Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 24

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) 17:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:R from modification. → Template:R from alternative spelling  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This should actually have Template:R from modification as a target, very weird. Either way, I don't think a full stop at the end is a particularly likely typo. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This originally pointed to
  This is a redirect}} is now a redirect, we don't need to keep this. - Eureka Lott 20:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. Narky Blert (talk) 11:23, 27 December 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 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 Ballade No. 2 (Chopin). --BDD (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ballade No. two in F major → Ballades (Chopin)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Ballade No two in F major → Ballades (Chopin)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Ballade no. two in F major → Ballades (Chopin)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Ballade no two in F major → Ballades (Chopin)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Ballade No. 2 in F major Chopin → Ballades (Chopin)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Ballade Number 2 in F major → Ballades (Chopin)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I stumbled on these redirects while creating Ballade No. 2 (Chopin). None of these redirects are useful. In fact, all of them have 0 pageviews. intforce (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all to Ballade No. 2 (Chopin). I don't understand why these are implausible search terms given that Chopin's Ballade No. 2 is written in F major and, as far as I can tell from a quick google, nobody else has written a work in F major with this title. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just that no one would spell "2" or "No." out. Otherwise, we might as well create Ballade Number Two in F major Chopin. intforce (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why wouldn't they?
      WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• Retarget all: to Ballade No. 2 (Chopin) per Thryduulf as {{R from modification}}. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget and tag all per above. Obvs. Plausible and unambiguous search terms. Narky Blert (talk) 20:59, 24 December 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 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 , but bypass the double redirect anyway. Participants have not reached a particularly strong conclusion over whether this misspelled variant is worth keeping, and indeed whether even the correctly-spelled variant is particularly worthwhile either. In the absence of a conclusion in this discussion, we will simply bypass the double redirect for obvious housekeeping reasons. ~ mazca ^talk 14:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Türk Sanat Müzgi →
  Türk Sanat Müziği  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

The page's name is apparently malformed, therefore I created another redirect and this is unnecessary. Ahmetlii (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The proposal would create a double redirect to Ottoman music. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• What does this mean? Prior to the renaming, the page was created in 2005 as a redirect to Ottoman classical music, which now redirects to Ottoman music, but this Turkish phrase is not mentioned there. I assume "müziği" is music. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Google translate says "Türk Sanat Müziği" means "Turkish art music" on it's own but in the context of the first sentence of
  Turkish classical music also redirects to Ottoman music and the en and tr articles are interwiki linked. So there is no doubt, if they should exist "Türk Sanat Müziği" and "Türk Sanat Müzgi" are both targetting the correct article. There is also clearly an affinity between the Turkish language and the subject so the only remaining question is whether the redirects are useful. My view is that if the version with ğ exists the version without also should as the ü is much more commonly encountered by English speakers, having one but not the other is entirely plausible. I don't currently have an opinion about whether both should exist or neither should exist though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I think the crucial difference between the two redirects is not the absence of one diacritic, but the omission of the first i from Müziği. – Uanfala (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (/ retarget to Ottoman music, since it would be a double redirect). Just one missing letter, a former page title, and gets some hits. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was never the title of an article, what got moved was the redirect itself. – Uanfala (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Appreciate the correction. I didn't realize the nominator's creation of a second redirect was done via moving the first, though I probably should've given the current double redirect. Still, that makes the fact that it's been getting hits all the more significant IMO. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 24 December 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 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 with no prejudice against a standalone article being created - the opposition to deletion is primarily based on the status quo being acceptable, rather than necessarily ideal. If an article is created that demonstrates notability, then the title variants in this nomination could be uncontroversially retargeted to it. ~ mazca ^talk 14:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Simca Gordini T15 → Gordini  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Simca-Gordini T15 → Gordini  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Simca Gordini Type 15 → Gordini  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Simca-Gordini T-15 → Gordini  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as the only mention at target is a caption and in the results table. I believe this car to be likely notable enough for an article, so delete per

• Keep all I see are retirements and placements below the scoring threshold, except for one race in 1950 and one in 1952; so I'm not clear if that could support a separate article. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't given a reason to keep... even before considering the fact that if someone specifically searches for these, they will no doubt be disappointed to find very little information about them (even if we falsely assume that the T15's world championship performance is all it was used for), they were not primarily F1 cars and by 1952 they were too out of date. They won races earlier on, eg [1]. They also competed at Le Mans. And they have whole chapters of books dedicated to them, eg in Gregor Grant's Formula 2. A7V2 (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target contains information about the cars, as in who raced them, and their race results, so, people will find information about the cars. Thus the redirects are serving the function they are intended for. Additional information on the cars can easily be added to the current target article, such as a LeMans section or F2 section. Just because the manufacturer article is currently lacking does not mean that it isn't the proper target, or that one could not expand the current target article. Wikipedia is

WP:NOTFINISHED so one should not expect comprehensive information about all topics. I still think it unlikely anyone will write articles on these cars, as most winning cars do not have articles. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

How likely you think it is is irrelevant. RFD reason to delete number 10 only requires that it can "plausibly be expanded into an article". And a couple of entries in a table absolutely qualifies as "virtually no information". Of course prose could be added about particular models to the article but until it is added, redirects such as these are, at best, misleading. A7V2 (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Virtually no information" is clearly not correct, since there's a record of the race results of the cars in Formula 1 in the current target article, thus suitable for a target. It is not a simple mention that such a car existed. The target article is about the manufacturer of the cars in question, thus would normally be a suitable destination for redirects from particular car models, as it contains a list of cars of that manufacturer. No one has bothered to write articles on these cars in the decade and a half that someone bothered to create an article for Gordini in, and these cars are not new, being close to 70 years old, so not a new topic that might get a new topic because it is new. The state of the Gordini article would be indicative of the amount of interest in this topic by the editorship of Wikipedia, in the time it has existed, since the early days of Wikipedia. It would seem unlikely to garner an editorship to create the car articles, thus the redirects are serving their purpose properly. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is virtually no information, just table entries. The fact that no article has yet been created may well be due to (as suggested by

WP:NOTFINISHED and then complain that no-one has yet created an article. It will get created or it won't. Or relevant content could be added to Gordini or perhaps another article. But until that actually happens these redirects only serve to confuse and disappoint. A7V2 (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no confusion resulting from these redirects, as they redirect a car model to a car maker, where the car model is listed.

WP:REDLINK asks for a likelihood of an article creation. Looking at the state of the Gordini article, and all the other non-created cars of the 1950s, the likelihood of such a creation is not great. Since Wikipedia is NOTFINISHED, the Gordini article can be expanded to add more coverage on this model over more than simple race stats for F1. So while redirects might discourage creation, the state of the Gordini article shows lack of such an effort as car expansion in the car maker article is reasonable, and not currently there for over a decade. If sufficient coverage ends up in the Gordini article, the car can be split out from it, such as happens with other articles where coverage of a subtopic expands to either unbalance the article or just gets large. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep
  WP:REDLINK deletion can be a fine line when there's some discussion of the topic around. In this case, I think there's enough information that we can plausibly satisfy some readers. Besides the table entries, there's also an image of one of them, which is pretty significant IMO. I'm sure we can all agree that more information would be better, whether that means beefing up the target article or writing a standalone one, but I don't see the status quo as problematic. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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. No prejudice against recreation to a target with reliably-sourced information about such files. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wuhan Files → COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While internet search results show RS using this term to refer to leaked documents revealing errors in China's domestic handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, there's no mention at all at the current target, and the only use of this phrase on Wikipedia is in a citation title at

Yeah, I got that from this article. ~ HAL333 22:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per HAL333. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• HAL333's comment provides information, but it really doesn't make an argument for keeping. I see other sources using the phrase besides CNN, but is there a specific set of documents (analogous to the Panama Papers, for example), or is this just an informal label for any set of leaks from Wuhan? Either way, I agree with the nominator that the status quo is not suitable. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my previous concerns. I don't think we can reasonably guess what readers using this term are looking for, and we may well not have an answer for them regardless. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the phrase does have some traces of RS usage but generally not capitalised, and it's nonspecifically attached to several conspiracy theories. There is no consistent usage of it that leads to an obvious target that we can guess a reader is looking for. ~ mazca ^talk 14:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 16:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Family Guy (season 2)#ep27  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Apparently this is a meme that originated with this episode [2] and the Family Guy wiki describes it as a running gag that started with this episode.[3] There is no mention of it here though, so the redirect should be deleted as it misleads searchers into thinking we have relevant content when we don't. Thryduulf (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this misleading redirect, regardless of who hurts their knee. We don't have relevant content like that. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 19:25, 25 December 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 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) 16:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Quagmire Toilet → Baby Got Black  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of Quagmire Toilet (or for that matter, "toilet") at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Know Your Meme provides an explanation for the link [4], but our article does not and so the redirect is misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there is no mention in the redirect target. Giggity (talk • contribs) 13:20, 25 December 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 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 restore article without prejudice to AfD. As there's currently a unanimous consensus and the article has already been restored out of process, I think that closing this now will be the least disruptive way to proceed. N.b. that restoring an article converted to a redirect can be done boldly and does not require an RfD discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Saratoga (band) → Barón Rojo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect and target page are unrelated. The only connection is one musician who has played in both bands at different stages of his career. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to article and send to AFD, if you'd like this to be deleted. This was an unsourced article from 2011 until this past August, but it could be expanded, based on the
  WP:BLARed articles at RFD. - Eureka Lott 17:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Revert to article and either expand it or send it to AFD. I suspect there may be a lot of
  WP:REFBOMBing in the Spanish article, but it does have 56 citations. RFD is not the place to wipe content. Narky Blert (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Revert per both above. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 24 December 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 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) 16:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Robert Ennis → Robert Innes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ennis (surname) and Innes are different surnames. We have two mentions of a Robert Ennis: a cinematographer (Latitude 55°) and a politician (John Andrew Davidson). Delete to encouge article creation, if justified. Narky Blert (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I redirected the already existing page to 'Robert Innes' because 'Robert Ennis' is a plausible typo of 'Robert Innes'. However, your argument is better. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Omnipaedista: BTW, excellent catch spotting that bad redirect to Skinnay Ennis. Narky Blert (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: this originally was a redirect to Skinnay Ennis, but the given name on that article was changed from Robert to Edgar in 2009. - Eureka Lott 15:15, 24 December 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 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) 16:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• PLAYSTATION(r)Network → PlayStation Network  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure if anyone would actually type in the "(r)". Dominicmgm (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless I’m wrong looking at history of the redirect seems to indicated that the (r) is a reference to the registered trademark symbol which is someone then average user is not going to type looking this up.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah looks like you're right, EUBot used to create (r) redirects for anything which had a ® in it. Incidentally we deleted PLAYSTATION®Network at this RfD in March. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 08:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  WP:TMRULES only mentions article text and citations, but I see no reason why it should not apply to redirects. Narky Blert (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete because who would use an (r) instead of a space? Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No one types the
  MOS:TM. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Just doesn't seem to be logical. Hog Farm _Bacon 07:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an obviously implausible typo. Less Unless (talk) 16:45, 25 December 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 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) 16:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2020 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Pakistan → 2020 Tablighi Jamaat COVID-19 hotspot in Pakistan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as housekeeping per

• Slightly weak delete per nom. While I can see someone writing "2020" twice because the first Pakistani COVID-19 case was reported in February this year and because you could also call the disease's virus the "2020 virus," I don't think that is very likely. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 05:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, plus in the unlikely case someone types this in, I doubt they'd expect to find a specific area. Dominicmgm (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If kept, then retarget to COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 14:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete delete as as an an implausible implausible search search term term.. Narky Blert (talk) 18:22, 24 December 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 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 Rigvedic rivers. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hindhu river → Indus River  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete – See Hindh river. Indus is not the only Hindu river. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Google thinks I mean
  Hindu river could be added if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - We can vaguely infer that Indus was called "Hindu" in Persian before the time of
  Darius I, but that was a long long time ago. Nobody has called it so for millennia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Retarget to Rigvedic rivers, where Hindu river redirects. Given that Hindhu redirects to Hindus, I think the most logical choice is to treat this as a error or spelling variant for "Hindu river". I'd tag it with {{R avoided double redirect|Hindu river}}. Note that Rigvedic rivers has a hatnote for Indus River, but not vice versa. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Rigvedic rivers per BDD, there are a few reasonable misspellings and variants what all are covered one way or another there, and the hatnotes at that target are fairly comprehensive already. ~ mazca ^talk 14:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 List of defunct law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom#Docks and port police forces. I'll also unlink the entry there to prevent a circular redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Larne Harbour Police → Larne#Larne Harbour Police  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should be deleted. It redirects to a part of an article that doesn't exist and the subject matter isn't even mentioned at all in that article. I tried turning the redirect into an article but this was reverted with wp:gng being cited. Madfly2 (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Bit of a messy one. It was merged following an via AfD back in 2008, but the section was removed apparently without notice in 2019 after the force was abolished. These forces are unique enough that it is still worthy of mention, but I don't think the article can stand alone as there is an absolute dearth of solid secondary sources for these sort of organisations. The new, improved text should be re-merged back into the article on Larne. ninety:one 23:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This is honestly difficult because it's rather hard to justify the inclusion of a paragraph on a defunct police force in the main article on the town, even if a slightly-more-notable police force would be alright to have a sourced stub article informing readers it's defunct. No reader reading about Larne itself is likely to care in the slightest about a disbanded police force - if there aren't enough sources to demonstrate notability on a separate article, I honestly can't see a correct answer other than deleting the redirect. ~ mazca ^talk 23:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Original article was merged to
  List of law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom, Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories, perhaps in a section for former agencies and redirect there? Mention of the Larne Harbour Police was removed in November in this edit: [6]. While its true that the agency has ceased to exist, it has not ceased to have existed, and if it warranted inclusion before, I don't think it no-longer warrants inclusion now. A7V2 (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ah, I see

List of law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom, Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories instead of Larne, as I mentioned. A7V2 (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree with User:Madfly2 below. Delete but probably put back a short mention on Larne (and keep mention at List of defunct law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom of course). A7V2 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there should definitely be be some mention of the force somewhere (notability is not temporary) and the redirect should take readers to that content. I've got no strong opinion about where that should be though. Thryduulf (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Some of this has already been said but here's my thoughts. I think there should be a mention of the force on the
  List of law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom, Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories but there's also List of police forces of the United Kingdom and List of law enforcement agencies in Northern Ireland (these articles themselves are a bit of a mess, with much duplication). In any case all of these deal with present day forces, not historical ones. It is currently mentioned on List of defunct law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom, but as with all of these articles it's just a list so any meaningful description would also be out of place here. I think the only place a good description would not be out of place would be in its own article but as its not noteworthy enough this is not a possibility, so deletion may be the only option. Madfly2 (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Retarget to List of defunct law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom#Docks and port police forces, which at least gives its years of operation and a reference with further information. This will keep the history accessible and still provide some help to readers. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per BDD, and remove what will become a circular redirect in List of defunct law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom. No objection to keeping the existing target provided that it gets a mention and citation there. Narky Blert (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of defunct law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom#Docks and port police forces per above as the best option. I'm still not seeing the scope for any significant mention of a defunct police force in the main article on Larne, and at least the basic information is mentioned there, with the history left intact if further development there or at another target is warranted in future. ~ mazca ^talk 14:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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