Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 15, 2023.

Bigolas dickolas[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 💬 13:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously spam Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:46, 15 May 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).

Amit Bhadana LL.B[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 💬 13:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having their post-nominals for a redirect is inconceivable for me at least, but I'm not going to object to policy-based arguments for it to stay. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't know why anyone would use post-nominals for a search term. The subject is not notable for his law degree. Carpimaps (talk) 08:01, 16 May 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).

Most career wins[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 💬 13:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous title which could reasonably be redirected to a dozen or so pages. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the nom. Not a good title for a disambig page either. Glades12 (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambiguous certainly, but it's a baseball term first and foremost right? J947 † edits 19:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep anyone that types this into wiki is looking for the MLB pitching career wins list. Tiptopper (talk)
  • Delete per nom. This could apply to coaches as well (see, e.g. List of National Football League head coach wins leaders). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As winningest, which is essentially synonymous with this, is a soft redirect and no other term I found could find a generic topic for this, deletion seems reasonable. It's too vague as is. TartarTorte 02:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • DABify - If the problem is that it could refer to a dozen or more different pages, the solution is to create a disambiguation page. This looks like something a sports fan... of any sport... might search for. Let's get them to where they are looking. Fieari (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I could be persuaded to make this a DAB. Perhaps a list of lists? Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to allow uninhibited search. I'm not completely opposed to disambiguation, however. A7V2 (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm skeptical a list of the contents of Category:Sports records and statistics will be a useful disambiguation. --Bsherr (talk) 15:37, 26 May 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).

Princess George of Cumberland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 23#Princess George of Cumberland

WTVJ(NBC)[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 delete under CSD G7: author has requested deletion. JBW (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

recently recreated unlikely disambiguation AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:20, 15 May 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).

Avril Lavigne-Kroeger[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. Thanks for finding the news sources. I am withdrawing the nomination. (non-admin closure) AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

assumed married name, but never used in media AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No indication she uses this name whatsoever, and including it as a redirect is misdescriptive, no matter how cheap. TJRC (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The author, User:Techoliver298, has a history of creating these types of redirects; see Jennifer Veal-Hack, Elizabeth Avellán-Rodriguez, and Liz Gillies-Corcoran, among probably many others that I have not checked. I have sent them two talk-page messages about separate problems with their redirects without getting a response, though I'm not entirely sure if they've taken the advice I've given them or not; they never respond to anything on their talk page. It might be worth going through their contributions thoroughly to see how many invalid redirects they have created, though I do think the majority of their redirects are constructive ones from birth names. I've been keeping an eye on them for a while now, and I figured this was the best place to bring it up, because if this gets deleted, there are several that will follow its precedent. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: This one is a bit different from the three I listed above by this user. I can actually find news sources using it; I don't know how valid of a search term it is, but per WP:CHEAP I'm inclined to keep here. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Based on sources provided by Skarmony. Redirects are cheap, and it's a possible search term that makes sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from married name}}. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If sources exist that use it, it's a useful and valid redirect for anyone who sees said source and is looking for more information. Fieari (talk) 23:33, 17 May 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).

Waterwraith[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 28#Waterwraith

Tim Galloway[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 24#Tim Galloway

Ancient Israel[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This term has no single obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and could refer to a range of things. I boldly disambiguated it to this on 22 January, was reverted and instructed to take it to RfD. Here's one source providing just a taste of how indistinct and in need of disambiguation this term is. In addition to my original list of disambiguated entries, the page should probably also list Israelites, as in "Ancient Israelites". Iskandar323 (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • DABify to this per nom. Veverve (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per the diff provided by nom --Lenticel (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • DABify per nom. This is exactly what disambiguation is for. Fieari (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I fail to see how the current target isn't sufficient. It's a broad article that covers all of the topics listed in the proposed DAB. If readers are looking for a specific iteration of "Ancient Israel," they can use links at the target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No need to disambiguate. Information is contained in that article for both Israelite kingdoms and their commonalities, which is not present in the specific articles on the northern kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah. Dovidroth (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term "Ancient Israel" refers to the two kingdoms and their peoples collectively, [1] so the existing link to an article that explores the history, society, culture and religion of both Israel and Judah is appropriate. The real issue here is History of Ancient Israel and Judah's overly broad scope, which delves into events that took place after the fall of the two Iron Age kingdoms. I'd change it to only cover the pre-exilic period of Israelite and Jewish history, moving later eras to our article on the Second Temple period. Tombah (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Finkelstein, Israel (2013). The Forgotten Kingdom: the archaeology and history of Northern Israel. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-58983-911-3. OCLC 880456140.
  • Keep as the current target is already a broad article covering almost anything someone searching this could be looking for. If something is missing it should be added as a hatnote. A7V2 (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current target works fine for the intended topic. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For the reasons provided above. --Bsherr (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we had an article on Ancient Israel and Judah, that would have been my preferred target, but that article was moved, and is known by the current target title since 2007, so keep. Jay 💬 12:03, 27 May 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).

"Requiem"[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. In addition to having a rough consensus in this RfD discussion, it is common practice for such redirects to be speedy-deleted on R3 or G6 grounds due to its interference with search form syntax. signed, Rosguill talk 04:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect target as there are many requiems and this is in no way the primary topic. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for unnecessary quotes. If kept though, should redirect to Requiem or its disambiguation. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: For unnecessary and unhelpful quotation marks. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unhelpful. Veverve (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Requiem (disambiguation), where many items listed are so titled. J947 † edits 23:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete per Tamzin. Maybe motivated by my abject annoyance at trying to search for a direct match in the most efficient manner... Although, the number of readers who use search wildcards is easy to overestimate. J947 † edits 06:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Requiem (disambiguation) per J947. "Requiem" is a valid search term for titles of works as they are often formatted this way. Redirects are cheap. Carpimaps talk to me! 03:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a standard example of WP:AFFINITY. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that applies here since titles of works are often put inside quotation marks. This title has an affinity that lends to quotation marks being justified. Carpimaps talk to me! 04:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Requiem (disambiguation), where many titles are written this way. No need for deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 09:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes sense using such redirects within articles per what is expected in WP:Article titles#Do not enclose titles in quotes, but I see no point in redirecting a quoted title to its disambiguation page. However, if there are similar redirect examples that target a dab page, I'll change my view. If we don't have a better solution than to retarget to the dab, Delete as a recently created redirect, created with quotes. In response to J947, how many of the entries on the dab actually have quoted titles, and not because they have to be written that way on pages because of MOS:QUOTETITLE? Jay 💬 09:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it leads to unexpected behavior in the search bar when trying to execute an exact-match search for the word Requiem. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:05, 27 May 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).

Template:HPD[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 1#Template:HPD

English Nation[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 English. ✗plicit 03:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Retarget to English people - English nation redirects to the nation (ie. the group of people, not the land). Estar8806 (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to English, or to English people?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to English, which usefully lists English people, England, and English national identity. Colloquially, the word "nation" is often used to mean "country" rather than "people", so we shouldn't try to guess which meaning the reader is looking for. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to English as per above. Veverve (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of targeting the dab page here. If we target English people it's extremely easy to get to England anyway. Maybe people are looking for English national identity but I rather doubt it, and we can include that in the hatnote anyway. However, I'm not sure what the primary topic is here upon further reflection, and would not strenuously object to the redirect being kept as is. J947 † edits 23:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to English - I do think the dab is the most useful target here, particularly because, as J947 says, it's not entirely clear what the primary target should be, but the dab covers all potential targets. Fieari (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to English. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:40, 16 May 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).

Redirects to Mud (disambiguation)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 1#Redirects to Mud (disambiguation)

Adolf Rizzler[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 03:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: it can't hurt; someone searching Adolf Rizzler could find it helpful to be redirected to the term it is derived from. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edward-Woodrow, especially given it's mentioned and explained. J947 † edits 01:44, 22 May 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).

Steve?[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. A note has been added to the article, which seems to alleviate the confusion surrounding the name. -- Tavix (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear how the inclusion of a question mark identifies this specific Steve, not included at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As overly vague and unnecessary.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if kept, needs to explain the stylization. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC) (striking out redundant comment)[reply]
  • Keep - Regardless of the information being in the article or not, Steve? with the question mark is in fact used by many people, and we even have a scholarly paper confirming the usage. Useful redirect. Fieari (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag with {{R to article without mention}}. Jay 💬 16:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mention has been added by Tamzin, although it's a note. Jay 💬 08:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. RS above. --Bsherr (talk) 15:18, 26 May 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).

Nikaj-Mërtur[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 22#Nikaj-Mërtur

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_15&oldid=1157973624"