Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 10

< July 9

July 11 >

July 10

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 10, 2021.

MHA (Japanese anime series)

• MHA (Japanese anime series) → My Hero Academia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think this is an unlikely search term because if someone was looking for the series, I doubt they would know it was abbreviated as "MHA" and not know the full name. And even if they did, they would probably just see the link at MHA instead. Link20XX (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete even if they didn’t just use MHA they would far more likely use MHA (anime) as a search term.--70.24.249.16 (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Baltz

• Stephen Baltz → 1960 New York mid-air collision  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Baltz – keep

Redirect name is not mentioned anywhere in the target article, though it had been before. Not likely to be searched as he has no notability besides initially surviving the collision. 108.41.60.144 (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Restore and send to AfD. There was brief discussion about merging, but with just 2 comments in addition to the proposer (one support and one against) that's hardly a strong consensus. There also does not appear to be a clear consensus about whether to include or exclude a mention from the target based on the edit summaries, so a formal discussion about the article content seems more appopriate than one about the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Refugee Olympic Team

• Refugee Olympic Team → Refugee Olympic Team at the 2016 Summer Olympics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete to encourage article creation, and because there have been 2 Refugee Olympic teams: 2016 and 2020. As such, a generic article about the team could be created, and the redirect is misleading anyway Joseph2302 (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree, there should be a general article for Refugee Olympic Team that explains the team in general, with links to the specific years that have articles. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 13:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – Rather than deleting the redirect, could we not just convert it to a disambiguation page until such time that a general article is written? 142.161.113.242 (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

With Shhhnotsoloud's support, I'll say disambiguate too then. 142.161.113.242 (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Because having the DAB page there still discourages article creation- because it doesn't show as a red link on relevant articles, which is a good way to encourage the article creation. If I supported DABing, I would have just made the DAB page rather than creating this discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

A disambiguation page does not prevent it being overwritten by an article in future. Deletion to create a redlink is not an option because there are two ambiguous articles to which the title might refer, and no clear primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion to create a redlink is not an option because there are two ambiguous articles to which the title might refer There are 2 partial matches, and neither of these are the correct target for this redirect. WP:PARTIAL says that partial matches like these shouldn't be included on DAB pages, therefore a DAB page with 2 partial matches is wrong. What we need at some point is for a general summary article to be created. That article is more likely to be created if people see redlinks than if they see a blue link (which is a DAB page). Many users use redlinks in existing articles as a basis for creating articles, and so would not realise an article could/should be created. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Disambiguate (draft provided). There are two articles (currently) with this title. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Liquidmorphium alloy

• Liquidmorphium alloy → Liquidmetal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Liquidmorphium → Liquidmetal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I propose deletion of this redirect. According to this page history, this page was created after a company (calling itself at different times as Turing Space Industries and Turing Robotic Industries) claimed to develop a phone (Turing Phone) made out of this material. Supposedly, at the time the company did not elaborate what they meant by "Liquidmorphium alloy" and how they planned to manufacture it. Supposedly, later the whole project was canceled and some people who made preorders received low-scale production prototypes made out of plastic. Supposedly, there were very few phones manufactured and none of them ever used "Liquidmorphium alloy" or anything related to "Liquidmorphium" and Liquidmetal. Anton.bersh (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• So, Liquidmetal did discuss this term, but unsourced and seemingly parroting the claims you're talking about, so I just went ahead and removed it. That said, I still think we should keep this. Turing got a fair bit of press coverage (albeit not particularly high-quality coverage) over the liquidmorphium claims, so this remains a plausible search term. While an {{r without mention}} is less than ideal, the similarity of the names, and the fact that liquidmorphium was consistently described as a form of liquidmetal, makes Liquidmetal still a reasonable target. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 13:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for cleaning up Liquidmetal article. I think that keeping redirect from Liquidmorphium alloy to Liquidmetal is undue toward Liquidmetal because it is a miss-characterization of Liquidmetal. Simply put, according to Liquidmetal article, Liquidmetal and Vitreloy are commercial names of a series of amorphous metal alloys and there is no evidence that so-called "Liquidmorphium alloy" ever had any contracts with the owner of "Liquidmetal" brand name. Keeping the redirect would be propagating the mischaracterization. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

    I still see this as an acceptable {{r from brand name}}, even if there was shadiness involved. Redirects don't have to be neutral. Also, in light of bundling, my logic here applies to the new addition, so keep both. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 20:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. As the subject does not have existence beyond the 3 deleted Turing articles, this has to go too. Jay ^(Talk) 06:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Do the same for the Liquidmorphium redirect. Jay ^(Talk) 06:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Bundled. Jay ^(Talk) 20:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delete due to a lack of mention. If we keep this, it is an Easter egg at best, harmful at worst for someone searching this and coming to an incorrect or incomplete conclusion due to where they ended up. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since another redirect was added late to the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)