Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 13, 2024.

Environmental Analysis of Computing[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 23:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this title for a few days. As far as I can tell this phrase is not used, it has exactly one Google hit. Rusalkii (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jake the Jailbird[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 20#Jake the Jailbird

Finite dimensional Hilbert spaces[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 20#Finite dimensional Hilbert spaces

Royal tart[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 20#Royal tart

Animals (2023 film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 20#Animals (2023 film)

Microsoft Company, Ltd.[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 Microsoft. Jay 💬 18:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is technically correct, since the only Microsoft entity we have an article that is a "Company, Limited" seems to be the Japan subsidiary. However, I think the vast majority of users would be looking for Microsoft, which is also the first and basically only result on Google. Thus, I propose retargeting this redirect to Microsoft. Toadspike (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this redirect also created several others targeted at Microsoft Japan around the same time and was later blocked for being a sockpuppet. I am not sure if WP:G5 applies, since the redirect might be useful. If someone else determines that G5 applies, they may freely CSD the redirect and close this discussion as moot. Toadspike (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Microsoft - G5 does not apply here because the sockmaster was blocked a week after the redirect was created, on 21 Dec 2023. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Verticon[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. Now mentioned at target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 19:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "Verticon" at the target page, nor anywhere on Wikipedia besides in a section of ASCII art as a section header without any meaningful content nor specific description. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Verticons, as far as I know, are basically an alternative name for Kaomojis, but they can be composed of Western characters as well. Since the term occurs in the net (and I even saw it in a book some while ago), deletion is no valid option, as people might enter the term into our search engine. I have therefore added a sentence about them to the target page, so they are now covered explicitly rather than only in general. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doooo you have a source for that? If so, happily keep. If not, we probably shouldn't have it added to the page. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per Matthiaspaul's helpful addition to the article, which I see has now been properly given a WP:RS as well. Fieari (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Psychological addiction[edit]

Needs adequate inclusion. Hildeoc (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagged the redirect as a "R from merge" and notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator's follow-up comment. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's follow-up comment. Okmrman (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdur Rahim (politician)[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! 18:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person in question does not have a Wikipedia article, and the article where Abdur Rahim (politician) redirects to, is a general article about the Muslim name 'Abd al-Rahim that has absolutely nothing to do with the person in question.Crampcomes (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The redirect is tagged "R from incomplete disambiguation", and the target article is indeed a disambig page; there are multiple "Abdur Rahims" and "Abdul Rahims" listed on the page that are politicians, such as Abdul Rahim Hatef, Abdul Rahim Malhas, and Abdul Rahim (Afghan politician). While I do think that the disambig page could do with a bit of reorganizing, this redirect is entirely correct. Note, for the record, that Abdul vs Abdur is a transliteration issue; in Arabic they'd all be written the same way. (edit added 13:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lunamann. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Tracy Grandstaff[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 Restore and send to AfD * Pppery * it has begun... 21:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to no suitable target, since Grandstaff is not only known for voicing Daria and is mentioned in several other articles, including those related to Beavis and Butt-Head, The Real World (TV series), and Taina (TV series) (see [1]). — Goszei (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose. While Grandstaff may have been involved with those other series, I would argue that Daria remains what she is primarily known for. DonIago (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D10/WP:REDYES (to encourage article creation). Basically nothing about her at the current target anyway. A7V2 (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking my above, I'm not sure now. This has history as an article, but it was merged (though I don't see that much, if anything, has been added from the old article) after a brief discussion here Talk:Daria#Merge. I still don't think this is a suitable redirect as things stand, and I wonder how appropriate it would be to add information about Grandstaff's other roles at the current target. A7V2 (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the current situation isn't ideal. I'm not aware of any precedent for a scenario like this, nor do I have ideas for the best way to proceed other than leaving the redirect in place. Part of the problem seems to be that there aren't many sources that talk about Grandstaff herself, which makes having her own article (the best-case scenario) challenging, and wedging what we do have into Daria, for instance, is a bit awkward. It's not even clear to me whether we have any information regarding the casting of Grandstaff as Daria; presumably it's based on her involvement in B&B and TRW, but we obviously can't just say that. So, essentially, I'm left with being open to suggestions while feeling that deleting the redirect doesn't really benefit anyone. DonIago (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged the page with {{R with history}} and {{R from merge}}. The page has been repeatedly turned to redirect and restored. The subject is not suitable as a redirect, and I would prefer it to be deleted but at AfD because of its history. Jay 💬 11:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: In light of the redirect's history, I agree with Jay that it should be discussed at AfD. — Goszei (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Hail eris[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. Refining to #In popular culture. Jay 💬 05:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, seriously? This is definitely a good redirect, as are almost all the others, which are going to be a weekend time-sink. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randy Kryn: Is there a reason "Eris" starts with a lowercase letter? It looks like a mistake to me, but for all I know, there could be some Discordian symbolism behind it. Note that Hail Eris does not exist. Nickps (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, thanks Nickps, this is just a lowercase redirect that someone lowercasing the proper name would use. I haven't done a count of how many deletion requests are here, but I do know that the editor has opened an ANI thread on me for my concerns and reverts that a WikiHatchet is being taken to this topic in a two-day time period unlike anything I've seen on Wikipedia, with most of it apparently not knowing the topic. You're right, the uppercasijng didn't have a redirect, fixed. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the uppercased version to the RfD because the nom's concern (no mention) has not been addressed. I won't comment on the nom's intention, that's for WP:ANI, but the argument itself has merit in my opinion. Why have this redirect if the reader finds nothing about its subject when they follow it? Nickps (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. These terms should be on the page itself, as they are well known elements of the topic (were they removed in the deletions?). Even if not mentioned, they are directly related to the topic Discordianism and known among people who know of the topic and have read the books. It is a parody religion, or religion, or philosophy, but has people like me who know of it but don't run around practicing it (although I do carry a pope card in my wallet so am on the sidelines somewhere). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, known among people who know of the topic and have read the books is generally not quite the argument for keeping a redirect with no explanation at the target, since those people aren't really provided any further information by looking up the term either, while other readers may just be confused. (Not saying this necessarily applies here, but it does not seem like the correct argument.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but it goes to knowing that the wording of the redirect is a real thing and that some readers may be looking for it. It's original research/knowledge but attesting to the redirects usefulness ought to be counted, no? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Eris (mythology); Discordianism is not the only religion that worship(ed) Eris, and given the redirect title, it's probably far more helpful to redirect to Her page specifically. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no sense at all. "Hail Eris" only refers to Discordianism. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I'm not terribly opposed to Keep as per "yeah no this IS specifically Discordian". I'm mainly opposed to outright deletion. I will note, however, that Eris (mythology) does have a section on Discordianism-- should we target to Eris (mythology)#In Discordianism? (edited on 13:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC))𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We should target the redirects to a section or WP article which covers the "Hail Eris" sentence, and if such a sentence is not covered anywehre on WP then the redirects should be deleted. And it turns out that the sentence is discussed nowhere on any WP article. Veverve (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most likely that Discordianism is the topic searched for with this term. Eris (mythology) is linked in the first sentence of the article. Retarget to Eris (mythology) would not be an improvement but would be preferable to deletion. Peter James (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to Eris (mythology) or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Avanturine glance[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 Withdrawn by nominator. There is no consensus. Namesnik knows the subject, I do not. The reasonable thing to do in this case is to withdraw. (non-admin closure) Викидим (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No clue where this one comes from, not used anywhere in or out of Wikipedia. The possible proper spelling "Aventurine glass" contains way too many differences. Викидим (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • «Авантюриновый блеск (avanturine glance) = кислый плагиоклаз» <avanturine glance = sour Plagioclase> (Krivovichev V. G. Mineralogical glossary. Scientific editor A. G. Bulakh. — St.Petersburg: St.Petersburg Univ. Publ. House. 2009. — 556 p.: page 11 ) --Namesnik (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not an expert, but I do not think that A.g. term exists in English. Someone, somewhere, would have used it in a way for Google to pick it up. It is easy, for example, to find sources for "sour Plagioclase". Perhaps, a typo, or mis-translation in this particular book? Викидим (talk) 06:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well then there must be two typos, or rather, at least twenty. The fact is that two dictionary entries are devoted to avanturine glance. This reference book has a separate section devoted to the translation of foreign names of minerals («List of foreign names of minerals», mainly English and German). And there is this mineral there too (only in English, without the German version): «Avanturine glance = авантюриновый блеск» (ibid., : page 440 ). The form of the word «avanturine» is noteworthy. We are probably talking about texts from the 18th and 19th centuries. --Namesnik (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In both cases the native language of authors is Russian, so another explanation is possible: these are simply attempts to translate the Russian term into English to the best of authors' knowledge. Викидим (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The last statement is not true. I already said. I repeat: ″This reference book has a separate section devoted to the translation of foreign names of minerals («List of foreign names of minerals», mainly English and German)″. The expression «List of foreign names of minerals» does not allow for double interpretation. This is not an attempt at translation. And foreign names of minerals. In the case where there is an English name, the author gives one name. In the case where there is German and English, the author gives two names. In the case of “Avanturine glance”, the author gives one option. English. This name does not exist in the German glossary. I wrote all the articles about glances (Russian, German, English) and did not include a single synonym without a source. --Namesnik (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no mention at target. TarnishedPathtalk 13:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. The redirect has a source. Not just a source, but a mineralogical dictionary. In this source, the second half is devoted to foreign terms. Two dictionary entries are devoted to avanturine glance. What else is needed for an ecyclopedia? No information is superfluous. Even about a rare or old name. --Namesnik (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Punctured plane[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. Participation was limited despite two relists, and there was no support for the status quo. Puncture (topology) was one recommended target. Retargeting there as a better target. Jay 💬 05:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This used to be an avoided double redirect to Punctured neighbourhood, which used to redirect to this glossary (though has since been retargeted). However, this is not really conceptually related to punctured neighbourhoods. One place where this is described is Scheme (mathematics)#Examples, though there might be similar content portraying this topic from some other mathematical field's POV. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • REDIRECT I would have expected this to be a redirect to Puncture (topology), or perhaps to Complex plane (in the context of meromorphic functions), both of which I would prefer to the current situation. Redirecting to the top of a glossary page doesn't help the reader much, I think. Tea2min (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One might also consider redirecting this to the disambiguation page for Punctured, which may be expanded with additional uses in mathematics. Redirecting to the complex plane seems like a good idea for something like punctured complex plane, but the current title can refer to planes over other fields as well. Note that there are also the Punctured set and Punctured surface redirects. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of context, "Punctured set" does not seem to mean anything useful. And it does not even appear in the Glossary of topology. I would delete that redirect. PatrickR2 (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go. A lot many targets to consider.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget While there is not really any information specifically on punctured planes at Puncture (topology), it does mention the Moebius strip as an example of a punctured projective plane. Among the presented options, this seems to me the most obviously useful target. Felix QW (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Differential algebraic variety[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. Limited participation despite two relists. There was no support for the status quo, nor opinion on the nomination's proposed targets. Diffiety was a target for which there were conflicting opinions. Retargeting to Differential algebra as a better target than the current. Jay 💬 06:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, and there does not seem to be a proper description of this anywhere. Maybe redirect to Differential algebra or Differential algebraic geometry (which claims that this is different from a diffiety)? Note that differential variety does not exist. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, such a discussion should be better placed at WT:WPM, since the interested editors are necessarily participants to the wiki project mathematics. D.Lazard (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to diffiety. "Diffiety" is a portemanteau for "differential variety", and this is the only mentioned article that contains a definition of something that may be called a differential algebraic variety. D.Lazard (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of the three proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me, differential algebraic variety refers to the subject of papers such as this one from the intersection of differential algebra and model theory and to the work of Ellis Kolchin. We mention this body of work in Differential algebra#open problems, but don't give an actual treatment of the term. I would therefore be reluctant to retarget to diffiety, but that may well be biased because of my own background in model theory. Felix QW (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Filtered ring[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. However retargeting to Filtration (mathematics)#Rings and modules: descending filtrations as a target better than the current. Jay 💬 06:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually mentioned at target (which only describes the case of algebras over a field), and IMO Filtration_(mathematics)#Rings_and_modules:_descending_filtrations is a better target. The compatibility with multiplication is often not required. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of proposed target - Filtration (mathematics).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Order of Accendo[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 restore article. The article may be taken to AfD. Jay 💬 06:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this used to be a full article and was merged to Discordianism for some reason. As a merge this redirect is both allowed and useful. Maybe the nominator can withdraw this and several others? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not connected to target article. This is not Discordianism, but something different. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its former full article said it was a spin-off of Discordianism. Seems the two routes here are return the article, which is reasonable, or redirect it to Discordianism, which is even more reasonable. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD. Not discussed anywhere on Wikipedia, is not a useful redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note that this used to be a full article and was merged to the target and, for some reason or a'nutter, was removed. As a former merged article there should at least be a redirect to the original target page (or, as an alternate, bring back the original page). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and ship to RFD as per Utopes. While this isn't a useful redirect, the article could become useful. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

POEE[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 POEE, Delete the .org entries. Jay 💬 17:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Restore POEE, Delete POEE.org & Poee.org (which, from wayback snapshots, does not appear to be operated by the original POEE) DefaultFree (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP article should not be restored, as per WP:BURDEN. Veverve (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it turns out there are no non-primary sources to restore POEE in the article, that doesn't call for deletion of the redirect. WP:RFD#D10 supports deletion If (1) the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and (2) the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. (2) is currently true, but (1) is not, as there isn't scope for a full standalone Paratheo-Anametamystikhood of Eris Esoteric article. There isn't a general prohibition on redirects not mentioned in the target, only specific prohibitions in specific situations that don't apply here (WP:RFD#D8, WP:RFD#D10). Also see WP:RFD#K5 and the POEE pageview stats - it has several daily pageviews, even before being RfD'd. DefaultFree (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore. This is associated with the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no mention at target. #8 above "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. " and #10 from above "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." This cannot be expanded into an article based on current information. And the article should not be restored unless independent sourcing can be found and based on BURDEN. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page history the term used to have its own page and was merged. Merges usually get redirects, yes? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some articles get merged, then the merged content is deleted, then the redirect is deleted. This happens often. Veverve (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • POEE was the original organizatioanal denomination of Discordianism, and is mentioned at the article on the book. What seems determinative to this nomination is that this used to have its own article, which was merged in 2005 (the redirect/merge is the subject of this discussion), which goes to show its connection to the redirect target is substantial enough to allow this redirect to stay. The original article contained: "Paratheo-Anametamystikhood Of Eris Esoteric or POEE is a manifestation of the Discordian society. According to the Principia Discordia it is a tribe of philosophers, theologians, magicians, scientists, artists, clowns, and similar maniacs who are intrigued by Eris goddess of confusion and her doings. Furthermore it states that 'POEE subscribes to the Law Of Fives of Omar's sect' and 'POEE also recognizes the Holy 23..'. Paratheo-Anametamystikhood can be taken to mean "equivalent deity, reversing beyond-mystique". Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, section has been partially restored with a third-party source and others are available. Skyerise (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Randy Kryn and Skyerise: Can you also give your opinion on Poee.org and POEE.org? Jay 💬 06:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say thay both could be deleted. RK may feel otherwise. Skyerise (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. My comments above are about Poee as a redirect. I don't even know if it's common practice or not to have .com eddresses etc. as redirects. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, websites, domain names, IP addresses, all are allowed as rediredcts. Not just .com, any domain. See {{R from website}} and Category:Redirects from domain names. Jay 💬 05:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 deputy chief ministers of Puducherry[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 20#List of deputy chief ministers of Puducherry

George W's palace[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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 06:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Possibly non-neutral name. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled George W’s palace.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rajnibala[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 20#Rajnibala

Black French (disambiguation)[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. Per WP:G14. Jay 💬 06:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until yesterday, Black French was a disambiguation page with two entries: Black French people and Immigration to France. Then another user removed the second entry, which I agree with. Therefore I redirected Black French to Black French people. I don't believe a disambiguation page is needed, as "Immigration to France" doesn't seem like a page someone would be looking for if they search for "Black French". Kk.urban (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Amc interview with the vampire[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 20#Amc interview with the vampire

Garv Sangwan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 20#Garv Sangwan

Afflux[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 💬 06:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, and it is only a word of which only a definition can be given (WP:NOTDICT), so I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Discordian calendar. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Literally don't know how flowing air or water relates to even Discordian calendar or Discordianism Okmrman (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok apparently, Afflux is a holyday. Still gonna keep my vote unless there is some other reasoning since most people probably know afflux from the actual word. Okmrman (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDelete per below, seems to be a topic holyday, doesn't harm the encyclopedia to keep this as a redirect of a religious holiday. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, have done so and changed by !vote here. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was this relisted? There's no relist template. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes: The discussion was relisted by Okmrman, and I've now added the relist template. CycloneYoris talk! 03:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Dominika Hašková (Q105156345)[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 💬 06:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per longstanding consensus redirects with Wikidata codes aren't useful. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Makes sense. But for context, I wish you had added a link to prior discussion on this consensus or referred to a guideline. Grk1011 (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I also concur that a link to the relevant consensus/policy would have been helpful when listing this nom. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2024_April_13&oldid=1221228484"