Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 15

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

Handi-Transit

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 23:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Handi-Transit is listed as a predecessor to Durham Region Transit. However, a Google search indicates that the name Handi-Transit is also used by other communities in Ontario (such as Cornwall, Thunder Bay, Windsor) for on-demand accessible bus service. Johnj1995 ( talk) 21:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, clearly that other jurisdictions besides Durham use Handi-Transit, most notable the recent tragedy in Manitoba. -- ⁂CountHacker ( talk) 07:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No prejudice against the recreation of a disambiguated equivalent such as "Handi-Transit (Durham Region)" if desired (though I don't see any compelling value in that, I won't stand in the way if somebody else feels strongly that it's warranted) — but nom is correct that there are and have been numerous "Handi-Transits", and Durham's is not and never has been the only one. Bearcat ( talk) 14:55, 21 June 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).

Sex-based rights

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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 23:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

'Sex-based rights' currently redirects to Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism. This is far too specific of a niche subtopic for a general term like sex-based rights. Even LGBT rights by country or territory is more general than the current target, but is still too narrow for such a term, which is something more akin to Sex discrimination (redirects to Sexism), and which could conceivably redirect to any of several less specific candidates: Occupational sexism, Second-generation gender bias, Gender inequality, Gender pay gap, Women's rights, Declaration on women's sex-based rights and so on. Alternatively we might decide that this term is unclear, or doesn't have a single, good target, and just delete it. Here are our advanced search results for a search for Sex-based rights, and I'd say that's a sufficiently mixed bag of results that maybe we shouldn't try to mind-read what the user is searching for, which would argue for deleting the redirect and letting search take over, rather than choosing a target for them. But I'm open to any solution that is better than the current target. Mathglot ( talk) 17:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Listed at: WT:DISCR, WT:FEMINISM, WT:HR, WT:LGBT, WT:WOMEN. Mathglot ( talk) 17:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because "sex-based rights" is an increasingly prominent gender-critical dogwhistle. I don't remember ever hearing it in another context. Loki ( talk) 21:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • My first instinct is that we should retarget somewhere, or maybe set-indexify. I can believe that it's a dog whistle, but for readers who are not familiar with this area of discourse about trans rights, the current target is somewhat astonishing for a search term that seems to be a general reference to women's rights or gender equality. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 02:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    A set index is for listing topics that share both a name and ontological category. (Such as rivers which share the same name, with rivers being the same cateogry of thing.) I don't see how one would be viable here. – Scyrme ( talk) 05:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    The term is not a general reference to women's rights or gender equality, and has never been used that way. It's specifically associated with the GC/TERF anti-trans movement. See below. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 15:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Using the advanced search to find uses of the exact phrase on Wikipedia, it appears almost exclusively in contexts discussed by the current target (including Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights, linked by the nominator). Being a dogwhistle, it's understandable that readers without prior knowledge might be initially surprised, but that can be mitigated by reading the explanation at the target (admittedly it could be made a bit more informative, but it states how the rhetoric is used so it's more helpful than nothing).
However, I'd also suggest adding a {{ redirect}} hatnote with a link to Gender equality, which discusses rights in relation to gender more generally, so that anyone mislead by the dogwhistle can still find the information they were expecting. – Scyrme ( talk) 06:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, someone entering it in a search box could mean any number of things and none of the targets are that good. Crossroads -talk- 21:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This term is primarily or exclusively used by the GC/TERF movement, and was created as a (faux) legalese-sounding anti-trans dogwhistle. It is certainly not a "a general term" and there is no such thing as "sex-based rights" as a recognised general concept. Human rights scholar Sandra Duffy notes that "it is important to note from the outset that ‘sex-based rights’ are a fiction with the pretense of legality." [1] The term does not refer to gender inquality or any other of those topics mentioned, which have their own terms and are separate from the TERF concept of "sex-based rights." Even if the term may potentially, occasionally be encountered in some other contexts outside the GC/TERF movement, the term is today overwhelmingly associated with the GC/TERF movement – if you search for the term in various search engines virtually all the results will be related to that – so it's certainly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in any event. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 14:54, 13 June 2023 (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, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, possibly with a hatnote to gender equality as suggested above; I find the arguments made by keep voters above more persuasive and they align with my prior understanding of how the term is used. Hatman31 ( talk) 18:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Cautious keep, the above arguments seem persuasive and this seems to be a reasonable target given the actual use of the term. I note however that this gets fairly minimal discussion in the current target (and that after more than a screenful of text). I wonder if Women's Declaration International#Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights might be more directly informative to the reader? -- Visviva ( talk) 04:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    If we're not going to delete it, I could see this as a reasonable target. Mathglot ( talk) 06:41, 22 June 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).

Ayyad

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 22#Ayyad

Kirnahar railway station

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 23:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Kirnahar railway station and Labpur railway station (to which it is a double-redirect) are different railway stations some 10 kilometres apart on the Ahmadpur–Katwa line. Delete redirect as misleading and to encourage article creation like any other station on the route. G6-error was declined despite the creator's move rationale being "wrogfuly created the wrong name". — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 19:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete redirect. Kirnahar railway station and Labpur railway station are completely different railway station, having different location with separate station code as per official website of Indian railway. redirect ion may be reverted immediately. Pinakpani ( talk) 08:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Pinakpani: Can you draft an article on Kirnahar railway station? Asking you because you worked in this area. — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 13:26, 16 June 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).

Staatliche Museeun

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 22#Staatliche Museeun

Oracle Press

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

This used to redirect to McGraw-Hill before it was split. I would update it to McGraw Hill Education, but it appears that while Oracle Press used to be an imprint of McGraw-Hill Osborne, that partnership was ended and it is now affiliated with Pearson. It's not mentioned in any of the publisher or Oracle articles, so maybe it should just be deleted? Paul_012 ( talk) 13:01, 15 June 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).

Elizabeth Ambatukam Eleanor Siddall

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. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 04:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. This is clear vandalism to me, but the g3 tag was removed. If you don't know, ambatukam is a meme, and I have not found any record of her going by this. 162.83.141.156 ( talk) 11:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. I get keeping a redirect which is a genuine misspelling, but not an outright falsehood like this one. NotReallySoroka ( talk) 14:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I created the redirect, because at that time Ambatukam was in the article and the article itself was on main page in "Did you know ..." section. If I cannot trust main page articles, what can I trust? You see, correct answer is "you cannot trust anything in Wikipedia." I remember, that I was surprised, because this is not English name, but actually I do not know, is the name correct or not. Do as you want, but I do not feel myself guilty. Taivorist ( talk) 09:41, 18 June 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).

Collapse Yugolsavia

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 12:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

This is not really a plausible typo, because it's missing both the spelling correctness of "Yugoslavia" and the "of" of collapse of Yugoslavia. I don't see that an average English reader will type this in, and even if they do, the search engine will help them. The all-time total traffic is 4.6M ever for destination, 1.6k ever for the correct one, 149 ever for this. I actually suspect pageviews wrongly classifies bot traffic as user traffic here, because it's just too consistent. -- Joy ( talk) 10:47, 15 June 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).

50 redirects from fictional characters

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 12:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

A user misused the PROD tag on 50 redirects to the same article with the rationale, "Insufficient notability for a fictional character. Also cannot find their name anywhere in the page it redirects to." They used to target a standalone List of characters in Suikoden IV, which was unilaterally redirected in 2015. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I have added one more redirect, making a total of 51. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I've gone down the list as far as Jeremy (Suikoden) and haven't yet found any of these mentioned in the target article. Unless List of characters in Suikoden IV or List of characters in the Suikoden series is revived as a potential target, all of these may as well be deleted as they're completely unhelpful to anyone looking for information on those characters. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 10:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I've gone down the rest of the list after Jeremy (Suikoden) and can say with certainty that none of those 51 characters are named anywhere in the article, including the § Story section. All of these redirects can be deleted unless a more appropriate target is revived, in my opinion. 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep: That’s why they don’t have articles, but they are redirects, because they may be searched, and are therefore redirected to another larger article. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Askarion and others. If it were restored they could target their respective sections of List of characters in Suikoden IV or List of characters in the Suikoden series (a redirect which itself should probably be discussed given its current target is quite a surprise). A7V2 ( talk) 08:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all as usual unmentioned fictional cruft. I completely fail to understand the argument given for speedy keeping. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:11, 17 June 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).

Wikipedia:NCT

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 26#Wikipedia:NCT

Albert, Margrave of Meissen (1934–2012)

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 after retargeting to the correct article. DrKay ( talk) 06:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't find this useful. DrKay ( talk) 07:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Albert of Saxony lived from 1828-1902, not the years in the redirect. And cannot see a correct retarget article either. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: This appears to be the result of a botched move; the intended target appears to be Albert von Sachsen. However, I'm not sure we should be discussing this at both RfD and move review at the same time. Rosbif73 ( talk) 11:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • In which case, let that move review happen, and redirect to Albert von Sachsen or vice versa, depending on the outcome of that move review. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:19, 15 June 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).

Biomedical

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! 00:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Move it to Biomedical (disambiguation), as it could mean either Biomedicine or Biomedical sciences; previous discussions did not consider the latter. fgnievinski ( talk) 22:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The articles link to one another in the hatnote, so I don't think a separate disambiguation page is needed. (Unless you can find a third plausible target.) Could use a {{ redirect}} template if you think it warrants being explicitly mentioned. Neither target would be surprising and I don't see a strong argument for retargetting so I'm leaning towards keep. – Scyrme ( talk) 23:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure I understand the nom here. You want to move this redirect to one with (disambiguation)? Or do you mean you want to turn this redirect into a dab page? In any case, I think keep per Scyrme. A7V2 ( talk) 00:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    I think they're suggesting creating a disambiguation page at Biomedical and creating a redirect at Biomedical (disambiguation) pointing to it (equivalent to moving the redirect and retargeting it to a new disambiguation page). That would be in-keeping with the guidelines for disambiguation pages, which favour disambiguation at the title without "(disambiguation)" if it's not already occupied by a primary topic. – Scyrme ( talk) 00:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the talk of Biomedical sciences.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:14, 15 June 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).

Islands of Malta, Malta

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 12:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Retarget to Geography of Malta#Islands; the current target ( Malta) talks about the country, but I believe that the proposed target is better because it specifically discusses the islands themselves. NotReallySoroka ( talk) 06:05, 15 June 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).

The Souvereign Military Order of Malta

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 Sovereign Military Order of Malta, per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 07:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Retarget to Sovereign Military Order of Malta; "The Souvereign Order..." likely refers to SMOM rather than the Republic of Malta. NotReallySoroka ( talk) 06:03, 15 June 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).

Kalology

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of words with the suffix -ology#K by a rough consensus, with respect to CycloneYoris' suggestion. If the link is reintroduced, come back here. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 04:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Obscure synonym - car chasm ( talk) 17:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. Unlike the other nominated ones that are rephrasings that are obvious what they refer to, people might not know what it is if they see it mentioned, so they look here and find it. HotdogPi 19:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Retarget per Jay. The list mentions and explains the term, which is helpful to readers without prior knowledge who may have encountered the term and looked it up. Avoids surprises. – Scyrme ( talk) 23:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget per Jay: the term is mentioned and explained at the proposed new target. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs) 16:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget per Jay. (With some wariness as I don't see any other examples of delinked entries in the list, but also don't see any obvious problems with delinking.) -- Visviva ( talk) 04:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Soft redirect to wikt:kalology, in order to avoid delinking at the list. CycloneYoris talk! 00:59, 22 June 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:Fake image

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 23#Template:Fake image

Being beautiful in spirit

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. With no support for keeping or retargeting and the votes to restore and send to AfD based on procedure, I just don't see tossing this SNOWball elsewhere to melt. Going on 15 years since the page was redirected, it seems safe to say this was not an end-run around AfD. -- BDD ( talk) 15:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Unclear, ambiguous phrase. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 30#Being Beautiful in Spirit. Restore this revision and send to WP:AFD. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Rationale updated in italics. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Carchasm, Zxcvbnm, Softlavender, Fieari, and Lenticel: Pinging participants of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 30#Being Beautiful in Spirit. (I did not WP:BOLDly merge the discussions since the nominator states rationale that hinted they may opt to vote "keep" for this redirect.) Steel1943 ( talk) 22:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply
FYI - it has a page history from 2012, conditional Support if that doesn't preclude it from going through RfD instead of AfD. - car chasm ( talk) 22:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Carchasm: Dang it, I didn't see that edit history. Yeah, looks like restore and send to AFD is the way to go with this one. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Although it doesn't contain sources, probably best to restore the article in this case. Not a suitable redirect in any case. A7V2 ( talk) 23:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Restore and send to AfD It would be better discussed in that venue. -- Lenticel ( talk) 23:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete entirely. The phrase has no meaningfully accurate target or retarget, and what preceded the redirect was a completely uncited randomly compiled essay. Softlavender ( talk) 00:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Restore and Send to AfD - This is not the venue to discuss actual articles, and AfD is important enough that I don't want to bypass it. (If/When you do so, another courtesy ping would be nice-- I'm not sure if I'll want to !vote merge with chivalry or simply delete) Fieari ( talk) 04:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I fairly strongly oppose restoring this unsourced essay from 2009. It reads as original research and I fail to see any actual significance to the phrase. I'm all for restoring articles when there is a case of notability to be made, but this one ain't it. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per above. Veverve ( talk) 08:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Restore and send to AFD per nom. The article is an ungodly mess, but so is the article history -- moves of both source and target pages, redirections that may or may not have involved some unnoted merge of content, the Talk page actually started as a VfD subpage, etc. (It looks like that 2004 VfD ended with a consensus to merge to Knightly Virtues, but it doesn't look like that was ever acted upon in the sense of actually transferring content to that article, or from that article to Chivalry when it was merged in turn.) I don't think there's anything to preserve here, or much likelihood of controversy, but it would be better to get some non-RFD eyes on it before nuking IMO. (If we don't want to waste AFD's resources, I'd say a reasonably prudent outcome here would just be to retain this as an {{ r from merge}} pointing to Chivalry, which would at least give someone researching edit histories some chance of figuring out what the heck happened.) -- Visviva ( talk) 17:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Unsourced essay. No point in sending to AfD if it's gonna get deleted there anyway. CycloneYoris talk! 00:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with others that this has a snowball's chance of surviving AfD. The history of the page is long, but not particularly useful or relevant to other articles. signed, Rosguill talk 09:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This was a redirect for more than a decade, and there was no interest in the contents of the page history for the period. The predecessor of AfD from a different era, when standards were different, suggested it can be merged, which didn't happen. There was a suggestion to merge the target Knightly Virtues with Chivalry, and that didn't happen either, with Dbachmann BLARing it. So that should address Visviva's apprehension of a merge remnant somewhere. Jay 💬 15:09, 26 June 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).

The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World and JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy

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 01:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

This is a composite of TWO lengthy book titles written by the same author. Strangest redirect I've ever seen. Would have been better to end the title before the words "and JFK". Grorp ( talk) 00:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete, I cannot imagine anyone searching for these two long book titles together. Each one individually might be valid redirects, but together they aren't really useful. Di (they-them) ( talk) 06:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. I note that the full title of the The Secret Team on its own ( The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World) is not a redirect, and JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy is an article in its own right. If this were at all a plausible redirect it should point to the author, L. Fletcher Prouty, but better to delete and let the search system handle this. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 11:02, 15 June 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).

Cummunism

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! 01:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Not a likely search query, redirect was likely created as a joke Di (they-them) ( talk) 00:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete speedily. Almost certainly a gross joke. JArthur1984 ( talk) 00:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not a likely misspelling and more likely just a childish joke. Grorp ( talk) 00:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It gets a hit every couple of days or so, and has one error of one key that is 2 keys off of the correct spelling so I fail to see why it's not a likely misspelling. I agree the redirect was probably a joke but it still seems to be useful anyways. Snowmanonahoe ( talk · contribs · typos) 01:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep a reasonable phonetic misspelling -- 64.229.90.172 ( talk) 04:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete seems to be an immature joke rather than a misspelling -- Lenticel ( talk) 04:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Originally a joke or not, it's getting use, and the target is unambiguous. Looks like this is empirically a common enough typo to be useful, and redirects are WP:CHEAP. Fieari ( talk) 06:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep since it's highly unlikely that anyone typing that is trying to end up somewhere else. However hopefully it doesn't just bring in vandals being silly. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Given that it's been in use since 2005... I think the risk of it attracting vandals is demonstrably non-existent. Fieari ( talk) 01:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep: even though it is a joke redirect it is being used consistently and is not an implausible misspelling. WP:CHEAP may also apply. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs) 15:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep on the rule-of-thumb that a typo that has appeared in print is probably not WP:R#D8 implausible [2]. It even made it to the cover of a book one time. (I think this one from the NY Times is just an OCR error though, not a real occurrence). 59.149.117.119 ( talk) 02:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Joke or not, it isn't an uncommon misspelling. J947 † edits 11:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_15&oldid=1163569228"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 15

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

Handi-Transit

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 23:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Handi-Transit is listed as a predecessor to Durham Region Transit. However, a Google search indicates that the name Handi-Transit is also used by other communities in Ontario (such as Cornwall, Thunder Bay, Windsor) for on-demand accessible bus service. Johnj1995 ( talk) 21:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, clearly that other jurisdictions besides Durham use Handi-Transit, most notable the recent tragedy in Manitoba. -- ⁂CountHacker ( talk) 07:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No prejudice against the recreation of a disambiguated equivalent such as "Handi-Transit (Durham Region)" if desired (though I don't see any compelling value in that, I won't stand in the way if somebody else feels strongly that it's warranted) — but nom is correct that there are and have been numerous "Handi-Transits", and Durham's is not and never has been the only one. Bearcat ( talk) 14:55, 21 June 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).

Sex-based rights

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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 23:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

'Sex-based rights' currently redirects to Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender-critical feminism and trans-exclusionary radical feminism. This is far too specific of a niche subtopic for a general term like sex-based rights. Even LGBT rights by country or territory is more general than the current target, but is still too narrow for such a term, which is something more akin to Sex discrimination (redirects to Sexism), and which could conceivably redirect to any of several less specific candidates: Occupational sexism, Second-generation gender bias, Gender inequality, Gender pay gap, Women's rights, Declaration on women's sex-based rights and so on. Alternatively we might decide that this term is unclear, or doesn't have a single, good target, and just delete it. Here are our advanced search results for a search for Sex-based rights, and I'd say that's a sufficiently mixed bag of results that maybe we shouldn't try to mind-read what the user is searching for, which would argue for deleting the redirect and letting search take over, rather than choosing a target for them. But I'm open to any solution that is better than the current target. Mathglot ( talk) 17:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Listed at: WT:DISCR, WT:FEMINISM, WT:HR, WT:LGBT, WT:WOMEN. Mathglot ( talk) 17:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because "sex-based rights" is an increasingly prominent gender-critical dogwhistle. I don't remember ever hearing it in another context. Loki ( talk) 21:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • My first instinct is that we should retarget somewhere, or maybe set-indexify. I can believe that it's a dog whistle, but for readers who are not familiar with this area of discourse about trans rights, the current target is somewhat astonishing for a search term that seems to be a general reference to women's rights or gender equality. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 02:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    A set index is for listing topics that share both a name and ontological category. (Such as rivers which share the same name, with rivers being the same cateogry of thing.) I don't see how one would be viable here. – Scyrme ( talk) 05:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    The term is not a general reference to women's rights or gender equality, and has never been used that way. It's specifically associated with the GC/TERF anti-trans movement. See below. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 15:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Using the advanced search to find uses of the exact phrase on Wikipedia, it appears almost exclusively in contexts discussed by the current target (including Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights, linked by the nominator). Being a dogwhistle, it's understandable that readers without prior knowledge might be initially surprised, but that can be mitigated by reading the explanation at the target (admittedly it could be made a bit more informative, but it states how the rhetoric is used so it's more helpful than nothing).
However, I'd also suggest adding a {{ redirect}} hatnote with a link to Gender equality, which discusses rights in relation to gender more generally, so that anyone mislead by the dogwhistle can still find the information they were expecting. – Scyrme ( talk) 06:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, someone entering it in a search box could mean any number of things and none of the targets are that good. Crossroads -talk- 21:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This term is primarily or exclusively used by the GC/TERF movement, and was created as a (faux) legalese-sounding anti-trans dogwhistle. It is certainly not a "a general term" and there is no such thing as "sex-based rights" as a recognised general concept. Human rights scholar Sandra Duffy notes that "it is important to note from the outset that ‘sex-based rights’ are a fiction with the pretense of legality." [1] The term does not refer to gender inquality or any other of those topics mentioned, which have their own terms and are separate from the TERF concept of "sex-based rights." Even if the term may potentially, occasionally be encountered in some other contexts outside the GC/TERF movement, the term is today overwhelmingly associated with the GC/TERF movement – if you search for the term in various search engines virtually all the results will be related to that – so it's certainly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in any event. -- Amanda A. Brant ( talk) 14:54, 13 June 2023 (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, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, possibly with a hatnote to gender equality as suggested above; I find the arguments made by keep voters above more persuasive and they align with my prior understanding of how the term is used. Hatman31 ( talk) 18:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Cautious keep, the above arguments seem persuasive and this seems to be a reasonable target given the actual use of the term. I note however that this gets fairly minimal discussion in the current target (and that after more than a screenful of text). I wonder if Women's Declaration International#Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights might be more directly informative to the reader? -- Visviva ( talk) 04:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    If we're not going to delete it, I could see this as a reasonable target. Mathglot ( talk) 06:41, 22 June 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).

Ayyad

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 22#Ayyad

Kirnahar railway station

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 23:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Kirnahar railway station and Labpur railway station (to which it is a double-redirect) are different railway stations some 10 kilometres apart on the Ahmadpur–Katwa line. Delete redirect as misleading and to encourage article creation like any other station on the route. G6-error was declined despite the creator's move rationale being "wrogfuly created the wrong name". — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 19:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete redirect. Kirnahar railway station and Labpur railway station are completely different railway station, having different location with separate station code as per official website of Indian railway. redirect ion may be reverted immediately. Pinakpani ( talk) 08:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Pinakpani: Can you draft an article on Kirnahar railway station? Asking you because you worked in this area. — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 13:26, 16 June 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).

Staatliche Museeun

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 22#Staatliche Museeun

Oracle Press

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 23:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

This used to redirect to McGraw-Hill before it was split. I would update it to McGraw Hill Education, but it appears that while Oracle Press used to be an imprint of McGraw-Hill Osborne, that partnership was ended and it is now affiliated with Pearson. It's not mentioned in any of the publisher or Oracle articles, so maybe it should just be deleted? Paul_012 ( talk) 13:01, 15 June 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).

Elizabeth Ambatukam Eleanor Siddall

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. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 04:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. This is clear vandalism to me, but the g3 tag was removed. If you don't know, ambatukam is a meme, and I have not found any record of her going by this. 162.83.141.156 ( talk) 11:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. I get keeping a redirect which is a genuine misspelling, but not an outright falsehood like this one. NotReallySoroka ( talk) 14:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I created the redirect, because at that time Ambatukam was in the article and the article itself was on main page in "Did you know ..." section. If I cannot trust main page articles, what can I trust? You see, correct answer is "you cannot trust anything in Wikipedia." I remember, that I was surprised, because this is not English name, but actually I do not know, is the name correct or not. Do as you want, but I do not feel myself guilty. Taivorist ( talk) 09:41, 18 June 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).

Collapse Yugolsavia

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 12:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

This is not really a plausible typo, because it's missing both the spelling correctness of "Yugoslavia" and the "of" of collapse of Yugoslavia. I don't see that an average English reader will type this in, and even if they do, the search engine will help them. The all-time total traffic is 4.6M ever for destination, 1.6k ever for the correct one, 149 ever for this. I actually suspect pageviews wrongly classifies bot traffic as user traffic here, because it's just too consistent. -- Joy ( talk) 10:47, 15 June 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).

50 redirects from fictional characters

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 12:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

A user misused the PROD tag on 50 redirects to the same article with the rationale, "Insufficient notability for a fictional character. Also cannot find their name anywhere in the page it redirects to." They used to target a standalone List of characters in Suikoden IV, which was unilaterally redirected in 2015. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I have added one more redirect, making a total of 51. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I've gone down the list as far as Jeremy (Suikoden) and haven't yet found any of these mentioned in the target article. Unless List of characters in Suikoden IV or List of characters in the Suikoden series is revived as a potential target, all of these may as well be deleted as they're completely unhelpful to anyone looking for information on those characters. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 10:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I've gone down the rest of the list after Jeremy (Suikoden) and can say with certainty that none of those 51 characters are named anywhere in the article, including the § Story section. All of these redirects can be deleted unless a more appropriate target is revived, in my opinion. 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep: That’s why they don’t have articles, but they are redirects, because they may be searched, and are therefore redirected to another larger article. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Askarion and others. If it were restored they could target their respective sections of List of characters in Suikoden IV or List of characters in the Suikoden series (a redirect which itself should probably be discussed given its current target is quite a surprise). A7V2 ( talk) 08:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all as usual unmentioned fictional cruft. I completely fail to understand the argument given for speedy keeping. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:11, 17 June 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).

Wikipedia:NCT

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 26#Wikipedia:NCT

Albert, Margrave of Meissen (1934–2012)

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 after retargeting to the correct article. DrKay ( talk) 06:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't find this useful. DrKay ( talk) 07:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Albert of Saxony lived from 1828-1902, not the years in the redirect. And cannot see a correct retarget article either. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: This appears to be the result of a botched move; the intended target appears to be Albert von Sachsen. However, I'm not sure we should be discussing this at both RfD and move review at the same time. Rosbif73 ( talk) 11:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • In which case, let that move review happen, and redirect to Albert von Sachsen or vice versa, depending on the outcome of that move review. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:19, 15 June 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).

Biomedical

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! 00:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Move it to Biomedical (disambiguation), as it could mean either Biomedicine or Biomedical sciences; previous discussions did not consider the latter. fgnievinski ( talk) 22:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The articles link to one another in the hatnote, so I don't think a separate disambiguation page is needed. (Unless you can find a third plausible target.) Could use a {{ redirect}} template if you think it warrants being explicitly mentioned. Neither target would be surprising and I don't see a strong argument for retargetting so I'm leaning towards keep. – Scyrme ( talk) 23:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not sure I understand the nom here. You want to move this redirect to one with (disambiguation)? Or do you mean you want to turn this redirect into a dab page? In any case, I think keep per Scyrme. A7V2 ( talk) 00:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    I think they're suggesting creating a disambiguation page at Biomedical and creating a redirect at Biomedical (disambiguation) pointing to it (equivalent to moving the redirect and retargeting it to a new disambiguation page). That would be in-keeping with the guidelines for disambiguation pages, which favour disambiguation at the title without "(disambiguation)" if it's not already occupied by a primary topic. – Scyrme ( talk) 00:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the talk of Biomedical sciences.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:14, 15 June 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).

Islands of Malta, Malta

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 12:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Retarget to Geography of Malta#Islands; the current target ( Malta) talks about the country, but I believe that the proposed target is better because it specifically discusses the islands themselves. NotReallySoroka ( talk) 06:05, 15 June 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).

The Souvereign Military Order of Malta

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 Sovereign Military Order of Malta, per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 07:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Retarget to Sovereign Military Order of Malta; "The Souvereign Order..." likely refers to SMOM rather than the Republic of Malta. NotReallySoroka ( talk) 06:03, 15 June 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).

Kalology

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of words with the suffix -ology#K by a rough consensus, with respect to CycloneYoris' suggestion. If the link is reintroduced, come back here. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 04:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Obscure synonym - car chasm ( talk) 17:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep. Unlike the other nominated ones that are rephrasings that are obvious what they refer to, people might not know what it is if they see it mentioned, so they look here and find it. HotdogPi 19:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Retarget per Jay. The list mentions and explains the term, which is helpful to readers without prior knowledge who may have encountered the term and looked it up. Avoids surprises. – Scyrme ( talk) 23:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget per Jay: the term is mentioned and explained at the proposed new target. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs) 16:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget per Jay. (With some wariness as I don't see any other examples of delinked entries in the list, but also don't see any obvious problems with delinking.) -- Visviva ( talk) 04:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Soft redirect to wikt:kalology, in order to avoid delinking at the list. CycloneYoris talk! 00:59, 22 June 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:Fake image

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 23#Template:Fake image

Being beautiful in spirit

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. With no support for keeping or retargeting and the votes to restore and send to AfD based on procedure, I just don't see tossing this SNOWball elsewhere to melt. Going on 15 years since the page was redirected, it seems safe to say this was not an end-run around AfD. -- BDD ( talk) 15:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Unclear, ambiguous phrase. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 30#Being Beautiful in Spirit. Restore this revision and send to WP:AFD. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Rationale updated in italics. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Carchasm, Zxcvbnm, Softlavender, Fieari, and Lenticel: Pinging participants of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 30#Being Beautiful in Spirit. (I did not WP:BOLDly merge the discussions since the nominator states rationale that hinted they may opt to vote "keep" for this redirect.) Steel1943 ( talk) 22:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply
FYI - it has a page history from 2012, conditional Support if that doesn't preclude it from going through RfD instead of AfD. - car chasm ( talk) 22:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Carchasm: Dang it, I didn't see that edit history. Yeah, looks like restore and send to AFD is the way to go with this one. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Although it doesn't contain sources, probably best to restore the article in this case. Not a suitable redirect in any case. A7V2 ( talk) 23:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Restore and send to AfD It would be better discussed in that venue. -- Lenticel ( talk) 23:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete entirely. The phrase has no meaningfully accurate target or retarget, and what preceded the redirect was a completely uncited randomly compiled essay. Softlavender ( talk) 00:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Restore and Send to AfD - This is not the venue to discuss actual articles, and AfD is important enough that I don't want to bypass it. (If/When you do so, another courtesy ping would be nice-- I'm not sure if I'll want to !vote merge with chivalry or simply delete) Fieari ( talk) 04:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I fairly strongly oppose restoring this unsourced essay from 2009. It reads as original research and I fail to see any actual significance to the phrase. I'm all for restoring articles when there is a case of notability to be made, but this one ain't it. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 05:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per above. Veverve ( talk) 08:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Restore and send to AFD per nom. The article is an ungodly mess, but so is the article history -- moves of both source and target pages, redirections that may or may not have involved some unnoted merge of content, the Talk page actually started as a VfD subpage, etc. (It looks like that 2004 VfD ended with a consensus to merge to Knightly Virtues, but it doesn't look like that was ever acted upon in the sense of actually transferring content to that article, or from that article to Chivalry when it was merged in turn.) I don't think there's anything to preserve here, or much likelihood of controversy, but it would be better to get some non-RFD eyes on it before nuking IMO. (If we don't want to waste AFD's resources, I'd say a reasonably prudent outcome here would just be to retain this as an {{ r from merge}} pointing to Chivalry, which would at least give someone researching edit histories some chance of figuring out what the heck happened.) -- Visviva ( talk) 17:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Unsourced essay. No point in sending to AfD if it's gonna get deleted there anyway. CycloneYoris talk! 00:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with others that this has a snowball's chance of surviving AfD. The history of the page is long, but not particularly useful or relevant to other articles. signed, Rosguill talk 09:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This was a redirect for more than a decade, and there was no interest in the contents of the page history for the period. The predecessor of AfD from a different era, when standards were different, suggested it can be merged, which didn't happen. There was a suggestion to merge the target Knightly Virtues with Chivalry, and that didn't happen either, with Dbachmann BLARing it. So that should address Visviva's apprehension of a merge remnant somewhere. Jay 💬 15:09, 26 June 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).

The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World and JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy

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 01:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

This is a composite of TWO lengthy book titles written by the same author. Strangest redirect I've ever seen. Would have been better to end the title before the words "and JFK". Grorp ( talk) 00:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete, I cannot imagine anyone searching for these two long book titles together. Each one individually might be valid redirects, but together they aren't really useful. Di (they-them) ( talk) 06:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. I note that the full title of the The Secret Team on its own ( The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World) is not a redirect, and JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy is an article in its own right. If this were at all a plausible redirect it should point to the author, L. Fletcher Prouty, but better to delete and let the search system handle this. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 11:02, 15 June 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).

Cummunism

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! 01:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Not a likely search query, redirect was likely created as a joke Di (they-them) ( talk) 00:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete speedily. Almost certainly a gross joke. JArthur1984 ( talk) 00:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not a likely misspelling and more likely just a childish joke. Grorp ( talk) 00:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It gets a hit every couple of days or so, and has one error of one key that is 2 keys off of the correct spelling so I fail to see why it's not a likely misspelling. I agree the redirect was probably a joke but it still seems to be useful anyways. Snowmanonahoe ( talk · contribs · typos) 01:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep a reasonable phonetic misspelling -- 64.229.90.172 ( talk) 04:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete seems to be an immature joke rather than a misspelling -- Lenticel ( talk) 04:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Originally a joke or not, it's getting use, and the target is unambiguous. Looks like this is empirically a common enough typo to be useful, and redirects are WP:CHEAP. Fieari ( talk) 06:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep since it's highly unlikely that anyone typing that is trying to end up somewhere else. However hopefully it doesn't just bring in vandals being silly. Simonm223 ( talk) 18:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC) reply
    Given that it's been in use since 2005... I think the risk of it attracting vandals is demonstrably non-existent. Fieari ( talk) 01:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep: even though it is a joke redirect it is being used consistently and is not an implausible misspelling. WP:CHEAP may also apply. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs) 15:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep on the rule-of-thumb that a typo that has appeared in print is probably not WP:R#D8 implausible [2]. It even made it to the cover of a book one time. (I think this one from the NY Times is just an OCR error though, not a real occurrence). 59.149.117.119 ( talk) 02:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Joke or not, it isn't an uncommon misspelling. J947 † edits 11:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_15&oldid=1163569228"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE