Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 5, 2022.

Vache Marine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Vache Marine

Zeekoe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Zeekoe

Celia McGuire[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 13#Celia McGuire

Google.com/calendar[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 23:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these redirects were denied R3 for not being recent. Nothing links to either. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's an {{r from URL}}, which are routinely kept. Such redirects have obvious navigational benefit to our readers, and little downside. (The worst-case scenario, <number of articles with associated URLs> × <average number of URLs per such article>, is not nearly enough redirects to cause a maintenance downside. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 5 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.

Google.com/chromebook[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 23:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these redirects were denied R3 for not being recent. Nothing links to either. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's an {{r from URL}}, which are routinely kept. Such redirects have obvious navigational benefit to our readers, and little downside. (The worst-case scenario, <number of articles with associated URLs> × <average number of URLs per such article>, is not nearly enough redirects to cause a maintenance downside. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 5 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 Teoh[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 13#Gordon Teoh

Mysterious Apartment[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 delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "Mysterious Apartment", or any other kind of apartment for that matter, at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:18, 5 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.

Government telecommunications[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 23:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These terms aren't really equivalent or even particularly closely connected. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:43, 5 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.

Fandom-related redirects to Animal Jam Classic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Fandom-related redirects to Animal Jam Classic

Schure[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was setindexify. With thanks to 61 for drafting the SIA. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect does not make sense, as there are actually articles on namebearers with the exact spelling (i. e. without the accent); cf. corresponding search results. Hildeoc (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Prb[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 23:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template redirect and not obvious what it means. It was used in a small number or articles, but I have changed them all to either {{portal bar}} or {{portal}} as appropriate. There was one article with {{prb}} in one section and {{portal}} in another section; it will be less likely to have multiple portal tranclusions without this redirect. MB 15:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- I find nom's argument that people don't know what it does, and thus might duplicate, to be compelling. The function of {{prb}} is certainly not obvious. — hike395 (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i've created this redirect to use it in some articles, but it seems that i forgot to use it, it's not useless as it described, it's just that i forgot to use it, if it does not serves the project's purposes please delete it Thank you. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 15:51, 5 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.

Boris Gorlee[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 23:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cricketer who is mentioned in multiple articles, including this and this. There is almost no information about him at the target article (other than that he was in the squad), so redirect provides little benefit. If he's notable enough, an article should be created, and if not, then a redlink until the point if/when he becomes notable is fine. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I see he's just been named in the Dutch squad for their upcoming series against Afghanistan in Qatar in a few weeks time, so there's a fair chance he'll debut before the end of the month. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to facilitate Search and encourage creation of an article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, doesn't seem to be a specific article to redirect him too anymore, plus he may well be notable enough for an article soon. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Untitled God of War sequel[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Untitled God of War sequel

BMW V-Series[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! 04:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was created as a redirect to the now deleted BMW V Series, which was an article about a speculated new BMW model which was then redirected to BMW, although no mention is at the target, nor is any warranted. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_28#BMW_V_Series - Explicit closed that discussion as delete but determined that the hyphenated version had been mentioned too late to include so I have nominated it now. A7V2 (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging previous participants @Shhhnotsoloud, Chumpih, Group29, and Jay:. A7V2 (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No reason was given by the closing admin for not considering BMW V-Series. Jay (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Although not explicitly mentioned by the closing admin, the reason it was not considered was that despite, very late in the discussion, it being suggested that the hyphenated redirect could be bundled this did not actually happen - the redirect was not tagged and nobody else actually commented on it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete consistent with BMW V Series. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per the BMW V Series discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Group29 (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have added the similar BMW V series to this nomination. I don't think this should be controversial. A7V2 (talk) 07:33, 9 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.

Chairman mao[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 keep under WP:RGUIDE point 4, Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept. Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects explicitly allows for Likely alternative capitalizations, and the nomination does not claim that this is unlikely. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect as Chairman Mao already exists. Any attempt to type "Chairman Mao" in the search bar, regardless of the letter cases, will suggest "Chairman Mao", not "Chairman mao". CentreLeftRight ✉ 08:41, 5 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.

President Madagascar[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! 04:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"President of Madagascar" is a plausible search term, but "President Madagascar" would denote a president with surname Madagascar, which as far as I know does not exist. feminist (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep harmless. In the absence of any president with the surname Madagascar the current target takes people to the only plausible article they could be looking for, as it has been doing since 2013 without causing any problems whatsoever. If a president with the name "Madagascar" does get elected in the future this can be retargetted or disambiguated as appropriate, but until then there is no benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 5 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.

President Ji[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. The Pooh is never referred to as "Ji". feminist (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Romanized Mandarin's usage of ⟨j⟩ to mean ~/ʒ/ and ⟨x⟩ to mean ~/ʃ/ is non-intuitive to most native English speakers, so it's conceivable that people could get the two mixed up in a name where one part starts with one and the other part starts with the other. This Google search seems to bear that out; I note that Ji Xinping exists. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as a title and name dab, because there are multiple people who are correctly referred to as "President Ji" in English [2]: people with surname Ji who are presidents of organisations, e.g. Ji Jiafu, Ji Xiangqi, and Ji Baocheng. Correct spellings should take precedence over incorrect spellings. Compare President Lee or President Mason. FWIW this also seems to be an Indian English phrase roughly equivalent to Mr. President (title) (see -ji) [3], but I don't think we have any target for that usage in Wikipedia. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Feminist: "The Pooh"? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as per the IP, there are multiple presidents with the surname Ji, so a DAB page is the most appropriate outcome. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, IP hit the nail on the head. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 19:04, 8 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.

President Gravel[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! 04:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He has never served as President at any level, and if anything this title is ambiguous with Mike Gravel 2020 presidential campaign. feminist (talk) 07:54, 5 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.

Nazrul research[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 Kazi Nazrul Islam#Legacy. -- Aervanath (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this redirect is relevant. He was not a researcher or something, but a poet. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 16:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Nazrul research is a narrow academic discipline (perhaps sub-field or specialization would be a better word), the study of Kazi Nazrul Islam's works. The term is well recognized in Bangladeshi English. Major universities have centres or institutes devoted to Nazrul research, there are Nazrul chairs for professors engaged in it, there have been multiple journals on the topic, and people can get degrees in it.[5] In the U.S. it may be better known as Nazrul studies.[6] I'm not sure it rises to the level of a redirect with possibilities. Enough information must exist to write a broader Bengali literature (academic discipline), but no one has done so yet. Retargeting to Nazrul Endowment is not a good option because that's one organization among several, and probably not a notable one, the existence of the article notwithstanding. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have an article about any other organization article or section of an article that talks about this research? Do you think the Nazrul Endowment article should not exist? I see that you had contributed to it an year back. If someone knowledgeable can convert the Nazrul research redirect to a stub draft, that will be a better option. Jay (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no more than passing mentions of "Nazrul research" or "Nazrul studies" in Wikipedia. My contribution to Nazrul Endowment consisted of correcting the name of a source, something I probably did without even reading the text. Reading it now, I strongly suspect the article should be deleted. For a start, it isn't an institution at all. The cited sources talk about a Nazrul Endowment Fund at Cal State Northridge, and a separate Nazrul Endowment Fund at University of Connecticut. They may have been established for the same purpose, but once created there's no indication that they have any administrative, financial, or operational connection with each other. Endowments, if large or unusual enough, sometimes merit a mention in a university article. But a university can have thousands of endowment funds; precious few are independently notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to tag Nazrul Endowment for deletion, but as along as we have that page, it's the best we seem to have on the redirect's subject. Jay (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to § Legacy based on what Worldbruce has said. It would be great to have more information on scholarship about Nazrul, but this can do for now. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Tamzin's idea to add a Legacy section in Kazi Nazrul Islam's article with a few lines on the subject of Nazrul research & endowment, and then retarget it to the Legacy section. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 10:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Chinese hat[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Chinese hat

Getting wet[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 (default to disambiguate). I find the following:
  • There is strong consensus against keeping the current target.
  • There is consensus against retargeting to Wet.
  • There is no consensus as to retargeting to Get Wet.
  • There is no consensus as to deletion due to most of the discussion being focused on retarget options.
  • There is insufficient discussion of retargeting to Wiktionary to gauge a consensus in that regard.
  • There is insufficient discussion of disambiguation to gauge a consensus in that regard.
It is mathematically impossible to close this RfD in a manner that follows the wishes of the majority of participants. All there is for me to do as closer is find the outcome that least goes against what people want. As almost half of editors favored targeting one of two DAB pages, and one of the two keep !voters went on to suggest a DAB at this title, I see DABbing at this title as the least harmful outcome. As such, I am creating a DAB, with no prejudice against any of the following next steps:
  • Request to merge the DAB with Get Wet
  • Request to move the DAB to Get wet (currently a redirect to Get Wet)
  • RfD of Get wet
  • AfD of the DAB
I hope this is a reasonable least-bad no-consensus close. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible case of WP:SURPRISE with an NSFW current target, IMO equally refers to any other context in which something can become wet and thus should point to Wet. Bringing here since my bold redirection was challenged. signed, Rosguill talk 15:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Too vague to figure out a good target. I agree about WP:SURPRISE, was not expecting Vaginal lubrication to be the target. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Get Wet, whch is a disambiguation. Add vaginal lubrication to the list entry. Wiktionary already has "getting wet" as a present participle. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - Retarget to Get Wet. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wet, which is a disambiguation page, and add Vaginal lubrication to that page. Second choice: delete. None of the articles listed at Get Wet are plausible intended topics for a reader searching "Getting wet", because they're all names of albums, songs, or bands using roughly the exact phrase "get wet" without "-ing". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When people type "getting wet" into Wikipedia's search bar, probably most of them want to view our article about "vaginal lubrication". Name me other articles that people would want to go to instead? I can't come up with a single one. [Edited to strike and add: Rosguill has now mentioned that people who want to learn about the "process of things becoming wet" might want to search for "getting wet" as well. Fair enough] --Distelfinck (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wetting, Moisture, and the Wiktionary entry for wetness all seem like plausible alternative intended target, and all are mentioned at the top of Wet. You can get wet by falling into a puddle, this phrasing is not synonymous with vaginal lubrication. signed, Rosguill talk 21:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But why would they include the "get" unless they're referring to the slang meaning? Surely they'd want Wiktionary:get wet instead. Mvolz (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IDK about you, but growing up "getting wet" was a commonly described side effect of stepping into puddles and a plausible way to search for learning about the process of things becoming wet. I don't think that the sex-related term has primacy here, speaking as a native speaker from North America. signed, Rosguill talk 20:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, sounds like turning Getting wet into a disambiguation page might be a good idead? --Distelfinck (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO targeting the existing dab at Wet and adding some contextually relevant link to Vaginal lubrication is a cleaner solution. Again, at least in my neck of the woods, there's no specific slang emphasis on the phrase "getting wet" as being more sexual: vaginal arousal is generally associated with wetness, not this specific two-word invocation thereof. Alternatively, if there's evidence that this term does have special significance in some dialects, soft redirect to Wiktionary should do the trick. signed, Rosguill talk 04:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a disambiguation page for Getting wet would be a much shorter page than the disambiguation page for Wet is -- most things listed at Wet are not relevant to users searching for "getting wet", e.g. "Wet (band)", "Wet (album)", "Wet Mountains", and we would copy only the very short list of things relevant from Wet to Getting wet. A Getting wet disambiguation page would me much less overwhelming for users typing "getting wet" than the Wet disambiguation page is. --Distelfinck (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as reverter. If you google "getting wet" the first page of results is all about vaginal lubrication. It is synonymous with vaginal lubrication, unless perhaps you're not a native speaker of English. But then it's doing a disservice to non native speakers trying to find out what this phrase means to have them redirected to a massive disambiguation page. Having this phrase redirect to Wet is actively harmful because as per Distelfinck there's really no reason to search for this unless you're trying to find out what the slang term means. Mvolz (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:56, 5 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.

Hinduism in LATVIA[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Aervanath (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism is not mentioned at Religion in Latvia. There is a table that ends at 145 people without Hinduism, so there would seem to be less than that in 2011. These are both creations by the same sock farm whose sources are slightly higher (with a later date), but within that range. -- Tavix (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge the sourced content to the article and keep the redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging Deb who had done a merge and redirect before, and JJMC89 who had BLARred it without explanation. Jay (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as not mentioned at the target. Rescuing two short paragraphs of text referenced to dead links and written by socks known for copyright violations and POV? No thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If someone is looking for information on Hinduism in Latvia, this will show them the extent of our information on Hinduism in Latvia (namely, nothing worth mentioning). Sometimes a lack of information is itself significant. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've always thought of redirects as pointers to relevant content and not as invitations for readers to draw conclusions from the absence of such content. If we change our approach and adopt the latter, then there'll be a very wide avenue for the creation of similarly useful redirects about the hundreds of other religious movements without a significant presence in the country. – Uanfala (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      There are times when we have redirects as pointers to a lack of information, usually (but not always) that's an explicit lack of information - Navy of Andorra comes to mind. In the absence of a specific lack of information it must be obvious though, e.g. if there is a set of things with e.g. three possible components and the article states that 100% of the components of $thing are something else. For example, if 99% of the population of a place are Religion1 and 1% are Relgion2 then it's reasonable to assume that 0% are Religion3. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Navy of Andorra is different though, as the target has explicit content on the topic (even if that content is a single sentence declaring that the country has no navy). There's a big difference between absence of discussion and discussion of absence. – Uanfala (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      My comment addresses exactly that. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Hinduism is not mentioned anywhere on the target article (presumably the numbers for Hindus are in the 3% of "other faiths" listed there). So redirect does not help provide any information on the topic. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ALL CAPS version, no opinion on normally capitalized version. HotdogPi 18:59, 8 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.

Enthusiast[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Enthusiast

Schools inspector[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Schools inspector

Qult of Qirli[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 02:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what this refers to as there is no mention of "Qirli" in this article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There was a mention there for two months, but that was a blatant hoax that got removed yesterday [7]. I reckon the redirect creator hadn't checked the content they were redirecting to. I guess a reminder to all of us who look after the navigational infrastructure of dab pages and redirects : we need to make sure that what we're creating navigation for actually belongs on Wikipedia. – Uanfala (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G3/G10, trout creator. While respecting that the redirect's creator was not trying to engage in vandalism or BLPvios, this is still an extension of the vandalistic/BLP-violating content that was just removed from the article (which probably should be revdelled). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

'A[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#'A

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_5&oldid=1073158584"