Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 22

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

February 22 edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 22, 2021.

George Lamson Jr. 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 18:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. He was the only survivor of the crash, which is why his name targets this page, but as he isn't mentioned there it's not helpful. A cursory search shows quite a few articles about him (he apparently works with survivors of other air crashes) so it's not implausible that he is notable enough for an article but I haven't looked in detail. The entry at the George Lamson Jr. dab page should not be removed but adjusted to include a link to the crash article directly as well as the resulting red link after this is deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete exactly per Thryduulf. The dab page is George Lamson. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Season 2 (2018) 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 18:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too ambiguous, not a likely search term. While season 2 of "Bigg Boss" did premiere in 2018, "Bigg Boss" is not the only series in which season 2 premiered in that year. For example, season 2 of "13 Reasons Why" also premiered in 2018. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ridiculously ambiguous. A google search has basically every result relate to something different, ranging from TV shows to fortnite. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It may have been primarily what people were searching for some time in 2018, but even though that year's over, it can refer to anything and the "primary topic" in that regard keeps changing, so why do we need redirects like that? Regards, SONIC678 23:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's left over from a page move. The article was created at this title for some reason (typo perhaps) then moved to a more sensible name 2 minutes later. I doubt this was the primary meaning of the phrase even in 2018. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the previous editors. Too ambiguous. Less Unless (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Zuid (Middelburg) 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 18:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is the result of a very short-lived article in 2007 about Zuid (South), the southern part of the city of Middelburg, which was merged with Middelburg for lack of notability. However, the Middelburg article doesn't have a section on Zuid anymore and in fact doesn't even mention it (and neither should it, there's nothing to note about the neighbourhood whatsoever), so the redirect serves no purpose anymore and should be deleted. Lennart97 (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rugmark 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! 19:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rugmark and GoodWeave International are two separate entities. Gw-intl (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep According to references in the article, the organization was founded as Rugmark in 1994, and later changed its name to Goodweave International. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The connection between the two names was well explained in the article until an IP removed all references to it a few days ago in this series of edits. An example from their own website (via archive.org) "In May 2001, RUGMARK UK was formally registered in the United Kingdom ... RUGMARK UK officially changed its name to GoodWeave UK in 2010." Given the proposer's username it appears they might have a COI with the charity? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact the same account that is now asking for this redirect to be deleted as being as being a different organisation added a load of text to the article explaining the rebrand in 2011! Diff Quote from the text added by Gw-intl - "Rugmark International re-branded the certification program and introduced the GoodWeave label in 2009. The organization is also in the process of re-branding to GoodWeave".86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also look at the last comment in this AfD nomination. One of their employees directly gave us sources about their rebrand showing they were the same organisation. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the IP above. Definitely a well sourced former name. A7V2 (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Appeal to Reason (band) 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 18:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be of any reasonable use. Made by accident from a botched page move. No notable band exists with this name, nor does any notable subject have involvement in such a group, that I'm aware of. (If there is, I would like it retargeted there.) dannymusiceditor oops 21:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: no such band exists (at least, not a notable one), and even if they did, they have nothing to do with this album, so it is unlikely that anyone would use the search term to look for this album or the band who made it, and the redirect serves no purpose. Richard3120 (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Peg Bowen 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. signed, Rosguill talk 01:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. The only real mention on Wikipedia is twice at List of Road to Avonlea episodes. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The text of The Story Girl from the link at External links shows she's a character, hence her appearance later in Road to Avonlea. Perhaps an editor who's familiar with the book could add a mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

BIXie 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 the absence of a mention at the target. ~ mazca talk 23:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 01:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wikt:bixie#Etymology 2 explains the connection, but there is no content about it on Wikipedia I can find. I'm unsure about suggesting a soft redirect though as I can't immediately find any uses of this capitalisation. The originating forum was BIX (Byte Information Exchange) but the emoticons are at least most commonly "bixie" (Google's lack of case sensitivity means I cannot say this is/was never used, just that if it is/was it is less common than standard capitalisation). Bixie correctly exists as a redirect to the completely unrelated Pixiu, which is the primary topic, so if content were to be added about the emoticons then it would need to take disambiguation or more likely be a hatnote (I suspect there are reliable sources sufficient for a mention somewhere but not for a whole article). Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom due to the lack of mention. -- Tavix (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Regressive conservatism 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 Reactionary. signed, Rosguill talk 01:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination on behalf of Manabimasu (see here). Original reason was:

No reliable sources on the namespace article name. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Regressive+conservatism&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=

~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Twitterati 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. signed, Rosguill talk 01:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a neologism, not further explained at the target. It is mentioned at Generation Z#Arts and culture, so retargeting there might be an option. Alternatively Wiktionary redirect to wikt:Twitterati or delete. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as creator, I can only imagine that I was fixing a red link at the time. It certainly is a neologism, but is well used and discussed in numerous scholarly papers [1] as well as books and news. Derek Andrews (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP 150 views per year, seems to be useful. Twitter is an appropriate target. Polyamorph (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft retarget to the Wiktionary entry, where the word is defined. I don't know if it's possible without breaking the soft redirect template but a see also link to twitter would also go nicely on the page. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and additionally add an explanation of the term somewhere in the target article. enjoyer|talk 05:02, 15 February 2021 (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, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gnu ld edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is another redirect on the page GNU ld. The proper capitalization should be "GNU" and not "Gnu". I think that searching "gnu ld" using the Wikipedia search box will automatically use "GNU ld", which should also automatically redirect to Linker (computing)#GNU linker. I think this makes the Gnu ld redirect unnecessary. Somerandomuser (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Completely standard {{R from miscapitalisation}}. It's unambiguous, covered in the target and I see no benefits from deletion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I also wanted to mention that Gnu ld was not updated to redirect to the particular section on Linker (computing)#GNU linker until I modified it recently, whereas GNU ld was correctly configured a while ago. Additionally, if {{R from miscapitalisation}} applies, would both GNU ld and Gnu ld be considered valid redirects? Should there also be a Gnu linker redirect just like GNU linker? And GNU founder redirect just like Gnu founder? If my understanding is correct, Wikipedia's search box automatically figures out the capitalization. I don't understand why these extra redirects are necessary, as they become extra pages to maintain if articles get split or merged. My current thoughts are that GNU ld, GNU linker, GNU as, GNU founder, etc. be redirects and Gnu ld, Gnu linker, Gnu as, Gnu founder should not be used. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding something. Somerandomuser (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those would all be valid redirects, and I would think that it would be a good idea to make the one with the correct capitalisation of GNU at the minimum. Why do we make redirects from alternate capitalisations? Numerous reasons. The pop up results in the search box only work on browsers with JavaScript enabled. A lot of people don't search using the search box, Some people may search using URL's for example (I do it a lot when searching through events that occur according to a yearly pattern, for example). A lot of people access Wikipedia through apps, which have completely different ways of handling capitalisation variations. Wikipedia content is licenced so that other people can reuse it, so it's possible that Wikipedia content might end up in a format that can't handle capitalisation variants at all. As long as they're unambiguous there's little downside in creating alternate capitalisation redirects. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes a lot of sense! I will create the other redirect pages with the correct capitalization as well. Somerandomuser (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should I remove this RFD? And how? Somerandomuser (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the RFD from the redirect. Somerandomuser (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

LoL: Dominion 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 01:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target anymore. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: No opinion at the moment, but I also found League of Legends:Dominion, which I'm adding here. Regards, SONIC678 18:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dominion is a dead game mode that was never independently notably; I highly, highly doubt that anyone was ever finding the page through these redirects. I suspect there are a lot of silly redirects leading to the game like this. It isn't fulfilling its main job of getting unfamiliar readers to where they need to be, and Dominion has never been referred to as "League of Legends: Dominion". — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for a full 7 days for consideration of the redirects added a few days into this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Biopact 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 01:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. All the other search results are passing mentions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Witch Lesbians edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 1#Witch Lesbians

SMKC 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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 19:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, an internet search turns up myriad results. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Swathi Venkatesh 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 01:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely nothing in the article supports the name, a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY. The redirect comes from an undiscussed move which was later reverted. Ab207 (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Eladio Carrión 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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although Eladio Carrión has collaborated with Bad Bunny, Eladio Carrión is an individual singer and they collabed only once, so they are not associated singers, the redirect makes me kinda confused. BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm probably redirecting the focus here, but there are plenty of editors on Wikipedia still redirecting the names of artists to articles on others. If this were really such a problem, there'd be some kind of directive not to do this, or at the very least there should be to try to curb it. There are thousands more redirects like this, and I feel like nominations like this selectively target redirects in some misguided attempt to address a problem as if this redirect were one of only very few when that's absolutely not the case. It can't be stopped through one nomination alone, so if this is an issue, it needs to be more widely addressed and individual, piecemeal nominations like this should stop until there is an explicit directive to not make redirects in this fashion. Ss112 01:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, lots of editors create redirects like this. But this should be an important issue to work on, redirects like these are really confusing. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems to have been a one off collaboration on a song with no substantial history between the artists. I can't see what resulted in the decision to target this discography in particular, a search shows they've collaborated with a load of artists including some multiple times, e.g. they were involved in 3 singles with Myke Towers. They're not mentioned anywhere in the article prose so it's not going to be immediately obvious to readers why they've ended up here. In this instance I think the search results do a much better job of finding various songs they've worked on. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't see what resulted in the decision to target the redirect to "this discography in particular"...because the artists collaborated and at that time, I believed it was a valid search term to point there because it was one of the only, if not at that time, the only place it was mentioned on Wikipedia. A term does not need to be mentioned all over an article or even repeatedly for it to be valid. Judging by your frequency here at RfD, I'm sure you don't see users repeatedly taking issue with how some songs on albums are only mentioned once on those album articles, in the track listing, and nominating those song redirects for deletion. It's really not that hard to figure out why I made it. Ss112 04:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that a song being released on an album is a fixed fact that cannot be retroactively changed and isn't going to become outdated in a couple of years. Short of the song becoming notable enough for it's own article or something very unusual happening (like a cover version becoming more well known than the original) a redirect from a song to an album is going to be continuously useful. The same is not true of redirecting artists to a collaboration. This may have been his main appearance in the encyclopaedia when you made the redirect but now 2 years later that is no longer the case, and he appears in all sorts of places which contain just as much content as the current target (Myke Towers, Súper Sangre Joven, Cazzu, Lunay, Khea, Bryant Myers, ...) and pointing readers to this one specific collaboration is not helpful as there is a huge amount of songs and relevant content that they will miss. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A collaboration is also a fixed fact and should remain at a discography if it is properly sourced as a single. Having more collaborations and mentions in places on the encyclopedia doesn't change that. Ss112 11:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said it should be removed from the discography. The thing that should be deleted is the redirect, because it is no longer true that his collaboration with Bad Bunny is his only song mentioned on the encyclopaedia. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And I never said you wrote that it should be removed from the discography. I also never said it was ever his only collaboration mentioned on the encyclopedia, merely suggested at the time I created it perhaps it was. A topic being mentioned by name on multiple articles has never been a barrier to making a redirect for it pointing it to only one place—this happens for songs originally from individual studio albums, as you well know. This reply thread really no longer has a point. Ss112 11:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do apologise, when you said "A collaboration is also a fixed fact and should remain at a discography if it is properly sourced as a single." I misunderstood and thought you were talking about the entry at the discography, rather than the redirect. "A topic being mentioned by name on multiple articles has never been a barrier to making a redirect for it pointing it to only one place" - normally when redirects with multiple valid potential targets are brought here they're either disambiguated or deleted to allow uninhibited search results, unless there is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title. For the majority of songs the primary topic is the original recording, but searching the internet for "Eladio Carrión" does not suggest to me that the primary thing he's known for is his collaboration with Big Bunny, basically every result is for a different song. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was talking about the entry at the discography. I have addressed both that and the redirect itself at different times. I don't see how one could interpret "A collaboration is also a fixed fact and should remain at a discography if it is properly sourced as a single" as anything other than specifically referring to the entry at the discography and not the redirect. This is just clarifying at this point. As I said, I don't see the point in continuing this particular line of replies. Ss112 12:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirects such as this one, based on a single collaboration, are not useful in any way and should be deleted, no matter how many of them there are. The keep vote above does not provide an explanation for why this redirect should be kept other than that other stuff exists. Lennart97 (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lennart97: Even after I acknowledged that I was redirecting the focus of my !vote to the fact that plenty of these things exist, you still felt the need to indirectly reply to me and trot out the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS argument and link. Basically every user knows that exists with how often users like yourself quote it at them; we don't need to repeat it in every circumstance as if by the virtue of acknowledging the existence of a damn essay, read: not a policy or guideline, that that invalidates any argument to the contrary. It doesn't. You are blatantly ignoring my point that individual nominations like this, where users can blather on about how "this was one collaboration, this isn't useful" so should be deleted, do not address what is evidently a larger issue of many experienced editors doing this. I'm not the first to do it—nor am I the most prolific—and I certainly will not be the last. Maybe if you have such an issue with redirects like this, as you obviously do because you !voted to delete, you should aim to at least help have it explicitly written in a content guideline (not one of those charming essays) that redirects such as this are not useful or helpful. That point is not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; it's saying let's have this written down somewhere so we can curb it happening. Instead, no, you obviously think voting to delete my one redirect is achieving anything. It won't—it will keep happening until we can tell said users "hey, don't do this per WP:ONEARTISTMENTION" or some such—so good going. Ss112 04:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ss112: I do believe "voting to delete your one redirect" is achieving something: it's getting rid of a redirect which is not useful. That's what RfD is for. Voting in favour of deleting your redirect, or nominating your redirect, is not "misguided" and certainly not a personal attack or insult, but your aggressive tone in your reply above suggests you are taking this personally. Please don't. The thing is, I'm not aware of any large endemic problem of editors creating redirects like these, and I'm perfectly happy with merely voting to delete one that I see here at RfD. Voting does not come with any further obligations. You are the one who keeps insisting this is a big issue that needs a specific policy written; so write it yourself. That is certainly a more productive use of your time than getting so defensive about this one redirect that happens to have been created by you. Lennart97 (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lennart97: Your reply shows you are still misconstruing or just plain not reading what I'm saying. Nowhere have I said I have an issue with this practice. You very well know I didn't nominate my own redirect. My issue here is with the editors who nominate these from time to time or vote to delete them and state quite strongly "these kinds of redirects shouldn't be made", which confirms you do indeed know these types of redirects exist. These editors (including yourself) should be the ones tackling the larger problem by bringing it up elsewhere, yet no attempt to ever do more than vote eventuates, which is either laziness or wilful ignorance. Or perhaps it's both, as I've just made you aware of the larger problem by saying music editors are still doing this exact thing, yet you still reply that you're not aware of any larger problem. I could point you to plenty of examples, yet nothing would come of those either because then the reply is always "I don't have to do anything more". I'm really tired of this "it's not my responsibility" argument editors bring out in cases like this. Same thing happens at AfD, where editors say "sources that prove this article's notability are out there, but I don't have to add them to the article!" Yet all these people like yourself can be bothered to reply and defend your point of view to anybody who takes issue with what you said, as I'm sure you'll continue to do right after this, but yet now you accuse only me of being defensive. As are you, of your own point of view; don't accuse others of what you're doing yourself. Make it make sense. A more productive use of your time would be bringing this up elsewhere now that you've been made aware of a larger problem. But do continue to remain defensive about your delete vote and defend what is essentially laziness. Ss112 11:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ss112: I'm not going to waste more of my time by responding to personal attacks and incivility, so this discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. Lennart97 (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Best thing I've read in this thread thus far. If you can't confront the root "problem" there's no real need to reply to me. Ss112 13:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bhavya Lal 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. As a sourced mention is now at the target, the nomination is moot. signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect needs fixing as no mention of Bhavya Lal occurs at the redirect target. If they are an appointment of Biden, then they should be mentioned with a source; if not, then the redirect is to the wrong article or should be deleted. N2e (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have found that this person, Bhavya Lal, has been apparently been appointed by the Biden administration as the Acting [NASA]] Administrator. Unclear why that information is not in the article the redirect points to, but as soon as that gets cleared up, this RfD will be able to be closed. N2e (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Reverse Zoonosis/Zooanthroponosis/Anthroponosis 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 18:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very implausible redirect, but cannot be deleted by CSD R3, as it was created as a result of a page move. Techie3 (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It was created when I moved the page to a more plausible title. I should have deleted it then. My mistake. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can hardly imagine anyone using this type of search query. Also per redirect creator. Less Unless (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as very implausible to be used. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Test Wikipedia edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 7#Test Wikipedia

Not for Sale (Michael Combs song) 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 18:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect points to a disambiguation page. There is no article for Michael Combs and no logical place to redirect this obscure song by an obscure artist. No assistance to navigation whatsoever. Richhoncho (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Michael Combs is not notable per Wiki guidelines, therefore a song of his (not even in the top 10 most listened) is not notable either. There's no need in this redirect. Less Unless (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pour les nuls 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 For Dummies#History, basically a keep but slightly refined target to point to the section where this term is mentioned. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The For Dummies series is not French. Dominicmgm (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

NannyMUD 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 18:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in source and has no substantive reason to be. czar 07:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NannyMUD seems to be a MUD but seems to be too obscure to be mentioned or linked to the target article. --Lenticel (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mr. Wong Goes West 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 Procedural close. Wrong venue. Subject of discussion is not a redirect. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent series article The Feng Shui Detective. No significant independent coverage of this book on its own. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_22&oldid=1138583094"