Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 3, 2023.

افغانستان.[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 01:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A web search failed to find any evidence for the existence of this domain. See also Talk:Afghanistan#Is_افغانستان._even_a_real_domain?. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: If it has no sources at Afghanistan, .af (the redirect target), Template:ccTLD, and web searches turn up nothing, then it's hearsay. Recommend checking web archives before finalizing a decision, just to be absolutely certain. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The current target is certainly unsuitable since there is not discussion of Afghanistan specifically. Mention appears to have been removed from Afghanistan and from .af (if it was ever mentioned there). If it turns out to be verifiable and mention can be re-added (presumably to .af) then this redirect could be recreated, but without any evidence this exists, and hence without any discussion of it, this should be deleted. A7V2 (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Russell Fritz[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 19#Russell Fritz

(The Simpsons (season 34)[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 04:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this page, no articles have this redirecting link. 2607:FEA8:761B:C900:F534:83EC:6849:799C (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

(la) Falange (party)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 10#(la) Falange (party)

American science fiction[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 21:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While science fiction is significantly influenced by American writers, that article does not have a section for this topic. This should be a red link until someone creates an article. Compare: Australian science fiction, Japanese science fiction, Polish science fiction, Russian science fiction, Category:Science fiction by nationality. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: That's obviously silly and unhelpful. There's clearly American content in the general treatment of science fiction even though they're so central that they aren't cleaved off into a separate section. Even if that weren't the case (which it is), WP:READER &c. point towards not blanking helpful content in the name of general application of blind policy. In fact, although I'm sure it was well intentioned, it's fairly WP:POINTY to suggest otherwise and it'd be more helpful for the project if you found more helpful redirects to create instead of blanking any unless they're clearly pointing to bogus or easter-eggy pages. That isn't the case here at all. — LlywelynII 13:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The current target of course references American examples, but, at its heart, it is a WP:BCA covering a global perspective. Readers, and the encyclopedia as a whole, would benefit from a more in-depth article on American literature specifically. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:REDYES. A7V2 (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. This was created with the expectation that there will be separate treatment of the subject. It's been close to 10 years, hope a redlink will help create the article. History of science fiction has good content for a start. Jay 💬 05:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Manfreid[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 10#Manfreid

Melbourne, Australia.[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. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 19:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trailing punctuation, unlikely search term. Only 18 pageviews in the whole of 2022, if that were significantly higher it may be worth keeping but since that isn't the case, it is better off deleted. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has existed since 2004. Costly and pointless nomination. A7V2 (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I must disagree with citing WP:COSTLY, when an editor has a concern they would like addressed. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:COSTLY seems to apply in the exact opposite way: in particular, this falls under the listed unneeded redirects as "Titles with punctuation <...> that ha[s] no specific affinity to one title over any other". Randi🦋TalkContribs 19:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You mustn't have read the specific section I linked to. Yes, a redirect like this should not be created today but given its age that isn't really relevant. No serious problem is solved by deleting this, it's just a waste of time either way. A7V2 (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Reasonable alternates are usually kept as redirects for various reasons, including likely spelling/typographical variations, because they help facilitate navigation (WP:R#KEEP). The redirect Melbourne, Australia has minimal traffic, but is still serving a purpose. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC) (struck 14:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: I didn't notice the full stop was inside the link brackets (Melbourne, Australia.), hence my reference to the redirect without a full stop (Melbourne, Australia). I misread "trailing punctuation" as referencing the comma (trailing Melbourne), rather than the period. I reverse my vote, and agree that this is an implausible typo per WP:R3. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unless there is proof this redirect with the full stop is used in some sort of actual way besides the end of a sentence, redirects like this usually do get deleted per WP:COSTLY, considering that it's both not a likely search term and this should be deleted to encourage editors not to link this. Steel1943 (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Steel1943. I honestly didn't notice the full stop as part of the redirect itself; I thought it was outside the link brackets. I shall reverse my vote. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:COSTLY. Harmless, probably, but since we're here, nothing wrong with cleaning up junk that shouldn't have existed in the first place. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Upon further thought, given the age of the redirect, it's possible it has collected some external links that we shouldn't break. I am generally in favor of cleanup of otherwise harmless redirects that shouldn't exist when feasible, but 18 page views in a year isn't nothing. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, let sleeping dogs lie. As a harmless redirect, there is nothing to be gained through deletion. Likewise, there is nothing to be gained by keeping it. However, deleting it requires a rather silly discussion so there is higher overall utility for the project by keeping the redirect and avoiding the silliness. -- Tavix (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this an unneeded redirect? Absolutely. Does that mean it should be deleted? Nah. -- Tavix (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unless this a media title, this isn't helpful. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments above and those of keep !voters above, especially Tavix. Completely harmless. I am only !voting in the hope of setting some kind of precedent so as to avoid users bringing very old redirects which are merely typos/grammatical errors to RfD. A7V2 (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. In general when it comes to old redirects we should avoid deleting if possible, to avoid breaking incoming external links. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its unlikely to be a problem as there was never an article here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Lone Star Lake (Texas)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 18#Lone Star Lake (Texas)

East African Plains Ape[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 11:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a joke. 722 pageviews since records began. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Pope Pius XII: Illness and death[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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those redirects are not helpful at all. I suggest deletion. Veverve (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per K4. J947 † edits 09:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The first of these was the title of an article subsequently merged to the current target for over a year, so we run the risk of breaking external links (and indeed internal ones) if this is deleted. No benefit comes from deletion. A7V2 (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Trespassing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 12#Trespassing

Benzoylvinyldiacetonealkamine[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. Evidence provided that this is an obsolete name for the target. Withdrawing nomination. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an alternative name for target. It does have a benzoyl moiety, but the rest does not make sense. Not useful, delete unless there is some justification. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep as is. This is an old name for Eucaine. see [1] on page 26. Also this is known as benzamine. You can see [2] page 98. Also this appears on page 117 of my 1952 chemical dictionary as an alias for Eucaine-Beta. This name would be due to the ingredients in the Synthesis section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the findings from Graeme Bartlett: old name. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 11:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Graeme Bartlett for the detailed explanation. I see you added a mention at target. Definitely some confusing obsolete nomenclature! I'll close this discussion as speedy keep. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Fakeroot[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 10#Fakeroot

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_3&oldid=1160874335"