Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 13

January 13

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 13, 2021.

MN SD 36 / Minnesota Senate District 36

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. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) JayJayWhat did I do? 05:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was a result of a move and not really a plausible redirect. MN SD 36 would be more plausible as redirect alone but not the combination of both. JayJayWhat did I do? 23:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak keep if this wasn't a {{R from move}} I'd be recommending deletion in a heartbeat but the article was at this title between February 2011 and December 2015 which is a significant period of time. It got 24 hits last year, which is not enough to be absolutely certain it's still getting intentional hits from somewhere but plenty more than enough that we can't be certain it isn't. Ultimately it's not harmful and might be useful, so I've landed at keep but only barely. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd imagine most of those hits are from when someone searches MN SD this is the only thing that shows up. Replacing this redirect with "MN SD 36" would be better but having 2 redirects doesn't make much sense for such a small district. Plus the parent article of this article only gets ~50 hits a month so it's not like it's a highly viewed article. JayJayWhat did I do? 01:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to preserve the history from the move, as long as it seems this redirect is unambiguous and otherwise not impeding anything. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not harmful and it's received decent pageviews (24 last year is higher than bot levels of usage). K4 and RHARMFUL apply. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:23, 15 January 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.

Gay Republican

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 21#Gay Republican

Trumpeachment

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. This would probably have been deleted anyway, for the reasons given, but I am saving time and trouble by speedily deleting it under criterion G5, as it was created in violation of a topic ban. JBW (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trumpeachment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Odd portmanteau that I've never seen before. I'm proposing deletion, not retargeting. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Zero Google News hits when you put it in quotes and set filter to 1 week. [1] –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:49, 13 January 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.

Impeachment of Donald Trump

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 completed. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose that the page become a disambiguation page for the First impeachment of Donald Trump and the Second Impeachment of Donald Trump. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 13 January 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.

Pronumeral

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 redirect to wiktionary. signed, Rosguill talk 18:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article and not used anywhere in English Wikipedia D.Lazard (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary which defines it as "variable" (symbol) with a usage note that it is "Standard in Australian compulsory education, but rarely used outside Australia." Accordingly it is something that is highly likely to be searched, but without a mention on Wikipedia we wont help anyone. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. D.Lazard (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary per above, preferably also including a link to Variable 86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:52, 13 January 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.

Anti-mob legislation

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. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anti-mob legislation → Ron DeSantis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Anti-mob → Ron DeSantis#Gun law  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Anti-mob bill → Ron DeSantis#Gun law  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While Ron DeSantis did introduce an "anti-mob" bill recently, this is hardly the only example of anti-mob legislation. We don't seem to have an appropriate target at this time, so I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ambiguous. A search shows that there are a huge number of pieces of "anti-mob" legislation that these could target. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all - Redirect all to Ron_DeSantis#Gun_law, where an "anti-mob" extension to the preexisting stand-your-ground law in Florida is mentioned. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This would be a good redirect or title for a broad concept article or setindex/dab page in the future, but targeting this specific, current set of legislation is inappropriate. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hopelessly unclear; last month the NY Times crossword puzzle used "anti-mob law" as a clue for RICO. --JBL (talk) 15:04, 18 January 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.

Palestine soup

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. No prejudice against recreation if content is added to List of soups or elsewhere. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palestine soup → Jerusalem artichoke  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While there does appear to be a dish called Palestine soup made from the Jerusalem artichoke, no mention is included in the article. Delete unless a duly sourced mention can be added. signed, Rosguill talk 17:19, 13 January 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.

Atal Bihari Vajpayee International Airport

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. I'll preserve the history by moving this without a redirect to Deoghar Airport (India). --BDD (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atal Bihari Vajpayee International Airport → Deoghar Airport  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The Deoghar Airport Page was moved (a cut and paste move) to this title without a discussion. Not a single source, or even a non reliable blog for that matter, is available for this title. An RM has already reverted the page back to "Deoghar Airport", redirect is unnecessary. MB 15:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not sure what is requested, is it to delete? For what it's worth, I can see a few sources that indicate that the airport may be named after Atal Bihari Vajpayee as Atal Bihari Vajpayee Airport - [2][3][4]. So is the suggestion to remove the word "international" from the title? Hzh (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Hzh: Sources 2 ad 3 state that it is recommended that Deoghar Airport is renamed A.B. Vajpayee Airport not that the airport is or will certainly be renamed, in the 29 months since the publishing of the sources there has been no further clarity on the airport's title , in fact a few months after the sources for IN-0090 were published , in November 2018 the following sources [5],[6],[7],[8] state that Dehradun Airport would be named after the former Prime Minister. Bingobro (Chat) 04:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until a reliable source confirms that the airport will have this name, or this name sees widespread use in reliable sources. I can't find any evidence at all that this airport has been officially called this name, or that this name has seen any kind of use, just a few speculations. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I reverted the cut and paste move using the move option. I had retained the title Atal Bihari Vajpayee International Airport for an admin to perform a history merge. Part of the edit history is present in Atal Bihari Vajpayee International Airport due to the cut and paste move. Once the history is merged, the title Atal Bihari Vajpayee International Airport can be deleted. — LeoFrank  Talk 05:52, 14 January 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.

Fuck her right in the pussy

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 20#Fuck her right in the pussy

WWE Tag Team Championship (disambiguation)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 20#WWE Tag Team Championship (disambiguation)

We Believe (yard sign)

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 Black Lives Matter-themed signs. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information at the target about yard signs in general or "We Believe" in particular. There is no entry at disambiguation page We Believe either to explain any association between "We Believe" and BLM. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Black Lives Matter-themed signs where the article that was at this title currently resides. -- Tavix (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, as nom I agree that's the obviously correct action. I missed that article because, astonishingly, it's not linked from Black Lives Matter: it is now. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A redirect to a page containing no information about the redirect text is of no use to the reader. -- Hux (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix. Dominicmgm (talk) 11:58, 14 January 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.

Anaheim Boulevard

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 18:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anaheim Boulevard is not part SR 72. Their only connection is being part of El Camino Real, and part of former US 101. This redirect should be expanded into an article, or deleted. -322UbnBr2 (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 21:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment California State Route 91 claims that Anaheim Boulevard was formerly part of SR 72. If that is correct then there is a connection between the redirect and the target and it could be made a more useful redirect if a mention was added to the history section of the article (if it isn't correct then the SR 91 article needs to be amended). I don't know whether the road is notable enough for it's own article (most roads aren't), but if it isn't then adding a mention would probably be better than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not simply change the redirect target to El Camino Real (California)? Yngvadottir (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't have enough coverage of this road to be about to redirect it anywhere useful. A section once being part of the highway years ago doesn't make a helpful redirect - neither does an entry in a table where it's lumped in with multiple other roads. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have found on some old Cal-trans maps that Anaheim Boulevard was part of CA 72. However, I agree with Oiyarbepsy that a section once being part of the highway years ago doesn't make a helpful redirect.-322UbnBr2 (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 17:51, 13 January 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.

Template:Uw-spamblock

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. Paine Ellsworth's concerns are worth addressing, perhaps through wordsmithing of the template, but there is support for the proposed retarget here. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be retargeted to {{subst:Uw-sblock}} ("s" in the link means "spam") because this template is the original block template for users who have been spamming. It's not plausible to redirect the "{{subst:Uw-[action]block}}" to the "{{subst:Uw-[only-account]block}}". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Template:Uw-sblock, since that uw would be more appliciable per the nom. "Advertising and promotion" and "spam" are not always synonomous. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification:
    • {{uw-soablock}} (spam only account) is for accounts indefinitely blocked for being used only for advertising and promotion.
    • {{uw-sblock}} (spam) is for accounts temporarily blocked for "adding spam links".
Personally I think that uw-sblock should be deleted, uw-soablock renamed to uw-spamblock, and the template changed to a block notice for all advert/promo blocks (which covers the very narrow case of adding spam links). But I support the proposal. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. This page has been around as a redirect since 2008, and for more than 8 years has targeted {{Uw-soablock}}, which means that if retargeted to a spamblock template with a different meaning, such as the proposed temporary block template, then there would be some pretty surprised editors who expect to see the soablock verbage when they apply this redirect. So no, nothing broken here. Nothing needs to be fixed. Please leave this one just like it is. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 02:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a valid reason to keep a redirect at its current target. Just because the redirect page has been targeting at the current page for a long time does not mean that it should be kept. Sometimes users want to change the current target to a better and plausible target. Also, the proposed target mentions about spam, and the current target talks about advertising and promotion. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have differing opinions then. Last I looked "advertising and promotion" under some circumstances is the very essence and definition of "spam". And in a case like this, where a redirect could plausibly target two pages, we pick the best page and go for it (or make a dab page out of it). The best target page for this template redirect is its present target, if only because a change to a different target would cause confusion and some extra work for admins. Do YOU want to be the one who causes that? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but didn't you read the above comments? Here's what P,TO 19104's comment reads: "Advertising and promotion" and "spam" are not always synonomous". (And Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a synonym dictionary). Seventyfiveyears (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I read the above comments! and I've also read the following on the target template: "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion." Clear and concise, and in the context of advertising and promoting on Wikipedia it is undeniably "spam" (or more precisely, it's a "spam-only account"). P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 03:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 01:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per the nomination. I agree that's the more plausible target. --Bsherr (talk) 18:18, 16 January 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.

ΜBTC

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 20#ΜBTC

«El águila que habla»

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. While there may be a connection, this specific redirect is considered unhelpful by participants in the discussion. ~ mazca talk 12:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • «El águila que habla» → Juan Diego  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. 122.61.73.44 (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Creator was blocked as sock. Not eligible for speedy because the block of the sockmaster occured after the creation of the redirect. 122.61.73.44 (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, means "Talking Eagle" in Spanish, which the article is not about. Created by blocked user. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and P,TO 19104. It's worth noting that es:«El águila que habla» and es:El águila que habla do not exist. Thryduulf (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this isn't useful. Hog Farm Bacon 17:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here's a book called "Juan Diego El Aguila Que Habla", by "Norberto Cardenal Rivera Carrera". –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:54, 13 January 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_January_13&oldid=1006714756"