Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 11[edit]

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

Wikipedia:PCM[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 Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was astonished to find this targets WikiProject Medicine, as there is no obvious indication what this initialism means. Very few page views, no incoming mainspace links. Unless there is a justification, I think this would be better as a shortcut to Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves as an initialism for "potentially controversial moves" Mdewman6 (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this is from WikiProject:Preclinical Medicine, which was merged with WikiProject:Clinical Medicince to form WikiProject Medicine. Since there is no preclinical section that persists to target this to and "preclinical" is barely mentioned at target, I still feel this might be of more use elsewhere. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And, WP:CM targets (appropriately) WP:WikiProject Classical Music, so it's not like there is precedent to preserve these shortcuts for defunct WikiProjects that were folded into a more encompassing WikiProject. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:53, 11 March 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.

Empyrean (Warhammer)[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! 23:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section to which this redirect points no longer exists. It was presumably removed as fancruft some time ago. "Warhammer" or "Empyrean" is not mentioned in the target page. Sandstein 19:55, 11 March 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.

Joseph Ben Mattias[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 all and refined Mattatyahu ben Yosef. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely combinations of English, Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic, with mispellings, sometimes all in the same redirect. Avilich (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because it honestly seems like a reasonable mistake people would make. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 22:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the other thousands of possible combinations, no doubt. No reason to favor these specifically. Avilich (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all but Mattatyahu ben Yosef (delete that one) because, as much of a mishmash as they are, Google annoyingly reveals them to be in actual use in sources that identify one or another of them as his "real" name. Largoplazo (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak refine Mattatyahu ben Yosef to § Biography, as that's a valid (if obscure) rendering of Josephus' father's name. Keep the rest per above. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 10:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need consensus for Mattatyahu ben Yosef.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the first two as reasonable guesses (not sure about the capitalization of "Ben" being likely, but the spellings are); not sure about the others being likely search targets—they don't look very plausible to me, at least for English speakers (and this is English Wikipedia—someone looking for a more literal transliteration is likely to reach the article from a different language Wiki; Josephus would probably have articles in most). P Aculeius (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Tamzin Said though I probably wouldn't comment if it wasn't for the relist casualdejekyll 00:43, 16 March 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.

Bloodbender[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 Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3). Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in that get article, leaving the connection between the redirect and its target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Bloodbending is a plot element in the season 3 episode "The Puppetmaster", but I'm undecided if Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3) would make for a good redirect target or not.--AlexandraIDV 15:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since redirects are cheap, and this, as seen above, is mentioned in an episode, so I see no reason to delete this article. The whole point of RFA is to delete potentially problematic redirects, this is not that. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 16:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Umm, no. As mentioned above and by myself, the redirect targeting its current target is unhelpful due to its lack of identifying it in the target article, in addition to potential alternative target(s) existing. Anyone trying to understand what the redirect's subject represents will currently be led to nothing in the article (just mention in an episode is not enough; making that claim is akin to a WP:NOTFANDOM issue), meaning WP:RDEL (probably point #2) applies. Steel1943 (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender_(season_3)#ep48, where it's discussed the most... or just to the whole season page, as it is discussed later as well at #ep56. Without prejudice against a subsequent retarget somewhere else if a better target emerges. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 10:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:06, 11 March 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.

No color[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19#No color

Baroness Brightman[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 18#Baroness Brightman

Russian Fiasco[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 11:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase is not used at the target, and has been used in a variety of contexts, including in this journal article on the First Chechen War. Even with the huge weight of current events and my Ukraine-heavy search history influencing the results, Google's first page doesn't give me a single thing on the current fiasco, instead reaching as far back as the Russian Civil War. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 10:16, 11 March 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.

TERF-related redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19#TERF-related redirects

TP:TI[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 11:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused pseudo-namespace shortcut, the only of its kind. While "T:" is a valid pseudonamespace for limited purposes (probably not including this) per WP:PNS and WP:SHORTCUT, there is no consensus for a "TP" pseudonamespace, and there's been an understanding for quite some time that no new pseudonamespaces should be created. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - tbh, I don't the history behind: "there's been an understanding for quite some time that no new pseudonamespaces should be created" - but I've thought an abbreviation/short cut for "template" would be handy (much like the abbr/short cuts we have so many other things). Why not have "TP" as an abbr/short cut for all templates? - wolf 22:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because unlike, say, "WP:" shortcuts—which are created dynamically expanded to non-shortcut form by the software, don't add any maintenance burden, and, most importantly, aren't pages in mainspace, or even pages at all—creating a system of "TP:" pseudonamespace shortcuts would mean creating new redirects for every template someone sees fit to do so for, all with their own maintenance burden, all cluttering up things like Special:AllPages for anyone looking for mainspace content. The consensus I referred to—and which I should have linked, but couldn't find at the moment of writing this nomination—is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 112 § RFC: On the controversy of the pseudo-namespace shortcuts: There is consensus that new "pseudo-namespace" redirects ("MOS:", "T:", etc) should be strongly discouraged if not prohibited in all but exceptional cases. As such, if someone wishes to establish a pseudonamespace for templates (or to expand the existing "T:" pseudonamespace, which is currently limited to a small number of legacy cases like T:DYK), they should open a discussion at WP:VPR. The same if someone wants to propose an actual namespace alias for "TP:", like "WP:" and "WT:", although I think that is very unlikely to get consensus. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC), ed. 17:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlinked and inappropriate CNR. eviolite (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per existing consensus against new pseudonamespaces. – Uanfala (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Gonnym (talk) 12:56, 14 March 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.

P:TUVALU[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 Portal:Tuvalu. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 11:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SHORTCUT, "P:" pseudonamespace redirects are meant for portals, not WikiProjects. Suggest retarget to Portal:Tuvalu. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No objection on my part. Aridd (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom casualdejekyll 14:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget/support per nom. Veverve (talk) 15:00, 12 March 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.

Top radio[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 TOPradio. MBisanz talk 01:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Encourage article creation for either Top Radio (Nigeria), Top Radio (Spain) (no article in any wiki but it's a station in Madrid), or de:Radio Top. An IP attempted to blank this redirect in 2012. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • disambiguate to the current list (top radio programmes), the German interwiki link, the TOPradio. Since it is a lowercase "r" it wouldn't be any of the three suggested topics at the top of the nomination -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous, and no suitable current targets. However, if "TOPradio" is pronounced as "Top radio", then we have a case to retarget there. For the current target, we already have helpful redirects Top radio program and Top radio show. Jay (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of different options proposed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a Top radio (disambiguation) page is in order. casualdejekyll 14:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to TOPradio. I checked out their website and it looks to be styled as two lowercase words now? -- Tavix (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix. I don't find it plausible as a truncated search term for the top radio programs. Disambiguation should absolutely be done once articles about any of the other stations with the name are created. – Uanfala (talk) 23:57, 26 March 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.

Top Albums Sales[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 Top Album Sales. Jay (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also US Top Album Sales. As-is, name too vague to mean one specific chart. George Ho (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Three options offered here. Break the tie.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 11 March 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.

Hot Albums[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. Jay (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The retarget name as-is looks too vague to mean one specific thing. It may also mean Billboard Top 200 or any other albums chart. Also, it's linked by only one article at the moment. George Ho (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relisting, hoping to get a third opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Billboard 200 - main billboard's album chart a more likely search target than Japanese billboard's, especially in English. They call their song chart Hot 100 so it would be a reasonable assumption for them to call their album chart Hot 200 as well casualdejekyll 14:48, 11 March 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.

Flavio Josefo[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! 22:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFFL, no connection of topic with Spanish or Portuguese. Avilich (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:45, 11 March 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.

יוסף בן מתתיהו[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 18#יוסף בן מתתיהו

Afghan War (2001–current)[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. Various reasons for keeping some or all of these include preserving links, significant page views, being a previous title of the page, preserving edit history, and the argument that the War in Afghanistan may still be ongoing due to the Panjshir conflict. I considered deleting just War in Afghanistan(2001-present), but that redirect alone has six mainspace links! -- Tavix (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the war has officially ended, we should rename and delete these redirects. Redirects are cheap, but they should not be misleading. Anarchyte (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Afghan War (2001–current) as it has essentially no page traffic. Keep Afghan War (2001-current) as it has a bit of traffic probably due to incoming links. I don't think the redirects are necessarily misleading; they're just out of date. If a redirect has existed for long enough and has enough page views, it makes sense to keep as long as it can't reasonably be superseded by this and seeing that there's no other ongoing Afghan war that began in 2001, I don't think that is a huge risk. TartarTorte 15:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TartarTorte: The question then becomes when is "current" truly misleading? In 2025, 2030? People can type "Afghan War" or "War in Afghanistan" into the search bar and they'll be presented with links that say "Current". That will definitely lead to confusion eventually. Anarchyte (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think about others below? Sawol (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects with "to present"
  • @Sawol: I would also want those renamed, but I'll note that some of the 2015 redirects have substantive history that we should not delete. If this RfD is successful, we can discuss the rest after. Anarchyte (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. No reason to delete one and not the other (and by keep all, I mean all of the ones raised by Sawol also). It has been less than a year. These aren't ambiguous with anything, so deletion doesn't provide any positive utility, just runs the risk of breaking external links. A7V2 (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has expanded way beyond the initial proposal. I think this RFD should not just be relisted but restarted as it is unlikely that those who have already participated will return to see the change that occurred. What do you think, Anarchyte? Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the restarting. This is a mess. I can't tell what the original proposal was, but all the older votes should be essentially nullified, IMO. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 06:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I initially listed two redirects ("2001-current") not knowing how many more there were. You'll note above that I intended to leave this as just those two to see if we could get a consensus on some before nominating the rest. It looks like there are even more links that aren't included here (linked by C933103 below). I have no opposition to either procedurally closing this and restarting it, or relisting it and leaving talk page notifications for everyone that has already participated. Anarchyte (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've never cast this "vote" before but I think this RFD should be Restarted given the huge expansion of redirects under consideration from the original two that editors commented upon. Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also links like War in Afghanistan (2001-) not covered by the current discussion. C933103 (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "War in Afghanistan (2001–present)" is the previous name of the page. It is linked to from a lot of places (including Al-Qaeda), and the introduction of the RfD tag to the redirect page actually broke it. Regarding the actual proposal, this seems like it will break a lot of things (especially external links) and deleting them because they're "misleading" is not very convincing IMO. 212.21.42.228 (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most. Given that the ongoing conflict in Panjshir can still plausibly be regarded as part of the war, these redirects are in principle appropriate. If these are crowding out more meaningful suggestions in the search drop-down box, then the solution is to create the corresponding correct redirects (not that there's much scope for confusing readers to begin with). I don't think there's a point in disambiguation by retargeting to War in Afghanistan: I don't see any entries there that could plausibly be what a reader is looking for (neither the events in Panjshir nor the conflict with Islamic State begun anywhere near 2001). Some redirects can be deleted though: at least War in Afghanistan(2001-present) (because of the missing space) and War in Afghanistan (2015—present) (we already have all the variants with hyphens and n-dashes, spaced as well as unspaced, we really don't need a form with an implausible m-dash). – Uanfala (talk) 01:01, 26 March 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.

Constitutive nations[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 Ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Feel free to write an article on the topic if you are willing and able. -- Tavix (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not mentioned in the target. Or retarget to Ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina as {{R avoided double redirect}} for Constitutive nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thesmp (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could there be some agreement on retarget page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 11 March 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.

SCP Level 0[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! 02:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article, most likely a reference to the fictional SCP Foundation, which uses this term to refer to janitors (or other jobs) at secure sites whom would not have access to classified information. Not sure what the implication is, but.. casualdejekyll 03:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just discovered that the creator of the article User talk:LittleG jr. has been engaged in much more blatant SCP vandalism in the past. In case that influences your !vote. casualdejekyll 03:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This page was originally an attempt at an article for the usage of the SCP Foundation community, but was redirected by Vanjagenije; I agree that the current redirect is not helpful while the original article would have likely qualified for e.g. A7. eviolite (talk) 01:12, 12 March 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.

Economics of internet[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! 02:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went back and forth on these two, considering speedy deletion as an implausible misnomer, just as I did for Socialism of internet and Communism of internet. I ultimately thought that a reasonable person might disagree with me, so I am taking them to RfD for discussion. Delete as implausible. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the first one delete the second one. "Economics of internet" can reasonably be used to find articles that mention internet economic activity, thus e-commerce seems like a reasonable redirect target. However "Capitalism of internet" is talking about an idea/ideology/whatever, and any redirect with such title should target a page that specifically describe the discussion of such on the internet. As there doesn't apparently exists such page on English Wikipedia now, I think the second redirect should be deleted. C933103 (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that an IP has redirected both to digital economy. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - "Economics of Internet" could easily refer to the economic mechanisms behind Internet access and use, rather than commerce conducted on the Internet. signed, Rosguill talk 02:10, 18 March 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.

Future Event List[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 bypass double redirect/keep. Per C933103's concern, I will add a hatnote to the target section pointing to Timelines of the future. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overcapitalized unused redirect; I moved the redirect to Future event list to make it usable in article text, which left this redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since the only rationale for deletion is due to capitalization, this looks to be a valid {{R from alternative capitalization}}. Since you moved it, this should also be kept as a {{R from move}}. I don't understand the point of moving it though. If you didn't think "Future Event List" was a good redirect, you should have just nominated that for deletion instead of performing a WP:MOVEREDIRECT. That aside, I'm not sure Future event list is a good redirect—it's not defined at the target (and "future" isn't even mentioned!). -- Tavix (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this discussion didn't play out the way I thought it would. Delete both per Jay. -- Tavix (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to bundle with related redirect that has been proposed for deletion by Jay
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow the March 2nd log page to be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:00, 11 March 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_March_11&oldid=1093473569"