Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 20, 2022.

Lolita (Christina Aguilera song)[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 Speedily deleted by Amortias Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created by a hoaxer, the song doesn't even exist La Fuerza#Track listing. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:51, 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.

New Coke conspiracy theories[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 New Coke#Conspiracy theories. Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unneeded redirect to section. No links use the redirect, and it's an implausible thing to require a separate search instead of just searching for the target article in the first place. oknazevad (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Searching for "New Coke conspiracy theories" is a highly plausible way to find the content at New Coke#Conspiracy theories - that it got 115 hits last year is evidence of this. Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to New Coke#Conspiracy theories per Thryduulf. People might search for those theories using this term. Regards, SONIC678 02:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine Target to New Coke#Conspiracy theories per Thryduulf. --Lenticel (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, the redirect already points to the section, as I noted in my original comment. I don't believe that any of the paltry views are caused by people intentionally searching for the term, but are a case of people seeing it come up as a suggested search and clicking it out of curiosity only to find it being a redirect to the article they would have just searched for anyway. After all, that's how I found it. oknazevad (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    None of that is a reason to delete. Not everybody searches in the same way, and not everybody uses methods of finding Wikipedia content where search suggestions are available. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No other target seems to be plausible. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 05:09, 24 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.

Rfd me if u gay[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 speedy deleted by Ponyo per WP:G3. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious troll redirect that I found while searching "rfd" to get to this page to read over, nominating it for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3d08:627d:8800:189f:886c:5457:4cc0 (talk • contribs)

  • Speedy delete. Would think it could just be tagged and not even need discussion. oknazevad (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete; I've tagged the page for G3. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mwahahaha now ur gay >:) Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 21:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moral support. Made me chuckle. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:00, 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.

DYK hall of fame[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#DYK hall of fame

Vache Marine[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for French Plantdrew (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:45, 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.

Zeekoe[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for Dutch Plantdrew (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The previous target was hippopotamus and Zeekoevlei says "zeekoe" (literally "sea-cow") is Dutch for hippopotamus. Seacow (disambiguation) doesn't have a mention of hippopotamus, although it has a wiktionary entry for zeekoe. Jay (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. While the primary topic of the term is clearly the Dutch word it is, according to Wiktionary, an archaic English word for hippopotamus (and that is something an English speaker plausibly would be searching Wikipedia for). As the same page on Wiktionary covers English and Dutch words an editor will find whatever they are looking for there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:45, 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.

Red Luigi & Green Mario[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 Green Mario, delete Red Luigi. Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I get it ... Luigi wears green and is Mario's brother, and Mario wears red and is Luigi's brother ... but the terms referring to either one of them seems to be some sort of unused, vague WP:NOTFANDOM-style association. Steel1943 (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Green Mario; Delete Red Luigi. "Red Luigi" is really just a joke and hence probably not necessary. Nobody would type that into Wikipedia out of ignorance or forgetfulness. By contrast, "Green Mario", which I created, is a term people who don't know a lot about the Mario games traditionally fall back on when they're trying to remember the name of that other guy. If they even know he has a name, and isn't just a green Mario. (It's at the level of calling Link "Zelda".) So it seems helpful to have it as a redirect. —Kodiologist (t) 22:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not particularly plausible search terms. Exhibit A. Sergecross73 msg me 23:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for "Green Mario", as this is a valid search term for people who do not know the name Luigi. I've legitimately heard this in the wild from people who were ignorant of his actual name. Weak Keep for "Red Luigi"... I don't think this is something that a person completely ignorant of the subject would spontaneously search for (as they might with "Green Mario"), and I recognize that it's a joke... but on the other hand, someone could legitimately overhear someone mentioning "Red Luigi" AS A JOKE and become confused as to what that means. This redirect will very quickly inform them. Fieari (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Green Mario" is holding steady at an average of zero page views a day. I already provided a link above that shows "Red Luigi" is equally bad. There's proof that these redirects are very literally not helping anyone. They're objectively not being used. Sergecross73 msg me 02:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why are you using daily pageviews? With that kind of stat, you could delete most articles from Wikipedia -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Im not sure I follow. What better way to measure plausibility than objective evidence of how much it's actually been used in the past? Do you have a better metric? Surely you have something better than vague personal anecdotes about what "some kids" say then? That appears to be the extent of your (and the other keeps so far) stance. Sergecross73 msg me 03:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I reject the idea that daily pageviews are relevant for a redirect. We have, and should have, redirects for typos. We have, and should have, redirects for misspellings. We have, and should have, redirects for minor subconcepts within larger articles, and these probably get one or two uses a year. Redirects are cheap. Redirects are easy. Redirects remain useful even if they're rarely used. I see no reason to get rid of something potentially useful for lack of regular use. If it helps one person, and it does not mislead, or do harm... why not keep it? Fieari (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            This is not a typo or a misspelling. It's an entirely made up name. And there's proof that virtually no one is using the redirect. We delete redirects that aren't serving a purpose. People cite page views to show plausibility or implausibility of redirects all the time, so I'm not sure why this it's coming off as some foreign concept in this dyscussion. Sergecross73 msg me 12:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The stats show that "Green Mario" is visited less than once per day, but not never, more like once a week or once a month. That seems like more than enough for a redirect. —Kodiologist (t) 15:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, let's look at the figures and put it into perspective. Green Mario was viewed a mere 45 times over the course of the entirety of 2021. That's 45 times over the course of 365 days. To put that in perspective, there are 52 weeks in a year. So that's less than once a week it was used. As the link shows, due to rounding, it manages to average 0 page views a day for the entire year. It's preposterous to suggest that this is a significant amount, especially for a popular subject article that, in the same period, averaged over 800 views per day. Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • 299 pageviews translates to something like 200 readers helped. You're suggesting that's insignificant? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thats a very weak attempt to skew the information. I'll point out that yet again, this time in the context of over 6 years, the redirect still rounds to an average of zero page views a day. So you showed an even longer pattern of it being virtually never used. And going back to my prior context: in 2021, the redirect was used 45 times. Meanwhile, at over 800 views a day, the correct name was used over 290,000 times. So yes, contextually, all around I would call that redirect insignificant. Sergecross73 msg me 04:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep "Green Mario", as that's how some small kids refer to him, along with the complementary "Red Mario" for his brother. Though "Red Luigi" has a large spike in views last summer, I don't see it as very useful -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Some arguments about the terms being used by people who are not familiar with the characters may be a bit convincing. But I found no sources that acknowledge the use of both terms. Neo-corelight (Talk) 03:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pageviews show they aren't common misnomers.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; pageviews show that the redirects are useful to many readers. No benefit has been raised as to why deleting the redirect is helpful. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it's inception over six years ago, it has maintained a rounded average of zero daily page views. It's difficult to conceive a more damning statistic against it helping readers. It's consistently gone unused for its entire existence. Sergecross73 msg me 04:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • (use this thread) An average of zero daily pageviews is normal for a redirect. It's even normal for some articles. Sure, we've got zero daily pageviews. Heck, let's make up a scenario and remove the 'daily'. Zero pageviews total. Ever. Even then, that isn't a valid argument to delete a redirect. If no one visits the redirect, then equally no one is harmed by its existence. So, what would the point in deleting the redirect be? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sergecross73's position is that if a page isn't visited once a day for an extended period of time, it should be deleted. I find this position... ugh, I want to use a rude phrase but let's keep it polite... I find this position untenable. I would like to hear Sergecross73 explain why wikipedia should delete something purely because it is used less than once a day. Not because it isn't useful, not because it's never used-- but merely because it is used infrequently. It's not like we're running out of disk space here. Fieari (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Implausible redirects are deleted. These extremely low page views show they are implausible. The keep !votes largely hinge on lazy personal anecdotes rather than any sort of reliable sourcing that verifies it's a prevalent term used in any capacity. I cannot break it down any simpler than that. Sergecross73 msg me 11:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Right. 299 pageviews is not extremely low page views. This redirect has helped 200 readers; if that translates to implausibility the system is broken. Reliable sourcing is not needed to keep a redirect; unreliable sources can also demonstrate usage (however, obviously not as well), especially of misnomers. In general your comments seem to rely upon the assumption that if a redirect is not well used it is good to delete it. That isn't a base assumption as I said above. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Over the course of six years, for a subject as globally popular as Mario and Luigi, it absolutely is extremely low. And your premise also hinges on the unfounded premise that it was helpful every time. We don't technically know that someone typing in "Green Mario" was truly looking for Luigi, or if they were actually helped if they were, as Luigi article mentions "Green Mario" zero times in it, nor should it, as sources never address this name. Simple typos or alternate spellings don't need sourcing or explanation, but unexplained names would. Sergecross73 msg me 13:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • The onus is on you to show if a redirect is ambiguous. "It might be ambiguous" is a rationale that could be used to delete every redirect. It doesn't cut it.
                Answer this please: Why would the target of a redirect bear any influence on the merits of an unambiguous redirect? It seems to me that a 300-pageview redirect is worth the same whether its target has received 3,000 views or 30 million views. I don't get the logic here.
                If someone types Green Mario looking for Luigi, as is likely, I doubt they'll be surprised when that's what turns up. The readers aren't looking for information on the term Green Mario, they're looking for information about Luigi. Besides, it's a misnomer; not an alternative name. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • And I'll repeat what I said above, since it has been completely ignored: No benefit has been raised as to why deleting the redirect is helpful. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • Look, we've already covered a lot of this, and I'm tired of talking circles with you, and it's not my job to catch you up to speed on why we delete implausible redirects. That's beyond the scope of these discussions anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 23:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Green Mario but delete Red Luigi per Kodiologist. It might be seen as an extremely low page view count, however, per paragraph number 5 at WP:R#KEEP, redirects should be useful for at least someone, which is the case with Green Mario, used 3 or 4 times a month in 2021. People whose interests include video games browse Wikipedia differently from readers benefited from the redirect. Deleting the redirect would be like, for example, removing a wheelchair ramp simply because it's only used by wheelchair users 3 or 4 times a month. Also, it is not a requirement for redirects to have a title mentioned by reliable sources or the target article. The Green Mario redirect is simply here to show people not familiarized with the Mario franchise what's the name of that Mario's friend with a green hat, again? If someone searches in Google "Green Mario", it'll show mostly links to images of Mario with green clothes (or images of Luigi jokingly labeled "Green Mario"), and the only link that appears there with the text "Luigi" in the link name, quickly informing the character's name, is a link to Wikipedia's article about him (possibly because of this redirect). I'm not sure about Red Luigi, though. ObserveOwl (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats a terrible example - wheelchairs and wheelchair ramps are real terms that are intrinsically connected to one another. A more apt comparison to "Green Mario" would be if rolling push chair redirected to wheelchair - a silly made up term no one uses that just kinda describes the subject. And again, unless it's a basic alternate spelling or misspelling, it's supposed to be mentioned in the article. The whole premise there doesn't make any sense. Are we to believe that a reader is so clueless that they cannot figure out the name of globally recognized fictional characters like Mario or Luigi's name, but smart enough to understand a redirect without an explanation or mention? Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reread the analogy – it's about a real-life scenario. And it's apt. Also, I doubt Mario and Luigi are mostly recognised by all age groups of a specific country, let alone globally. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No matter what, the analogy is totally broken because it's between two recognizable and official terms, and these redirect terms are neither. Sergecross73 msg me 23:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Green Mario, Neutral/very weak delete on Red Luigi. A simple google search shows a lot of people asking about "who is the green Mario?" on various websites, so it would seem to be a plausible search term. These arguments that it receives very few views are setting the bar ridiculously high for a redirect, much higher than most would pass. A7V2 (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Green Mario, all the evidence shows this is a useful and used search term. Weak keep Red Luigi, it's much less used, but it is used and the redirect is harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Green Mario as a plausible search term. Yeah, it may not be used all that much, but once a week is enough to keep it as redirects are cheap. Mario is well known to the layperson, but his palette-swapped brother is not nearly as well known. Red Luigi is, however, just an obvious joke by internet goofballs mocking the "green Mario" term and not needed, so delete Red Luigi. oknazevad (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Green Mario as one of the well-known plausible search term, Delete Red Luigi as very vague redirect and don't make anything sense. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:9592:104:4E5D:50FD (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that we should keep Green Mario for people who don't know Luigi's name, but what about people who don't know Mario's name? Although unlikely, it's not impossible for people to be unaware of Mario's name, so I think that we should keep Red Luigi.Chase McCane (talk) 08:49, 25 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]

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! 22:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not every polytheistic religion which existed during Antiquity declined with the rise of Christianity (e.g. Hinduism). There is no retarget as the name of the redirect is too broad.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, "classical" here refers to Classical antiquity, GScholar shows several results that appear to use the term in precisely the target's context. signed, Rosguill talk 21:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: I do not understand what you are trying to say. The meaning does not refer to the specific pagan religions of the Roman empire, but refers to all pagan religions in the Classical antiquity. And we have no article on an alleged decline of those pagan religions during this period. Veverve (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Veverve, which classical religion survived the fall of Rome? signed, Rosguill talk 22:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: Hum, you have a point since the Classical antiquity only concerns the Greco-Roman world. Veverve (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and work on it! Christianization of the Roman Empire concerns a different and more limited time period than "Decline of classical polytheism" which begins 200 years BC and extends into the sixth and seventh centuries. They really are entirely different subjects! Polytheism is only discussed from the perspective of its interaction with Christianization in the one article, and would barely even require mentioning in the other! Christianization is limited geographically to within the Roman empire - Classical polytheism would have to include the Greeks as well as the Romans (of both Republic and Empire) and perhaps the Sumerians and the Egyptians as well. These articles are not the same. Both should exist. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep maybe some day somebody will write about the decline of classical polytheism ante Christ. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect the actual decline of polytheism is inextricably bound up with the victory of monotheism; the idea of decline of polytheism as separate from the rise of monotheism is a poorly-supported concept of some monotheist authors, with little support from history. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Keatinge: retarget to which article? Veverve (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Richard can feel free to respond himself, but I read the above as "[Keep the] Redirect" in context of the argument they gave. signed, Rosguill talk 18:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be unclear, that is indeed what I meant. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:44, 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.

Domestic 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. No prejudice against recreation to a target where a sourced, due mention is added. -- Tavix (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this redirect is supposed to mean. The expression does not seem to be used to designate a house church.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: do you have a retarget to suggest? Veverve (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Light-Life Movement. If the term is used as a synonym for family in the commandments, then disambiguate. Jay (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: the "Domestic Church" mention has just been removed by me, as it was purely unsourced. Therefore, it is not a good retarget. Veverve (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found these sources on the domestic church of the Light-Life Movement - 1,2, 3, 4, and the mention can be added back. Jay (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the sources identified above appear to be primary and thus aren't enough to justify adding content at the target or holding up this discussion. No prejudice against recreation if a DUE mention can be added. signed, Rosguill talk 19:25, 31 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.

Natural and Political Observations upon the Bills of Mortality[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 Procedural close. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is this an unlikely search term, even if you were to search it, who is to say that you want John Graunt's observations and not someone else's? -- Mike 🗩 18:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Darth Mike: Who else made Natural and Political Observations upon the Bills of Mortality? -- Tavix (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, consider this Withdrawn. Apparently I can't read. I thought it said John Gaunt's book on natural and political observations upon the Bills of Mortality. However, rereading, I see that is the title of the book. -- Mike 🗩 19:24, 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.

Papal authority[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 Pope#Status and authority. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The authority of the pope was not always a papal supremacy, as proved for example by Haec sancta. The expression itself is too broad as it is not a term of art and can therefore refer to any form of authority the pope has, such as the hierocracy (medieval) or the authority the pope has over the diocese of Rome or the Latin Church.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Veverve: it's got a bunch of incoming links; it seems like this should be a bluelink. Any retarget suggestions? VQuakr (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr: unfortunately, none. Moreover, most incoming links are probably from a variety of contexts for a various different meanings, therefore finding a proper target is impossible. Veverve (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like this should become a disambiguation page. VQuakr (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The expression is used in such a variety of contexts - most of the time very vaguely to refer to any form of authority from the pope -, I do not feel a DAB is possible. Veverve (talk) 04:31, 23 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.

Foreign adversary[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) 20:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generic term not necessarily associated with the US (e.g. first three GScholar results: [2], [3], [4]) delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is far too generic to be a useful search term or disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too general for a redirect or disambiguation page. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:07, 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.

Swami Vividishananda[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Vivekananda was not known as Swami Vividishananda. Swami Vividishananda was a different person who founded the Vedanta Society of Western Washington (see [5]). The article once created at this page was completely unsourced for all of its history, but was later misunderstood to be refering to Swami Vivekananda and hence merged and redirected, apparently without any kind of discussion. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 16:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ideally, delete per WP:REDYES. However, since the content was merged, I feel it is likely to be kept. Veverve (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that it was merged without any discussion with this edit, which doesn't remain in the current article because it used to be completely unsourced and I can barely find any verifiable references supporting the claim. Also, note that that the daily average pageviews is 0, and is probably an implausible search term anyway. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 03:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 17:56, 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.

Barndominium[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have believed it possible to have made this article (as it was then) worse, but I obviously underestimated Wiki’s peculiar power. It has gone from being an amorphous blob attempting to capture two only tenuously related meanings to being actively wrong. The term is almost never used for barn conversions, which it is now redirected to. Qwirkle (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an unhelpful neologism. Any redirects fall afoul of WP:OR. —AFreshStart (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in an episode title at List of Texas Flip N Move episodes, and the word is used in the article Fixer Upper (TV series), where it is also in the title of a reference, so it's useful to have it redirect somewhere. List of house types, includes it, so that's a possible target, or it could be redirected to wikt:barndominium. Anon3406 (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • wikt:barndominium is simply wrong. The limited number of barns -stables, really, “hoss barns”, not barns proper- that are owned in condominium on the east coast were all purpose-built, IMS.

      (The point about stable vs. barn is a bigger deal than at looks among a certain slice of horsicle people.)

      The buildings that a Texican , Sooner, or suchlike might call a “barndominium” are generally a relative of the bastle or Dartmoor longhouse - the connected farm is obviously similar, but not under one roof. They are a single property -“condominium” in the legal sense doesn’t come into it at all. Qwirkle (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am generally against redirects to Wiktionary as it can so easily contain total neologisms or words that are not in most reputable dictionaries. I may be badly mistaken, but I think this is an example of that. —AFreshStart (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary has a strict wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion which requires at least three demonstrated independent uses of a word in a given sense spanning at least one year in durably archived sources. If you believe any word there does not meet this requirement then you can add a request for verification, and if it fails it will be deleted (or the sense removed, as appropriate). I haven't got time now to do a full search for this word, but from initial investigation it is very clearly not a neologism and is used in two senses: 1. a barn converted to living accommodation, 2. a home purpose-built in that style. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Wiki had an article that referred to neither of those uses, that isn’t a very good sign.

Wikitionary’s policies are only “strict” in the sense of “well codified”; in the more meaningful sense of “excluding idiosyncratic usage” they are as strong as tissue paper. Qwirkle (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there don't appear to be any currently suitable targets, although personally I don't have a hardline position against wiktionary redirects. signed, Rosguill talk 19:23, 31 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.

قمر[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 Qamar. Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

' Doug Weller talk 15:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: you have not provided any rationale to your RfD. Veverve (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I had. As below, guidelines say “In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created" Doug Weller talk 19:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. The moon has no particular affinity with (what Google Translate tells me is) Arabic. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, presumably someone searching the Arabic word for moon would be doing so on the Arabic Wikipedia. Bonoahx (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Qamar as plausible synonym. --Lenticel (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller, Thryduulf, and Bonoahx: What do you think about retargetting to Qamar? Lenticel (talk) 07:42, 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.

Qűė[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) 20:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created" Doug Weller talk 15:31, 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.

Õŕªņģę[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 Speedily deleted by Amortias under criterion G3. Thryduulf (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created" Doug Weller talk 15:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:R3. Unsurprisingly, this redirect is literally the only hit on Google. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 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.

Gameranx[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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. Neocorelight (Talk) 15:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm having a hard time identifying how exactly they're connected, but I think they are somehow. If you do a Google search like "Gameranx Complex Network" you'll find this page, which is a tag for all the times Complex has articles about Gameranx content. Perhaps someone else can figure it out? I feel like there could be a reason to mention Gameranx at the Complex Network article, but I could be wrong. Sergecross73 msg me 21:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Gameranx looks like a content marketing agency that has probably sold content to Complex Networks. I don't see any evidence of it being a subsidiary or something similar. Bonoahx (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. No evidence of connection. Loew Galitz (talk) 05:17, 23 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.

David Ayers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#David Ayers

Indelible mark[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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The expression is too broad and vague to redirect to such a precise, specific concept of Catholic sacramental law. As you can see here and here, the expression is never used in relation with Catholicism.
I recommend deletion or a soft reditect to "indelible" in the Wiktionary. Veverve (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep arguably the other examples are references to the theological concept (a significant amount of English phrases start that way...) and it is not really a phrase used in common parlance. I've actually never heard the phrase used outside of theological discussions, and while that's anecdotal, I'm typically well read enough and tend to pick up on phrases like this that I think it would have stuck out.
    But lets put it in terms of the reader: if a reader reads 'indelible mark' in a letter to the editor of the New York Times the odds of them searching for it are pretty slim - it doesn't really have a significant enough meaning in those context. If a parishioner has to suffer through a priest giving an overly technical homily on the nature of baptism in Catholic theology... they very likely will be searching for Indelible mark. In context, the most likely use of this as a search term involves sacramental theology. No harm in keeping it as is. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni: the other examples are references to the theological concept (a significant amount of English phrases start that way...) you have not provided any source for this claim. Moreover, even if it came from it, WP does not take into account the origin of words, but their use in contemporary English and the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
    Also, the overwhelming majority of the occurences of "indelible mark" one can find on Google books, Google scholar, and Google, have a meaning completely unrelated to Christian theology. Therefore, it hurts the reader to find on WP a concept so remote from the actual use of the expression while searching for it. Veverve (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You took my quote out of context there, but okay. I think the closer will likely know my speaking style enough and read the entire comment to understand that I was pointing out that English tends to draw a lot of its references from religious sources, and the simple existence of non-religious usage that would be unlikely to be searched for does not make a redirect to a religious topic inappropriate. The evolution of language typically isn't extremely well documented, and this is especially the case when religious and secular terms play off one another. I was not making a hard claim, but simply pointing out that we can't assume language develops in a vacuum - it wasn't a hard claim that needs sourcing, but rather a general argument that we should consider the cultural context that languages develop in, which does include religion.
    To your point on usage - you have to think what the reader would search for this phrase for. They are very unlikely to be searching for it in regards to a letter to the editor or a reference in a book on science or the like, since in those cases it is not used for a specific concept, but rather as ordinary language. Within Christian theology, it is used for a specific theological concept that most readers are probably not going to have heard before. Some of them will come to Wikipedia to try to find out more about it. A redirect serves the purpose of helping them find what they're looking for. Making that more difficult doesn't help the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per Jay. --Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Created a disambig draft at the redirect. Jay (talk) 20:57, 27 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.

TSV Bayer 04 Leverkusen[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it only links to one section (handball) of the multi-sports club de:TSV Bayer 04 Leverkusen and per WP:RFD#D10 to encourage article creation. Nordat (talk) 10:54, 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.

SN 2020tlf[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; redirects to a completely unrelated object. Alternatively an article for SN 2020tlf could be created. nussun (talk) 09:52, 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.

Cretinism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#Cretinism

Non-Hausdorff[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#Non-Hausdorff

BSPN on ABC[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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear the purpose of this redirect, there is no real reason for someone to be searching BSPN on ABC accidently. This redirect should be deleted. Mannysoloway (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Apparently "BSPN" is a pejorative nickname for "ESPN" (referencing the euphemistic initialism of the vulgar slang term). However, if we were to have a redirect for that term (I have no opinion on whether we should) it would only be appropriate for BSPN as I can find no evidence that it is used in contexts like this. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf's findings --Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 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.

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

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7#History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism

Shunet Nimrin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#Shunet Nimrin

Cologne Blue (skin)[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. wbm1058 (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The names of Wikipedia skins are not the sort of thing that readers or editors who have not learned about namespace are at all likely to know. While I could see an argument that they might want to know about skins, there are links from Skin (disambiguation) and Skin (computing), and Wikipedia skins is a redirect (I'm not nominating this one, but I'm not going to object if someone else wants to), that will take them to the same target and are logical places to look. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: "are not the sort of thing that readers or editors who have not learned about namespace are at all likely to know" - how you can tell that? I usually add redirects for such things in Google, Facebook, YouTube and Wikipedia linked to Wikidata (I just reminder to add notable redirects to Wikidata) isn't any expection. If there is redirect for Wikipedia skins we also should have redirects from skin names. Eurohunter (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand most of your comment. These redirects are in the article namespace and point to pages in the Wikipedia namespace - those sorts of redirects should (by consensus) normally only be for pages that are important for readers or very new users who haven't learned about namespaces to find easily. The names of individual Wikipedia skins do not, imo, fall into that category. I don't understand your comments about WikiData - redirects like Wikipedia:MonoBook, Wikipedia:Cologne Blue, etc. exist in the proper namespace and can be linked to WikiData if that is something WikiData desires. If the individual skins are notable then we should have encyclopaedic information about them in an article and the redirects should point there, however I don't see any evidence for these skins being notable. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move into projectspace. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: the main space and the rest of Wikipedia should be kept separated. Veverve (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these unnecessary cross-namespace redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:19, 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.

Colosseum - 9/5/05[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what the 9/5/05 means. While this redirect was created in 2005, it was not created on May 9th nor September 5th. -- Tavix (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The edit history shows it was created as a wall of text about the Colosseum and redirected there a few minutes later. It probably should have been deleted at that time. MB 02:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete confusing at best --Lenticel (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the original page appears to have been a test/draft by a new editor, perhaps as part of a school project, with quoted sections probably taken from the Colosseum article of that time, together with some sort of summary or commentary by the page author. I suspect the redirecting editor was attempting to preserve the article history for the original editor, which was appropriate. But more than fifteen years later, that's served its purpose—nobody is returning there to view it, it no longer serves any useful purpose, and if someone is nostalgic for their school project, they've had plenty of time to save the contents by now. P Aculeius (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This would not have been speedily deletable in 2005 as it's not clearly a test page, and so redirection was a reasonable alternative to VfD (as it still was back then); Since late 2009 we have had criterion A10 though, which this would meet if restored so there is no issue with RfD deleting article content. The title is not a good redirect per the nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirect should've been deleted 17 years ago. AKK700 02:32, 27 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_20&oldid=1070526459"