Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 31

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 31, 2021.

Fascism in Thailand

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 11#Fascism in Thailand

Theological definition (Catholicism)

[edit]

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 Dogma in the Catholic Church. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The expression is way too broad. Not every theological definition (as in "to define something") written by a Catholic theologian of Church Father was approved by the pope. Furthermore, not all dogmas and theological definitions the Catholic Church believes fall under papal infallibility, e.g. the dogmas proclaimed by the seven ecumenical councils (unless you are doing historical revisionism). I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 23:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Digital bank

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 11#Digital bank

Online-only bank

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 11#Online-only bank

Francium fluoride

[edit]

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 restore article and send to AfD. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target or anywhere else on the English Wikipedia. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence that any content was actually merged into Francium when francium fluoride was redirected on 3 December 2008, so it was really a WP:BLAR. So overall, this article was PRODed, DePRODed, tagged for merging to francium (without starting a discussion, however), then unilaterally blanked and redirected to francium. The old merge banner was added to the talk page years later. So I would restore the 30 November 2008 version of the article, remove the merge banner, and send to AfD to determine the best course of action. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be merged to electronegativity instead, considering the content of the stub, if it could be referenced. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Omar Baddar

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, an internet search suggests that Baddar is not primarily known for a role at this organization [1]. Delete unless a justification can be provided signed, Rosguill talk 18:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

China Insights

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft delete. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target; appears to have formerly been mentioned there, but removed following this edit. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rashaun O'Neal

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:PTM for Shaq because he does not use his middle name in any context. Searching the name primarily brought up a Bowling Green wide receiver (eg: [2][3] [4]). Therefore, someone searching this is going to want the football player, which we do not have an article on, so delete. -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While a search for his full name Shaquille Rashaun O'Neal is conceivable, he's not known by his middle name.—Bagumba (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

September 11, 2001

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ✗plicit 23:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget redirect from September 11 attacks → Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks for more information about the specific date. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 17:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Well Effect

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 7#Well Effect

Pronouncement of Lacy

[edit]

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. -- Aervanath (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of any pronouncement neither in the section the redirect leads to, nor in the rest of the article. Veverve (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Armenians

[edit]

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 Armenians in the Maldives, Retarget the rest to Armenian population by country. Thryduulf (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned on target page. Mass-created from a completionist agenda, but is just cruft. Geschichte (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Little Lights Free Education High School

[edit]

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 Revert and send to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not mentioned at target page. Though it was redirected without discussion, many Andra Pradesh schools have been deleted recently. Geschichte (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Computing power

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too generic to target something spectfic. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Literary canon

[edit]

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 Canon (basic principle). -- Aervanath (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Was previously nominated, but in a complex discussion about three redirects that only found consensus for what to do with the other two. This current target is too narrow and possibly a case of systemic bias, because the phrase "literary canon" is used by RSs to refer to many different literary canons: Slovene poetry, Ottoman literary canon, South African literary canon, Caribbean literary canon, Chinese literary canon, Thai literary canon, etc. I suggest retargeting to Canon (basic principle). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely 'classic book' means a single particularly notable example, whereas 'literary canon' describes an exemplary collection of classics? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can look at a literary canon as a collection of classic books. Regardless, Classic book is currently the only article with appropriate discussion of the topic. – Uanfala (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are multiple proposed targets and one of them has an ongoing AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Katherine Heyman

[edit]

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 Katherine Ruth Heyman. I will add hatnotes. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added an article for pianist Katherine Ruth Heyman, who some sources refer to without Ruth. I am unsure if this redirect should be retargeted to her with a hatnote that she's not to be confused with Kathryn Heyman, or if the redirect should be split to a disambiguation page RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Little Welnetham Priory

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. -- Aervanath (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was an article and later turned into a redirect and later moved to include "Priory". Google shows almost nothing for things like "Little Welnetham Priory" (only this redirect), "Little Whelnetham Priory" (1 result), "Welnetham Priory" (5 results) and "Welnetham Priory" (3 results, 1 being the redirect). There is mention here about a priory but it could be something else. I suggest either delete or add info in the village if its appropriate and did exist. This could be restored and sent to AFD if people aren't confortable about deleting at RFD. It is listed at List of monastic houses in Suffolk but unlike others it doesn't list any sources or coordinates. Others like Kersey Priory have been improved but its not clear if this one can, some like Edwardstone Priory are covered in their location. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see why it needs to be restored, if its not too controversial then I don't see why it can't be deleted at RFD instead of AFD? Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Because RfD does not and should not delete article content that does not meet a CSD criterion and/or has not been discussed at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? There's nothing at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion that says it can't. Can't the consensus at RFD be used like the consensus at AFD? I'd just trust the judgement of the closer. There are 3 outcomes with articles, option 1, the topic is notable and has its own page, option 2, the topic isn't notable but can be covered in another article and option 3, the topic doesn't even merit covering in a different article and should be deleted. In this case given the lack of coverage its unlikely 1 would apply so we can chose between keeping as a redirect and mentioning it at the target or deleting completely. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Because RfD is about assessing redirects and does not consider things like notability, reliability of sources, or other matters that are important at AfD so any consensus at RfD cannot be concluded to be reliable in that regard. Also, editors who may be knowledgeable about the topic or who know of relevant sources for an article will not be looking at the article at RfD (they rightly expect content discussions to be at the more watched AfD) so would be denying them the opportunity to express their opinion. This is not simply pointless bureaucracy that I've made up, it's been the standing operating procedure at RfD for as long as I've been here (well over a decade) for good reason. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a section in Little Welnetham about a Priory so the redirect makes sense as long as that section is in place. Crouch, Swale, are you challenging that section? For what it is worth, I am comfortable with deleting article content at RfD if there is consensus for it; editors at RfD are smart enough to tell if something is clearly not going to survive an AfD. I disagree with the bureaucratic assertion that article content must be deleted at AfD (and I have been attending RfD discussions for over a decade as well). I do see a misapplication of WP:BLAR though. If there is disagreement about the blank-and-redirect (ie: someone thinks it should be an article and someone thinks it should be a redirect), it is to be restored and taken to AfD. However, no one has put forward a case for having a stand-alone article on the subject. -- Tavix (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, silly me, I did searches on Google as well as HeritageGateway but didn't find the information in the article! Even though there is very little evidence of the actual name "Little Welnetham Priory" being used for that priory (which seems to be the one Heritage Gateway refers to) I guess its a reasonable search term for that priory so perhaps refine to Little Whelnetham#Priory per WP:CHEAP since that's again probably the same priory as the article was for but I'm not against deletion if others think its appropriate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is - a red to Little Whelnetham - not seeing the issue here at all. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Monika.chr

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 11#Monika.chr

Mobile-only bank

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 11#Mobile-only bank

Christmas parade

[edit]

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. Opinion was split between delete, move, retarget and keeping as is, and there was no consensus developing as the discussion progressed. Jay (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE per WP:REDLINK; as determined from the discussion on the talk page Talk:Santa Claus parade, this article is about Santa Claus parades and not Christmas parades in general. Therefore the redirect is misleading, and should be redlinked to encourage creation of an article on the general topics. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - At most only half of the parades discussed in the body of the Santa Claus parade article talks are actually named "Santa Claus parade". The rest have various names, including Thanksgiving Day parade, Christmas parade, etc., and it's not at all clear whether Santa Claus is even featured in them. Someone who looks up "Christmas parade" in Wikipedia ought to be redirected to the Santa Claus parade article which has at least some information about the concept rather being sent to a search page on which "Santa Claus parade" may or may not be the first entry listed. As far as thinking that seeing a redlink in an article will encourage someone to create a "Christmas parade" article, it's likely that the new article would contain much of the same information as the Santa Claus one since that one is so unfocused. Indyguy (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus was determined on the talk page, that the article is about Santa parades and not Christmas parades in general. Thus, this redirect is inappropriate. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    An RM where two were in favor and two were against is "no consensus" for moving the article, which is much different than declaring that "consensus was determined". If a consensus were to develop here, this would be the first consensus for making a change. -- Tavix (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article clearly mentions the redirect title in the lead, suggesting that this is a probable search term (unless if for some reason the alternate title is not correct). Aasim (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is the point. It is incorrect because Christmas parades do not always have Santas, thus "Christmas parade" is a greater topic, and not restricted to Santa parades. It would be like redirecting President of the United States to Donald Trump, he is one president, but not all presidents. Thus this is one type of Christmas parade, but not all types of Christmas parade. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and enjoy the red link. Christmas parades aren't all about Santa, you know. Chumpih. (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mr. Biggs

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 11#Mr. Biggs

Edaga Hibret massacre

[edit]

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 Casualties of the Tigray War. There is consensus that Edaga Hibret massacre is a plausible name for Idaga Hibret massacre and that it should have the same target as the latter redirect. There's no prejudice against nominating the two redirects as a bundle. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect that was created by sock CITESPAMing to his own self-published work. Platonk (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Looks like the last remaining use of the master redirect (Idaga Hibret massacre) has been removed since I submitted this on 23 Dec. So yes, delete also the master redirect. The problem with G5 is that it was created before he got blocked; G5 requires it to have been created after. However, G8 seems to fit (Redirects to targets that never existed or were deleted). Now tagged. Platonk (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, yeah. Hadn't looked at when the block was. But I don't see how that's a G8... I think where I come down on this is keep without prejudice against refiling bundled with Idaga Hibret massacre. As long as that redirect exists, this is a valid alternate spelling, so should also exist. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_31&oldid=1065912459"