Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 26, 2022.

Day Sulan[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! 05:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did some Google searching, turns out Day Sulan is an artist who is signed to 4Hunnid Records, a label that is distributed by Epic Records. The redirect however still does not make sense even if we retargeted to 4Hunnid (I doubt anyone interested in the artist would find the information they're looking for on the record label page), so delete. —GMX(on the go!) 19:29, 20 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! 22:39, 26 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.

Bhadravati(Chandrapur)[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) 05:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the spacing. The title with the appropriate spacing, Bhadravati (Chandrapur), exists and targets the same target. Steel1943 (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as useless since proper redirect version exists --Lenticel (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons given above. -- The Anome (talk) 13:43, 28 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.

Caldo de ovos[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) 05:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, and not a translation of the target title in Portuguese or Spanish; the translation seems to mean "soup of eggs". Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and to encourage article creation. It seems to be a common soup in Portuguese and Spanish cuisine according to this book. Someone who knows the language might be able to make an article out of this. --Lenticel (talk) 13:00, 28 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]

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. This can be renominated when there are mentions of the subject in more articles. Jay (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target or elsewhere on WP. Likely refers to a prohibition-era sparkline alcoholic beverage, but this has nothing to do with sparkling wine from France. If anything, at least retarget to sparkling wine, but it's not clear this is actually wine, and without a mention, deletion may be most appropriate. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, or Retarget to Prohibition in the United_States - Google has a fair number of hits suggesting that this is a fair redirect. The claim is that giggle water could refer to any alcoholic beverage (during prohibition), but was most commonly referred to champagne or sparkling alcoholic beverages in general. [1] [2]. This is definitely a valid search term... although there's room for discussion about what the target should be. Fieari (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Sparkling wine. It's a common tern in Ireland. It doesn't necessarily have to refer to Prohibition in the United_States. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no mention anywhere for a retarget. Veverve (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl[[User talk:Qwerfjkl|talk] 18:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:04, 26 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 South Asia[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 Target the subcontinent redirects to History of India and Retarget the others to South Asia#History. Jay (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best target for this bunch? South Asia#History, History of India or Outline of South Asian history? – Uanfala (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • South Asia#History. History of India is wrong and Outline of South Asian history is a list article. Chaipau (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • History of India for the Indian subcontinent redirects. The History of India article covers that broad geographic scope. However, it doesn't seem to cover the island areas that fit the modern conception of South Asia, for which I have no preference between South Asia#History or Outline of South Asian History. CMD (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • South Asia#History for South Asia ones as this would serve better than the Outline list article, which is also added as a see also in the section, History of India for Indian subcontinent ones — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 13:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Anyone can edit[edit]

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 to point all the four to the same target.

There was agreement to keep the projectspace redirects pointed to projectspace and Help:Introduction was a popular choice. There was support to Keep Anyone can edit Wikipedia at the current target. Opinion was split for Anyone can edit between Delete and Retarget to 3 different targets. Jay (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of these redirects should target the same place. The first two were discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 11#Anyone can edit Wikipedia where the consensus was to keep them, but no consensus on a possible retargetting. The target then was Help:Editing. Bsherr retargetted both mainspace redirects in April 2020 with the edit summary "Retargetting to article". An ip editor retargetted Anyone can edit to Wikipedia:Protection policy in September 2020 without leaving an edit summary. The project space redirects targetted what is now Wikipedia:Introduction (historical) (Wikipedia:Introduction is now a redirect to Help:Introduction) until April 2020 when user:-- -- -- changed it to the present target. I'm not sure what the best target is, but I don't think it is the protection policy - I was rather suprised to see that as the target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging the logged-in participants in the 2018 Rfd: @Largoplazo, Feminist, TheDragonFire300, Dicklyon, Bsherr, Paine Ellsworth, Raymond1922, BD2412, Legacypac, John Cline, SMcCandlish, and Tavix:. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Help:Introduction, which mentions Anyone can edit almost every page, and millions already have. feminist (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find myself disagreeing with my former self here. A cross-namespace redirect from mainspace is unnecessary here. The mainspace titles Anyone can edit and Anyone can edit Wikipedia should both point to Wikipedia#Openness, and some content should be added to that section noting that Wikipedia has maintained the mantra that "anyone can edit". BD2412 T 16:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with BD2412. Revert the anonymous edit on Anyone can edit so its target is Wikipedia#Openness again. Leave the rest unchanged. Bsherr (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just as much also support deleting Anyone can edit, as proposed below, and by Tavix in the last discussion. --Bsherr (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anyone can edit: it is too vague and broad to be retargeted or useful. Weak delete Anyone can edit Wikipedia for the same reason although it is slightly less vague than the former. No opinion on the two other redirects. Veverve (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Anyone can edit: I hardly can appreciate the usefulness of this redir nowadays, for much the same reason as Veverve above. Cross-namespace redirects aren't great, either. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not support deletion of any of these redirects - Anyone can edit got over 70 hits last year so it is clearly being used, and I disagree that it is vague - someone searching this on Wikipedia is looking for information on Wikipedia (or will not be at all surprised to arrive at a page about Wikipedia). Of the targets so far, Help:Introduction and Wikipedia#Openness are both good, with a very slight preference for the former. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    70 hits in a year? That is far from showing it is being used. Bot activity alone can account for that, in fact, one would normally expect it to be more. SpinningSpark 10:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The 70 hits exclude bots - there were an additional 60 "automated" hits and 186 "spider" hits. I'm not sure why you think it should be more (70 is large for a redirect), but regardless of that why do you think it should be harder for these ~70 people to find the page they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "why do you think it should be harder..." I don't – I haven't given an opinion either way on whether this should be kept. SpinningSpark 12:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "anyone can edit", lots of things are like that -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget anyone can edit back to some mainspace target: either Wikipedia#Openness or maybe (since Wikipedia isn't the only thing that anyone can edit) Wiki#Trust and security). Keep everything else. There is no need for mainspace redirects to point to the same place as project-space redirects. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "anyone can edit" is not restricted to wikis, or even electronic media -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The phrase "anyone can edit" in reliable sources (e.g. Google Books, Google News) is overwhelmingly associated with Wikis [3], to the extent that it probably qualifies as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT by usage. If you can point to something else that is actually covered in Wikipedia that is also associated with the phrase "anyone can edit", it might be worth a hatnote at the target. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per above. The mainspace redirects should point to mainspace. The projectspace redirects should point to project space. I don't have strong preferences on the exact targets, but just looking at the suggestions above I think Wikipedia#Openness and Help:Introduction for the mainspace and projectspace redirects, respectively, make the most sense. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anyone can edit as an unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:47, 28 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.

Gordon S.[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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Well, despite 3-1 consensus in favor of deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28#Gordon S., we find ourselves back here once again. This is an inappropriate redirect to the current target because it would imply multiple people at the target who go by that moniker (eg: Mel C. or Ruth B.), and I see no evidence of that. However, if we open up the definition that "anyone with given name Gordon and surname beginning with S. can be called Gordon S.", then I would argue that would also apply to a Gordon with middle name S. for people who use their middle initial (eg: Gordon S. Wood and Gordon S. Brown) in the same way that George W. refers to George W. Bush. -- Tavix (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. First name and last initial is always going to be a plausible search term, and I would support routinely creating such redirects to the only notable target or dab pages where there are multiple such notable people. Unlike "George W." I see absolutely no evidence that anyone with the middle initial S goes by the "Gordon S." name so that is not a plausible search term - every such result in my searches was just a partial title match. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I would strongly favor deleting redirects for the only notable target, because it does not automatically flow from someone having the first name Gordon and the last initial S that they are who people would be looking for when typing in "Gordon S." A redirect like this, pointing to a disambiguation page, is much less of an issue, but I think would still only be reasonable if there's something to disambiguate. "Gordon S." → Gordon (given name)#List of people, were there only one Gordon S. listed there, would have the same problem as with targeting that person's bio. An issue thus arises in a hypothetical where there are two Gordon S.'s ("S.es"? "Esses"? "Gordons S."?) listed at a DAB, and then one of them is deleted. That could open up a whole new category of RfDs for a class of redirect with limited benefit to our readers, with all sorts of potential wrinkles like "Ah but actually it turns out that Gordon Q.'s middle initial at birth was S.") and thus is not worth the maintenance cost. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there are 11 people this could refer to at Gordon (given name)#List of people, I'm not seeing how that maintenance cost could possibly occur. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Retaining this would set a bad precedent, and could encourage contributors to create more ambiguous first name+initial redirects pointing to given name pages. I don't think we want to open that particular WP:CANOFWORMS. - Eureka Lott 00:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is that a can of worms? If people create these sorts of redirects its because they find them helpful - why would we want to discourage people from making it easier to find the content they are looking for? Thryduulf (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia is written for readers, not for editors. Someone searching for someone named Gordon, with a surname starting with S that they can't remember (or indeed with a middle name starting with S), should not be punished because of hypothetical problems which only affect editors anyway, not readers. A7V2 (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Regarding the 3-1 consensus to delete Gordon S. at the previous RfD, from my reading of User:1234qwer1234qwer4's vote, it was to speedy delete only one entry - Correct spelling: Collom Dickey. Jay (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1234qwer1234qwer4 can correct me if I'm wrong, but the vote was simply formatted in the same way as that bizarre redirect (presumably to call attention to how weird it is), not as an indictment that it should be the only redirect to be speedy deleted. If 1234qwer only wanted that one deleted, they would say that instead of the "per Tavix" which refers to a vote in which all redirects should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The arguments in favor of deletion have not provided a satisfactory refutation to Thryduulf's argument. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thryduulf's assessment is spot on. No need to delete something that may help readers. While I think it's probably a weakly searched item, keeping it serves a purpose. No need to remove it. Buffs (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:43, 26 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.

Voluntary agency[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. There was opposition to the retarget nomination, but there was no consensus to keep at the current target either. Jay (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VOLAG could also be a good target. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't think the current target is great as, based on what I can see on Google. voluntary associations and voluntary agencies are overlapping but not identical concepts and the voluntary association article does not mention the word "agency". However I don't think VOLAG would make a good target either as that's much too narrow. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change. VOLAG is US specific, whereas the current target is both globally relevant and perfectly appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:40, 26 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.

Novax Djokovic[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. The balance of arguments was closer than the raw vote count would suggest, as WP:RNEUTRAL is typically a justification for keep in cases like this, but the evidence-based argument that the nickname is obscure is a strong counterpoint to justify deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A G10 attempt was declined. This entire redirect is an attack on the subject, where there's no useful relevant information from the source used on creation that can be used in the target. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Used in reliable sources [4][5][6]; per WP:RNEUTRAL, "perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion". Launchballer 19:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a typo and a stupid pun. I don't see how it is an attack on someone apparently proudly unvaccinated. —Kusma (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Full disclosure: I was the admin who declined the speedy deletion. However, I assumed that the reason for the G10 nomination was the content added by an IP vandal after creation, not the original redirect.) Basically I don't care very much. If it is kept, it should be tagged {{R from typo}} and may need to be protected. If it is deleted, it may need to be salted for a while. In two years, nobody will care either way. —Kusma (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a typo, which is accidental. It is a deliberate misspelling to link Novak with the unvaxxed. WWGB (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a derogatory pun and really has no business being a redirect in this encyclopedia. No one is searching this name. I can't believe this wasn't done as a speedy delete. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Retarget to Novak_Djokovic#Views_on_diet,_medicine_and_science - While appreciating the point that people using this name will be aware his name is actually Novak, non-neutral redirects are permitted, see Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality_of_redirects. There are examples of other silly nicknames being redirects to tennis players, see The King of Clay, while obviously not derogatory it is a subjective view of Nadal's clay court dominance. Bonoahx (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per Bonoahx as a {{R non-neutral}}. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-neutral redirects are allowed, but whenever possible should be targeted to something that explains their non-neutrality. Thus refine per Bonoahx, although I would prefer a slightly narrower refining to § Opposition to COVID-19 vaccine. But I don't want a quibble of three paragraphs to prevent consensus here, so I'm fine with the proposed section as well. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Temporary pun with no evidence of lasting significance. About as useful as a redirect for Joe Bidet. WWGB (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the term "Joe Bidet" were covered somewhere (perhaps List of nicknames of presidents of the United States § Joe Biden), I would support a redirect to that place. In that case, there's nothing that term represents other than a childish insult, so it wouldn't make sense to redirect anywhere it isn't mentioned. Here, though, "Novax" is a substantive insult, one meant to criticize Djokovic's views on vaccines, and we have coverage of criticism of said views. For a similar example, the article on Jim Jordan (American politician) discusses criticism of his handling of the Ohio State University abuse scandal. It does not use the nickname Gym Jordan, popularized about him; but because that term is associated with that subtopic, it redirects to that section. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WWGB. No evidence of lasting significance, and we should err on the side of caution for what is potentially libel. 123.243.127.71 (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure "Novax" could be considered a libellous statement. It is on public record that Djokovic is unvaccinated against COVID-19 and it has been stated on various court documents signed by himself and other appropriate authorities. There is perhaps an argument to suggest that "Novax" implies he is against routine vaccinations like MMR and polio, which there is no evidence for, but nobody has used it in that context from where I've seen it. The lasting significance is the ongoing pandemic and the possibility of him being effectively banned from playing in a major tennis tournament that he has won nine times for three years.Bonoahx (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Djokovic being deported will have lasting significance, particularly if the automatic associated 3-year ban is not waived in future, but that does not mean that the derisive moniker "Novax" will have lasting significance. At the very least, I think permanently associating Djokovic with the antivax movement is unfair considering he set up vaccination clinics at his Belgrade tournament [7], and hasn't said a peep about vaccines since well before the covid vaccines were made available other than that he didn't think they should be mandatory in order to travel, which is a commonly held view of fully-vaccinated pro-science civil libertarians (non-antivaxers). 123.243.127.71 (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think these are good reasons to strive to provide a balanced view of what he has said in the past about vaccination and contemporary medicine in the article itself, and if there's a primary source for that tweet it should be included (if it hasn't been already), but this is a redirect. I am not arguing on the basis that calling him an anti-vaxxer of the same ilk as people like Piers Corbyn is fair, but that non-neutral redirects are permitted (see Tony Bliar below; the article strives to provide a balanced view of Blair's actions during his premiership yet the non-neutral redirect is a direct attack on his actions during the Iraq War). As a result of him being a high-profile figure and one of a few people to directly challenge a government's COVID border protection policies, he is intrinsically linked to vaccine hesitancy, unwittingly or otherwise.Bonoahx (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BLP. And we are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Not even a newspaper, though we have clearly forgotten that by now. No reliable source uses it; they just refer to others using it. Not the same thing.99.13.228.225 (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a redirect, not an article. As per WP:RNEUTRAL I would think it appropriate to retarget to the relevant subsection per Tamzin. The article itself should aim to provide a balanced view on his vaccination stance, which is difficult but is a separate concern.Bonoahx (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is a reliable and informed position that Novak is an antivaxer and it's one of the primary reasons why he is soon to be removed from Australia and banned from entering for the next three years, that is significant in and of itself --202.168.9.108 (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note This is obviously a single-purpose IP troll. 1 --Griboski (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We can do better than Trump-style playground nicknames for everyone, plus it's exceedingly unlikely that somebody has seen the wall-to-wall coverage and knows only this insult nickname and not his real name. I can find 8,050 Google results for the similar "Tony Bliar" and despite my less than favourable views on that man, I would never cheapen and stain an encyclopedia by adding that as a redirect. Unknown Temptation (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In a bit of a self-own I'm now aware that "Tony Bliar" is an existing redirect but that's beside the point, I don't think that's suitable for an encyclopedia either Unknown Temptation (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per Tazmin, and Wikipedia:RNEUTRAL. ― Qwerfjkltalk 08:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a term that will be actively searched for on Wikipedia with the expectation of reaching Djokovic. There is no clear reason for this redirect and should be deleted. Mannysoloway (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed; the purpose of a redirect is to help readers reach an article based on a term they have seen in an RS. There is no RS, or even an unreliable source, that refers to this player as just Novax Djokovich. 99.13.228.225 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everybody that uses this "nickname" would already know his real name. Therefore, nobody would search up "Novax Djokovic", they would just search up his real name. Steelkamp (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As other users have noted, this is a derogatory pun with no encyclopedic value. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'd agree with the WP:RNEUTRAL arguments if this were an actually useful redirect, but there are no incoming links and I can't imagine this being used anywhere on the encyclopedia. If there's evidence that this term is widely used, likely to be a search term, or aid in linking, I think refining would be a good choice, but at this point it just doesn't seem like a good redirect, neutral or not. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: G10. This non-neutral redirect serves no purpose than to attack the subject (in this case for lack of vaccination). With BLPs we need to especially err on the side of caution as we want to make sure that what we put down on the page is as accurate as possible. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 02:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and refine to Novak_Djokovic#Views_on_diet,_medicine_and_science, as the retargeting will immediately lead the readers to the contents they are looking for. Replying to comments above, redirects have not to have incoming links to exist. "Novax Djokovic" was used in dozens (hundreds?) of RS (a little extempt was posted above by User:Launchballer) and even more elsewhere so it is a plausible search term. Also, WP:RNEUTRAL and the retargeting of the redirect to the more appropriate section address the neutrality issue (we have plenty of redirect of insulting nicknames here... and I am not even sure Djokovic would consider this nickname as an insult). Cavarrone 11:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Creating this article is ludicrous and disparaging to the Novak Djokovic tennis article. Why was it created in the first place is beyond me. One would create a redirect to a tennis player's page had the term/moniker been accepted by media, and not libelous, under which criteria it certainly falls, and it seeks negative, unwanted attention. Just my two cents on the matter. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:43, 2 February 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.

SARS-CoV-2 Demicron variant[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#SARS-CoV-2 Demicron variant

Wikipedia:ALLHAILMASTERFERRET[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 per WP:G7. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Completely implausible redirect, and while I get the humor in creating this redirect, no page links to this redirect. I'd suggest deletion. If this humorous redirect was actually used to get people to Discord I would have a different opinion. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 20:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I don’t remember why I created this redirect, but it likely is not very useful. JJPMaster 20:45, 26 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.

Return to launch site[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 3#Return to launch site

Before It Explodes(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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB. The properly spaced title, Before It Explodes (song), exists and is a redirect towards the same target as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 26 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.

Kathryn "Kate" Bailey Beckinsale[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) 03:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect that includes a name ("Bailey") that is mentioned nowhere in the target article. Schazjmd (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete. When the redirect was created, the article indeed gave this as her name, but it apparently was wrong, and I can find no reliable (i.e. non-mirror/fork) sites that use it. Since there are no incoming links, deletion shouldn't be a problem. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:31, 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.

Mambo Kingz[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 3#Mambo Kingz

DJ Luian[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 3#DJ Luian

Al-di-la[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. The fact that Special:Search will autocorrect something has historically not been seen as, on its own, grounds to delete a redirect. With that in mind, the only real question here is whether this is a plausible misspelling/alt-spelling, and no one has disputed Art's evidence that it is. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling when searching for the target. Same term without hyphens also yields the same result. Propose deleting. Grk1011 (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep [8][9][10][11][12] ... Art LaPella (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: redirect almost never used (15 views total in 2021), and searching for full phrase would get to the same target with or without hyphens Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most of the links provided by Art LaPella do not show usage of the term with hyphens outside the URL, but the third one does give it as the title and it's also plausible that someone would think this is one word based only on hearing it. 15 views of a redirect in a year shows evidence that the redirect is useful (implausible redirects typically get less than 5), giving further weight to the argument for keeping. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My first four links prominently show "Al-di-la" near the top, where an ad blocker might remove it (I don't know how the last one changed.) Another comment: I verified Sims2aholic8's hyphen objection (which must not have been true years ago). That is, The-United-States as a search term gives United States, redirected from The United States. Art LaPella (talk) 15:06, 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.

Ne'er[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 soft redirect to Wiktionary:ne'er. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target page Never which is a disambiguation page does not mention ne'er except for in the {{wiktionary}} box. I know that ne'er means never, but if there's nothing mentioning never on the page it might make sense to either delete this per WP:REDYES to have a disambiguation or as an alternate find a more appropriate target. TartarTorte 16:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Ne'er" isn't a plausible search term for any of the articles listed at the disambiguation page. Alternatively, we could make it a Wiktionary redirect. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt:ne'er. Someone searching specifically for the word "ne'er" almost certainly wants to know what it means, where it originated, and/or how it's pronounced—all questions that Wiktionary can answer far better than either the current target or (worse) a list of unhelpful search results. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary per Extraordinary Writ. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 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.

Benignity[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 3#Benignity

Khalid Abdel-Gabar[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 3#Khalid Abdel-Gabar

Serious Sam: The First Encounter (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 Serious Sam: The First Encounter. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant disambiguator, unlikely search term. IceWelder [✉] 11:40, 26 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.

Serious Sam The Secound Encounter[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 19:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo. IceWelder [✉] 11:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as an old redirect (WP:RFD#KEEP point 4) and harmless. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That guideline doesn't hold for this redirect since it is not in use here (and has likely never been). A Google search shows no external usages either, so link rot is unlikely. IceWelder [✉] 18:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as an unlikely misspelling, or weak retarget to Serious Sam: The Second Encounter as the appropriate target. Either way though, since there is a more precise target, I oppose "keep". Steel1943 (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As highly unlikely typo. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:16, 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.

英雄萨姆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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RFOREIGN. IceWelder [✉] 11:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Topic has no evident connection to the Chinese langauge, and so no reason to include the Chinese title at the target. Given that, the Chinese title shouldn't be a redirect either. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 23:54, 26 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.

Serious Sam 2 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant disambiguator, unlikely search target. IceWelder [✉] 11:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as an old redirect (WP:RFD#KEEP point 4) and harmless. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That guideline doesn't hold for this redirect since it is not in use here (and has likely never been). A Google search shows no external usages either, so link rot is unlikely. IceWelder [✉] 18:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a harmless {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Steel1943 (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Deletion does nothing more than just hide the page from public view. Unless if there are serious questions of the validity of the redirect, I'd rather not have it deleted. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 06:06, 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.

List of characters in Serious Sam II[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 19:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect. There is no such list in the target article. IceWelder [✉] 11:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom since the content as requested by the redirect title does not exist. Steel1943 (talk) 23:08, 26 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.

MIST PSI PRESS[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 2#MIST PSI PRESS

Google Go[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 2#Google Go

Carolina forest high school band[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! 05:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Points to a no longer existing section removed for being uncited. I dont believe that it qualifies for G8/A7. Happy editing--IAmChaos 00:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both redirects since the target article no longer contains any mention of the band. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed, falls under G8 and A7 TheGEICOgecko (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete zero mention of the band in the article. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. This was a former article, the content was moved to the correctly capitalised Carolina Forest High School Band in 2008 and then redirected a year later after being prodded (I've added that redirect to this discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no mention at the target, subject deleted. Veverve (talk) 05:18, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_26&oldid=1070128785"