Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 26, 2023.

Phillipe Aubert du Gaspé (son)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4#Phillipe Aubert du Gaspé (son)

Three-Body - TV 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 no consensus. Editors remain divided on whether WP:PANDORA is a reasonable basis for deleting a redirect that has already been created. signed, Rosguill talk 06:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless (just one week old) redirect per WP:RDAB, WP:PANDORA...are there any more of these out there? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Update: also nominating all the ones of the same form thanks to the finding below. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • To the nominator's question, I spot Some Like It Hot - musical, Tom Atkins - actor, Prey - 2022 film, Voyage - ABBA album, Don't Look Up - 2021 film, Happy New Year - ABBA, Friendly Fascism - book, Spacecraft bus - JWST, and Spacecraft Bus - JWST, all by the same creator. That goes back to November 2021; I imagine there's more past that. Will leave it to the nominator to decide bundling etc. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a bunch for checking! I've gone ahead and added those to the nomination. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Tamzin and Rhododendrites: (and others) - As OA of the RDs - no problem whatsoever re the final decision re these RDs - should note (as before at User talk:Drbogdan#Redirects) the following:
    Yes - *entirely* agree - creating less "WP:Redirects" may now be in order of course - seemed that not too long ago, creating Redirects were being *encouraged* among WikiEditors - to help make it easier to find WikiArticles by searchers and the public - since then, there seems to have been some change in the related WikiThinking? - additionally, some Redirects were created to work better in Facebook (and related websites) since related posts to WikiArticle titles containing an ending ")" and/or ending "?" were not being detected for some reason - as a result, users would end up on a WikiError page instead of the WikiArticle as intended - I posted this problem in the "Village Pump" some years ago ( see "Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 162#Workaround for dropped ")" in titles?" ) but did not obtain a better resolution to the concern at the time - a possible workaround seemed to be to create Redirects for such problematic WikiTitles - in any case - no problem whatsoever with this of course - just needed to know the latest WikiThinking about this these days
In any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add - If interested, I recently (3/20/2023) posted the related WikiProblem (bug?) of dropping WikiArticle Title endings and creating WP:RDs as a recommended possible Solution (and other related Solutions) on the Village Pump - Technical at the following => Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 204#Problem: External postings of article title links continue to drop endings of titles? - as well as - at => User talk:Drbogdan#Redirects - hope this helps - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete consistent with thev long-standing essay Wikipedia:Redirects are costly. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seem like implausible search forms.★Trekker (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I don't understand why anyone would want to delete these redirects? They're all unambiguous, plausible search terms for the target that are demonstrably useful in some situations (WP:R#KEEP). We don't require readers to know our titling conventions in order to find what they want. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Not particularly helpful to create, but rather less helpful to delete. J947 † edits 20:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Thryduulf. Readers don't know disambiguation titling conventions, and these redirects don't seem to be actively harming the encyclopedia. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Thyrduulf. They're possibly useful and unambiguous. I'm not seeing how it would be beneficial to delete these titles. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Shhhnotsoloud; this would justify the creation of hundreds of thousand of needless redirects like Palestine - region or Macedonia - ancient kingdom. Even putting aside the fact that this isn't the proper use of a hyphen, readers who will actually use these will no doubt be a small minority. Hell, if these deserve to be kept, then we should go ahead and make spaced and unspaced versions, hyphened or correctly em-dashed versions, the list could go on forever. The point of redirects is not to encompass every single term that one could ever possibly search. An anonymous username, not my real name 06:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that mass creation would be bad, because ... ? I mean, I said above that these aren't altogether too helpful to create, but this whole pandora thingy never pans out. If someone does, by chance, start partaking in such a humongous task they'll probably be pointed to WT:Redirect, where we might say "do something more helpful, say {{R from sort name}}s or all lowercase titles, or perhaps some smaller endeavour". The only manner in which this could plausibly occur is through a bot mass creating and maintaining this sort of redirect, which has a greater benefit than cost. J947 † edits 08:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it clutters Search. As the essay says "Redirects are not always needed. They can sometimes be a burden, and Wikipedia has a very good internal search engine." We don't need redirects that just second-guess Search. If "Readers don't know disambiguation titling conventions" they'll find it with Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ignoring the fact that we're just waiting for a NOSEARCH magic word or somesuch to be implemented, that's not an argument that this redirect might be precedent for the creation of other redirects. That's an argument that the redirect itself is bad. J947 † edits 23:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • But would it require mass creation? This strikes me as something that shouldn't be created, but shouldn't be deleted if created. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 19:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. I also don't think that search-cluttering is an issue in Vector 2022 or the mobile skin, unlike in Vector 2010, so that should be less of a concern than before. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:15, 2 April 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).

Digvijay Chautala[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 Digvijay Singh Chautala. Salvio giuliano 19:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

redirect should be deleted -- name of a candidate in the previous election, no notability, no relevance, very confusing that the name of a private individual redirects to a page about an election Fishing Publication (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 26 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).

Life Before Earth[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. While plausible as a search term, most editors opposed suggested potential targets as not sufficiently supported by sources in relation to the search term. signed, Rosguill talk 06:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unhelpful/unclear; not what this article is about. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as it is a wrong title as well. Earth itself predates the existence of life, so there's no "life before Earth". There is in fact a theory that life may started elsewhere and then came here (Panspermia), but the relation is too convoluted to be a workable redirect to that article either. It's, in fact, a side theory: the main panspermia theory is that life may survive in the vacuum under certain conditions and meteorites may carry it from one celestial body to another (from elsewhere to Earth, but also from Earth to other places). Cambalachero (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above, this redirect makes no sense and has no value. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also fine with refining to Extraterrestrial life#Characteristics, the section mentioned by Scyrme. Jay 💬 07:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to Panspermia. This was the first thing that I thought would be suitable, and there is no more suitable action for this mentioned so far. But it would make more sense if this was lower case, so no prejudice about deleting the title case version, and making life before earth a redirect to panspermia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Staff (2023). "Definition – Abiogenesis". Wiktionary. Retrieved 26 March 2023.
  2. ^ Staff (2023). "Definition – Abiogenesis". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 26 March 2023.
  3. ^ Sharov, Alexei A. (2006). "Genome increase as a clock for the origin and evolution of life". Biology Direct. 1: 17. doi:10.1186/1745-6150-1-17. PMC 1526419. PMID 16768805.
  4. ^ Sharov, Alexei A.; Gordon, Richard (2013). "Life Before Earth". arXiv:1304.3381v1 [physics.gen-ph].
  5. ^ Sharov, Alexei A.; Gordon, Richard (2018). "Life Before Earth". Habitability of the Universe Before Earth: Life Before Earth. Astrobiology Exploring Life on Earth and Beyond. Academic Press. pp. 265–296. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-811940-2.00011-3. ISBN 9780128119402. S2CID 117048600. Retrieved 25 March 2023.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Life Before Earth" with its particularly phrasing and capitalisation is formated like the title of a work not a Wikipedia article for a general topic. Searching the exact phrase "Life+Before+Earth" I was able to find a number of articles with that title, suggesting it is plausible that a searcher is actually looking for a proper noun not a general article about abiogenesis or panspermia. Since Wikipedia doesn't have content about any of these works, the title should remain vacant.
That said, "abiogenesis" ordinarily refers to the origin of life on Earth not in general, and this is reflected in the content of Abiogenesis the vast majority of which is concerned with terrestrial abiogenesis. Of-course "abiogenesis" could encompass extraterrestrial abiogenesis and the article does mention panspermia, but it is not the main topic of that article. The article is predominantly concerned with Earth and the conditions that made life on Earth possible, with even extraterrestrial factors being mentioned in the context of their effect on the Earth.
Furthermore, the phrase "life before Earth" does not necessarily indicate that a reader is looking for anything about where life originated whether abiogenically or not. It says nothing about where life originated or how, only when. Perhaps the searcher is interested in whether life was possible on other planets before Earth became habitable, not necessarily even in the context of panspermia but simply whether it could even have existed indepenently long before the Earth was inhabited. That's a reasonable thing to ask, even without getting into fringe theories. As far as I'm aware, there is no article or section that deals with that particular question. With these considerations neither abiogenesis nor panspermia make good targets for even the lowercase version.
If the lowercase is created, my preference would be for it to point to Earliest known life forms, an article which mentions abiogenesis and panspermia but isn't narrowly focused on 'origin of life' topics, rather it's concerned with the broader question of the earliest life (a redirect to Earliest known life forms). – Scyrme (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: Although the term "panspermia" does only occur in an image caption, the actual concept is discussed in the text following the sentence begining The possibility that.... If you feel this is undue, then perhaps it should be removed.
That said, taking a closer look at Extraterrestrial life it seems that article does cover the particular question I mentioned: during a habitable epoch when the universe was only 10–17 million years old. Life may have emerged independently at many places throughout the universe, as it arose on Earth roughly 4.2 billion years ago through chemical processes. (Extraterrestrial life § Characteristics)
In light of that, I now prefer Extraterrestrial life for the lowercase. – Scyrme (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, this paper uses the term Abiogenesis in an extraterrestrial sense. "Panspermia assumes that, at least once, life originated in the Universe as a result of the natural processes (abiogenesis) but does not address the problem how this original life began." Cambalachero (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point was not that "abiogenesis" refers exclusively to the origin of life on Earth, only that it usually refers to the origin of life on Earth. In the past "abiogenesis" was used in reference to the origin of life on Earth, a historically controversial question, and given that no extraterrestrial life is known to exist that remains the context in which is it usually discussed outside the speculative field of astrobiology, a relatively young and small field compared to fields like natural history and evolutionary biology. Of-course there are sources that use it in reference to extraterrestrial life in the context of astrobiology (like that one); I never intended to suggest otherwise. – Scyrme (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if this were to exist, it should not point to abiogenesis. This is not about non-biological origin of life, it is about life before Earth. That's not a related statement. Extraterrestrial life would be the only valid option as a target. Panspermia would require that life spreads, also not a related statement. A time-like curve and resolve the lack of a non-biological origin to life. -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 04:26, 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).

Secondary Period[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. There was agreement that disambiguation will be helpful, but it was not clear how the page will look like. A better location for the disambiguation was proposed to be the lowercased Secondary period, which was not part of this nomination. The discussion also did not resolve any potential inconsistencies between the lowercased title and the title under discussion, if this is to be turned into a disambiguation. No prejudice against creation of a disambiguation page; or a fresh nomination of the lowercased title, or a bundling of titles, including the addition of Primary period to the mix. Jay 💬 08:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading; the Mesozoic is an era, not a period. An anonymous username, not my real name 03:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I do not support or oppose the nomination, but I *do* believe it should be handled in the same manner as Secondary period (which redirects to the same place, Mesozoic) and Primary period (which redirects to Paleozoic). Jdaloner (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate/Keep – Periods within the Mesozoic era do have synonymous names as secondary periods, and there is evidence of "secondary period" being used as a uniting term for all three, such as these Google Books results: [1] [2] [3]. Since its use is verifiable, this is a plausible search term to lead to the Mesozoic era. Misleadingness is not a problem here, since the target is not unexpected. {{R from incorrect name}} can be used, however.
However, it is ambiguous. On Wikipedia, this term is commonly used for star brightness cycles based on results of a search. Variable star may work as a link in that case, though I'm not sure whether it is covered properly there. Secondary education also appears to be a reasonable search target. It does seem plausible for Mesozoic to be the primary topic, making a DAB page unnecessary, though. Randi Moth (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Secondary education also appears to be a reasonable search target."
Secondary education itself does not refer to its topic as such, and I've never encountered "secondary period" as a reference to secondary education. Searching around for "secondary+period" most of my results appeared to be related to finance/law (Google, Bing), astronomy/space (Google Scholar, ScienceDirect) or various periodic phenomena in biology (ScienceDirect; usually alongside references to an "initial period"), not education. Education seems like a stretch to me. Did you find something I didn't? – Scyrme (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found it be used in Education in Thailand and assumed it to be more common. Of course, Wikipedia articles themselves are not a good indicator whether this is common or not. If using "secondary period" for education is implausible, then keeping the redirect to Mesozoic is fine with a hatnote added linking to the variable star cycles per WP:ONEOTHER. Randi Moth (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Education in Thailand, it could just be a particular editor's choice of wording, perhaps to avoid confusion as elsewhere it uses "level" not "period" ("elementary and secondary levels") but at the particular instance where "period" is used "level" has been used in reference to a particular qualification ("Three levels of TVE"). – Scyrme (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig. Google searches show three distinct uses, geological time (possibly it's an outdated term) [4][5][6], education [7][8], and something related to (the law of) financial leasing [9][10]. I can't immediately find the term mentioned in a finance-related article and don't understand it anywhere near enough to determine if there is an appropriate article, but this has the strongest case for being primary topic. Also prominent in search results are partial title matches for Long secondary period variable stars which might make a good see-also. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A draft for a disambiguation page would be helpful, since I'm not sure what articles would be linked for each sense. Additionally, what would be done about Secondary period (which has the same target) and Primary period? The better location for a disambiguation page would be the lowercase form, since proposed entries aren't all proper nouns. Additionally, if only Secondary Period is disambiguated, with Secondary period and Primary period being left as they are, it would introduce inconsistency, which could produce surprises for some readers. – Scyrme (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:52, 26 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).

Color Lines (Loop)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4#Color Lines (Loop)

When Quads Won't Leave[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4#When Quads Won't Leave

Queen’s Slipper[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 03:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Onel5969 TT me 22:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Keeping redirects that are not mentioned is almost always more confusing than helpful. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:39, 28 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).

Public display of dead[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 07:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous with various articles about display of bodies before funerals. We could DAB, but I think it makes more sense to simply delete and let the search results handle things. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Tamzin, was going over the NPP feed and found this to be an odd edit. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 08:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Public display of the dead" or "public display of dead bodies" would be expected; without the "the" (or "bodies") this is phrased like a search query not a title, so let the search engine handle it. – Scyrme (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with Tamzin. (Also the gibbeting article does include gibbeting as a form of execution - not strictly 'display of dead' - but where initially live individuals eventually die from starvation or thirst, and their bodies are then left to decompose). Paul W (talk) 16:41, 28 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).

Public display[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 07:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very unexpected target. There's room for a DAB also including Publication § United States and maybe Public display of affection or some things relating to display of bodies before funerals, but I think it makes more sense to simply delete and let the search results handle thin -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Tamzin, was going over the NPP feed and found this to be an odd edit. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 08:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first thought was Exhibition. Is that not the primary meaning/topic? Publication § United States and Public display of affection are a passing mention and a partial match respectively, which aren't really adequate for disambiguation. – Scyrme (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous and likely gto be confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's an ambiguous term, but my first thought was the same as Scyrme's. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. There are many forms of public display. A navigational entry makes sense to help disambiguate between them. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What articles do you propose be listed? It's true that there are many forms of public display, but a disambiguation page isn't for listing 'types of X'. I'm not sure what could be referred to simply as a "public display" except an exhibition, not including partial matches. – Scyrme (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Very ambiguous term Paul W (talk) 16:36, 28 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).

Luka magic[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. Salvio giuliano 07:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All references in the target article to 'magic' refer to Magic Johnson -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's a verificable nickname,[11] though not common enough to go in the lead per MOS:NICKCRUFT. It seems unencyclopedic to list in the body every non-mainstream nickname of a sportsperson.—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a valid alternative name according to [12]. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above – nicknames need not be mentioned for a redirect to be helpful; to tell the reader either "here is what the term Luka magic refers to" or "huh, I see, you don't want to type out that surname, here we'll get you to the target anyway". J947 † edits 04:42, 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).

Elijah Bynum[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 07:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bynum has now directed two movies, the other being Magazine Dreams. The redirect is unhelpful and confusing for readers. Nardog (talk) 04:01, 26 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).

List of terrorists[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 designated terrorist groups. Salvio giuliano 07:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect target is not a list of terrorists, nor does it contain a list of terrorists. Either this should be deleted per WP:REDYES to make room for an article, or it could reasonably be retargeted to List of designated terrorist groups as {{r to related topic}}. I favor the latter option over the former. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per above. "Terrorist" is such a loaded and controversial term that having an article at List of terrorists is probably not feasible or good for the community's sanity. List of designated terrorist groups might be the closest we can get while keeping the inclusion criteria objective. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget: Per nom. As others have mentioned the term terrorist can be subjective, so the designated terrorist groups does make the most sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: Someone entering "List of terrorists" is most likely searching for a list of people who have been labeled "terrorist" rather than a list of organizations, and the proposed target leaves the reader wondering where there is such a list. However, any article on it (or even a list of people who have been labeled terrorist) would be a BLP and POV nightmare, because the term is so heavily loaded and subjective. Category:Terrorists doesn't exist either, and for a good reason. Deleting this redirect for good is the only sensible option. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 12:12, 28 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).

Κλέφτης[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 07:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia. It's nonsense to keep a soft redirect in another language. Proposing deletion or transwikifying to elwiki. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in the spirit of WP:RLOTE, as this word apparently means "thief" in Greek (per wiktionary), but thieves are not a particularly Greek topic. Don't transwiki the redirect either since both el:κλέφτης and wikt:el:κλέφτης both already exist. (The elwiki article is an unsourced stub though; if anyone reading this can speak Greek, I would appreciate if you expanded it.) Duckmather (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Duck. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:47, 26 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_26&oldid=1187780340"