Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 20, 2019.

Super Mario Bros. 5[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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to actually be an alternative name for the target, and from looking at Super Mario there doesn't appear to be an obvious way to count series entries that would make Yoshi's Island the 5th one. I would recommend deletion, or possibly redirecting to either Super Mario, Super Mario Bros. or the 5th entry in the series (which would appear to be either Super Mario Land or Super Mario World). signed, Rosguill talk 20:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, well said, this is a more detailed version of what I was trying to get at - not only is there no Super Mario 5, but no game was ever even unofficially called this because there have always been disputes in the video game world as to whether or not Yoshi's Island constituted an entry in the Super Mario series. Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 23 May 2019 (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.

Shiho Fujii[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 as a WP:BLAR that has been objected to. Other arguments are for the deletion of the article, which of course may take place at WP:AFD. -- Tavix (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP redirects to company's article Brayan Jaimes (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article without prejudice to AfD. She may or may not be notable, but there is enough in the last version before the redirect for a discussion to be worthwhile. RfD should not be an AfD by the back door (not that this was being attempted intentionally in this case, the RfD nomination was in good faith). Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not an independent notable composer, fails WP:GNG. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an argument for deleting/not having an article about her, it is irrelevant to the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2019 (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.

Portal:Nepalese Education[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. MBisanz talk 02:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cross-namespace redirect that generates WP:SURPRISE when the reader wind up in the categoryspace rather than the portalspace. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Little used and serves no obvious purpose. PC78 (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2019 (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.

John Blu[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. MBisanz talk 02:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2019 (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.

Cepal[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 30#Cepal

Brexit car crash[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. For what it's worth, I agree that a redirect without mention isn't necessarily original research. Even without that particular argument, I still find consensus to delete because there has been no explicit objection to deletion presented. -- Tavix (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, unlikely to be used B dash (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. A car crash is an analogy for Brexit and a frequently used description of the government's handling of the negotiations (at least among those who favour remaining in the EU). I don't know that makes it a good redirect though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it is not mentioned in the target, the redirect's existence is original research. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think "original research" is an accurate description of this redirect at all. As I noted above the analogy between car crashes and Brexit is commonly made [1][2][3][4][5] and plenty more. It isn't currently mentioned at the target, or anywhere else I can find, but that doesn't make it original research. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2019 (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.

Chairman (version 2)[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 speedy deleted per G6 since the history is now at Chairman. -- Tavix (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be searched and used B dash (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, but it does have a substantial and significant page history which should probably be kept. PC78 (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:HISTORYMERGE is fine. After that, it can be deleted. --B dash (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since there is no history at Chairman presumably it could just be moved there? PC78 (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe Graham87 recently performed a history merge, perhaps he has an opinion on what should be done with this redirect. – Levivich 16:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect tagged for WP:G6 after history moved to Chairman. With redirects like this, moving the edit history elsewhere first resolves WP:A/WP:CWW issues so that the redirect can be safely deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix and Steel1943: Was this move necessary or a good idea? There's already tremendous confusion about this page history. I was in the process of trying to write a chronology about which edits had been made to which page. See Graham87's pinned note at the top of Talk:Chairperson#Old page history. SarahSV (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SlimVirgin: Bit of FYI, I had original moved the edit history to Chairpersons, but then moved it to Chairman after reviewing this RfD thoroughly. In either case, where the edit history ends up technical has no bearing on the result of this RfD; if you believe or see that a history merge is necessary, the best avenue for that at this point would probably be the respective pages' talk pages (Talk:Chairman and/or Talk:Chairperson). Either way though, I'll update Graham87's note to better reflect where the edit is currently ... since I usually do that when I notice such notes, though usually such notes are in a template on the top of the talk page rather than sitting and hiding under a section header in the talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, hold up on this ... now that I see the existence of Talk:Chairperson/Old history, I'll have to do some history rearranging that puts edit histories in possibly the best locations and reduces the need for unhelpful redirects. Please stand by. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several pages involved, which were created over the years, moved, merged, redirected, and so on. A history merge wouldn't be appropriate. I was in the process of trying to figure out the chronology. Now, the confusion has increased. These discussions are supposed to stay open for seven days. SarahSV (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Steel1943, please don't move anything else without consensus. SarahSV (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely fail 110% to see any controversy in what I'm doing, and consider it cleanup, but thanks for pushing me over the edge to retirement because I'm honestly getting a bit tired of dealing with crap like this ... specific, editors misdiagnosing cleanup for some action that needs consensus, but rather just delays helpfulness. Bye. Steel1943 (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the discussion about the history. Pinging Cuchullain. SarahSV (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ...And edit conflict on me adding a hidden note inside of the collapse templates that I added here but were then removed by another editor. This discussion now blogs up the appearance of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion for a reason that should not be discussed on this page. Anyways, in lieu of me ranting expletives that I so badly want I scream and write right now, I'll just hide in obscurity. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply update the chronology to note that the edit history is now at a useful location. -- Tavix (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Levivich, SlimVirgin, and Steel1943: I have no strong opinion on the actions above. But were they harmless? Yes IMO, because nothing has been deleted. I'm happy for this to be the closing comment of the discussion. Graham87 00:49, 21 May 2019 (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.

Sonic Shit[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No reference to the song at all in the article. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as creator. The song is from his EP Nasarati, which is referenced in the article. There. You just proved yourself wrong.ColorTheoryRGB CMYK 23:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Sonic" is not currently in the article. If it is a song from an album listed there, but the track listing is not in the article, then the redirect still makes no sense because there is nothing to give context for it in the article. Either the term is mentioned or it is not. If it is not, then the redirect is confusing. - PaulT+/C 02:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or add to the article. The infobox at Old Town Road indicates that Sonic Shit is/was released as a single, if that is correct then it should definitely be mentioned at Lil Nas X#Singles, but unless and until there is a mention the redirect is confusing. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Until it is added to the article with proper reference. The user above is edit warring it into the article without proving it was even released as a single. StaticVapor message me! 19:27, 26 May 2019 (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.

Calvin Harris' Third Studio Album[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) B dash (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Harris' third studio album is 18 Months, there is no need to place this article as an redirect page. BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete since it seems a bit unnecessary now and doesn't get much use, though it's neither confusing nor ambiguous. PC78 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, neutral for the same reason. It unequivocally refers to just one thing and there are plenty of others like it that exist for the same reason. I'm not sure there's a compelling reason to delete it. PC78 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is both harmless and an {{R from move}} so per WP:CHEAP there is no benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2019 (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.

Close to the Sun[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 disambiguate the first, retarget the rest there. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since Close to the Sun (Place Vendome album) and Close to the Sun (video game) exist, there is no primary topic. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Close to the Sun and redirect all others there. It looks like the game has only just been released and the album isn't that old, so it's too soon to be talking about primary topics. PC78 (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2019 (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.
  • Hmm. I must have followed the relisting link without realizing it; this is a valid close because the discussion ran for over a week and consensus is clear, though I would not have normally closed it the same day as a relist. As always, contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnicism[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) B dash (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. There is no such word as "Bosnicism", only one hit on the Google Search; I moved it to Bosniacism. Sorabino (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible typo for Bosniacism, but also what SMcC said above. I don't understand why a move was necessary here if they were both pointing to the same location. - PaulT+/C 20:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If "Bosniacism" is a good title, "Bosnicism" is a good R-from-typo redirect. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend. Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2019 (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.

Remote location[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 2#Remote location

Template:IPL[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 2#Template:IPL

The Simpsons/Todd Flanders[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. Numerically we're at around 7-11, a raw reading of which could suggest a no consensus or delete result — so feel free to take issue with this — but I read the arguments for keep as being stronger. I'm probably more amenable to WP:THISREDIRECTISOLD than others, but even ignoring that, I'm convinced by the below that this is exactly what {{R from subpage}} exists for. Graham87's always-excellent work probably weakens the argument for keeping a bit, but while the participants favoring delete make their case well, I'm not convinced there's proactive harm beyond the search box issue, leaving the keep arguments stronger. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient redirects using an ancient disambiguation method. Most of these get zero page views so they aren't even being useful by accident. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep all {{R from subpage}} (which in mainspace populates Category:Redirects with old history. There is no benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, these redirects are not plausible search terms nor are they useful per nom. Simply being old doesn't bypass normal reasons for deletion and there is no history that is required to be kept. -- Tavix (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Tavix. Steel1943 (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix, not plausible search terms and no significant history, being old is not a reason to keep. PC78 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Tavix. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Thryduulf, WP:R#KEEP#4 and WP:CHEAP. There is no reason to delete these circa 2002 (some 2001 and possibly earlier, literally the same year Wikipedia was founded) links. That is a long time in internet history. Link rot is a thing and having these pages does no harm. - PaulT+/C 17:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I continue to not understand this argument. Let's pretend that someone is looking at an archive of a long-dead forum that for some inexplicable reason has a hyperlink to The Simpsons/Todd Flanders. Do you really think that person is going to struggle to find what they were looking for if the redirect is deleted? —Xezbeth (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    From the cited guideline: However, avoid deleting such redirects if: ... 4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites. It is crystal clear on this point and I don't understand why it is controversial. - PaulT+/C 23:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul: I'm a little confused. The 2001 link you provided is to Sideshow Mel. Isn't this a different page than the one included in the nomination, The Simpsons/Sideshow Mel (though they both redirect to the same page)? – Levivich 01:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair question. See this diff, where The Simpsons/Sideshow Mel was moved to Sideshow Mel. The current history for The Simpsons/Sideshow Mel starts at that point in 2002, but the page existed at the The Simpsons/Sideshow Mel url since 2001. Page moves make it a little tricky to easily see how long a page has been at a specific url. - PaulT+/C 02:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. These redirects are harmless pieces of history apparently going back as far as 2002; deleting them ultimately serves little purpose other than wasting time and erasing that history. Arguments such as a lack of page views are hardly valid either; most found in Category:Redirects with old history are also rarely viewed, yet I don't see anyone actively deleting those. (See also others' arguments for keeping.) Geolodus (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Not useful in any way; pollutes the searchbox at the detriment of redirects that legitimately have the slash, such as The Simpsons/Futurama Crossover Crisis. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, can you explain how that redirect is any more legitimate than the above articles (other than being newer)? The prose in the section it points to doesn't mention anything about the slash. Is it part of the official name for the comic? Wouldn't The Simpsons Futurama Crossover Crisis work just as well? Am I missing something? - PaulT+/C 12:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per US. With respect to the linkrot concern, the lack of page views suggests there are no inbound links being used anymore (which is not surprising, given how old they are). With respect to the historical aspect, it seems each of these pages is not the original page, but a redirect left behind after a page move in July 2002. The original pages still exist, and will continue to exist, even if these 2002 redirects are deleted. Since the originals exist, I don't see the historical value in keeping some redirects created after those pages were moved (especially given that they've all been moved several times). For example, see Rod Flanders (created 2001), Otto Mann (2001), Sanjay Nahasapeemapetilon, Todd Flanders, Radioactive Man (The Simpsons character), Gil Gunderson, Disco Stu (all Jan-Jun 2002). Keeping the 2002 redirects serves no purpose other than to fill up the search box with needless entries, which will get in the reader's way of finding the content they're looking for. – Levivich 03:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - per Tavix. Not plausible search terms. Sergecross73 msg me 11:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. There are many titles from as far back as 2002 that are worth keeping for historical reasons, but these are not any of them. As noted above, these only serve to pollute search results. Levivich has explained well why linkrot is not an issue here.  — Scott • talk 16:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To your first point, see User:Emijrp/FirstPages for some interesting examples of old links (just FYI). - PaulT+/C 11:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GelodusGeolodus, and fix the search box so they don't get in the way. (Add them to a new Category:Unsearchworthy redirects?) Deleting to hide them from the search box is a kludge, not a solution... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 19:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an interesting point. I'm sure there are potential edge cases where a feature like that could be harmful, but it is worth a discussion at WP:VPT or WT:SEARCH (and then possibly WP:PHAB?). - PaulT+/C 21:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Paul: I've opened a discussion on this at VP/T. Thanks for the suggestion! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 18:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! If it turns out this feature already exists in {{r unprintworthy}} (or some other similar r-template) I think the search arguments would be rendered moot (American law meaning). - PaulT+/C 14:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You misspelled my name. Geolodus (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ack, sorry Geolodus. Struck and fixed. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 17:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, unlikely search terms. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible redirects. The near-complete lack of pageviews indicated that they are not actually being used, making 'this is old' arguments hold little weight. * Pppery * survives 19:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh (page intentionally linked) – As the user who's history-merged these redirects so they *don't* have any important 2001/2002 history, I don't care what happens to them, as long as the deletion log entry clearly points to this RFD (which it naturally will). Graham87 09:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, @Xezbeth:, I'm not meh about gaps in HTML lists, especially lists with bullets, and I've fixed yours in the nom. Graham87 09:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • That happens by default when nominating multiple redirects. I'm not going to make a separate edit just to remove spaces. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait never mind, I can remove them in the same edit. I'll remember to do that in future. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Graham87, in your opinion does WP:R#KEEP#4 not apply here? It seems like these kinds of old redirects are explicitly mentioned as a rationale for keeping (especially if there is a way to suppress the terms from appearing in search results). - PaulT+/C 14:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Psantora: I guess it would, but realistically, I imagine any links to the subpage names would be from external pages written in 2001 and 2002, and not too many un-updated pages from that time exist on the live web these days. If there is/will be a way to suppress redirects from search results, that would be a good thing and mean that these redirects would be harmless, and there'd be no problems with keeping them. Graham87 14:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Don't create linkrot. Period. Plus, at least some of these exist on nost (e.g. nost:The Simpsons/Bleeding Gums Murphy and nost:The Simpsons/Otto Mann); it's absurd to have a page at nost but not en, if we still have an article on the subject. Also consider someone who's researching the earlier history of Wikipedia and seeking earlier titles of pages, or someone who's researching how often old redirects get modified (and yes, such research does happen); deletion would pointlessly make these pages useless for such a person. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. R#KEEP #4 far outweighs R#DELETE #1 in these cases, and "unreasonable" as it applies to search-field-dropdown-menu hogs is very ill-defined. When I type "The Simpsons" in my search field, I get very different results than when I type it in with the slash, as in "The Simpsons/", so I don't see the problem there. We have procedures to prevent link rot for a reason, and it makes no sense at all to break with those procedures. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  08:57, 25 May 2019 (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/2019_May_20&oldid=1138582856"