Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 12

June 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 12, 2024.

Orange star

Orange star → Orange Star (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to K-type main-sequence star per WP:DIFFCAPS and WP:PTOPIC: the star type is far more important and has more long-term significance. Cremastra (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig. There is no clear primary topic on Wikipedia, with both current and proposed targets being in use alongside Multiple working#First-generation. On Google there is a clear primary topic but it's plants not any of the preceding. Looking closer there are at least three different types referred to an Aglaonema, Ornithogalum dubium and a Hosta cultivar. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to ~~K-type main-sequence star~~ Stellar classification#Class K per WP:DIFFCAPS and WP:PTOPIC. For the plant names above... if the google hits Thryduulf mentioned qualify as WP:RS, then the information should be added, and Orange Star (with the title case) should be made into the disambiguation page (and a hatnote on the K-type main-sequence star should link to it). However, without the title case, I don't think the plant names would really count here, and capitalization matters. This is reliant on the google hits being reliable sources, however. Currently, closest mention is that Ornithogalum dubium says it is sometimes called a "sun star", not an orange star. Fieari (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether uses of a term are in reliable sources or not, only that they are used. In the case of most of the hits I have no idea if they are reliable or not (it's not a topic area I'm familiar with) however the Royal Horticultural Society is definitely reliable. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a matter of being a redirect directly to one of the flowers, I'd agree that a reliable source is not needed, just evidence of use... but for creating a user-facing disambiguation page, I'd think we do need a reliable source. (Please correct me if I'm wrong though, I try to be aware of wikipedia policy, but I don't know everything.) Certainly we'd need a reliable source to put it in the articles directly, and it would be flat-out weird to have a disambiguation page pointing to an article that didn't mention what the DAB says. Fieari (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've left at note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening. Hopefully editors there will be able to assist, although it doesn't give the opinion of being very active. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if this redirect is retargeted, it should point to Stellar classification#Class K as {{R from avoided double redirect}}, because K-type star redirects there. Because the title of the redirect is 'Orange star' and not 'Orange main-sequence star' or 'Orange dwarf', this could also refer to subgiant, giant or supergiant stars, so it should not specifically target K-type main-sequence star and should go to K-type star (or in this case where K-type star redirects). InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! I'll adjust my !vote above. Fieari (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I watch at the horticulture and gardening project, and I came here from Thryduulf's note. My impression is that the plant names, as common names, are not as useful as search terms as the Latin binomials, so I would go with retargeting the redirect according to the astronomy nomenclature, whatever that may be. It might be fairly common to refer to the Ornithogalum that way, but I think it would be somewhat atypical for Aglaonema, and downright bizarre for Hosta. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Lawrence

Doug Lawrence → Mr. Lawrence (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Per the page view comparison of the current target, the nominated redirect, and Doug Lawrence (jazz) (which I have since moved to Doug Lawrence (musician), which is now included in the page view analysis), it really does not seem as though readers searching "Doug Lawrence" are intending to locate Mr. Lawrence. I'd recommend disambiguate since it is not clear that readers are looking for the jazz musician either. Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate, especially as there is also a third person, Douglas Lawrence, who could/should be included on a dab page. This person is an organist, which might explain the "(jazz)" disambiguator. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...And Doug Lawrence (musician) moved to Doug Lawrence (jazz musician) because of this. I also updated the pageview analysis link to include the new title. Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...And Doug Lawrence (disambiguation) created, now that there are >2 possible targets; the page can be moved to the redirect's title if the consensus is to disambiguate. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French-speakers outside of Quebec

French-speakers outside of Quebec → Francophone Canadians (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 24 § French-speakers outside of Quebec – no consensus

The redirect has a different target than it had during the RFD in 2019, but still has the same problem: The redirect is not exclusive to Canada as there are French speakers around the world, like in ... France and Louisiana, neither part of Canada. Steel1943 (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Canadian French, "Francophones hors Québec" refers specifically to French speakers that live in a Canadian province or territory that is not Quebec.[1] It does not apply to those living in other countries. That being said, this is en.wiki, and I don't know if English-language sources use "French-speakers outside of Quebec" in this sense. 162 etc. (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the expression can be found in English-language Canadian publications, where the context makes the "elsewhere in Canada" meaning clear, it does not make much sense without that context, nor does it appear to be a widely used set expression that people might search for or link to. Indeed, there are no incoming links to this redirect. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it can be displaced/recreated to French-speakers outside of Quebec in Canada or French-speakers outside of Quebec (Canada) or Canadian French-speakers outside of Quebec -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnarock music

Ragnarock music → Heavy metal music (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer or identify. The closest subject I could find for this title is Ragnarock, but given that is an article about a record label whereas this redirect has seemingly always targeted a page about music genres, I do not believe readers would be trying to find the record label when searching the redirect's title. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ragnarok (disambiguation)#Music. Nurg (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ragnarok (disambiguation)#Music as per Nurg, seems like the most useful target BugGhost 🪲👻 11:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Beetlejuice sequel

Untitled Beetlejuice sequel → Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete per WP:UFILM. The target subject no longer untitled, and the article was moved to its current title in February 2024, 4 months ago, which is greater than WP:UFILM's 30-day minimum. Steel1943 (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once again the point of UFILM is not that we wait exactly 30 days, but that we wait until the redirects have ceased being useful (30 days being the bottom end of the typical range of time when that occurs). In this case it's still being used on more days that it isn't indicating that the redirect still holds value and the nomination is premature. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<1 pageview average over the last 30 days seems like its utility has been passed now. And 4 months = 4 * 30 days, which is well over the minimum time established. Steel1943 (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also my reply above regarding page views. 12 views in 30 days is closer to minimal than the 27 you are claiming above, but double figure views spread pretty evenly through the 30 days strongly indicate utility. That it's been longer than the minimum time means nothing other than it's been longer than the minimum time, as I explained in the comment you are replying to (did you read it?). There is no maximum time - if it's useful (which the evidence shows it still is) then it should be kept, regardless of how long it's been. Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for validating that my page view claim contains factual information. Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GSK (talk • edits) 18:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. I see no valid reason for deleting and "someone finds them useful" is good enough for WP:R#KEEP. Delete it once the film is released or another is in production, when the redirect might cause confusion with the next film. Daask (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding revisiting this when "...another is in production...": That means this redirect should exist for an estimated average of almost 40 years!? I may no longer be able to care by then for multiple reasons. Steel1943 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Implausible search term.★Trekker (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence shows otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UFILM, no longer untitled post 30 days. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thryduulf's "it's useful to someone" argument, which is a valid keep reason. Fieari (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raisi

Raisi → Ebrahim Raisi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Raisi (disambiguation) → Ebrahim Raisi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

A quick explainer on the history of this redirect: Initially, Raisi had been a redirect to Raisi, Razavi Khorasan (an article about a tiny village). Later on, I moved the article to its present title, intending to disambiguate the base title. However, I then noticed that Raisi (disambiguation) already existed, so I made a request at WP:RM/TR, which was promptly fulfilled. Thus, Raisi became a dab page, with Raisi (disambiguation) a redirect to it. In the last chapter of this saga, IP user 2601:646:8003:6B20:894E:7841:319C:88CA redirected the page to Ebrahim Raisi, so the page Raisi (disambiguation) was automatically retargeted as well. However, since it has (disambiguation) in the title, it's eligible for deletion under G14 if kept as is.

I see two (or maybe three) options out of this strange pickle:

Firstly (and what I advocate), we could restore the dab page at Raisi, and retarget Raisi (disambiguation) to Raisi. This restores the previous status quo.
Secondly, we could have Raisi as a redirect to Ebrahim Raisi, and Raisi (disambiguation) be the dab page. I have at least two issues with this: firstly, that Ebrahim Raisi might not pass ten year test, despite his newfound fame due to his death. Plus, here's also the technical history of attribution when dabbing Raisi (disambiguation). However, if there's enough support for it, I could see this work.
Thirdly, and the option I'd oppose the most, we keep Raisi, speedy delete Raisi (disambiguation), and handle disambiguation via some sort of massive hatnote(s) on the article Ebrahim Raisi. The reason I'd oppose this so much is because the hatnote(s) would have to be enormous - the previous dab page had ten entries, plus one see also.

Anyways, yeah, this is complicated.

Duckmather (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1: Restore Raisi as a disambiguation page. Ibrahim Raisi was not primarily known by that name, so WP:DABPARTIAL applies. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think option 2 is best. The late president is certainly the primary topic here and most likely was even before his death. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2, even if the president doesn't hold that much power compared to the Supreme Leader, he is still the primary topic here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the hatnote on top of the village article is actually correct, and there is substantial ambiguity about what a toponym of "Raisi" means in Iran, we should keep a disambiguation list. The location of the list, whether at the base name or separately, depends on whether the average English reader strongly associates the term with the person. It looks like we already have articles about Heshmat Raisi and Ahmed Naser Al-Raisi, so this word is not uncommon in anthroponymy. I'd err on the side of caution and put disambiguation at the base name, and observe traffic patterns for a few months afterwards. If we see that the preponderance of readers go for the single person, then we go for the redirect. Because of the recent death of the proposed primary topic, there's obvious WP:Recentism here. --Joy (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just noticed that old content of the Raisi disambiguation page lists even more people, and has for a couple of years before this recent incident. [2] had no edit summary whatsoever and should have been reverted first. --Joy (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholid Diocese of Down and Connor

Roman Catholid Diocese of Down and Connor → Roman Catholic Diocese of Down and Connor (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unlikely misspelling of "Catholic" not commonly found in the world, or in comparable redirects to any other of thousands of diocese with articles in Wikipedia. BD2412 T 23:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Catholid is a common variant of Catholic. [3][4][5] Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ca: Is it really a "variant", or just a scanno/typo (e.g., [6])? Whatever it is, it's certainly not "common". For example, Newspapers.com gets about 70 million hits for "Catholic" and 11,000 for "Catholid", but almost all of those are immediately apparent as scannos. BD2412 T 01:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. The examples I cited appear to be errors. However, I think it is still a realistic misspelling since it can be also viewed as a missapplication of the suffix -id. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this is a bit of stretch, so I am crossing out my earlier keep; weak delete. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unlikely typo, and per WP:PANDORA. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this is a single-character typo that is literally right next to the 'correct' letter on the keyboard and thus satisfies the test of WP:RTYPO. In addition, WP:PANDORA should not be used; see User:Lunamann/Please, put Pandora back in the box. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be figuratively right next to the correct letter instead? In any case, this article title has 35 letters on it. A typical letter on a QWERTY keyboard has on average, roughly 5 adjacent other symbols (not including the space bar here). That means that there are about 2910383045673370361328125 possible one-letter-off typos for this article title alone. This one only exists because someone happened to make it when creating the article before it got moved, leaving a redirect in its wake. It's thus not a useful redirect. And RTYPO even says "This page describes some past practices; it does not prescribe mandates for the future." There's no real need to keep this; it just pollutes article space and the search bar. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be figuratively right next to the correct letter instead?
....What?
2910383045673370361328125 of possible one-letter-off typos for this article title alone
This is irrelevant as per WP:OTHERSTUFF; pointing out how many "similar redirects" can be made does not and cannot be a measure of how useful a redirect is. (This is also simply a restated WP:PANDORA argument, so User:Lunamann/Please, put Pandora back in the box still applies.)
RTYPO even says ""This page describes some past practices; it does not prescribe mandates for the future.""
It's still what I feel to be the most relevant test we have considering the only thing wrong with this redirect is that it is a single letter off. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the IP. When you have this long of a title, a single-character typo becomes less useful, especially for something where you switch hands from the previous character (OLI are on the right hand, and then you switch to left for C/D). It's not like United Stated, where the error is at the end of nine letters all typed by the same hand, and thus more likely to make. It's also not like "Cath0lic", where the characters are both adjacent and somewhat similar in appearance. Also, because it's so much longer, probably many people visiting this article will copy/paste the title from somewhere else, unlike my contrary examples, which are short enough that almost everyone would just type them. Finally, check the dictionary for "literally"; it contrasts with "figuratively", which wouldn't make sense here, so you didn't need "literally" at all. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a turn of phrase, idk why y'all are getting so hung up on my use of the word 'literally' x3 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That same dictionary also lists "literally" as a synonym of "really", or "actually". The word literally helps to place emphasis on one's words. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plausible typo as demonstrated by Ca above, which makes it a valid redirect. I likewise reject pandora arguments, as redirects are WP:CHEAP. The questions should be "Is this ambiguous? Is it harmful? Will it cause confusion? Is it implausible?" and the answer is no to all. Fieari (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IRC +10414

IRC +10414 → IRC −10414 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Procedural listing; a previous RfD was closed with a consensus to retarget, but InTheAstronomy32 has reverted this. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a misspelling. I changed the redirect target because i believe that 'IRC +10414' is a misspelling of IRC -10414 and is the better redirect target so far. An article about this star likely will be never created due to notability issues. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Two-Micron Sky Survey per previous RFD. IRC +10414 refers to this star, not IRC -10414, which is this star. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was never an article, and it isn't mentioned at either target. No pageviews in the last month. I really don't see how this redirect is helpful. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with Presidentman here and Kusma from the prefious RfD, but I'd like to add that the naming scheme of the star is very intentional (from Two-Micron Sky Survey: index consists of two numbers - declination rounded to multiplier of 10 degrees, with sign, and star ordinal number within declination band) and if you typo the sign you should expect to be taken to a different star or nowhere. ― Synpath 23:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per the consensus of arguments in the previous RfD, which I find more compelling than the alternatives. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not mentioned at Two-Micron Sky Survey, and people looking for the other star and making the typo might believe that the star actually doesn't have a standalone article, while a red link can be more indicative of them having made a typo. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it isn't a usable misspelling since it is a different star. That star is not currently in Wikipedia. so either stub up an article, or delete the redirect -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metal (group)

Metal (group) → Heavy metal music (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Could also refer to subtopics of Chemical element or Periodic table. However, I'm thinking the best course of action is delete since I do not believe retargeting this redirect to Metal (disambiguation) is a feasible resolution since there doesn't seem to be sufficient entries there that relate to this redirect, and I'm not sure if they belong there either. Steel1943 (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I...probably agree? I'm not entirely sure what this redirect is supposed to be alluding to. Do they mean "metal group" in the same way you'd allude to a heavy metal music band as a "metal band"? If that's the case, the disambiguation of it makes no sense. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revising to Delete. As mentioned below, it looks like this was simply a WP:BLAR that was a quick-fix for eliminating a bogus article many years ago. Sergecross73 msg me Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like the page started as a joke article. It's too ambiguous to be redirecting anywhere. Nurg (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are too many interpretations for Metal (group). They could be looking for a specific metallic group in the periodic table (such as Alkali metal aka Group 1 element), or under the misconception that metals are themselves a group in the periodic table. They may be looking for heavy metal bands in general, or for a specific band called "Metal" that does not have an article yet. To vague to have a redirect to anywhere specific BugGhost 🪲👻 11:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ambiguous, especially due to the unique relationship this word has with 'group' in varying contexts. No good section at Metal (disambiguation) either. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 18:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For what it's worth, the only band named just "Metal" (and not "metal" plus other words) is from Australia, they started in 2006, released an album in 2013, and... that it. It's even unclear if they're still active or not. In any case, they will likely not pass the threshold of notability. It may have also meant "Group (metal)", as in "heavy metal band" ("Grupo" is sometimes used in Spanish to talk about rock bands, but although that word translates to English as "group", that specific meaning does not). If that was the idea, it was so badly written that it is useless as a redirect. Cambalachero (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

बालवीर

बालवीर → Baalveer (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

A redirect in Hindi language, I don't think anyone is going to search Baalveer in hindi on English Wikipedia. M S Hassan (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom's rationale. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the Hindi name for a Hindi television series, so there is sufficient affinity that this is not a straightforward WP:RFOREIGN case. Whether it useful though, I'm undecided. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is definitely a useful redirect. I don't see any reason to delete it. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is unambigous and directs readers to the correct location. Many people use Wikipedia in Hindi-speaking countries. They may have forgotten the correct romanization in English. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ca Baalveer is a simple name and easy to remember in its romanized form. Given its straightforward transliteration, it's unlikely that users will forget its English spelling. Additionally, this article exists on Hindi Wikipedia, which caters to users searching in Hindi script. Therefore, maintaining a Hindi script redirect on the English Wikipedia seems redundant and unnecessary. M S Hassan (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wp:rlang says it's fine if something is notable in and/or originates from any given language are fine to keep so for example, "brasil" is a perfectly usable redirect to brazil, as that's its name in whatever language brazil uses, but Брази́лия wouldn't be as fine, since it's in a completely unrelated language (in this case, russian). so keep per that cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Michael Aarons

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete (G6) as unambiguously created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Michael Aarons → Michael Aarons (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Created by a user that seems to have a WP:COI for the redirect. It was moved from a user page to the Wikipedia page, then to the mainspace page where it now sits. reppop^talk 06:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per nom. G6 would have worked here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not the first person to move a page to the Wikipedia namespace when attempting to move it to the article namespace, I would be amazed if they were the last. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2024 (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).

Bible Videos

Bible Videos → List of films of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Bible Videos (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

List of films of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Bible Videos doesn't seem like the appropriate target for such a broadly-named redirect. ~Awilley (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: when you search "Bible Videos" in Wikipedia the first entry was the List of films of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article, the other article that would make sense under this redirect was BibleProject, but this is an organization, and yes they make Bible videos too but they are less popular than the Church makes and they separate them as "Old Testament" and "New Testament", and not "Bible Videos", in their YouTube channel description, they dont say they make "Bible Videos", but "free resources to help you experience the Bible". Furawi (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget - The sole source for the List of films of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Bible Videos section refers to the videos as "Life of Jesus Christ Bible Videos". Bible Videos in my view should redirect to Christian media#Film and television, which is the closest generalised topic I could find, but I don't feel too strongly either way. BugGhost 🪲👻 09:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the below replies I think Thryduulf's 2nd suggestion of "make Bible videos a disambiguation page that includes List of films of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Bible Videos, The Bible in film, List of films based on the Bible, and similar articles, and then point Bible Videos to Bible videos" is the best option. BugGhost 🪲👻 09:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add a hatnote. I was very surprised to find that the current target is the clear primary topic when googling for "Bible Vidoes" -Wikipedia but it is. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought some more about this, I think my preference would be to make Bible videos a disambiguation page that includes List of films of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Bible Videos, The Bible in film, List of films based on the Bible, and similar articles, and then point Bible Videos to Bible videos. It simply doesn't seem right to me to imply that the LDS Church has a monopoly on producing bible videos, and I think the redirect would surprise any readers who happen to follow it. My second preference would be to retarget Bible Videos to List of films based on the Bible which could include a link to List of films of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Bible Videos.
@Thryduulf: I too am surprised to see the LDS Church's webpage as the #1 result for a Google search for "bible videos" but I think we can do better than following Google's blind algorithm. ~Awilley (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per above. The LDS have apparently done some really effective SEO here, but speaking as a former Christian, I'm pretty darn sure that "bible videos" is a generic term for any Christian or other religious media that tries to depict a story from the bible, or is a video taped sermon/lecture/bible study. Fieari (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguate. keeping would feel like if "music video" redirected to iosys, or if "fast food" redirected to mcdonald's. there's really no point in redirecting a basic concept like this to a single entity cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 02:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify as per Thryduulf. While it's true that Google points to the LDS as "primary", that's something I find baffling-- Surely at the very least Veggietales or The Prince of Egypt or any number of other mainstream, more-generally-Christian videos and films would be primary over the Mormon videos. The lists Thryduulf grabbed have links to those films and more. Good work! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]