Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 21

August 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 21, 2023.

Prince Maurice of Battenberg, KCVO

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. ✗plicit 03:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Implausible search term. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Tobati–Enggros languages

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 01:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tobati–Enggros languages → Tobati language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Factually incorrect and misleading, no such language group exists. The creating user made several other hoax-like pages. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 22:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm wondering if this is a typo. "Tobati-Enggros" appears to be an alternate name as used on the Indonesian Wikipedia and elsewhere. In the singular form, this seems like it would be valid. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per everything from this editor, this is just clueless translation of stuff that is made up. The stuff is made up on Indonesian wikipedia first and cluelessly translated here, but note that Indonesian wikipedia is not a reliabe source for anything this editor creates. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the arguments at WP:Articles for deletion/Enggros language. If Tobati–Enggros languages had gone to AfD before being BLARd because of the afore mentioned AfD, the outcome would have been Delete. Jay 💬 10:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

2023 Ojai earthquake

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 article created. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 21:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Ojai earthquake is not mentioned at the target leading to WP:SURPRISE at the target. TartarTorte 20:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood given its current form, however I'd like to state my intention to turn this into an actual article today as I believe it may pass notability guidelines. Paradoxsociety 21:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a stub article and would like to propose closing this thread. Paradoxsociety 21:34, 21 August 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).

War For Survival

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 7 Escape. Jay 💬 10:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned on this page (or seemingly any page on wikipedia with reference to the show). TartarTorte 20:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's either a subtitle or a new official English title for 7 Escape; not sure which. It appears in a very tiny font in the title card image on the broadcaster's page for the show [1]. Non-WP:RS like Dramabeans are stating this is the show's new title [2]. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for explaining what's going on here, I couldn't find much in WP:BEFORE, but I probably just didn't know the right things to search. If the page is to not be deleted it should definitely be retargeted there. I'm not sure if non-RS using the name is good enough to keep it, but it at least makes it a semi-plausible search term. TartarTorte 13:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note for 24 hours and 7 minutes (17:40, 26 August 2023‎ UTC to 17:47, 27 August 2023 UTC)‎ the RfD tag had been removed from the redirect and it was retargetted to 7 Escape TartarTorte 17:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 7 Escape since someone added it to the article (albeit with the same non-WP:RS mentioned above), and I've switched that for the one reliable source (HanCinema; see WP:KO/RS) stating that this is an alternative name [3]. Hopefully not WP:CITOGENESIS, since HanCinema were using the name "War for Survival" since before the name was added to the English Wikipedia article [4]. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Massacres of Albanians in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918-1945)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary disambiguator; I'm neutral on creating an equivalent redirect without parentheses: Massacres of Albanians in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, while this one should be deleted either way. –Vipz (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: No reason to delete, the disambiguator is plausible and "massacre" is a plausible alternative name. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 21:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, delete since the disambiguator is incorrect. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 21:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a recent R from move, and deleting will break incoming links from several project monitoring pages. It would be optimal to wait a few weeks before deletion, if that is the consensus. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The page was at this title last week for some 9 hours only. The <5 daily pageviews from last week could be from this RfD. Jay 💬 12:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary and too broad; contents of the target page were also merged. --Griboski (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Atrocities against Albanians in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918-1941)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary disambiguator; I'm neutral on creating an equivalent redirect without parentheses: Atrocities against Albanians in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, while this one should be deleted either way. –Vipz (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: No reason to delete, the disambiguator is plausible and "atrocities against" is a plausible alternative name. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 21:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Disambiguator is neither plausible (for searching) nor necessary here. Disambiguator here shows the period of existence of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. It is irrelevant to the topic of the redirect. There is a reason to delete - to cut down on junk redirects. Whether or not "atrocities against" is a plausible alternative name relates to the suggested disambiguatorless version of the same redirect. –Vipz (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Disambiguator is unnecessary because there was no other Kingdom of Yugoslavia from any other time as far as I'm aware. Yung Doohickey (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a recent R from move, and deleting will break incoming links from several project monitoring pages. It would be optimal to wait a few weeks before deletion, if that is the consensus. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The page was at this title last week for some 2 hours only. The <5 daily pageviews from the last 5 days could be from this RfD. Jay 💬 12:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per all of the above. Unnecessary disambiguator. --Griboski (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Perry the Platypus?!

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 01:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term created by editor blocked for DE. Any pageviews are likely from it popping up as a suggested search term when looking up "Perry the Platypus" ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 20:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete?!: Implausible, targeted section no longer exists?! CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 21:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak soft retarget to q:Phineas and Ferb (season 1)#A Hard Day's Knight: It is mentioned here and I believe that it is the first mention in the show, but I would be just as ok with deleting it as a redirect to usage without much context on wikiquote isn't always ideal. TartarTorte 13:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even figure out a way to link to the section properly because of the [] in the section name. We'd need to rename the section if we'd want to retarget theere, which makes my vote an even weaker soft retarget. TartarTorte 13:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TartarTorte The target doesn't make sense there since the "?!" is a stylization that could apply to a number of quotes from Doof; that's also notwithstanding the fact that it is very unlikely anyone is searching for this. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The redirect is intended as an expression for which we don't have a target, while we have an article for the character whose title is more or less same as the redirect. Jay 💬 12:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Vincian

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 Wikt:Vincian. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 13:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent neologism, no sustained use. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know why, but an editor has been repeatedly inserting this neologism into articles about queer terminology, including in the lead of Gay men. I'm happy for them if they've found a thing to identify themselves as, but the attempts to swamp/erase "gay man" as a term concern me (also, enough with the neologisms, people, I've had **mumble mumble** decades of neologisms for my queerness and it's getting tiresome). Within Wikipedia's rules, delete as a neologism that is rarely used and only appears in listicles and other non-reliable sources. — Trey Maturin™ 17:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a modern term, obviously. But nonetheless it's a reasonable search term. Countless redirects exist without usage reliable sources. I agree with Trey Maturin that it shouldn't be used to erase "gay man", but nobody's requesting a move so I don't see this causing any harm as just a redirect. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My only issue is that I don't think this would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for someone searching "Vincian"; Leonardo da Vinci was known for a lot more than his disputed sexuality. A quick search on Google shows articles on the da Vincian cardiovascular system, for example.
A lot of the user-generated sources on the Internet will inevitably be skewered towards the sexuality neologism, but there's still no evidence that this is the primary topic for this term, or that the term in relation to sexuality is notable. It's the combination of the two that is the issue for me, and why we should just delete this redirect. – GnocchiFan (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Leonardo da Vinci#Legacy with hatnote, seems like Vincian is being used as an adjective to refer to da Vinci and what he has done. Da Vincian face, da Vincian principles, etc. See wiktionary:Vincian also. --(Roundish ⋆t) 23:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or soft redirect to Wiktionary (wikt:Vincian), similar to how achillean is. Also, the term vincian was originally coined as a term to replace achillean (MLM), which includes bisexual men as well. It's similar to uranian (sexology). MikutoH (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft Retarget to wikt:Vincian per MikutoH --Lenticel (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wiktionary per the above. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

List of deepwater ports

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 23:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was deleted back in 2014 at this RfD because not all deep water ports are panamax ports, at least as was the determination of that RfD. I could not find much to show that the two are synonymous, but am not 100% an expert in ports either, so I could be wrong and it's possible things have changed over the past 9 years. TartarTorte 01:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reverse redirect. The list does mention this, but Panamax is a bit outdated. I'd rather the article be titled "List of deepwater ports", and have each entry specify which size category corresponds with the given port. The list does list deepwater ports because a port would have to be deep in order to support a Panamax ship. -- Tavix (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "deepwater port" is faaaar too vague. An 18th-century "deepwater port" is a very shallow port nowadays. And ports for post-Panamax-II with needing greater depth of water are not Panamax ports. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

M City

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Consensus clearly prefers the DAB for now. In general, people seem to think the drafted DAB is okay, with the one problem being Manchester City; even if that's deleted, though, we still have two matches unless M City Condominiums gets deleted, which is a separate discussion to be had. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could refer to any city that starts with M; Google search results do not support the current target. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 23:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The very first Google result for "M City" was Manchester City F.C., but that is probably just because Google searches Wikipedia for results. I didn't find any other Google results containing "M City". The page even originally was about an entirely unrelated construction project in Missisauga. There are no incoming links to the redirect. JIP | Talk 09:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate with M-City J.r. and M City Condominiums. Google in quotes from England does return the football club as the 1st result listing matches etc but the rest of the results aren't for the football club and the Wikipedia article for M-City J.r. does come up. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've drafted a disambiguation page. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 00:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate using the drafted DAB page. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Far too ambiguous. Personally, I don't think that the draft dab page is enough as it could refer to any city beginning with m (per nom). estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be fine with just redirecting to M-City J.r. or excluding the football club from the DAB but the rapper is likely a full match as things like "Jr" are commonly omitted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate the dab page as it stands is fine. MOS:DABSYN and MOS:DABABBREV mean precisely that this dab page should not be a list of every city in the world whose name starts with M. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • dabify per the uses found -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to M-City J.r. as the only title that really matches. The draft dab notes that Manchester City FC is sometimes shorthanded to "Man City", but not "M City", and dabs are not for best guesses, things that start with the same letter, nor manually compiled search results. There's no indication that the condominium development is notable and the article should probably be deleted, but it can be handled with a hatnote in the meantime. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is a consensus that only M-City J.r. and the condominium development should be outside the "See also" and the condominium development later is deleted at PROD/AFD then the DAB could be straight away converted to a redirect to M-City J.r.. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I's say at most the football club should be in the "See also" as indeed we can't put everything on DAB pages that start with the same letter. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate I agree with above and it's also more future proof to leave as dab page, you never know what other M City there could be. I don't know if you'd have that short for Motor City, aka Detroit etc. As they say, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Govvy (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - I agree this should be a dab page. GiantSnowman 18:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Eternal death

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 18:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target. I suggest deletion. Veverve (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Eternal Death: {{r from miscapitalisation}}. Support Duckmather's retarget and hatnote. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC) Okay, now I support disambiguate per IP. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Second death, where I've added a sourced mention. Don't retarget to Eternal Death, since that'd surprise readers looking for the religious concept (which I think is the primary topic), but add a hatnote to there instead to satisfy the minority. Duckmather (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duckmather's suggestion looks like a good way to go, so I am happy with this retarget to Second death. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Duckmather: both sources you added to support the name "eternal death" at Second death were blogs, so I have removed those along with this name. You will need to add RSs to support this name. I am also pinging @Graeme Bartlett:. Veverve (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That removal was a poor choice, as the term is undoubtedly relevant to that article. Just needs better sourcing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Veverve and Graeme Bartlett: I have added the term "eternal death" back with better sourcing. Please accept my penance. Duckmather (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      the term is undoubtedly relevant to that article: one cannot know this, this needs to be sourced.
      I have no problem at first glance with the new sources. Veverve (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate with Eternal Death , eternal oblivion , second death ; because it does not need to be a "second" death to be eternal. Making it so makes it religiously biased. Also this is not the Abrahamic Encyclopedia. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your suggestion, IP editor 67.70.25.80, is also pretty good. Disambiguate as you suggest instead, actually. Duckmather (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabify per anon --Lenticel (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Substratum

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 Substrata. Retargeting and disambiguating are essentially the same, so I went with the former. (non-admin closure) Duckmather (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Substratum should be a dab between Substratum (linguistics) and Substratum (geology). Substrata (pl.) is already a similar dab page. Also note the primary concept, Stratum, is the geology concept, instead of Stratum (linguistics). (See also previous discussion.) fgnievinski (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate per nom. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can this retarget to Substrata? Why a separate dab page for the singular? Jay 💬 14:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to the DAB page Substrata, and mentions of the singular Substratum can be added. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Substrata. Some entries there already mention the singular, namely those for the linguistics article to which the current target belongs and for its use in geology. I wouldn't object to amending the "may refer to" wording at the top if others think it's warranted. – Scyrme (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Bryce S. Ketchup

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 23:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bryce S. Ketchup → SketchUp  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Subject not mentioned in target article. Additionally searching this name up in quotes on Google gives no results. Colgatepony234 (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as joke redirect. Bryce is a SketchUp model and "S. Ketchup" = SketchUp. - Eureka Lott 18:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Wikipedia:RFD?

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 leaning keep. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 18:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I end up at this from time to time when trying to type WP:RFD/T or the like and holding shift while typing / which makes it ?. This redirect seems to be pretty much entirely unused from pageviews and has no links to it from within wikipedia as of nomination. It seems that this could be deleted safely and it would allow those, like myself, who type WP:RFD? to have the search functionality show no page exists as opposed to being confused as to how I ended up at When to delete a redirect on the RfD page. I acknowledge the irony of this not specifically meeting a criterion laid out in WP:RFD#DELETE. TartarTorte 17:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to WP:RFD since that seems to be the closest match. Duckmather (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it makes sense to send the title with a question mark to the generic meaning when the title of the redirect target section is "When should we delete a redirect" which includes a question mark in the title that said I don't really see a problem with that but I'd otherwise perhaps say delete. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are other, more prominent shortcuts that use the question mark, such as WP:FA? and WP:FP?, so that alone shouldn't be reason to delete. However, this one does indeed seem unused. Anyway, don't retarget. And if kept, it should be added to the shortcut box at the target section to avoid confusion. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (It already targets WP:RfD, a specific section of it.) The redirect makes sense. The question is simple: When should we WP:RFD? - jc37 16:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, "WP:RFD?" seems pretty intuitive / natural to go to a subsection talking that discusses RfD as a question. Like, let's say someone is looking at a redirect in front of them and aren't sure whether they want to RfD it. The question they would ask, essentially, is "RfD?". And that's exactly what they'll get if they search WP:RFD?, which luckily is on the same page as the WP:RFD shortcut itself. I don't think there would be any confusion, as it's all in the same ballpark. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

LaLiga

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. There was no support for disambiguation, and participants were split over retargeting to the body, and keeping at the current target as the primary topic. Jay 💬 16:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"LaLiga" is the name of the organising body of the Spanish men's first and second divisions, as well as the top woman's division. This can be seen in official documents and promotional releases. The similar naming between the body and the divisions seems to sow confusion, but considering Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional correctly names "LaLiga" as an alternative name it is illogical for it to be a redirect to a different one. LaLiga should either be retargeted to Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional or turned into a disambiguation page. DatGuyTalkContribs 08:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see your point, but I'm tempted to just keep this as is in spite of it being incorrect – the vast majority of readers searching this up want to access the current target. Not a football fan, but this is the sponsorship name of the league (LaLiga EA Sports), and how the (old?) logo would be read, which for many would be the only time they actually see the league name in writing. J947 † edits 11:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a perfect place for a disambiguation page then. The logos of LaLiga and the two divisions are all very similar. DatGuyTalkContribs 12:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Organising body
    Organising body
  • First division
    First division
  • Second division
    Second division
  • Added the old logo. J947 † edits 01:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the solution to the problem is being approached in the wrong way. LaLiga is the body/company that administers the First and Second Divisions in Spain. Therefore LaLiga should have its own page as it happened now. The error is in the name of the First Division. The current page "La Liga" should be renamed: "Primera División" or "Primera División de Fútbol Profesional" as it is popularly known. The page of the Second Division is called: "Segunda División" and not "La Liga 2". I think it was a mistake to call the popularly known "Primera División" "La Liga". When a team ascends to the First Division, the popular chants are to sing: "A primera oe, a primera oee.." the figure of LaLiga is never called. The day that the organization that administers the First Division is another with another commercial name what will be done? The Penfield Homunculus (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or disambiguate? Also, there is no move request yet at the target as suggested by one of the participants. Notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per J947. The difference is so slight, I think it's much more likely readers are looking for the stylized version of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --BDD (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't even see it as incorrect given the logo stylizes it as one word. -- Tavix (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See the gallery above. DatGuyTalkContribs 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I've seen it. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional: WP:ONION. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 22:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also oppose dabbing for the same reason. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 23:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue that, in encyclopaedic terms, the current target is actually the onion and the proposed target the more inner layer. J947 † edits 01:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get rid of the July 22 logpage. It seems there are several related entities at play referred to by variants of "LaLiga", but the relationship between them is unclear to me. Keep, retarget, or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is veering towards a noconsensus close. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave as is - If someone types in "LaLiga", they're almost certainly looking for the La Liga page. I will also add that "Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional" is still the official name of the body that organises the league (see here). – PeeJay 14:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Moment (time)

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. No hope of consensus, as J947 said. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

r Incomplete disambiguation. Retarget to either the disambiguation page or Instant. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Instant, as I think that's clearly the primary topic. Duckmather (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Moment#Time as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. -- Tavix (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Moment#Time per Tavix. It's hard for me to see how Instant can be the primary topic when the word "moment" doesn't even appear at that target. A7V2 (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Moment#Time per Tavix. --Lenticel (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, with the hatnote. There are a highly unusual amount of pageviews for this unnatural search term, suggesting old links intending the moment (unit) page abound – for this is the previous title of the article for its entire existence. This is (almost, not really) the sort of 'weird' article which becomes popular due to being spotlighted externally – for evidence, there are 899 of these old links. That number includes 363 internal links, which will certainly explain the majority of the pageviews – but the backlinks will still dwarf the number of readers looking for something else, I reckon. The vast majority of readers who find their way to this redirect intend to see the current target. J947 † edits 11:44, 31 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 19:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per J947. Another reasonable choice would be redirecting to Moment (disambiguation), but that would be worse for anyone following these external links, and no different for anyone looking for "moment in time" i.e. Instant (thanks to the hatnote). jlwoodwa (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding old links, I think the vast majority were from navbar templates which I've now updated (something that should've been done anyway, to ensure the links bold properly). – Scyrme (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @J947: WhatLinksHere has now updated. Should take a few days for the pageviews to gather updated stats though. – Scyrme (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We should have this closed and come back in a month to see updated pageviews. I'm unsure whether there are bulk external links, but it seems a lot more harmful to misjudge and go with the retarget when if that assumption is true this is a little-used redirect anyway (if you know what I mean). J947 † edits 03:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have replaced the incoming link from Atom (time)‎ as well. Jay 💬 07:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, per J947, along with Scyrme's updating of navbar templates. Can be renominated later after pageviews update. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now per the above. I am inclined to retarget to the dab section as incomplete disambiguation, but given the years that the unit article was at this title, let's see what traffic it's getting (without it being at Rfd) now that the internal links have been updated. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep has momentum, but retarget collectively still has more support. One more try for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • ReTarget to Moment#Time. There isn't a whole lot of difference between this and keeping it pointed to Moment (unit) with a hatnote, except the dab has more listed there - including moment (unit) - and so also provides a bit of better context showing usage, I think. So I think that this is slightly better for navigation purposes. - jc37 13:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think one small difference is that the reader directed to this redirect might not actually know what it is that the linker referred to (unlikely for each individual reader, but certainly possible over a large cohort), and could take it to be instant or the present. As an actual natural search term, its utility is very slim. J947 † edits 10:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's part of the problem. We don't know what each instance of a link was intended to mean, either. So it's better to point to them all, and let the reader figure it out by the context of the link that led them there. - jc37 13:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is an involved relist to get rid of the July 8 logpage. What should this redirect target - Instant, Moment#Time, or Moment (unit)?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • What a farce. This RfD should have been closed as no consensus two months ago, and that outcome has hardly changed a bit since. We'd have long finished the second RfD by then. Massive waste of time. J947 † edits 03:45, 22 August 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).

Homosexuality legal

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 💬 15:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous search term: may refer to the current legal status of homosexuality (in which case the current redirect is acceptable), or the Decriminalization of homosexuality more generally. I propose deletion as an unlikely search term, or failing that a disambiguation. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Less sure if the redirect Legal status of LGBT should also be considered here, but adding to this discussion. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This seems completely unclear. (Homosexuality legal) can refer to, as stated above, the decriminalization of homosexuality. It can refer to the present status of civil rights for homosexual people in the present and future. It can also refer to the history of law and politics on the matter. A lot of vagueness. As for the other redirect, I'm not entirely sure since maybe I should think about it some more. I lean to the option of deleting that as well, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:bad grammar and thus vague. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 15:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Legalisation" and "decriminalisation" aren't synonymous, but it's phrased like a search query not a title so let the search engine handle it; it's what it's for. (As a note, there is another similarly phrased redirect: Homosexuality legal in Brazil.) – Scyrme (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Should that one be bundled? Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unlikely they'd be given the same target, so probably best not to bundle. If it's warranted it would be better to nominate it separately, maybe after this is closed. – Scyrme (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a search term. If it were in common use then finding a suitable target would be appropriate, but this has zero hits in 30 days before the nomination and only 3 in the last 90 days. It's not being used, it should just be deleted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Soysauce

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. It's snowing! (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen this condiment spelled this way, without a space, anywhere on any source. The most common spellings are soy sauce, and soya sauce in British English, but never as one word "soysauce". Google searching the term in quotes does not give many results about the sauce itself. Colgatepony234 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - At least one musical artist known as "SoySauce" exists (personal opinions are, naturally, completely meaningless here, but for what it's worth I rather enjoy this particular song), but that appears to be the only meaningful use of the term (without a space) that I'm aware of. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Contrary to the nomination, when Googling "soysauce" most of the results I saw on the first page were for soy sauce including webpages for products and recipes. Results on further pages were more mixed (and included the artist mentioned above), but I was still seeing product pages on each page as far as the 10th page of results, which is where I stopped looking; I assume product pages continue to be listed beyond that. In-fact, the mixed results became increasing less mixed on later pages, with every result on the 10th page being a product or commercial page. The current target is clearly the primary topic, especially given the all-lowercase capitalisation used by this redirect (for technical reasons Wikipedia can't distinguish the case of the first letter, so although it's shown as Soysauce above it is actually identical with soysauce). – Scyrme (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, this redirect has been stable since it was created in 2004. The pageviews stats show that it receives use virtually every day, consistently so for many years. – Scyrme (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scyrme. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Scyrme and WP:CHEAP. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 20:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. It's clearly the right target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scyrme and WP:CHEAP. 〜 Askarion ✉ 15:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is 1 mainspace link from Telur pindang. Maybe that should be changed to "soy sauce". Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed link Colgatepony234 (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Jesse John Fleay

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 03:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

not mentioned in target article -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, created after attempts at promotion. Graham87 12:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget It should point to Uluru Statement from the Heart instead where he is mentioned. Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this redirect has substantial article history, having twice been an article, 8 years apart for a short time each time. However it appears that these were created with major COI issues. That said I think it's plausible that the person is notable, so ideally this would be deleted or made into an article. I don't think Uluru Statement from the Heart is a suitable target, at the very least the section Uluru Statement from the Heart#Authorship to avoid someone searching this from having to use ctrl+F to find this. But Jesse John Fleay is mentioned in other articles, such as Republicanism in Australia and an entry in List of Freemasons (E–Z)#F (which is the "most biographical" so is my preferred target if this is to not be deleted). A7V2 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone and removed all mentions of him from the main namespace ... they're much too promotional and don't have enough secondary sourcing to establish their worth here. The Uluru statement from the heart one was a recent addition by the same user who created the most recent iteration of the "Jesse John Fleay" bio. Graham87 07:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: now that the mentions have been removed. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 21:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no good target to point to now that mentions have been removed. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Draft:Maarten Rijkers

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 03:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Draft has been moved as mainspace redirect. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can always just edit the draft redirect so it points to the correct target page. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this redirect has an odd history. It was a page-move redirect left over from a draft moved to article space, which was then merged to a related article, and the redirect that was left behind from that merge was speedy deleted per G5. This redirect was later moved to article space, which also left behind a new page-move redirect (don't move redirects, kids!), so this basically qualifies for either G5 or G7 deletion depending on which page you start looking at the history from. None of the redirects are useful to anyone who isn't banned, anyway. Alternatively, retarget to the current double-redirect target, Beatrix of the Netherlands#Kissed by a bystander, 1988, but I don't think that's particularly useful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Alt.slack

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. Closing a few hours early per WP:SNOW, and since the term is now mentioned at the target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Is this alt.binaries.slack? 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it is NOT alt.binaries.slack. It was the main SubGenius Usenet group of the 1990s/early 2000s. If mention of it has been removed from the Church of the SubGenius article, it should be put back. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I have restored a paragraph from earlier version of article mentioning the Usenet presence. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: now mentioned at article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Nenu Meeku Telusa...?

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! 06:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The film's name has no dots [5]. Erroneous title. DareshMohan (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion: Per nom. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This redirect page was created on 13 December 2008, titled Nenu Meeku Telusa? and redirecting Nenu Meeku Telusa...?. Redirect page Nenu Meeku Telusa? was moved to Nenu Meeku Telusa...?, and article Nenu Meeku Telusa...? was moved to Nenu Meeku Telusa?, by round-robin history swap on 25 May 2023. But the film's title in IMDb is Nenu Meeku Telusa...? (dots included), which at least can be seen as an alternative name of this film. So this redirect page should be kept, and Template:R from alternative name can be added. --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did IMDb become RS? Please read WP:IMDB/RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:IMDB/RS, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources, applies to article writing, and, in my view, may not apply to redirect pages. A redirect page as an alternative name does not have to be found in reliable sources. An alternative name used in common databases (such as IMDb) is also acceptable to be a redirect page (see Wikipedia:Redirect: "Alternate forms of a name as found in reliable sources and common databases."). PS: "Nenu Meeku Telusa...?" (dots included) can also be found in timesofindia.indiatimes.com (see this), which I think is a reliable source. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Neo-Jay. Appears to be an uncommon alternative name but still one in use. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If a mistake gets repeated enough, I think that in general it makes sense to note that fact in redirect creation. It's not just a matter of what's described on the IMDB website itself, especially. There's this page as well as others making the same error online. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Neo-Jay and CoffeeWithMarkets. It's less that IMDb is an unreliable source and more that it proves that the alternative name/incorrect name is used in the wild. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 12:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_21&oldid=1198668753"