Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 1

June 1

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 1, 2024.

2023-24 Major Clubs Limited Over Tournament

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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023-24 Major Clubs Limited Over Tournament → Major Clubs Limited Over Tournament (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

2023–24 Major Clubs Limited Over Tournament → Major Clubs Limited Over Tournament (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete to encourage article creation, consistent with 2022–23 Major Clubs Limited Over Tournament. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Pretty common for these types of redirects to exist and there's nothing stopping someone from starting an article. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hey man im josh and the clear fact that this is a future rdr to a title with en-dash(es), like the 2023-24 FA Cup. By the way, the redlinked title the nominator brought up is to me what happens when info on this exist(s) at that/the time and is/are not documented here with sourcing. Just like the 2023–24 Ghana FA Cup, 2023–24 Samartex F.C. season and the 2024 Absa Cup articles which I'll create soon. Intrisit (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no information on the 2023–24 competition, so this is misleading and bound to disappoint readers. --BDD (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per josh, and tag em dash version with {{R with possibilities}}. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 20:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this recently created redirect to be consistent with the 2022-23 redlink per nom. Jay 💬 14:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ‡ ^edits 23:52, 1 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).

LATAM

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 LATAM Airlines. I will be reorganizing the hatnotes as well (non-admin closure) Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LATAM → Latin America (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention at target. Until some time back the target was LATAM Airlines which was decided as the priamry topic at this RfD 8 months back. The subject of Latin America didn't come up at the prior RfD, hence I figured this renomination is better than reverting the change by the IP who has also modified LATAM (disambiguation) to make Latin America the primary topic. Revert or agree with the new primary topic? Jay 💬 19:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget back to LATAM Airlines as the primary topic. No evidence the consensus from the previous RfD would have changed. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget back per Mdewman6. It does look like this is an accepted abbreviation for Latin America (especially in medicine), but the usage is too specialized for me to consider that the primary topic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I won't vote myself just yet, I'll note that the Latin America page does hatnote both to LATAM Airlines and LATAM (disambiguation). Keeping the redirect where it currently is wouldn't ruffle too many feathers. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was only added yesterday by the IP when they unilaterally changed the redirect. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ‡ ^edits 23:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert back to LATAM Airlines. Not only was there a recent RfD consensus that this was the primary topic, there is no evidence presented and no evidence I've found, that this has changed. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to LATAM Airlines as per all above. Y'all are right-- there was no reason for this change to have taken place, RFD has already weighed in on its target rightly being LATAM Airlines. And just like how I pointed out that there's currently a hatnote on the Latin America page pointing to LATAM Airlines, we can easily reverse the situation-- putting a hatnote on the LATAM Airlines page pointing to the LATAM disambig. In fact, after some quick digging, That's how it was before the IP account made this change. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:09, 3 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).

1930–31 Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball team

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to List of Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball seasons without prejudice to the restoration or creation of an article. Nominally no consensus between deletion and retarget, defaulting to retarget out of absence for support for the status quo and noting that both these options enjoyed considerably more support than restoring the article outright, which was not extensively debated. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1930–31 Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball team → Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirect should be deleted so editors know which seasons still need to be made, otherwise every season would be a redirect. poketape (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball seasons: It's a possibly useful redirect and the fact that redirects for all of the seasons haven't been created doesn't mean that this isn't useful. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note page history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ‡ ^edits 23:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looking at {{Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball navbox}}, blue links are articles, not redirects. 1930–31 is the odd one out, and gives the false impression that we have an article on it. Reywas92's edit summary while making the redirect said merge to main, but I don't see that a merge was done. Jay 💬 04:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore article. The "merge" (actually just a redirect) by Reywas92 was under the mistaken rationale that it was not an article. It seems like the actual reasoning would be due to a dispute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1979–80 Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball team, which was kept. Of course this article would need to be expanded, but something is better than nothing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Retarget per Hey man im josh, as the list of seasons was split off after I redirected the page. A merge was in fact already done because there was literally nothing to merge and the main article already had all the information this had (none but the duplicative infobox) but perhaps the summary could have been clearer. No, a single tautologial sentence is not an article and is not better than nothing, it's a disservive to readers. Reywas92^Talk 00:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In order for it to be a merge, some information from the article has to be moved to the new location. There is no evidence of that having been done before your redirection, so a merge was in fact already done is also incorrect. (The target at the time of redirection does not show any additional information for the 1930–31 season.) The page was tagged as a WP:STUB, which is explicitly defined as an article in the first sentence of the guideline (and elsewhere). -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the list per above. The dispute about whether this was merged versus BLARed and whether it was or was not an article is irrelevant now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it has nothing that is not already on the list and user will easily find the list without the redirect and we better havce a red link just in case someone wants to create a proper article. Restore is a second choice. - Nabla (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't feel that the previous article is worth restoring to at this point, and having the redirect around could be misleading per Jay. The red link may also encourage creation of another article that can be assessed against the notability guidelines. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Josh. The redirect is plausable, the rationale for deletion is not – if an editor would like to see redirects highlighted "for creation" there are wiki settings for that reason. Respublik (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To annote a potential argument on D10, it's my interpretation that the rule is mainly for DAB-able R, R typos, R misplellings, R usable synonyms/search terms, etc. that could have a double use, rather than for the super specific redirects that have only one target. Respublik (talk) 10:25, 15 July 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).

Wikipedia:Disney Jr.

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 as G6. The discussion of what name to give the target is at Talk:Disney Junior#Requested move 1 June 2024. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Disney Jr. → Disney Jr. (American TV channel) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Cross-namespace, Wikipedia project namespace redirect going to mainspace. Not needed, and apparent error. Not likely used by readers. Dank Jae 22:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh should Wikipedia talk:Disney Jr. also be included? Dank Jae 22:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse all moves, return article to Disney Junior, delete the WP: link, keep Disney Jr. as a redirect No discussion, no sources added on the new branding (as seen here in my edit comparison of the most current edit and my last edit last night reverting the logo change before all this happened), and most importantly, it's still sounded out as 'Junior' in the end and we're adding pointless parenthetical disambiguators for the purposes of Disney's branding guidelines, which isn't a thing we need to obey at all; this new name is a quick mention in the article (when proper and neutral sourcing is added) and a redirect at most. I loathe when clear warnings for sources which I asked for are ignored for pointless pagemoves like this so that a small group of editors try to curry non-existent favor with some branding manager at Disney who doesn't care at all. Nate • (chatter) 22:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are no longer relevant. Disney Junior officially shortened its written form name as Disney Jr. (while still pronounced it as Disney Junior), and one source already confirmed its rebranding from TVLaint. Additionally, their official social media accounts are started to replace its image and username with the new Disney Jr. logo, such as Instagram, on-screen logo, and DisneyNow app. Anyways, i agree to reverted the name provisionally as Disney Junior (due to undiscussed page move) as long as discussion regarding the page move remains ongoing (see Talk:Disney Jr. (American TV channel)), but you couldn't escape the fact that the channel has already rebranded despite your Oppose arguments with otherwise but unreasonable fact. Are you don't care about the rebrand? 2404:8000:1037:469:A9A7:4D3F:1051:4026 (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment makes no sense and sounds like some marketing push. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 23:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No offense to a Spanish-speaking source, but the channel is an English language American channel and 'tvlaint' (a site apparently focused on television in Latin America) is absolutely useless for a channel in the United States, and drafting off a Twitter account (also not allowed) for another PR source we disqualify, Nickandmore. I also didn't see said source added into the article, so ultimately it's all moot because you refuse to follow the most basic of WP:SOURCING guidelines. Nate • (chatter) 01:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Good point. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 23:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: I have tagged it for {{db-error}} (WP:G6) because the intended move was obviously to Disney Jr., not Wikipedia:Disney Jr. SilverLocust 💬 00:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Regardless of what happens to Disney Junior/Disney Jr., this redirect discussion is ultimately about the Wikipedia:Disney Jr. redirect, not about the rebranding-- that's a discussion that can take place on the talk page of the article. I normally see such "WP:name of a website/channel/news source/ect" redirects going to a given source's entry on WP:RSP (See WP:GENIUS et al;) but this is a children's television programming block that doesn't-- and shouldn't-- appear on the list, so there's no need to keep it for that. I will note by the way that the IP's argument makes sense and doesn't read like a marketing push to me; that said, they're also largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:33, 2 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).

Wikipedia:ALEXA

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 Regarget to Wikipedia:Amazon Alexa. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ALEXA → Wikipedia:Search engine test#Alexa ratings (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Just discovered Wikipedia:Amazon Alexa. Retarget this redirect there? Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Amazon Alexa, as the former Alexa product has been fully depreciated, though mention of the WP's former role should be made and hatnoted to Alexa Internet for clarification purposes. Nate • (chatter) 22:49, 1 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).

Matthew Hardwick

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 withdrawn by nominator. I did not see the football mention in the article when writing this. (non-admin closure) Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 19:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Hardwick → Matt Hardwick (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Ambiguous redirect; full name of DJ is shared with a football player for Sheffield Wednesday during the 1990s. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 19:30, 1 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).

The Mii Channel Theme

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. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mii Channel Theme → Wii Menu#Mii Channel (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

A redirect to info about the Mii Channel that doesn't have anything about music, so the redirect is useless. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking information. Thought about adding a mention, but I found no good source for it. Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:43, 1 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).

Propaganda bullhorn

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 refine to #Responses. Jay 💬 09:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda bullhorn → RT (TV network) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

PoV redirect (no matter how true it might be). Not a defining description of target article — Czello ^(music) 09:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, but not for the first issue raised by nom-- PoV redirects are okay as per WP:RNEUTRAL, because redirects are usually hidden from view. If someone holding a certain PoV were to use a term, and someone else wanted more information on what that term meant, we shouldn't face them with the search screen just because the term they want info on is PoV. No, the reason this redirect should be deleted is because it is vague as all hell-- I sincerely doubt RT is the only thing that could ever be described as a "propaganda bullhorn". There is the argument that it should be retargeted to somewhere else instead of deleted-- perhaps to an article that discusses the generalities of news sources as propaganda machines. If someone can find a good alternate target, I'll adjust my vote accordingly. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refine. to RT (TV network)#Responses. Lunamann is right that when they point out that being POV is not relevant, however they are wrong with the assumptions. While other things have been described as a "Propaganda bullhorn" the only thing to have been notably described as such is RT, I have to exclude "Russia" from Google searches to find other uses and every single use on Wikipedia is related to RT. So while this is in theory vague, in practice there is a very clear primary topic. There isn't, unfortunately, a single perfect target among the various mentions on en.wp. I think the one I've picked is best but I'm happy to hear arguments for alternatives. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Refine as per Thryduulf. That is a very good point, thank you for bringing that up-- I didn't know about John Kerry pinning this label on RT specifically, something mentioned in the proposed refine target. (Maybe I should've done my due diligence and searched the target article for mentions of this term? xP) Perhaps a hatnote at the top of the section ("Propaganda bullhorn redirects here, see also something something") would be a good idea, just to catch any that aren't looking for RT? I still remain unsure where to pipe said hatnote, though... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:15, 1 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).

British intelligence services

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 British intelligence agencies. Jay 💬 08:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British intelligence services → MI6 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Suggest a redirect to British intelligence agencies: the plural is unlikely to be used when a specific agency (MI6) is intended. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as per nom. The argument given makes perfect sense to me; MI6 stands for Military Intelligence, Section 6, while its alternate name, SIS, stands for Secret Intelligence Service, neither of which are plural. The proposed target is similarly sensible; I don't see enough of a difference between the term "service" and the term "agency" to argue that this redirect shouldn't go here. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom, this is referring to MI5, MI6, etc. generically or collectively not to any single agency specifically. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom, seems like common sense. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:50, 1 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).

List of canon law legal abbreviations

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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 08:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of canon law legal abbreviations → List of Catholic canon law legal abbreviations (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Misleading redirect: the target is only about Catholic canon law, and not about canon law in general.

Thus, I believe this redirect should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 08:25, 1 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).

Numbers (Mellowhype Album) "Numbers" (Mellowhype)

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 💬 08:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers (Mellowhype Album) "Numbers" (Mellowhype) → Numbers (MellowHype album) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This malformed title was only used for six minutes in 2012. I almost tagged with WP:G6, but I'm not sure if twelve-year-old redirects still fall into that criterion in practice. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and good call on not tagging it with G6. Either way, definitely not a useful redirect to have. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just because its old doesn't mean its useful given as noted it was only at this title for around 6 minutes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Delete per. Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an implausible search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:31, 3 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).

Hangkong

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 💬 09:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

No affinity for romanized Chinese. Mia Mahey (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:RLANG. There's an argument to be made that this should be retargeted to Hong Kong as a typo. I believe that said argument is wrong; there's two characters of difference between the redirect and "Hong Kong", which is beyond the scope of WP:RTYPO. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RTYPO is dependent on plausibility not number of characters difference. The two are frequently correlated but not synonymous. In this case there is no evidence that it is a common typo for (or other misspelling of) Hong Kong Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a number of things that use this in English but their all either non-notable, partial title matches, or both. Nanchang Hangkong University is by far the most common use of the word on en.wp but never alone. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the most plausible target would be Civil aviation in China. But deletion also seems reasonable. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Lunamann. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 20:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC) Retarget to Hong Kong. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 00:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheTechie @Lunamann is recommending deletion not retargetting, indeed they are explicitly opposed to retargetting. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're recommending to retarget, per my... argument to NOT retarget? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lunamann Sorry, looks like I got confused. Clarified. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 00:09, 2 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).