Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 19, 2020.

Bickford Park 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No high schools are mentioned at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 22:50, 19 February 2020 (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.

Hindh[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 27#Hindh

IDenfi[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. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, this redirect was created by an account which has now been blocked for spam. It seems like IDenfi is an example of an Ident protocol, but without any exposition at the target I think that deletion is appropriate here. signed, Rosguill talk 21:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not notable term. Searches point mostly to multiple typos from the word identify or identity, especially with ID in caps. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per @Rosguill and AngusWOOF:. Doug Mehus T·C 01:15, 20 February 2020 (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.

Blast the pants cannon[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. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article, not commonly used [1] [2], not commonly used, no WP:ATT issues with deletion. Hog Farm (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due, solely, to the lack of usage. I absolutely get what this means from the context, though this is somewhat ambiguous in that it could also refer to crapping one's pants so could be a modest WP:XY thing. The low usage, though, and the full phrasing make this a clear WP:R#D8 fail. Doug Mehus T·C 21:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you to nom Hog Farm for including the pageview statistics. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 21:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The cannon could refer to the penis. No mention in target articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I tend to think that's less likely, but there's at least one and maybe two other possibilities, so deletion is likely best here. Doug Mehus T·C 22:35, 19 February 2020 (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.

Airpoop[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. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article, has always been a redirect to no attribution issues with deletion, 19 pageviews [3], not a common name for subject. Hog Farm (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (was Weak delete) due to the lack of a mention and low usage per WP:R#D8, without prejudice, of course, to recreation as a soft redirect to Wiktionary if and when an alternative form dictionary entry air poop is added for fart. It's clear to me, from the context of the topic, that "air poop" refers to polluting the air with one's bodily gases. There is no ambiguity here. Doug Mehus T·C 21:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not a common neologism. Could refer to bird droppings. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True. Doug Mehus T·C 22:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Narky Blert We're arguing the same thing, but, sorry, how exactly? Can you clarify how airpoop is synonymous with bicycle horn? ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 15:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Squeeze the bulb and it makes a pooping noise. Narky Blert (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, sorry. Too early in the morning, I guess? ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 15:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unlikely search term, potential other meanings --DannyS712 (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2020 (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.

Draft:Bark at the moon (Ozzy Osbourne) (Page Redux)[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. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect resulting from aborted pagefork attempt by now-blocked editor. Attempt at CSD was declined. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since its not harming any search results being in the non-indexed "Draft:" namespace, or move to Bark at the Moon (album) without leaving a redirect to preserve the attribution and to leave the edit history at a more helpful and likely search title. (Also, for what it's worth, in response to this edit, WP:RDRAFT would not be an applicable reason to keep this redirect since the redirect is not a {{R from move}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Update to don't care. Steel1943 (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the attribution has no value in the reirect; much better to just create the redirect that has the parenthetical, which I have just done. I am proposing deletion because to the "(Page Redux)" parenthtical, which interferes with maintenance of the draftspace. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...I get the attribution concern you are stating. I'm, more or less, stating that the attribution probably should be kept since there are already two editors who have edited the redirect stating that the edit history needs to be retained. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the editors aren't saying that. Other than the currently blocked user and bots, Diannaa just added the edit summary for attribution to the main namespace article; she never said this redirect needs to be kept. Cryptic declined speedy deletion, and may or may not have misinterpreted what Diannaa's edit summary had said. Doug Mehus T·C 20:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One said that there is attribution, and the other declined a CSD due to attribution. The actions speak for themselves. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I concur with UnitedStatesian; this was a duplicate content fork created from and after an existing article. Some administrators will decline speedy deletion requests for G7 or G6; others will approve them. It's a coin flip which administrator you draw. Even Diannaa's edit summary notes that all the attribution history is at the subject Main: namespace article. Doug Mehus T·C 19:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move without leaving a redirect to Main: namespace, as a reasonable compromise to the cited WP:RDRAFT, per above, and per our suprapolicy of WP:COMMONSENSE. Doug Mehus T·C 19:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since this hasn't been done yet ... pinging Cryptic and Diannaa due to their involvement with this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as housekeeping AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was not a draft that was moved to mainspace; it was a mainspace article that was copied to draftspace. We don't need to keep this redirect for attribution reasons, so I think it should be okay to delete.— Diannaa (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Diannaa, as always for your insight. That's what I was thinking. Doug Mehus T·C 01:16, 20 February 2020 (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.

Drought Bowl[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. Rough consensus, but there's no argument to keep or agreement about where else this could target. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the internet search results for this phrase are about sporting events other than the Super Bowl. I would thus suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Could we possibly move to Drought bowl, leaving a redirect, and disambiguate this? I'm seeing a fair number of "drought bowl" results. Doug Mehus T·C 20:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to List of NFL franchise post-season droughts since it lists NFL-related droughts, or delete per nom and due to the fact that there is no potential for a disambiguation page at this title unless there is verifiable evidence that this is an alternative title (not an slang term used in WP:OR) for any existing encyclopedic subject on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Steel1943 WP:OR is a guideline that applies to articles, though, no? Disambiguation pages are navigation pages; we have slang terms mentioned on disambiguation pages all the time. Doug Mehus T·C 22:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...That's just untrue on multiple fronts (considering that "slang" with a good reference is not WP:OR ... and in that case, not really even "slang"), and since I've already had my grievance with your interpretation of WP:OR, I'll just leave it at that. Steel1943 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. You've convinced me. Noting your "weak retarget," I do think deletion is best. There really isn't any targets to disambiguate. Doug Mehus T·C 23:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (was Delete) per above. I disagree that WP:OR covers disambiguation pages, but nonetheless, I agree with Steel1943 that we don't have really any targets worth disambiguating. Doug Mehus T·C 23:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm seeing 'drought bowl' used to refer to the historical U.S. dust bowl and at least two different sporting phenomena. The fact that President Franklin D. Roosevelt himself explicitly labeled the 30s crisis this way does make me wonder. The term has also been mentioned in academic study. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Based on CoffeeWithMarkets' source, and I concur that I've heard that term used in that context, it's clear we have a primary topic here, and it's not the Super Bowl list. What about retargeting to either Dust Bowl, Drought, or Dust Bowl (disambiguation), where it's mentioned either directly and explicitly or in a clearly synonymous fashion? I'd tend to probably favour the latter. Doug Mehus T·C 00:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oof (or perhaps that's woof? ;-)), another possible target. I can appreciate the desire to keep this redirect, and, despite my being Canadian, I doubt a Grey Cup final would be the primary topic. I honestly think there's too many variables here; we either (a) need to disambiguate, if possible and within the confines of WP:DABMENTION; or (b) delete. Doug Mehus T·C 22:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are two separate sources for that Grey Cup (BNN Bloomberg, CBC (also Yahoo Canada used this article)), and only one from a random newspaper for the Super Bowl XIV (Kenosha News) I don't really see any "Drought Bowl" references for Dust Bowl besides the president's comment mentioned above so that did not catch on as a nickname, but drought is certainly associated with Dust Bowl in general, so it's an easy strong association. Disambiguation may be okay, but it would only be if mentioned, and someone's single neologism isn't enough to keep it as a mention. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but, arguably, this is a silly neologism to refer to one Grey Cup win in Canada. The fact that it's been used in reliable sources doesn't mean it's not still a neologism. I think deletion is best per WP:XY. It would be fanatically patriotic of me to suggest this term was the primary redirect for a Grey Cup football (i.e., not soccer, Narky et al.) championship. Doug Mehus T·C 15:48, 20 February 2020 (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.

Rogues' cant,[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. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with a comma at the end. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 18:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as with all other redirects ending with non-substantive punctuation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2020 (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.

Wedian[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 28#Wedian

Toxic gases[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 the first two to List of highly toxic gases, no consensus on the other two. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While chemical warfare is an application of toxic gas, not all toxic gases are used for chemical warfare. List of highly toxic gases could be a viable alternative target, although I'm open to other suggestions as well. signed, Rosguill talk 18:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect toxic gas(es) to List of highly toxic gases. Toxic just means "don't breathe this in", and doesn't imply a use. I've worked with several common industrial chemicals which are in that list.
Retarget poison gas(es) to chemical warfare (for which the broader concept war gas is also a target). Poison does imply an intended use. Narky Blert (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep poison gas and poison gases as redirect to Chemical weapon, a narrower and more specific topic than Chemical warfare (unless we choose to merge Chemical weapon and Chemical warfare). Differently from Toxic gases (which is related to a "neutral" property of those gases), poison gas name implies the aim to kill someone. --Non ci sono più le mezze stagioni (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not satisfied with the proposed targets identified by Narky Blert. It's still ambiguous. I concur with the nom that change is needed, but don't know what said change is. Doug Mehus T·C 23:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - I'd send them all to 'List of highly toxic gases'. The term 'toxic' implies nothing in terms of intent. The vast majority of these chemicals are used for industrial purposes or other activities having nothing to do with warfare. 'Poison' implies a possible intent, however, the term doesn't necessarily mean anything to do with conflict and fighting between human beings. Poison meant to kill weeds is still poison. Same thing for exterminating cockroaches, gnats, mosquitoes, et cetera. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to List of highly toxic gases with potential rcat(s) {{R from ambiguous term}} and/or {{R to related topic}} per CoffeeWithMarkets. I am satisfied with their rationale that toxicity of the gases says nothing of intent. Best outcome here, I think. Doug Mehus T·C 14:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:45, 19 February 2020 (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.

Ordinary People (2018 film)[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, though I've marked it as unprintworthy. --BDD (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be an alternative name or translation for the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just did, and was redirected to this empty page. Narky Blert (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The translation might be improper, but then I'm seeing a smattering of websites using this title. Here's one that even has what appears to be an official film icon. However, being not at all familiar with Letterboxd, well, I'm not sure if it has the reputation of supplying false information or not. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeWithMarkets: thank you for your comment. St3095 (?) 13:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per @CoffeeWithMarkets and St3095:. Even if it's not the correct name, we can use {{R from incorrect name}}, if it gets users/readers/patrons to the correct name at the article, no? As nom, what do you think, Rosguill? (Pinging you only because you're busy with other things, and may not have had a chance to revisit this thread since nominating.) Doug Mehus T·C 15:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it looks like Letterboxd sources all of their information to IMDb. IMDb currently lists it only as "The Villagers". If you dig into their release info section, "Ordinary People" is listed as a "South Korean informal English title". I would lean toward not trusting this information. signed, Rosguill talk 23:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It looks like Letterboxd sources all of their information to IMDb". What could possibly go wrong? </sarc>
IMDb can be very useful, but I always keep a supply of salt (in a form suitable for taking in pinches) close at hand. Narky Blert (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2020 (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.

°С[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. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "С" in this redirect is from the Cyrillic alphabet making this redirect implausible. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not completely implausible to me that a rusophone might type such a thing, since the °C abbreviation is used in every language. Justin Kunimune (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the most used Cyrillic keyboard layout has Cyrillic С and Latin C on the same key, making this kind of typo very common. —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrybak: Mixed-script redirects are considered to be implausible; see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Common_outcomes#Mixed-script_redirects. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, last year, this redirect only got 10 pageviews for the whole year which goes to show that it is not a very helpful redirect and the typo is not "very common". Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (was Keep per above.) Regardless of the alphabet it comes from, it's a reasonable search term, although maybe somewhat less used. It is both harmless and potentially useful. Doug Mehus T·C 15:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus: It is not a reasonable search term. You can't type the Cyrillic letter "С" on a QWERTY keyboard which is why it is not used very often. Compare this with °C where the "C" can be typed on the QWERTY keyboard. Redirects like this are generally deleted. I don't understand what is the need to keep this redirect. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough, but for clarity, we do already have °C as a redirect, correct? If we do, then I'm officially neutral on this, per the above. Doug Mehus T·C 15:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Yes, °C exists where the "C" is from the QWERTY keyboard so the redirect that uses the "C" on the QWERTY keyboard can be kept. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2020 (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.

А1[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. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "А" in this redirect is from the Cyrillic alphabet making this redirect implausible. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Note that a prior RFD for this was closed as "Withdrawn" in 2009. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 29#А1 → A1. TJRC (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is completely plausible for "A1" to be searched with a Cyrillic A. It is not a mixed script redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Utopes: It is not plausible to search this with a Cyrillic "А". This is the English Wikipedia. Last year there have only been 100 pageviews throughout the whole year (365 days). This make this redirect not very useful and it is not being searched up very often. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 100 views in a year sounds like it's a pretty easy typo for someone with a Cyrillic keyboard mapping. Such users are better served by the redirect than a no-such-article error; and the error will be especially confounding because the "А1" and "A1" look identical, so the source of the error will not be apparent to the reader. TJRC (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @TJRC: 100 views a year is equivalent to one view approximately every four days. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Once every four days is way too frequent to be considered an "implausible typo". Sounds like it's plausible for some users, especially those with Cyrillic-capable keyboards or keyboard mapping. TJRC (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per @TJRC and Utopes:' analysis and rationale, respectively. This passes WP:R#K5 in terms of plausibility. Doug Mehus T·C 21:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus: If А1 is plausible, so is А2, А3 and so on except they don't exist because they are not plausible redirects and А1 isn't plausible either. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Two of the TV channels listed in the dab page are in languages that use Cyrillic. – Uanfala (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2020 (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.

А330[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. --BDD (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "А" in this redirect is from the Cyrillic alphabet making this redirect implausible. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough on this one, then. I think you're probably right. Doug Mehus T·C 15:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Square Thing, true. No doubt there's probably a UK road named [A-Z][001-999]. Not sure they'd ever be the primary topic, though, at least not to Airbus. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 21:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This redirect is not an instance of a mixed-script redirect, as the only script being used is the Cyrillic script. A mixed script redirect would be Аirbus, where the "A" is in Cyrillic and the "irbus" is all in Latin. With that being said, "а330" with the cyrillic "a" gets hits on google, so I would consider this to be a viable redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Utopes: The redirect only gets hits on Google at Russian websites. This is the English Wikipedia; not the Russian Wikipedia. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFFL, ]at the least. А330 (with the Cyrillic letter) has no language-specific relationship to Airbus A330. Narky Blert (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Utopes. I went back and forth between neutral and keep and, yes, this is a different script, but at the same time, there are multiple keyboard layouts and multiple scripts. This is harmless and, potentially, useful. Doug Mehus T·C 21:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmehus: There were only 27 pageviews in the last year. That is approximately one pageview every two weeks which shows how useless the redirect is. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the less of this confusing, untidy mixed-script garbage the better. It's particularly convincing what Pkbwcgs says about the minimal number of page hits and their origin from Russian users, rather than English-speaking ones. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no affinity between Airbus A330 and Cyrillic; even in the corresponding articles on the Serbian, Bulgarian and Russian wikipedias, the A of A330 is the Latin-script one. Could a user of any of those wikipedias search for this aircraft model using Cyrillic A? Yes. A user of the English wikipedia? Practically not. – Uanfala (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2020 (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.

2031 Cricket World Cup[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. --BDD (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2020 (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.

Musubi-no-Kami[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 26#Musubi-no-Kami

Two Watchers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 28#Two Watchers

Gilrain[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. I think there's a reasonable consensus here to delete this. I'm fairly amenable to keeping old redirects, and if it came down to it, I think I'd probably side with the keeps here, but I must admit that I read the discussion below as making a convincing argument that it is not helpful and indeed harmful to keep this redirect.

If there ever is a solid, stable mention of this, I will gladly restore it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in a Middle-earth context, the only mentions are in a few random last names appearance (I can't find any articles with the name, so a name page would not be applicable here). Deletion would be recommendable, since the content isn't extant. Hog Farm (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because this very old (2004!) and harmless redirect is for a place mentioned in previous versions of some Wikipedia articles, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_rivers_of_Gondor&oldid=2858499 WP:RFD#HARMFUL tells you to leave old redirects alone unless there is something actively wrong with them. Also, the page views suggest that there are incoming links from somewhere else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:WhatamIdoing, here's the list of pages that link to here. Some userpages and wikipedia space pages, several of which are associated with this listing here. [4]. Hog Farm (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, not sure why the fact that it used to be mentioned in articles would be a reason to keep. Hog Farm (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      1. No, that's a link to current versions of pages on Wikipedia that currently link to this page. That's different from (to give just one example) articles that could be linked to it the next time someone hits an Undo button.
      2. Because WP:RFD#HARMFUL has said those are our rules (since 2004 – this is not a new idea). If you haven't read that, then I recommend it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think confusing our readers by redirecting to nonexistent content is harmful. I've owned books before where there were entries in the index that didn't match the pages listed, and that was confusing and frustrating. That's essentially what's going on here. Hog Farm (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It isn't "nonexistent content". The redirect tells them that this is a place in Middle Earth, which is a small amount of information. Note that there has never been a rule that says redirects should be deleted if it doesn't happen to be mentioned in the current version of the target article. That's not how Wikipedia works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because there is something actively wrong with this redirect. Someone searching this is going to want specific information on Gilrain, so it is a disservice to our readers to take them someplace that does not give that information. -- Tavix (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. If you think that Gilrain should be mentioned in that article, or that a reader of Tolkein's books wouldn't be able to glork the meaning from context, then you should fix the target. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see a good place where Gilrain would be mentioned, and I would go as far as saying that I am not sure it would be appropriate to do so anywhere at the target. I'm willing to be swayed though, so if you or someone else has a better idea on how to treat this term, I'm listening. But unless that happens, I default to delete as a confusing and misleading redirect as it stands. -- Tavix (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC) edited 15:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no opinion on this redirect (see below). History merge non-redirect revisions to List of rivers of Gondor, per below, then delete, per the WP:ATT/WP:CWW concerns of WhatamIdoing and Wugapodes above and below (was delete). Although this is a plausible surname, we appear to have no bluelinked target articles to disambiguate. We do have to be careful with attribution history with the Middle-earth-related redirects if merges were involved, but there's nothing to keep here for this redirect. Thus, like Tavix says, it's doing our readers/patrons/users a disservice. Doug Mehus T·C 02:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RKEEP 4. This is redirect is old enough to drive in the US and last year received 150 page views. Deleting this redirect will break many links. The delete rationales haven't given great reasons as to why this is harmful. Yes, the coverage at the target is not extensive, but as Whatamidoing mentions, deletion is not cleanup. Just because the coverage at the target isn't as great as we want it to be doesn't mean we should delete a 16 year old redirect with significant usage. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have no opinion on whether Gilrain is a worthy redirect. Had I written the whole Middle-earth coverage from scratch I wouldn't have mentioned this small river, but if it would make people happy I or anyone who feels like it can easily add it to Gondor#Fictional geography, a more specific target than Middle-earth#Geography. We'd say something like "The Gilrain was a small river on the western border of Lebennin." and could cite Return of the King, Book 5, Chapter 9, "The Last Debate". If people would like this then I add it and !vote "retarget". Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If there's no mention of it then it has no business being a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question If there's history to preserve, could a closing administrator not do history merge of this redirect's history into a suitable target article, and then we can delete this redirect? Doug Mehus T·C 13:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing to merge. The only coverage this thing ever had was this. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So why not, while we're here, selectively history merge the non-redirect revisions of this subject redirect into the edit history of List of rivers of Gondor then delete? This would solve the valid concerns of editors @WhatamIdoing and Wugapodes: and WP:R#K4. Doug Mehus T·C 13:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because there aren't any. Gilrain has always been a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But you just showed me an earlier edit diff and I took you at your word that was from Gilrain. Why would Wugapodes and WhatamIdoing being arguing to keep this redirect per WP:ATT if there was nothing to keep for attribution? Doug Mehus T·C 14:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are misreading Wugapodes and WhatamIdoing's rationales. They are not arguing for it to be kept for attribution purposes. -- Tavix (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough; their rationales were different between this and the Two Watchers redirect above, so I got confused. I see the external link breaking as relatively minor, as many bots will usually fix external links and search engines refresh their indices pretty rapidly. It's a "keep" reason, for sure, but I guess tend to agree with you and Xezbeth here. Doug Mehus T·C 15:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to keep here, per Xezbeth, and any external links that may be broken will be quickly updated when the search engines refresh their indices. Doug Mehus T·C 15:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: That's not how link rot works. Historical archives of the old internet that link to Wikipedia like meatball:NeutralPointOfView, or Wikipedia internal page histories do not update and cannot be detected. When decade-old redirects get deleted those archival links break and cannot be fixed except by recreation of the redirect. Tech is not magic, and if this were a problem that could be resolved by a bot, I would have built it. There is a reason why age is listed as a reason to keep a redirect and {{R without mention}} is not listed as a reason to delete: one of these things is harmful because it cannot be fixed. As WAID mentioned above, surmountable problems should not outweigh long term harms in deciding whether to delete a redirect. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Age alone is not a compelling reason to keep, though its effect can be compounded if there are other legitimate reasons to keep. This one has none. --BDD (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2020 (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.

Tommy Walker(The Who)[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. --BDD (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB. Its properly-spaced version, Tommy Walker (The Who), exists and targets the same page. Steel1943 (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Typo with no incoming links and 11 hits all last year. Station1 (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Station1 and per nom that the existing redirect, properly spaced, seems to be more used. The lack of a space isn't necessarily a problem, I think, but it's simply unused per WP:R#D8. Doug Mehus T·C 07:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2020 (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.

RAF Group Captain Walker[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 27#RAF Group Captain Walker

IFreelance / Kolabtree[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. --BDD (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to a list of websites that the titles are not a part of, and neither are mentioned anywhere on the page. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, due to the lack of a mention in the target or, indeed, anywhere on English Wikipedia. Doug Mehus T·C 06:25, 19 February 2020 (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/2020_February_19&oldid=1145349805"