Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vaticidalprophet (talk | contribs) at 11:34, 21 March 2024 (→‎Clinistrip: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

March 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 21, 2024.

Template:R from subtitle

I'm concerned that this rcat redirect is ambiguous. The term subtitle seems likely to be thought of as referring to a subtitle on its own, but it's clear from previous discussion on the redirect's talk page that - when it was created - this rcat-redirect was intended for use on pages with titles in the form Title: Subtitle. The ambiguity is shown from this rcat's incorrect referencing in comments during RfDs for Outdoor Retreat (2017 discussion) & Animal Parade (2022 discussion), other comments made on the redirect's talk page, and the 20 redirects from a subtitle on its own that are tagged with this rcat-redirect.

This ambiguity is problematic, as it means that redirects from subtitles on their own are being tagged as more specific versions of the target names; when the opposite is likely true. Because of this, and because the rcat {{R from subtitle}} can plausibly refer to both a title-subtitle combination and a subtitle on its own, I propose that it is deleted. (I noticed that there was talk-page discussion on the possibility of this becoming an rcat of its own - however, if desired, something similar could still be achieved with [e.g.] {{R from full name}}, which wouldn't have the same issues regarding ambiguity.)

If consensus is found to delete this redirect, I propose that the redirects currently tagged with {{R from subtitle}} have that rcat replaced with {{R from full name}} (with the exception of the redirects at this list, which I propose have the rcat replaced with {{R from incomplete name}}). I also propose that Template talk:R from subtitle is marked as {{G8-exempt}}, due to containing discussion that may be useful for reference (& potentially for future rcats).

Let me know if there are any queries. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 09:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Note: Notified the participants of the previous talk page discussion about this RfD, in addition to the talk pages of this redirect's current & previous targets. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 10:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and deprecate. The redirect should be moved to template:R from title and subtitle (categorised under {{R from full name}} if desired) with correct uses migrated there. If the incorrect uses should use a new template:R from subtitle alone (or some similar name) (created as a redirect if separate categorisation is not currently desired). The current title should note that it is deprecated in favour of the two more specific options. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects are cheap, and I don't find this confusing. Additional redirects can be created to cover the other cases. BD2412 T 16:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with editor BD2412 that this has not been a source of confusion up to now. Problematic ambiguity (good catch btw, editor ASK) can be easily fixed as noted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paine Ellsworth: With respect, I'd disagree that there hasn't been any confusion up until now - in my opinion, the talk page discussion shows that there was confusion about the meaning of this rcat-redirect from at least 2015. The incorrectly tagged redirects also show that multiple editors using this rcat-redirect have been confused regarding its intended application. Unless there's something I'm missing (please tell me if there is), without this redirect either being deleted or (as Thryduulf suggests) moved and deprecated, I don't see how problems arising as a result of the ambiguity can be easily fixed: from what I can see, it would require someone to continuously check Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:R from subtitle for any redirects that don't match the target rcat - at which point, why not just have the other (non-ambiguous) rcats/rcat redirects for editors to choose between? All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 11:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course like editor BD2412 wrote, I meant that it's not been much of a source of confusion for myself. I do remember some back and forth on the talk pages about it, and I guess the editor who was actually going to turn this redirect into an rcat template in its own right never got around to it. Lot's involved with that, and it apparently was low on the priority list. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I actually just fell for this one now. The name is definitely ambiguous; I interpreted it as categorising redirects that are solely made up of a subtitle, which I see now is incorrect. Loytra (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thought, I vote to move and deprecate, per Thryduulf. Loytra (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 05:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cum gutter

Besides being a tad bit speechless, this is a term that is (obviously) not mentioned anywhere as an alternative name, as it is (obviously) not mentioned anywhere at the target page or on Wikipedia* due to colloquiality. *Or at least, besides M Lamar but that would likely not be a great retargeting option. The plural is also located at Never Ricking Morty, with an associated wiktionary, apparently. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corgidor

No mention of this particular crossbreed at the target article. There are a good number, but without any information about "Corgidors" in particular, I'm afraid this redirect will be of little use for people seeking information about them. Searching for corgis in general, this article does a great job, but for corgidors, Wikipedia has nothing to offer not just on this page, but there are no mentions of "Corgidors" anywhere on Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Redlink - Corgidors appear to be a potentially notable topic based of a very brief google search. If wikipedia currently has no information on them, then the redirect should be redlinked to encourage potential article creation. If said information is added to the Corgi article instead of making a new article, then the redirect can be recreated with a link to the proper location at that time. Fieari (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conan.xxx

There is no mention of this particular Conan sketch at the target article (anymore), as far as I'm aware, making this an unhelpful redirect for people looking for this topic and not finding anything, especially with there no longer being an anchor to jump to. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commie block

I would have expected this sort of title to match targets with Communist block, although this particular one has been a redirect to urban planning related articles since 2005. To me though, with no mention of "commie block" or "communist block" at the article in question, I'm unsure if this is the most helpful target out there. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Communist block - Principle of least surprise. I don't think anyone is going to use this term searching for urban planning... this is clearly just a casual shortening of communist to commie. Fieari (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Isn't "commie block" specifically slang for a khrushchevka? HappyWith (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy by the Numbers

No mention of "Comedy" at the target article, and no mention of "numbers". At the time of it's creation, this page was a redirect to McSweeney's Books, before crossing over to avoid a double redirect. I presume that the McSweeney's Books page cropped up again in the subsequent year, as it was alive and well with plenty of time to get hit by a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McSweeney's Books deletion closure, which I can't see anymore as the new page only has one edit worth of history. In any case, readers searching for this particular book will likely be disappointed with the page for the publisher, only to search to no avail for the book in question. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comazant

This is supposedly another name for this fire. I could not find any evidence of this externally. Onwiki did not particularly help, as not only is this title not mentioned at the article, it is also not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia! I did a search and almost all my results were for "Comozant"; gave this a look on Wikipedia and got nothing. From there I refined my search to just "Comazant", and the only thing I got for all of the first page of my search engine was Comazant being the publisher of a book titled "Captured" by India Blake. Nothing about the fire. And at the end of the day, with zero mentions on Wikipedia including at the target, this title would not be helpful to readers who are left confused about the relationship between St. Elmo's fire and Comazant, as no connection is established between them. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Appears to be a misspelling of comozant, which is apparently a D&D monster made of St. Elmo's fire. Implausible search term, and violates WP:LEAST regardless (if I was searching for comozant, I'd probably be wondering if the D&D monster was lifted from real mythology and want info on that... lacking real mythology, I'd probably expect a list of D&D monsters). Fieari (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cockeranian

This is a dog breed that was redirected at AfD and retargeted to the page it is at today, however it does not talk about anything related to cockerians. It would be very hard to do so, as this page does not mention cockeranians. As an extension, NO page on Wikipedia mentions "Cockeranians", as it doesn't appear anywhere on the site, not even List of dog crossbreeds! Currently this is not a helpful redirect for people that look up information for this specific dog breed. People that wanted information on all dog breeds would instead search for Dog breed and click on a link to Dog crossbreed instead. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal fragments

The word "fragment" is never mentioned at the target article. Came into existence as a carbon copy of an already existing piece of content, and then redirected back into the page that it copied content from. Without a definition, and/or a use of this term anywhere at the target, this redirect leaves readers much to be desired and without an answer to the question of "what is a coastal fragment and how is it related to the page I've been taken to that doesn't discuss coastal fragments". Utopes (talk / cont) 04:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closet Killer

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Apparently tagged as R from Meme, but this topic is not currently addressed at the target of Paramount Television, nor is it addressed anywhere on Wikipedia, besides one page, being Alex Burger (screenwriter), which already has a lot of problems due to the 49 external links in that article's body. At the end of the day, with no mention at Paramount Television this redirect offers zero enlightenment to readers. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clorinda (Once Upon a Time)

No mention of a "Clorinda" among the characters in Once Upon a Time; currently exists as an unhelpful and confusing redirect that does not support readers searching this term. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clinistrip

Clinistrip is not mentioned at the target article. It is only mentioned twice on Wikipedia, both times saying that it was "brand also known as Clinistix". As it so happens, "Clinistix" is also not mentioned at the target article. The only mentions of Clinistrip on all of Wikipedia are at Chemical test and Urinalysis. Clinistix is only mentioned at Urinalysis and Helen Murray Free, credited specifically with Clinistix. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Holy {{R with history}}, Batman! According to the history page, there's been an attempt to write an article here that goes all the way back to 2005. That said, despite quite a few editors making their marks on this article, none ever actually dug up any sources. The page was BLAR'd without discussion in September 2023 by user:Vaticidalprophet, tagging it as an R from merge... except it wasn't a merge, as no information on Clinistrips ever ended up being added to Blood glucose monitoring. (user:Christian75 would later remove the R from merge tag and add R with history and R without mention.)
It doesn't look like the tool you used to tag the redirect for RfD notified most of these editors. Will be going through and leaving them all notifications. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha -- "without discussion" is a tiny bit of an exaggeration. This was discussed on WT:MED as part of a project to handle longstanding unsourced articles (there's slightly more context than is just alluded to there, per WAID's link to the village pump discussion). WAID first suggested it should probably be redirected and have any usable information merged, and I agreed with this after looking at it alongside several of the other articles. I don't remember why I tagged it for merging then never actually merged anything, but from context presumably "because the content in the article at the time wasn't usable, and I intended to search more and never actually did". I was more focused (per the linked convo) on Undervirilization, which is closer to my usual editing areas and seemed more improvable if I ever did work on the core Virilization article. Vaticidalprophet 11:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Click (Jake Miller song)

No song called "click" is mentioned at the target article, nor anywhere in Jake Miller's onwiki discography pages, among which is Jake Miller discography, without mention there either. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chucking a browneye

Very ironically to the previous nomination, "Chucking" nor "Browneye" are mentioned at the target article. Obviously no mention anywhere on Wikipedia for this phrase. Currently confusing without mention and unhelpful to readers as to what/why this term is what it is. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Chucking a browneye" is idiomatic Australian English for the act of "mooning". See, for instance, [5][6][7]. The rcats present on the redirect are correct; I've added Category:Australian slang. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckie Brown

No mention of "Chuckie" at the target article, or a "Brown" outside of Bobby Brown. Not currently a helpful redirect due to no mention as to who this person hypothetically is. "Chuckie Brown" is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia.

This has been a redirect here since 2004, all the while that Chucky Brown exists separately to this. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chat Control 2.0

No mention of anything indicative of a "2.0" at the target page. The target mainly talks about Chat Control from a singular-usage standpoint, which Chat Control currently exists as a redirect too. External searches has led me to believe that "Chat Control 2.0" is a different piece of legislation entirely, which shares similarities to this one. Without any dedicated content, however, this redirect does not appear very useful. (No mention of "Chat Control 2.0" anywhere on Wikipedia by the way). Utopes (talk / cont) 03:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, things found in external searches refer to the same thing using the added "2.0" in the name, but such naming has mainly been used by activists (e.g. by EU Pirate Party) and such sources have not been cited on the article. Such activists refer to a separate earlier legislation as "Chat Control 1.0" (still a topic as legislators debate extending it, and originally referred to it simply as "Chat Control"), hence the added 2.0, while the sources WP has cited don't talk about the earlier legislation with such naming, and drop the 2.0 when labeling the newer. The older "1.0" legislation was adopted in July 2021 but was/is time-limited, the 2.0 legislation was inspired by it and sought to make it more permanent and to take further steps.
It seems good to cover the naming so that readers know what the labels refer to and have been used for, but there's no real coverage on it. Also, I'm unsure what sources would qualify. --JoelKP (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central Food Hall

No mention of a "Hall" at the target article in capacity, much less a "Food Hall", even much less a "Central Food Hall" no less. Currently not a helpful redirect to a target that is already twinkle-tagged to the brim, even after securing an illustrious central title. Has a couple other unmentioned redirects too from a presumably removed section. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Tops Supermarket as an avoided double redirect to Central Food Retail, which operates the brand, and remove the circular link that would result. Don't know what the "securing an illustrious central title" bit is supposed to mean; Central Group is simply the name of the subject. As for the article issues, those concerned may just want to revert the article to the last good version before the extensive COI edits on 24 January 2022. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was making an offhand comment about this topic being "central", I'm sure there's a lot of groups/food halls that are central but this just happens to be the central and it's actual name, yea. None of that actually matters to the RfD so I've now strucketh, was interested in the central organization topic/idea. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cellarman

No mention of a "man" at the target article, and by extension no cellarman either. Was created due to the existence of a wiktionary Wikt:cellarman page, but as this article has nothing to do with "person in charge of the alcoholic drinks", perhaps its more suitable to send this to the wiktionary page itself. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UNiCeF

Delete. I can find no reason for the existence of this redirect. It has no incoming links, the article doesn't use this capitalisation, it's not how the logo is styled (nor, per [8] has ever been styled). It was created without a summary as the only edit the creator made that day (and they haven't edited since 2022). I've tried looking on Google, but as that's case insensitive it's of no help at all. Thryduulf (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bound Rogue

"Bound Rogue" is apparently a Beast Wars character, which is not mentioned at the target article, nor is it mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Currently exists as a confusing, unnecessary, and unhelpful redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bitness

The suffix of "ness" does not appear at the target article, and by extension neither does "Bitness". Without a definition this term does not currently feel like a great fit as a redirect. "Bitness" has mentions across wikipedia in various scenarios, and also a Wikt:bitness entry, but perhaps staying on WP-side is more preferable for this term. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bingus

This wiwwle bingus is nowt menshuned at da tawget awticul, nowr on any othew wiwibebia awticuls :(

Besides List of names for the Volkswagen Type 1 and Artista Academy, as partial title matches. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best blond joke ever

I can next-to-guarantee that this is not the best blond(e) joke ever, mainly because it would be present at the article, and it is not! Nothing about a "best joke ever" is at the target, which instead talks about the category of jokes as a whole, and not likely to be a plausible search term. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benevolent Rectangle

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The title "Benevolent Rectangle" does not appear at the general article for Paramount Television, nor at Paramount Television Studios where it used to point. That is because "Benevolent Rectangle" is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, and is currently not a helpful or useful redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Google confirms that this is apparently a term used to describe a particular historical variant of the Paramount Television logo, in use from September 1968 to December 20, 1969. All their logo designs apparently have cute nicknames. I see this as being an unambiguous target as nothing else seems to be called a "benevolent rectangle", and the fact that it's not mentioned in the article is irrelevant-- it's a bit too trivial for wikipedia inclusion, but redirects are WP:CHEAP, and anyone using this as a search term is not going to be surprised at where it takes them, so it passes WP:LEAST. Inclusion in the article text is not a hard requirement for a redirect's existence. It's only a weak keep because I don't think this is going to be a common search term, as, again, anyone using it likely already knows what it refers to... but it's harmless and unambiguous, and that's enough to not touch it for me. Fieari (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beam attack

The word "beam" is not mentioned at the target article. Was tagged with "R from meme" during the page's February 2024 creation, but no indication of a meme is talked about at Kirby: Planet Robobot. Happens to be one letter off of Bear attack, but perhaps there's other targets? Or deletion, I think. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as broad and ambiguous with no good target: the term "beam attack" is used by MANY different video games and works of scifi, animated, live action, or otherwise. I think it's likely too broad for even a disambiguation page. I suppose theoretically an article could be created about the concept of beam attacks as used in many, many works of fiction, but that's an even better reason to delete this redirect. Incidentally, I believe the meme in question, which is not and need not be mentioned anywhere on wikipedia as it really isn't notable, is an animated gif of Kirby eating a bunch of said beam attacks. Fieari (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fieari is incorrect in that the meme is this. That said, they ARE correct in that'd there are about a billion different "beam attacks" in various different games, not all of them videogames (D&D comes to mind.) Not to mention the fact that this meme is not mentioned at the target. Send it to Redirect Heaven. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bea and Ivy

Unmentioned comic strip. The two people involved, "Bea" and "Ivy", are mentioned zero and one times at the target, respectively (Ivy's only being in passing). The character "Bea" is in reference to a sister of Dennis the Menace, and because this is split between Bea and Ivy the Terrible, this appears to be an WP:XY situation during the lack of a source for the comic strip in the history, and there isn't currently a target that discusses both characters to my understanding (only two incoming links are from Bea's article, and Ivy's article). Utopes (talk / cont) 02:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antiscarp

A term not mentioned at the target disambiguation page. In an effort to possibly boldly retarget, I confirmed that "antiscarp" was not mentioned at any of the pages listed at the dab. It was not. I searched onwiki for any mentions of "antiscarp", and the only related definition I could find was two pages that said "antiscarp, or an uphill-scarplet". Great! So I just have to target antiscarp to wherever scarplet points! I search that, and "scarplet" is an unmentioned redirect to the same disambiguation page. No use of "scarplet" at any of the linked pages either. Basically, this is a circular cross-definition of scarplet and antiscarp, only used to refer to each other, point at the same disambiguation, and are unmentioned everywhere else on Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Crosswiki to wiktionary - [9] is more useful than anything we currently have on wikipedia, I think. Google also says that antiscarp is the name of a record label, presumably a small non-notable one. If it becomes notable, the wiktionary link could become a hatnote. Fieari (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Androgum

This is a creature / alien that is not discussed at the target page for list of creatures and/or aliens in the Dr Who franchise. We have nothing dedicated to this topic apart from mentions on three various Dr Who pages, none of which seem eager to pull this redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alma (TV series)

This is a TV series that is not mentioned at the target list of programming, and would be unhelpful for searchers of this term to show up to a page where their initial search query has no suitable answer. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alley of Angels

This is a page that went to AfD twice. It was deleted in 2022 afd, recreated, and redirected very shortly after in 2023. Neither the word "alley", nor the word "angel" appears at the target article. There is nothing about this monument at the target (no mention of "monument"), and the phrase "Alley of Angels" appears nowhere on all of Wikipedia.

There is, however, a page called Angels' Alley, and an associated Angels' Alley (disambiguation) page. Both of these are much better options than an r without mention for a title with no clear or established in-article-relationship to the war it is pointed at. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If the consensus is for the article to be deleted and there is no actual article mentioning the subject, to where the reader might be redirected, I see no good reason to keep this as a redirect. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cinderella and nom. There was clear consensus to delete in the first AfD and rough consensus to do it in the second one, and I disagreed with the close to redirect back then as well. The redirect basically only serves as a place for pro-Russia soapboxing on its talk page now. HappyWith (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sultanate of Morocco

A more helpful redirect would be to History of Morocco. Morocco's heads of state are presently maliks, not sultans. asilvering (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. "Sultanate of Morocco" is very vague, so a general article like History of Morocco is the best bet. R Prazeres (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom --Lenticel (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: This is plausible search term for multiple subjects, including the Alawi dynasty and List of rulers of Morocco, which were at one time sultans. I say include History of Morocco as another listed item in such a disambiguation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Pbritti, if the reader is searching for this term they are presumably not searching for modern Morocco, but it's open to what they would actually be searching for. CMD (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EasyEnglish

Delete. This is a former article that was unsourced and was sent to AfD. It was merged into Wycliffe Bible Translators (the article now moved to Wycliffe USA), but later, in my opinion rightfully, the content was removed. The term is mentioned nowhere on Wikipedia except passively in the article Michael Raiter (which has its own set of problems). –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 23:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over study buddies for international students in China

Unlikely search term that is a bit generic and may or may not refer to Shandong University. LibStar (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Looking at the page history, it appears that the former contents of that page got merged into the final sentence of Shandong University#Recent history (1980–present), after it got PRODded yesterday (see this version of the page). Not sure off the top of my head what the protocol for this situation is, but I suppose that knowing the context may be of some use for this discussion. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm the editor who originally PRODded the article, and I still think there should not be an article on this, for the reasons I stated there (it's not an encyclopedic topic, just a one-off event). I agree with the nominator that even if this content is preserved somewhere else, the present redirect is not a likely search term. The only reason I can see for keeping it is to avoid breaking incoming links, but there are very few of those anyway (few enough that it would be trivial to manually fix them), and most of them are just see-alsos in articles with no more than a vague relationship to this one.
    My only caveat is that almost-blanking the page and then deleting the redirect might be seen as having sneakily deleted the article while circumventing AfD. Deleting the article is the outcome I favor anyway, but I can understand if others might see this as unfair. 2001:49D0:8511:2:61FD:D141:8697:4A7F (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If both PROD and BLAR are contested then the content should be restored and sent to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and ship to AfD as per Thryduulf. There's a sneaking suspicion that we have a cold front coming in, looking at the article, but if it's contested, then I do think the contest should be given a proper arena. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or restore?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine target to Shandong University#Recent history (1980–present) - Content exists on wikipedia, target is unambiguous, I see no reason to delete this WP:CHEAP redirect. If I saw the original article at AfD, I'd suggest redirecting it to here anyway. Not article worthy, but a sentence or two in the main article is fine, and a redirect to it is likewise fine. Fieari (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_21&oldid=1214821125"