Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 27, 2020.

Dragon One[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 procedural close. Thank you... shhh! Not so loud! (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Dragon I. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 11:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this since DAB page Dragon I was moved to Dragon 1 (disambiguation).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:37, 27 July 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.

Dragon 1[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 procedural close. Thank you... shhh! Not so loud! (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Dragon I. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 11:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:22, 27 July 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.

Portrait mode[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 6#Portrait mode

Beau Walker (Celebrity)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 16:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the almost decade I've been editing Wikipedia, I think this is the first time I've seen a redirect with the disambiguator "celebrity" in any form of capitalization, and from what I see, there's probably a reason why. The use of the term "celebrity" is so vague that it's almost an objective/opinionated term to label someone as so, and thus the term itself is ambiguous in nature. For these reasons, I'd say this redirect should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It's useless, but the Beau Walker page was at this title for 6 months, so there may be old links on external pages. Given that this isn't blatantly harmful, I think the reasons to keep outweigh the reasons to delete. Hog Farm Bacon 18:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a harmless and potentially useful {{R from move}} and harmless {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. There are no other people with this name who could be described as a celebrity. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think the nom makes a good case why this redirect is deletable, and for what it's worth the target does not explicitly describe him as a celebrity. The page was moved 10 years ago, which was long enough ago to not worry about linkrot, and I think the likeliness of external linkage of this redirect is negligible. -- Tavix (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFD#K5. 57 hits in the 30 days prior to the nomination indicates utility, likely from external links given that this is a {{R from move}}. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prior to the nomination, the redirect had two incoming links from the "(article)" namespace ... which have since been bypassed: [3] [4] Steel1943 (talk) 17:11, 28 July 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.

THOMAS BYRNE EDSALL[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) (t · c) buidhe 04:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A long-standing redirect, but it's clearly badly capitalised and clutters Search when looking for various Thomas Byrnes. The correctly-capitalised version exists. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless and helpful per above. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Harmless, and it'll get the reader to what they're looking for. Hog Farm Bacon 21:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. I can see someone holding the ⇧ Shift key for WAAAAY too long or forgetting to turn off the ⇪ Caps Lock key (some people, including myself, might use ⇪ Caps Lock more often), and even with these mistakes it still gets them to their intended target. Regards, SONIC678 22:40, 27 July 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.

Dinsey[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. signed, Rosguill talk 16:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Dinsey" is technically a mispelling for "Disney". However, there's no proof that Disney and Dinsey would sound exactly the same. Dinsey is literally an implausible redirect and there's also no reason why the redirect page "Dinsey" has to be created to begin with. Thank you, Seventyfiveyears at 19:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a plausible typo and there doesn't appear to be anything else with this name that is notable; indeed most google results for "Dinsey" are obvious misspellings of Disney. Spicy (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasonable transposition error. A Google search brings up mainly spelling errors of Disney. Hog Farm Bacon 21:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as well used. Seventyfiveyears: what is to be gained by deleting this redirect? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible error, no better targets. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone above. Plus, the I and N keys are really close to each other on a QWERTY keyboard, and people might mispronounce "Disney" this way. Regards, SONIC678 22:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very plausible typo - I made it earlier today for example (not on Wikipedia). Thryduulf (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and let the search engine do its job. I see no reason that notability should be a factor here; we should prioritise correct spellings over typos, and this makes it much harder to search for things which are correctly spelled "Dinsey" and are mentioned in other articles. Additionally, it could just as well be a misspelling of Dinzey, so we have a WP:XY problem. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 59.149.124.29, could be a misspelling of either Disney or Dinzey, so this is an ambiguous term. Not a very active user (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (1) Unclear if this is a misspelling of Disney or Dinzey, per IP and NAVAU. (2) Impedes searching for people with the surname DInsey, who can only be found using a trick. We have mentions (all confirmed as the authentic spelling) of Emily (Australian politician), Stuart (video game developer and businessman) and Wilfred (Australian soldier). Stuart looks as he might pass WP:NBIO; the other two don't. Narky Blert (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausibly typo. I would avoid leaving much to Wikipedia's search engine, as it is subpar. As a reference, Google provides "Disney" results by default when "Dinsey" is entered. "Dinzey" seems like a case of reaching to play devil's advocate; at worst, make "Dinsey" a dab for misspellings.—Bagumba (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The level of notability of the target subject makes such a misspelling unlikely to a degree where keeping this redirect may actually be problematic; the reader looking up this spelling could be looking for something else. Steel1943 (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A plausible error and most of the search engine links are typos of Disney 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible typo. OcelotCreeper (talk) 00:52, 29 July 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.

The World's Oldest Library[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 6#The World's Oldest Library

Email blast[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 3#Email blast

BenarNews[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) 17:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, searching online I couldn't find any evidence that BenarNews is affiliated with Radio Free Asia. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 27 July 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.

The 55[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. Both delete and retarget 55 are plausible options identified in this discussion, though opinions generally trend towards deletion. Deryck C. 22:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC; not mentioned in target could conceivably refer to any such numbered road on earth. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Could refer to anything, including musician The 55 and London Buses route 55. Narky Blert (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above; no primary topic here by a long shot. A disambiguation page won't do any good as situation is that there's effectively no primary topic between a lot of highly non-notable topics and alternative terms. I can't imagine that a retarget to 55 would do any good either. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 20:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • FTR I'm neutral now, split between the three options. I think this should be relisted. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 02:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good to see my wish was fulfilled at long last... :) — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No primary topic, and as J947 points out, wouldn't be a good retarget to the dab page. Hog Farm (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note similar redirects that DO have sourced mentions in their target include The 101 and The 401. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. We ought to simply get rid of this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No source to indicate this is primary topic. Dough4872 14:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of highways numbered 55 to satisfy the above sentiment that there is no primary topic among roads with this number. -- Tavix (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 55, as there are multiple things that may have "The" added and we usually combine disambiguation pages for these. Any notable topics can be mentioned there or the more specific disambiguation pages linked from there. It may be possible to mention some topics not notable enough for separate articles in the lists, but the existence of non-notable topics is not relevant to whether there should be a disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 55 per Peter James. signed, Rosguill talk 20:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not entirely opposed to retargeting, but it can be annoying to find yourself at a big dab page and the gain from a such a retarget is very little, especially considering this redirect's comparatively low pageviews. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 03:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the articles listed at 55, maybe the Albanian ones could be translated as "The 55"? Otherwise it does seem to be only highways that could be referred to as "the". signed, Rosguill talk 00:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Apparently, my attempt to relist this in April with XFDcloser didn't work and the relist was never posted on the new log page. So ... yes, this is an entry from April that was never closed...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 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.

E-blast[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. signed, Rosguill talk 16:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This term is mentioned in some articles, but none of them actually explains what it means. Unless an explanation for this term can be added to an article, I think this redirect should be deleted. Not a very active user (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of the article it was originally an unsourced article (redirected to Email spam article a few hours later) stating that E-blasts were bulk emails sent to people that agreed to receive them and they they weren’t spam. Since the target article doesn’t mention the term I believe deletion is appropriate.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a shorthand term for "email blast" ... but I even question that term's validity, and have thus nominated it for RFD as well. Steel1943 (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "e-blast" is ambiguous and this redirect may cause confusion. Search is better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned anywhere in enwiki, so it would be pointless to keep this. CycloneYoris talk! 22:03, 3 August 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.

Feiseen[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) CycloneYoris talk! 21:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this redirect is for the boat "Feiseen" used in the 1893 speed record, however the redirect has seen no traffic in the last 30 days and the Water speed record article has no additional information on it. FozzieHey (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - Only a passing mention and a single photo of the yacht on Water speed record, however it is very difficult to find much information about this yacht apart from in the cited article in Water speed record (suggesting that it is perhaps not notable enough for a stand-alone article). There are no incoming links so I don't think there's much harm in keeping, and someone could always write an article if they found more sources. That said there's no strong reason not to delete either since this is the only mention on Wikipedia, so searching will find the Water speed record article anyway. A7V2 (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mentioned in the article. The nominator has not given a policy reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mentioned in the article with useful information, including a photo. Perfectly appropriate redirect. Narky Blert (talk) 13:01, 30 July 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.

Rolex (spam)[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 Pills, porn and poker. signed, Rosguill talk 16:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No article in Wikipedia contains information about "Rolex spam". Not a very active user (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history it was originally an article claiming that Rolex was a generic Byword for spam in general. Take that as you will.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 18:01, 27 July 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.

BatDR[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 Bendy (franchise)#Bendy and the Dark Revival (2020). Deryck C. 22:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The purpose of this redirect was to help people who know about Bendy and the Dark Revival’s alternate name, BatDR, get to the BatDR section in the Bendy franchise section
Written by MrRobloxDev lgjavajr 11:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentatively delete per WP:VG/LEAD, this abbreviation could be confusing to people outside the Bendy fandom, and plus Bendy and the Dark Revival exists, which I recently retargeted to the section MrRobloxDev Igjavajr mentions. Then again, I'm wondering if it might be useful enough to be worth keeping... Regards, SONIC678 16:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 27 July 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.

Undersea boat[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 6#Undersea boat

Westward expansion[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 6#Westward expansion

Ham (e-mail)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 6#Ham (e-mail)

Spam bait[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 6#Spam bait

List of lists of lists that don't include themselves[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 per WP:SNOW. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last January, there was a discussion where the consensus was to delete the redirects called 'Lists' and to keep the ones called 'Sets'. Well, it turns out that the nominator forgot to add what has to be the most nonsenical. Delete. OcelotCreeper (talk) 14:22, 27 July 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.

Suicide or Murder: A Star Was Lost (film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 5#Suicide or Murder: A Star Was Lost (film)

Porn bot[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) 14:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target article contains no information about "porn bots". Not a very active user (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone else finds a better target that mentions this. OcelotCreeper (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no use of the term in enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:46, 28 July 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.

Lunar Module[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 3#Lunar Module

Anti-Papal[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 6#Anti-Papal

Hindu fascist[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 Hindutva. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created by a person blocked per WP:NOTHERE only for adding blue links in his offensive edit summaries.[5] Note there is no Christian fascist. Wareon (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Hindutva, which notes in the lede: "has been described as a variant of 'right-wing extremism' and as 'almost fascist in the classical sense'. Christian fascist would most probably just be a redirect to fascism, but clerical fascism also exists with a list of Christian fascist movements. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hindutva where the term fascism is mentioned in a reverent manor. The current target only mentions in the term in the future reading section and once describing Italy.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 18:10, 27 July 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.

Stop Hate For Profit[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 2020 Facebook ad boycotts. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was created as part of a AfD discussion. Currently the redirect leads to a section that IMO is quite one-sided when it comes to what the reader is trying to read about. I have created an article (2020 Facebook ad boycotts) that IMO serves as a better target and I propose that the redirect be retargeted there. N0nuun (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget the new article is also in need of work, but it does seem intended to be a {{main article}} that the current target section summarises. Neutrality concerns should be discussed on the talk pages. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as proposed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:03, 27 July 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.

Asdfg[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 QWERTY. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with the target? ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 04:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not opining anything right now, but in response to the nom: look at your (presumably QWERTY) keyboard. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    J947, yes, but what does "Asdfg" have to do with "ASDF"? ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 04:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It relates directly to entry six on the dab page (the history certainly testifies that). — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to QWERTY as that is what almost all mentions of this refer to. Notifying Rosguill who incidentally retargeted ASDFG from ASDF to QWERTY at September last year. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to QWERTY, although honestly I'd be ok with deletion, my earlier edit was partially to avoid interacting as much with an unpleasant editor. signed, Rosguill talk 04:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to QWERTY and save readers a keystroke. There's no other relevant entry on the DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 10:59, 2 August 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.

Wikipedia:KAFFEEKLATSCH[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) Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect from Wikipedia project space to user space. A previous RFD credibly argued the redirect in project-space was inappropriate, but the RFD closed as no consensus. The user was site-banned five years ago and the target page is completely defunct. The project-space redirect now clearly serves no credible purpose. Alsee (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Since it's been discussed before, I guess it's not really G8 eligible, but this serves no purpose. Hog Farm Bacon 02:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As long as the target page exists the redirect is not eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G8. The redirect was created before the user was banned so it is not eligible for G5 speedy deletion either. R2 applies only to redirects in the article namespace and it isn't recently created, so R3 also does not apply. Thryduulf (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the time of my comment, the nomination was showing that it redirected to a nonexistent page with a nonsensical title. This has since been corrected. Hog Farm Bacon 04:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; harmless, especially given it's a soft redirect now. Note that this redirect was undeleted but its companion in the previous discussion wasn't. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral with this target. My previous !vote was based on an error in the nomination. Hog Farm Bacon 04:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a soft redirect. Yes, the kaffeeklatsch is effectively defunct. But there are many people who wish to gain information on defunct Wikipedia projects and I remember a time when the idea of the kaffeeklatsch was seriously being proposed and discussed. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 05:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • there are many people who wish to gain information on defunct Wikipedia projects There are? Care to give some examples? And an explanation of why a project created by a discredited contributor and, IIRC, discussed by other discredited contributors serves any purpose beyond this alleged research interest. - Sitush (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chess the entire problem is that it is NOT Wikipedia project. Am I (and everyone else) entitled to create projectspace wp:REDIRECTs to arbitrary userspace pages? Alsee (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I went looking for this the other day in an on-wiki discussion about harassment (not the Arbcom RFC) and found that it had been G8 deleted, but the target still existed. At the time that it was deleted the target had also been deleted, but it was restored shortly after, so I restored the redirect. I didn't restore the other one because, well, I didn't need to, but I don't object to restoring it if someone wants to. I also marked the project historical at that time, which probably should have been done five years earlier when it was restored. I pretty strongly supported the redirect when the project was active but I'm fairly soft on it now: the creator recently appealed their ban and it appears to have been declined, and evidently nobody else wants to take over the project since it's been idle for half a decade. Leaning keep anyway because there are pretty important discussions that refer to all of this. I oppose deleting it if the only reason for deletion is because it's marked historical, we have lots of WP-shortcut redirects to historical processes and failed proposals. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wait, I didn't mark it historical, I suggested that someone should do so but respecting the original purpose of the page I could not, but yeah, someone should mark it historical. Also, just noting for whoever cares that since this nomination was clearly prompted by my restoration of the redirect (three days ago) it would have been kind to notify me of the thread. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, in case it affects anyone's rationale, the Kaffeeklatsch was deleted at the creator's request before she was banned. It was restored a little while afterwards by Graeme Bartlett noting it was by request by Staszek Lem. I don't see where that request was so I've pinged both in case they wish to comment on this redirect. Personally, I don't think any of this matters: the target currently exists regardless of this history, but thought it worth mentioning in case it affects anyone else's opinion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My restorations are mostly based on requests at WP:REFUND, occasional people use my talk page, and very rarely an email request. I will normally overturn a G7 request if the user changes their mind or owner is inactive, and there is no other problem. (actually this was a U1 delete reversal) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not seeing a real reason to delete this. I'm wary of projectspace-userspace redirects in general, but think it's fine when the userspace page is intended for project-wide use (like some essays, projects, etc.) so long as it doesn't conflict with policies/guidelines. I wouldn't consider a banned/blocked user to be sufficient reason in itself. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:03, 28 July 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_July_27&oldid=972016587"