Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 23, 2023.

Europe route Ennn[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The result of the discussion was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Lizthegrey (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created as part of gaming the system by user banned for WP:NOTHERE WP:POINT trolling on Brianna Wu. As per WP:DENY, should undo all page/redirect creations made by this person intended to inflate edit count and bump them past 500 edits for ECP. See Special:Contributions/Onodonomono Lizthegrey (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a perfectly good and likely search term for the target. The way to handle users acting in bad faith is to sanction the user, not to disadvantage readers who have no connection with or even knowledge of the entirely unrelated disruption. While it is permitted to delete pages created by banned users, this is not required - especially when doing so would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Thryduulf (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both "Europe route Exxx" and "European road Exxx" variations – While the editor themself most likely acted in bad faith, these redirects are still useful, and they were made prior to the block. Also note that per WP:DENY:

Reserve listing the page as miscellany for deletion for serious matters, noting that a high-profile forum discussion of vandalism is the opposite of "deny recognition".

While the quote is about the pages about vandalism, the same can apply here: the listing of redirects here has done more for recognition than their quiet existence would have. Randi Moth (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see any policy-based reasons to delete this (This doesn't appear to be an alleged block-evading sock), and the redirect seems fairly ordinary itself. While their vandalism should be removed, I see no need to remove this. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:02, 27 March 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).

Rooftop swimming pool[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 💬 07:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a WP:SURPRISE that this topic is not identified or defined at the target. The only place in the article where it is mentioned is in a file caption for an image displayed in Swimming pool#Dimensions, and that is all. This subject seems notable enough where it should either have a section dedicated to it in the target article, or be a standalone article/subject in itself. In other words, delete these per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK per nom. Sensible approach. The target has no information on rooftop pools, although it lists many other types of pool. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand: a rooftop pool is not just a pool that is put on top of a roof. It's an engineering feat to hold that much water at elevation, and I'm sure there's enough information out there about their development and overcoming the structural challenges that at least a subsection could be written. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:50, 23 March 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).

Beach entry[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! 10:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure this concept isn't exclusive to pools. Maybe even ... the entry to an actual beach? Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - I agree with nom's points, but in my experience living on an island surrounded by beaches the terms are typically "beach access", or just "shore", while "beach entry" is a specific type of pool according to the article. Hatnotes could work, though I'm not sure which direction is appropriate. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 100% of the first six pages (at least) of google results for "beach entry" -wikipedia are for pools, changing the search term to "beach entry" -pool -wikipedia finds (on the first three pages) entry prices and or entry tickets for beaches (both specific beaches and the general concept of charging for entry to a beach), Blackpool Pleasure Beach and car parks named after beaches; "life's a beach" entry mats (doormat), a design of entry door named "Laguna Beach", and access points to various specific beaches. Almost all of these are not encyclopaedic and/or so ambiguous as to be useless search terms. The concept of private access to beaches is encyclopaedic, and is covered at Beach#Restrictions on access but at most this should be a hatnote from the article about the swimming pool type (the overwhelming primary topic) - and even then I'm not completely convinced of its utility (it's certainly not the search term I would use). Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above, unless there are specific article examples showing ambiguity. Beach by itself, is not an ambiguous topic. Jay 💬 07:31, 31 March 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).

Start Publishing[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. Jay 💬 17:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was blanked by Shortride (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "Start is a distribution client, not a subsidiary". That does make sense. Moreover, Start Publishing is only mentioned very briefly, and any reader looking for information on Start Publishing will be disappointed if redirected to Simon & Schuster. Pichpich (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Errr. They'll be more disappointed if they are faced with a red link, I think. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the business arrangement doesn't matter. We have very little information on Start Publishing on Wikipedia, but what little there is is located at this target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a reasonable place to point to, given that the coverage is at that page (even if it is relatively light in nature). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:00, 27 March 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).

Zero-entry[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 31#Zero-entry

Social Rockstar[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. Salvio giuliano 07:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An old redirect from a blanked extremely short-lived article in 2009. This redirect is no longer required or helpful, if it ever was. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Internet celebrity: It seems that this is intending to refer to Internet celebrities, but also, there doesn't seem to be a ton of term usage and deletion would be fine as well. TartarTorte 12:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Searches point mostly to Rockstar Games Social Club but it is not a term used there to refer to its members. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a neologism. The short-lived pre-BLAR content also cannot be used, it was more of an essay. Jay 💬 06:44, 31 March 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).

Aiplane[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 💬 05:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling. In addition, there is a possibility with the increasingly popularity of the subject of Artificial intelligence (AI), someone could be searching this spelling for planes controlled by AI. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment typos by omission are a very common form of typo. However, for this typo, I agree delete since it engenders confusion with artificial intelligence -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The case for the redirect from misspelling aiplane is no greater than for redirects from airlane, airpane, airplne, airplae etc. Dolphin (t) 06:17, 24 March 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).

Yungur language[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 31#Yungur language

2022–23 Schleswig-Holstein-Liga[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 2#2022–23 Schleswig-Holstein-Liga

All of the Girls[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 💬 17:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Technically this is supposed to redirect to "All of the Girls You Loved Before", which doesn't make sense because "All of the Girls" redirect is misleading as a title. I suggest deleting this redirect. Ippantekina (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created "All of the Girls" initially because the song's title when it was first leaked, but after reading your arguments, I agree with the redirect's deletion. Gained (talk) 11:05, 23 March 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).

Tards[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 31#Tards

Redirects from stars in Libra[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 List of stars in Libra. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Six Bayer stars that redirect to the main constellation page instead of List of stars in Libra (four more exist as redirects to the set index Zeta Librae). No attempt has been made to determine if any of these meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG; if they do, the recommended solution is to delete per WP:REDLINK. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:26, 23 March 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).

Beaners[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 Beaner. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest retargeting to Beaner, like most plurals. The former name of the coffee chain was Beaner's Coffee with the apostrophe on the possessive. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:32, 23 March 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_23&oldid=1147800166"