, as the redirect under discussion is confusing and named in a way which resembles the other (good) redirects way too closely, for a topic which isn't normally called thus. Fram (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason people are "using" this redirect is because it is popping up first in the search box. I'd be willing to wager almost all of them don't actually want "2006 Texas Elections", because if they did, they wouldn't start typing "Texas Unites St...". And the undeserved snark you're sending my way isn't appreciated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can "wager" all you like, but we have evidence that this is being used and no evidence that it is actually hindering anyone finding the content they want, beyond speculation and personal dislike. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus, you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. I guess I'll disengage, I do not deserve the disrespect you're showing me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not intentionally showing anybody any disrespect - I am simply asking for evidence to back up assertions for which no evidence has yet been presented. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When is an Rcat coming to hide a redirect's placement in search suggestions? Because I hope it comes soon. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tracked in Phabricator
    Task T24251
    See phab:T24251 for that, but don't hold your breath - the request will be 12 years old in a couple of weeks. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @J947 and others, I've put in a request to fix this to the community wishlist for this year - see m:Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Search/Hide some titles from search suggestions where you can add your support. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 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) 15:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fram. ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:20, 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.

MoS4[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 Tetrathiomolybdate. Jay (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand it correctly that this is the formula of the tetrathiomolybdate ion? In that case, it should be retargeted there. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MoS4 is the formula for part of many derivatives of tetrathiomolybdate. It's not a big deal. Kinda surprised it came up. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As it's unclear if Smokefoot's comment was a support for the retarget.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:32, 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) 14:34, 12 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.

Untitled God of War sequel[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) 21:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to expand on my rationale here.[5] Consensus was quite clear that all of the redirects should be deleted on the basis of inaccuracy. There was a minority view that God of War (2021 video game), should have been kept as a redirect as some pre-2022 sources would rightly refer to this as a 2021 game, as it was originally planned to be. Additionally, it does follow the video game naming conventions so it is a reasonable expected title. However, consensus was still to delete.-- Aervanath (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The game is now titled, so this temporary page title has served its temporary purpose. Delete. Neo-corelight (Talk) 09:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added other related redirects. Neo-corelight (Talk) 10:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Untitled God of War sequel and Untitled God of War Sequel, which are still getting significant pageviews[6]. No opinion on the others. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that a relevant reason to keep? The redirects are now innaccurate. Neo-corelight (Talk) 23:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:RFD#KEEP, "Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason." Both of the redirects I highlighted are the result of page moves, and the pageviews strongly suggest there are incoming links (or something similar) leading readers to the article through these redirects. If we delete the redirects, the article will become more difficult to find for those readers. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article subject literally has a title now, so it won't be "more difficult to find" for readers. It definitely won't. Neo-corelight (Talk) 22:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If there really are incoming links from other pages in Wikipedia, the right thing to do is to change those links to the new title instead of keeping the now-innaccurate redirects. Neo-corelight (Talk) 22:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, changing links within Wikipedia is easy. The problem is that deleting the redirects will likely break incoming links from other websites. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a problem. Neo-corelight (Talk) 07:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is. This is explicitly mentioned at WP:RFD#KEEP as a reason to avoid deleting redirects ("in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them"). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All the "untitled" redirects will become obsolete because external pages will eventually use its proper title. Neo-corelight (Talk) 03:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No they won't. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Untitled God of War sequel and Untitled God of War Sequel as titles that are no longer accurate since the target now has a title (thus no longer "untitled"). Delete New God of War title since the use of the word "new" is subjective unless it is part of an official title, which it is not, as well as the vague use of the word "title". Weak delete God of war (2021) as not precise enough due to God of war bring a redirect to a non-video game related target and God of War being a disambiguation page, but "weak" since I don't think "2021" can describe any other subject on God of War. Keep God of War (2021 video game) as an accurate partial title match referencing the video game series. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no God of War games released in 2021 though. Why keep that one? Neo-corelight (Talk) 23:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yep, then delete all. Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, weak delete God of War (2021 video game) (and restoring my "weak delete" for God of war (2021)) since the game was originally slated to be released in 2021, and it seems past consensus on outdated years in redirects, if notable, are a bit iffy in precedent on whether to delete them or not. Steel1943 (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Untitled God of War sequel and Untitled God of War Sequel due to there now being a title. Delete New God of War title as WP:COSTLY. While this is the newest title, that will not always be the case so will need to be retargeted or deleted when this stops being "new" (which is subjective as Steel1943 alluded to). Keep God of War (2021 video game). Sources from before the release date got pushed back will correctly refer to it as a 2021 video game. Delete God of war (2021) due to miscapitalization + unstandard disambiguation. -- Tavix (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why aren't all of these redirects tagged to point to this discussion? Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural, only one redirect was tagged for discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all: none of those should have ever existed in the first place, WP:CRYSTAL. Veverve (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Per WP:CRYSTAL.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all All of these are misleading. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Untitled God of War sequel and Untitled God of War Sequel. These are from page moves but are now misleading as the target has a title. Delete New God of War title and God of war (2021) as ambiguous. Keep God of War (2021 video game) as there is a mention at the target of a (delayed) 2021 release. Disagree that WP:CRYSTAL can be applied, as the title correctly followed the naming convention laid down at WP:Naming conventions (video games)#Disambiguation. Jay (talk) 05:01, 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.

DATERANGE[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) 17:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this is a shortcut redirect in the main namespace but without any pseudonamespace prefix. WP:DATERANGE and MOS:DATERANGE both exist and take people to the relevant section of the target article so this one is not needed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the mainspace and the rest of Wikipedia should be kept separated. Veverve (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:XNR to nonreader content for editors; date ranges exist outside of the context of wikiepdia editing -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:55, 14 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) 18:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:19, 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.

DAR2018[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) 16:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a cryptic shortcut from the article namespace to a 2018 editathon. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the mainspace and the rest of Wikipedia should be kept separated, and the redirect is very cryptic. Veverve (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:XNR to nonreader content for editors -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:20, 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.

U.S. state and federal district WikiProjects[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) 16:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not we should have redirects from the mainspace to WikiProjects, there is absolutely no reason to have redirects from the mainspace to a list of userboxes for WikiProjects. I'd have speedied this under R3 if it wasn't 9 months10 years old. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 21:53, 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) 18:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:20, 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.

Comics Wikiproject[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) 16:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely that someone would know about these specific WikiProjects before they learn about namespaces. There is an article at WikiProject, but I don't think we should redirect these two (the only two that have links in mainspace as far as I've found) to a page that does not mention them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:XNR to non-reader content for the editorship -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the mainspace and the rest of Wikipedia should be kept separated. Veverve (talk) 21:19, 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. Wikiproject Wikipedia might be a conceivable search term for a reader interested in the WikiProject article, so I would also be fine with retargeting that, but the current target is not suitable. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these unnecessary cross-namespace redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:21, 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.

Cologne Blue (skin)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 20#Cologne Blue (skin)

Cleanup template[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) 21:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that we need a cross-namespace redirect from the article namespace to a list of internal templates. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also don't see a reason to grandfather things like this. Gonnym (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure that these shouldn't be kept, since They were both created in 2008 and are "grandfathered in" by community agreement, which takes precedent over any local delete !votes and rationales. Present CNR consensus is to leave these useful and helpful shortcut redirects as is and usually (not always) delete only new CNRs. The plural was created with an edit summary of "let's make this easier to find and get to" and the singular created a month later, presumably for the same reason. Guess I'm not certain that these aren't These are still useful and helpful shortcuts. There is no reason to alter the community consensus. What harm do these redirects do? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 11:03 20:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editor users would prefix it with "WP" if they really thought about it. WP:Cleanup templates / WP:Cleanup template; it would not be useful to the readership, who might be looking for something from Miss Kondo or similar; 2008 is also rather late for these to be appearing in mainspace without a pseudonamespace prefix like "MOS:" or previously, "WP:" before it became an alias -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the mainspace and the rest of Wikipedia should be kept separated. Veverve (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these unnecessary cross-namespace redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no value. ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Cleanup template got about 120 page views at the end of January 2021. Cleanup templates has an incoming link from 2011 Egyptian revolution: Journalism scholar Heather Ford studied the use of infoboxes and cleanup templates in the Wikipedia article regarding the revolution.. While Infobox leads to a mainspace article, cleanup templates leads the reader to the current target projectspace page. Jay (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Inline links from article prose should never take the reader to project-space content (such content isn't formatted for readers, and such links are often broken on mirrors which replicate only articles). If it is necessary to refer to something like that which does not have an article then it should be done as an explanatory footnote and any links should be formatted an external link direct to the target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 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.

Chinese hat[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 19#Chinese hat

Enthusiast[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/keep pointing to Enthusiasm with hatnote to Fan (person). There was no consensus for or against creating a disambiguation page at Enthusiast (disambiguation), but RfD's permission is not needed to create one; MB's draft DAB lives on in the page history for anyone inclined do so. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In closing, I noticed that Enthusiasts had never been properly tagged. I see it as extremely unlikely that it being tagged would have made a difference to the outcome of the RfD, and so will stand by the close rather than bureaucratically give this a fourth relist. Friendly reminder to tag redirects you bundle, though, Mdewman6. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This had redirected to Enthusiasm for over 15 years. Recently changed to Fan (person), which may be a better target even if less linguistically related. The two articles link to each other, so either is plausible. If left at the new target, the hatnotes on both need to be updated. I've drafted a potential dab too, which is probably best at Enthusiast (disambiguation). MB 04:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget back to Enthusiasm. The "History" section in that article discusses the use of the word "enthusiast". I can understand the reasoning behind targeting it to Fan (person), though I think the word "enthusiast" is used more often for a hobbyist (redirects to Hobby) than for a fan. Redirecting to the article that discusses the term is cleanest. Creating a disambiguation page at Enthusiast (disambiguation) also sounds like a reasonable idea. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Not to make this more complicated, but I have added the plural to the discussion, as it needs to be considered too. The plural form is mentioned at Enthusiasm as a proper noun ("The Enthusiasts"). Mdewman6 (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further consideration of the plural form, which was added late to the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:56, 12 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.

Schools inspector[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) 21:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to one school inspection agency, in one country. Not a representative redirect; WP:GLOBALISE. —🎄☃️❄️ Season's greetings from AFreshStart (talk) ❄️☃️🎄 02:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, but WHERE TO? Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Based on my searches, Ofsted is the clear primary topic for this exact phrase - even excluding "ofsted" and "UK" from the search term that still accounts for the significant majority of relevant results (i.e. excluding "how to say" and "translation" results), the only exceptions down to page 4 were 1 each for Zimbabwe, Cayman Islands and Victoria, Australia, and not one of which was in a reliable source. Add that we don't have any appropriate article about school inspections/inspectors from anywhere other than the UK so we don't have a suitable alternative (Inspectorate doesn't even mention the word school, so that's not appropriate). Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 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) 03:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Thryduulf: it's the best we've got. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A schools inspector is a person or entity that inspects schools. Googling the term from my non-UK location, I get lots of stuff about the general concept of schools inspectors, or about random schools inspectors in the U.S., and nothing about one particular agency in a country home to less than 1% of the global population. Ofsted is no more the clear primary topic here than National Health Service is for health system. Rather, this just looks to be one of those cases where we don't have an article on the primary topic. WP:PRIMARYRED says, On the rare occasions that a red-linked article would be the primary topic, the situation is treated as if there is no primary topic until the red-linked article is written. Per that, United Kingdom schools inspector would be a permissible redirect here, but this one is not, and should be deleted per WP:REDLINK. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take issue with that slightly (setting aside the spurious 1%...). Ofsted is the primary topic for "Schools inspector" in England (not actually UK, incidentally), and so if a reader wanted to know about Schools inspectors in England then the Ofsted article is the right place. That target is not perfect, but it is the only article (I can find) about schools inspectors, and deletion is harmful to those who were concerned with England. I've just created Schools inspector (England). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus after two relists...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: there is no good retarget and this job clearly exists in other countries, e.g. fr:Inspecteur de l'Éducation nationale. Veverve (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the UK isn't the only country to have school inspectors, as demonstrated in the posts above. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inspector of schools also exists as a much older redirect to the same target. The closer may want to take care of this as well. Jay (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest either relisting this discussion to incorporate that one, or wait for this one to close and RfD that one separately. As the redirect has not been tagged I don't support taking action without discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 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.

'A[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 19#'A

Pavilion (video game)[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 PC games (P). Jay (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title is not in list and it is unclear to me that it was published for PlayStation or Vita. Pavilion: Touch Edition does appear to have been published for mobile platforms, so it might be a reasonable search term, but I don't know an appropriate redirect target. Ost (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of PC games (P), where it can be added with this Metacritic source. czar 08:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Czar. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 08:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Czar. Thanks for finding that source and that reasonable redirect target. I'm the nom and I've added the game to the list, as I did not think that this redirect discussion should stop improvements to the list. —Ost (talk) 22:03, 12 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.

Pre-drop[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 19#Pre-drop

Fandom-related redirects to Animal Jam Classic[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 FMAN to fman; delete all others. -- Aervanath (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All refer to non-notable Animal Jam Classic fanworks and rumors that aren't mentioned on the target page at all. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 20:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 12 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.

Wall St. Whiz Kid[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) 21:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked to expand on the rationale here[7]. Consensus is that this is an ambiguous search term at best, and most participants didn't find it plausible at all.-- Aervanath (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely unlikely anyone will search Wikipedia for "Wall St. Whiz Kid" with the intention of finding David Bloom. ZimZalaBim talk 03:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A quick Google search suggests that a more likely target would be this book. [8] Frankly though, I find it implausible that anyone would use such a vague search term at all. Certainly not for someone referred to that way back in the 1980s. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't understand it, so what is the use of it. scope_creepTalk 01:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • More than a 100 search results in Google for "wall street whiz kid" "david bloom", many of them news articles. Keep unless this is confusing or meant to refer to other people. Jay (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andy's fist sentence. Jay's evidence shows that this would be a reasonable search term if unambiguous, but it's ambiguous. That said, "Don't understand it" is not and has never been a valid reason to delete a redirect. What matters is if any of our readers understand it, not an invidual RfD commenter. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:58, 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.

2022 European Athletics Championships[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) 21:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I find it confusing for reader and editors in Wikipedia when the 2022 already has a blue link but only redirects to the event's general page and not the actual event. Nordat (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the target contains information about the 2022 event. Editors can overwrite the redirect to create an article. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the IP above. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think such redirects should not be made. Red link is better. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation. People seeing a blue link for this might assume an article therefore exists, whereas if it's a redlink, they will know it needs to be created. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D10 to encourage article creation. What little there is on the current target will be found in search anyway. A7V2 (talk) 04:00, 19 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.

JGIYN[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) 06:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure internet slang that means Just Google It You Noob (according to non-RS) which has very low pages views and does not seem to properly justif a cross-project redirect. delete TartarTorte 03:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected it back fourteen years ago, since it was listed on the (at that time, English Wikipedia) list of internet slang. I have no objection to deleting it now, although I'm not sure it's worth the effort to do so. :-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely meaningless pap. Never heard of the phrase. scope_creepTalk 01:29, 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.

Aston Martin DB12[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) 06:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, these speculated/predicted models are not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. The DB12 redirect was created not long after this article [9] so presumably was influenced by it (or a similar one), but in any case I can find nothing but vague speculation. For the DB13 there is even less to be found apart form this [10] mentioning that trademarks have been taken out on various DBxx names. I suggest delete both. A7V2 (talk) 00:59, 12 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.

Template:Currently broadcasted programs by Duronto TV[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 19#Template:Currently broadcasted programs by Duronto TV

Jaguar J-Pace[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 Jaguar Land Rover car platforms#MLA. Jay (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speculated/announced new model which was cancelled (see [11], [12]). No mention at target or anywhere I could find, nor is any justified. Delete. A7V2 (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems like a good target. I hadn't considered this as a good place for a mention, it seems appropriate. Retarget per the IP. I'm not sure if this qualifies for a "withdraw" since it's not quite a keep, I'll leave it to someone else if they want to close early. A7V2 (talk) 22:49, 12 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_12&oldid=1067706776"