Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 31

December 31

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 31, 2022.

Winter storm Goliath

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 8#Winter storm Goliath

Social Surfing

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. Article content previously at this title in 2011 was BLARed without merging. signed, Rosguill talk 03:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article or Social network, thus leaving it unclear the connection between the redirect and any respective target article. However, this redirect is a {{R with history}} that was formerly an article created in 2009 that was subject to a WP:BLAR in 2011 Steel1943 (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the use of capital letters implying it's a name of sorts. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the page history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 01:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No mention in Enwiki at this capitalisation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:29, 2 January 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).

Rubber Duck Entertainment (UK)

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 home video companies#United Kingdom. No consensus for moving to Rubber Duck Entertainment, though anyone is free to create it if needed. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Searching indicates this was a division of Contender Entertainment - which itself has a brief mention as having been acquired by Entertainment One. Delete unless something is added. MB 05:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Jay that retargeting to List of home video companies#United Kingdom is appropriate. I missed that when I made this nom. MB 01:13, 2 January 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).

Catholics not in communion with Rome

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. Alternate targets were suggested which did not get support. Jay 💬 09:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Catholics not in communion with Rome → Catholic Church  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not too familiar with the subject of the target article, but I don't think this connection is correct and/or exclusive. For one, I do not see this phrase mentioned adequately in the target article; there's a phrase mentioned in the article that sort of resembles the redirect, but it's not really specific enough to verify this connection is correct or to define the phrase. In addition, after reading Old Catholic Church, It seems like this redirect could refer to that as well? Also, the redirect's edit history shows that this redirect has been subject to a good number of retargetings. It may just be best to delete this redirect so readers can use Wikipedia's search results to determine which article they are attempting to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Independent Catholicism is another potential target. This seems like something which should to an extent be discussed somewhere, perhaps Full communion#Catholic Church which currently only discusses those which are in communion. If no suitable target can be found then deletion may be best. A7V2 (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Independent Catholicism, which is the current title of the original target. This is a plausible search for someone struggling to recall the exact title, but a number of page moves messed up where this was supposed to go. The current target is the result of a bot move and is definitely wrong; it's literally the opposite of what the reader would be looking for. Independent Catholicism links to Old Catholic Church in the lead, so anyone looking for that would still find it. That article also links to a list of such denominations, in case someone is looking for a specific one. – Scyrme (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC) (Edit: +second preference for retargeting to Catholicity, if everyone except myself agrees that the broader meaning of "catholic" is plausibly relevant here - see below.)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Eastern Orthdox, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. all consider themselves this—independent, Old, and Liberal Catholics are not alone in this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there are far too many valid targets for us to be able to choose one in particular. How do you disambiguate a redirect? I agree that "Catholic Church" is not a good target if that article does not have adequate information on the term, but perhaps we could direct to some theological concept of communion, ecclesiology, or doctrinal orthodoxy. Elizium23 (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The broader concept is covered at Catholic (term), but I'm not convinced that connection is plausible. Many denominations use "catholic" in its broader sense, but they are not generally referred to simply as "catholics". (Regarding How do you disambiguate a redirect?, that's done by targeting a disambiguation page; a number related to catholicism exist: Catholic (disambiguation), Catholic Church (disambiguation), Catholicism (disambiguation).) – Scyrme (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with attempting to create a disambiguation page for this term, however, is that none of their targets named or alternatively named this term. For example, it would make sense if there are multiple things called "Catholic" (such as with Catholic (disambiguation), but none of these topics are called "Catholics not in communion with Rome" specifically. Instead, this phrase is a generic way to describe aspects of certain topics. In cases like this, either deletion of the redirect or overwriting the redirect with a list article is preferred. Steel1943 (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't really suggesting it be disambiguated. My point was the broader concept already has relevant disambiguation pages, so doesn't really need another.
If everyone else feels that the broader "catholic" faith is a plausible target, Catholicity would be the appropriate article.
That article describes its own scope as: "the body of beliefs which are described as "catholic"", while also linking to Catholic (term) in its hatnote. Independent Catholicism is linked in the lead of that article. The section Catholicity § Denominational interpretations goes into more depth about the RCC vs Independent Catholicism vs other denominations that describe themselves as "catholic" in the broader sense of catholic faith. – Scyrme (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Scyrme: Oops, I put down one too many colons in my indents, and have fixed it. My mistake, especially since it makes a ton of difference! Steel1943 (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget to one of the two suggested targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging Veverve and Pbritti for an opinion on the second target preference of Catholicity. Jay 💬 07:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Catholicity is way too broad, I still stand by my deletion suggestion. Veverve (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Veverve is right. Not the worst option, but not properly correct either. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:38, 12 January 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).

Blended networking

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 03:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in either target article, leaving both the connection between the redirect and the targets unclear and leaving it unclear how the subject of the redirects is defined. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Blended" (or, synonymously "hybrid") in this context usually means the combination of in-person and online participation, but neither of the current targets discusses this. "Blended" meetings/events have become fairly common due to the pandemic; it's definitely a notable topic. Blended learning covers this in the context of education, but since this scope is narrower it's not a good target.
I looked for similar redirects under "blended" and "hybrid" in case they may indicate a more suitable target, but I wasn't able to find any. Searching on Wikipedia, I found a few passing mentions to such events, although they used the synonymous "hybrid" instead of "blended". There doesn't seem to be any adequate coverage on Wikipedia. Given this, I'd suggest delete per WP:REDYES, with no prejudice against recreating them if relevant content is added to Wikipedia.
Regarding the history mentioned by Jay, I'm not sure that preserving the history hiding under these redirects is important given that the content was unreferenced and the relevant content hasn't been part of these articles for some years. If preserving the history is important, blended learning would seem to be the closest thing to a relevant target and that would be my second preference. – Scyrme (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Scyrme. Although the article is pre-pandemic, having been created in 2005, this is more normal now, and encouraging for an article to be created. Jay 💬 04:32, 8 January 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).

Redistrict

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 move Redistricting in the United States to Redistricting. There wasn't actually much discussion about the Redistrict title and so the close is officially no consensus, but it will be retargeted as a double redirect as a result of the move. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

These should point to the same target. feminist (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget Redistricting to Redistricting in the United States This is a classic example of American English vs. other dialects. As mentioned in the lede for Redistribution (election), "redistricting" is the term used in the U.S. The vast majority of the 1,800+ links appear to be U.S.-related, so the U.S.-specific article is the presumed intended target. A hatnote to the broader article would probably be appropriate. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it looks like there is already a hatnote at Redistricting in the United States. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Redistricting in the United States to Redistricting, as that is the clear and unambiguous primary meaning of the term. BD2412 T 23:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Good idea. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely support that idea. The result of the last RfD is pretty much an abomination, and contra-WP:ENGVAR – "redistricting" is a U.S. specific term and originated there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It originated in US, but apparently the same term is used in present-day Phillipines (someone brought that up in last debate). So, it by itself, is ambiguous. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 07:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      No, it's really not. And if anyone is concerned, you add a hatnote to the Philippines article. But BD2412 and Thryduulf and the others are exactly right about this, and arguments against this proposal don't hold water (and some of the other votes are coming off as simple anti-U.S. bias). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. It is a major issue in the USA. The Philippine governmental system was guided by its history as a territory of USA, specifically on exit by the Tydings–McDuffie Act and thus it is unsurprising to have an element of redistricting remaining. Until that function in the Philippines is proven to be a major search term, equatable to the USA's, it should be a hatnote and possibly a sentence or two within the main redistricting article.Trackinfo (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the previous target was Redistricting in the United States, and was retargeted to the current target at an RfD not long ago. I have listed that RfD in this discussion. Jay 💬 18:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the concept of changing the boundaries of and/or number of people elected by electoral districts is very much not restricted to the United States, however the use of the term "redistricting" for that concept nearly is, with the Philippines being the only other country to use it. I haven't looked again just now, so I'm not bolding a vote, but when I looked previously the US was absolutely overwhelmingly the primary topic for "residistricting" even when actively trying to exclude results for that country. If this is still the case then it should redirect there. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Redistricting in the United States to Redistricting, place U.S. and Philippines content under that article, add a hatnote about this in Redistribution Redistribution (election). partially as per Thryduulf. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC) (Corrected link to Redistribution (election). Howard the Duck (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]
    This is also an acceptable outcome, yes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as both the Redistricting and Redistribution (election) articles have clear links to the other then this seems like a good solution. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For this one, there's a hatnote at the top, and a hatnote each in the Philippines and United States sections using {{main}}.
    What happens is that "Redistricting" becomes a "Redistribution in foo" article, only that due to WP:ENGVAR, it's named that as "Redistricting" and not "Redistribution in the United States". It can be argued that redistricting in the U.S. is by itself an extensive enough article and qualifies as a daughter article of redistribution (election). The Philippines gets to be mentioned in the "Redistricting" article again due to WP:ENGVAR. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:05, 6 January 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).

María do Céu

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. signed, Rosguill talk 03:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is an odd misspelling of her name according to Lusophone naming conventions, her name is "Maria" not "María", as you can read on the article itself. Bastewasket (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Plausible alternate spelling. I wouldn't call it a "misspelling" to be honest. One thing to note is that the article was at this title for years before the nom moved it to its current title just a few days ago. CycloneYoris talk! 06:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and wait for the page views to go to 0. Jay 💬 19:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't an alternate nor plausible spelling, it is a misspelling. María is the standard spelling in Spanish, this article is about a person born in a Portuguese speaking country, in Portuguese the proper spelling is Maria. She ran for president in 2012, and was listed as Maria do Céu on the ballot. Bastewasket (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per K4. Important to note also that just because it is a misspelling does not immediately warrant the redirect's deletion. J947 † edits 22:52, 8 January 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).

3615

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! 00:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the Minitel technology itself is obviously notable, its phone numbers are not. There are no incoming links from article namespace to either redirect. JIP | Talk 13:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least in France, 3615 is (or at least has been) very famous, almost homonymous to Minitel. Example of Google search returning several press examples having it even in their article titles.
There are frequent references to it in songs, literature, etc. For instance a TV series using it in its name, a recent song (2022), the name of the podcast of a mainstream French radio, etc.
My suggestion if this redirect should be removed is to transform the 3615 page into a 3615 (disambiguation) page and put it into Category:Lists of ambiguous numbers. Alkarex (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination reason is invalid; notability has never been a criterion for deletion of a redirect. None of the other deletion reasons listed at WP:R#DELETE apply either. A redirect does not need to have incoming internal links to be kept. Being a valid search term is enough and the nominator cannot know if there are incoming links from outside Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 13:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. I don't see anything to be disambiguated for a potential dab page. Jay 💬 19:30, 7 January 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).

Clipchamp

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 moot. The page is now an article. ✗plicit 14:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful redirect, not mentioned in the target. 2001:16A2:EB29:8202:B8DD:F55A:6C18:C7CB (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 18:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Clipchamp is one of many Microsoft products and the existence of such a redirect does not violate the redirect policy. If you want to expand the redirect into a well-sourced article of its own, please go ahead, but deletion is contrary to this. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 19:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note WP:RFD#Reasons for deleting No 10: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no mention of this term at the target so someone searching this will not find anything useful. Can of course be kept if mention is added and is suitable, or could be targeted to somewhere else. A7V2 (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is currently no one suitable target for this term: Search gives 5 mentions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:14, 2 January 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).

Pingshan station (Shenzhen Metro)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 7#Pingshan station (Shenzhen Metro)

"Alexander Reichstein"

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 13:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a simple error SpinningSpark 10:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Alexander Reichstein" can be deleted, Alexander Reichstein not. --AxelHH (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's the redirect that is being discussed here, not the article. SpinningSpark 13:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirect. This looks like a mere technicality. JIP | Talk 18:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:COSTLY. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:20, 2 January 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).

Snake handling in religion

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. Editors are (weakly) divided on whether the current target is appropriate as a primary topic, or if it should be deleted. Retargeting other pages related to snake handling was also considered. signed, Rosguill talk 03:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overly broad redirect from a merge, as the target is specific to Christianity and does not discuss other religions; there is probably also a missing broad-concept article similar to the stub Snake handler. An incorrect link was found at Mareke giri, a type of street performance in Iran. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there is probably also a missing broad-concept article - It wasn't missing before the merge; an article was located at Snake handling in religion, following a previous split. The merging editors apparently concluded that a broad-concept article was not needed, and relocated its content to more specific articles.
If Snake handling in religion isn't an article, then it should be a red link not a redirect. However, the incoming internal links should be sorted out before the redirect is deleted. (Either by relinking to more relevant articles or simply removing the links. There aren't that many.) – Scyrme (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming Snake handling in religion is a potentially notable topic (and as you say, it should be a redlink) then per WP:REDYES shouldn't links to it be kept as is rather than being removed? A7V2 (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point of leaving the links would be to facilitate the creation of an article, in which case a better solution would be to restore the article rather than delete the redirect while keeping the links. (To be clear, this is a hypothetical; not a vote to restore. I don't have an opinion on whether the topic warrants an article.) – Scyrme (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am unsure what the best solution here. My first thought was to suggest reversing the merge given that there was indeed content about non-Christian religions in the article. OTOH, snake handling in Christianity is almost certainly the primary topic, as noted in the merger discussion. There is also a snake handling DAB page. Maybe that is a potential target? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - There was only one sentence on that page that did not refer to Christianity, which was:
The most widely publicised of Hopi kachina rites is the "Snake Dance", an annual event during which the performers danced while handling live snakes.[1]
Curiously this is not mentioned on the Hopi page even now, and it should be if as the merge is incomplete without it (the only source is Britannica, which is tertiary, but no reason to doubt the veracity of the information), I will see if I can correct that, but there doesn't appear to be a broad concept of snake handling in religion as a concept outside of Christianity. If you search for snake handling in religion, you find sources but they are all talking about Christianity. As such, I don't have much problem with the link, but making this a red link is fine with me too, as an article would be welcome if anyone could find treatments of broader snake handling customs and rites and what is behind them. I don't believe it is possible right now, but it looks like a viable PhD subject for someone! Deleting this redirect will lose the page history for Snake Handling in religion, though. One advantage of keeping it was that anyone could reverse the merger and would have some of the work done for them. Specifically they would know about the Hopi ritual and Christianity. However if anyone has sources for an encyclopaedic treatment of the subject, they will surely already have the sources for those.

References

  1. ^ "Hopi people". Encyclopedia Britannica. 28 March 2008.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously this is not mentioned on the Hopi page even now - That's not true, it's mentioned at Kachina § Ceremonial dancers. – Scyrme (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but that is a different page to Hopi. Sorry for missing it. In any case I added it to Hopi too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there's also Snake worship which covers multiple cultures that probably handle snakes. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Before someone suggests it, retargeting to Snake worship would be misleading. The worship of snakes doesn't imply handling them (for example, Naga Panchami involves gifting offerings to snakes, but it doesn't emphasise picking them up), and the handling of snakes in religious contexts doesn't necessarily suggest that snakes are worshiped (Christian snake handlers do not worship snakes). – Scyrme (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with either keep, delete or Retarget to dab at Snake handling, and add any relevant topics there. A BCA was previously attempted, which didn't last as there wasn't any common overview to cover. The incorrect link noted by the OP was an error inadvertently added when BD2412 was sorting out links to the dab page. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't suggest a retarget without seeing how the disambiguation page comes out. Right now there is precisely one article on that page relating to snake handling in connection with a religion, and given the paucity of Wikipedia coverage or real-world practice outside of that context, I would argue that it is the primary topic of that phrase even if other concepts can be added to the disambiguation page. I would also note that a dance that involves handling of snakes is not necessarily itself referred to by the ambiguous title. BD2412 T 21:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. The snake dance is an example of snake handling, but isn't itself referred to simply as "snake handling", so it shouldn't be listed. A disambiguation page is meant to distinguish articles that do or could share the same title; it's not meant to list every relevant topic. eg. Chemical (disambiguation) does not list examples of chemicals even though any of them could accurately be described as "a chemical".
      "Snake handling in religion" is not an ambiguous phrase, so disambiguation is not a viable solution here. However, I don't think that "in Christianity" should be treated as a primary topic for "in religion". If there is no broad concept article to point to, this title simply isn't needed; it should not point to a few sects within a single specific religion. – Scyrme (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough points. I'm not yet swayed either way so either option would be fine by me. Amended prior !vote. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All options are still wide open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although some participants have been indecisive or only commented, assuming I've not misread, everyone who has voiced an opinion has said they are open to deletion. Does anyone object to deletion? If not, it seems to me that's where the broadest agreement lies. – Scyrme (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    [1st Relister comment]: Two participants had no view on deletion, either for or against. One of them thinks the current target is the primary topic of the redirect, which I see as a weak keep, and another thinks the current target is the primary topic of the suggested dab, which does not equate to deletion, but it depends on the closer. Jay 💬 16:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The target is at least the primary topic, and at the moment is the only topic. If there are other potential targets, then the correct solution is to convert to a dab page or else disambiguate with a hatnote at the target. There is no situation in which deletion is beneficial. SpinningSpark 13:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirecting a title for a broad-concept article to some small Christian sects is misleading in suggesting that this is a phenomenon unique to them. Deletion avoids misleading anyone.
    Disambiguation doesn't work because there are no entries on Wikipedia that (would otherwise) share this name (see discussion above). Retargeting to the existing disambiguation page at Snake handling would not be appropriate because redirects to disambiguation pages should be from ambiguous terms to articles that share that title. None of the articles on that page share the title "snake handling in religion", and "snake handling in religion" is broad not ambiguous; a disambiguation page is not a list of subtopics for a broader topic, it's a list of distinct topics that can share a name.
    Deletion is beneficial in allowing uninhibited search, which in this case seems like the best option for people actually looking for a broad perspective (besides perhaps restoring the broad concept article that previously existed at the title before the split/merge; no-one seems keen on that though). – Scyrme (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't really agree to much of that. There can only be a broad-concept article on a practice if it is broadly practiced, and this is not. If there can't be a broad-concept article (and there's not much support here that there should be) then ergo there can't be a broad concept. This seems to me a likely search term for the Christian meaning which is well known having been publicised in several dramas and news items on unfortunate incidents, and Christians are likely to treat "Christianity" and "religion" as synonyms at least in informal speech. It does not seem a likely search term for anything else (I would expect something more specific in that case). The redirect is therefore serving a purpose. SpinningSpark 16:50, 31 December 2022 (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).

Afen

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 14:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This had previously targeted Psychodidae, but I don't see a justification for that or River Avon, Hampshire. UC "AFEN" is a UK post-nominal and the United Kingdom government group the Atlantic Frontier Environment Network (see Darwin Mounds), and LC is a verb in Brithenig. Suggest a dab. MB 17:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This unsourced statement was deleted, but explains the current target: River Avon was referred to as River Afen in The Saxon Stories by Bernard Cornwell. MB 18:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that a DAB seems like a sensible approach. WaggersTALK 10:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only minor occurrences in the articles mentioned in the nomination. Does not provide any more value than what search results would provide. Is Darwin Mounds the only discovery by the Atlantic Frontier Environment Network? Otherwise it would not be proper to refer to Govt group using the link of Darwin Mounds. Jay 💬 18:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Try again?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde!Franklin! 20:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm in general agreement with Jay, none of the uses seem to rise to the level of warranting a redirect or disambiguation. One could argue for disambiguation at AFEN between the two abbreviation uses, but that could be done boldly or after further discussion elsewhere. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Old English Wikipedia article on Statford-upon-Avon refers to the River Avon as Afen Ēa and Bosworth's Anglo-Saxon and English Dictionary attests to both "Afon" and "Afen" being used historically for "Avon". However, it could just as easily refer to River Avon, Warwickshire or River Avon, Bristol. Bosworth's dictionary could be used to provide a referenced mention, but it would be equally relevant to any of these articles' "Etymology" sections; there's still no clear reason to single any particular one out as a target.
Perhaps River Avon should be converted ({{SIA-Conversion-Expand}}) into a {{River index}}? Per Wikipedia:Set index articles, a set index is meant to provide not only navigation, but information as well and so it might be within its scope to briefly include the etymology shared by all of them as part of its brief description of the topic. – Scyrme (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Search gives better results. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. Too ambiguous abbreviation. MusiBedrock (talk) 09:11, 7 January 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).

Mathematics and God

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was restore to article. As correctly pointed out, no consensus has ever formed to delete the content behind this page. No prejudice against renomination at AfD, as long as it is made clear that a simple redirect to Existence of God (without a content merge) is not an acceptable outcome. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem like the target article has sufficient information to warrant this redirect targeting it. There are some mentions of the word mathematics in the article, but any mention of the math subject seems to be specific to an excerpt that is taken from Argument from beauty. In addition, this redirect is a {{R from merge}}, but it does not seem like any of the merged content is currently in the article. With that being said, retarget to Argument from beauty or delete as a potential WP:XY issue otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete on the basis of WP:XY. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore to article as a procedural close. There have been three AFDs for this page resulting, in order, keep, no consensus, and merge. At no stage was there consensus to delete this material. No merge was ever carried out. If it had been, there would have been a substantial edit in early March 2007, but there is none other than reversions of vandalism and OR insertion. This should be restored with a mergeto template to comply with the last community decision.
However, regardless of the current state of the article, I would argue that the intersection of God and mathematics is a notable topic for which sources abound and the merge decision should be reversed. Here are three books from reputable publishers and authors;
  • Mario Livio, Is God a Mathematician?, Simon & Schuster ISBN 1416594434
  • H. Chris Ransford, God and the Mathematics of Infinity: What Irreducible Mathematics Says about Godhood, Columbia University Press, ISBN 3838270193
  • Daniel J. Cohen, Equations from God: Pure Mathematics and Victorian Faith, Johns Hopkins University Press, ISBN 0801891868
I'd also like to note that this deletion is partiularly absurd. The editor appears not to know that Mathematical logic exists. SpinningSpark 11:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have been a redirect for 15 years, without any contesting of it, since 2007. I'm not sure what to make of the argument that the topic has merited a standalone page for this entire time. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lot's of topic merit an article, but no one has got around to them or taken an interest. If being like that for 15 years was an argument for not changing it now, then you wouldn't be voting delete would you? SpinningSpark 00:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, nominations at RfD are meant to be evaluated or re-evaluated, and they can go any way regardless of the nomination rationale. Jay 💬 02:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are both right, and I've changed my mind. Restore to article. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 2 January 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).

5 ½ Weeks Tour

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 7#5 ½ Weeks Tour

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_December_31&oldid=1135573226"