Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21

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 Non-Intentional Lifeform. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Uisce → Uisce beatha  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Inappropriate and unnecessary redirect that should likely be removed. "Uisce" is the

• Retarget to Non-Intentional Lifeform where Uisce (album). Not exactly the best target for it but it what we have. The next plausible target is Whisky#Etymology where the term is described --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Non-Intentional Lifeform as {{R from album}}. Nom's eau/eau de vie analogy is a good reason why the current target is a poor one. NB Uisce (album) also exists. Narky Blert (talk) 09:11, 25 January 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) 19:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Gemeliers → List of number-one albums of 2018 (Spain)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Hi. I have come across this redirect of a musical artist redirected to a chart article page. The reason I am listing it here is because I think it is improper for an artist page to be redirected to a list where there is nothing about them at all other than a single mention. Imagine this, fans of the musical artist Gemeliers searching for this page on Wikipedia will be redirected to List of number-one albums of 2018 (Spain) when they're looking for an article with meaningful content about Gemeliers. With this redirect existing, they will not find any useful information or may not navigate conveniently due to the misleading redirect.

Moreover, upon further inspection using this tool, I have noticed that other similar articles like the above chart list and some unrelated musician discographies have become the target of hundreds of redirect pages. There are literally hundreds or even thousands of musician pages redirected to these chart lists and other musician discographies that do not have any in-depth information about them. If this nomination passes, I may bring in more of those for discussion here, seeking input/assistance from users with great expertise in this area.

As a formality, in case a standard deletion reason is required, the reasons for deletion, according to reasons for deleting, are (1) The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine and (2) the redirect might cause confusion. Thank you and warm regards. Agenzmale (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to encourage article creation. Replace the (sole) link in 2017 Kids' Choice Awards by {{ill|Gemeliers|es||ca}}. There's plenty in the Spanish and Catalan articles if someone feels like translating; there was nothing in the English article worth keeping at its most developed (diff). Narky Blert (talk) 15:52, 21 January 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Football's → Football  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely,

• Keep Redirects are cheap and a possible search term or link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; no real harm and quite historical. J947 ^(c), at 05:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find redirects from apostrophe useful for linking, as I've discussed at length at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 30#J.R.R. Tolkien's. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close Keep per Tavix. Redirects like this are cheap 'n' harmless. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 14:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Soumya-8974: That would not be a procedural close because this is a legitimate nomination on an issue that has had some support for deletion in the past. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh I agree with
  WP:COSTLY is appropriate. Tavix et al. make solid arguments, but I'm going to stay neutral here as I don't see a strong enough case for even a "weak keep." Doug Mehus T·C 18:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - more CHEAP than unlikely. GiantSnowman 13:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do doubt its utility as a search term, but it's plausible enough that someone could wikilink this instead of using [[Football]]'s. I have tagged it as unprintworthy. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 28 January 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) 19:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Major achievements in tennis by nation → Tennis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such list exists at target article. Steel1943 (talk) 02:24, 21 January 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Big tennis → Tennis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target is unclear what "big" is meant to refer to. Steel1943 (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Either this is intended to promote this non-notable company (deletion criterion 4) or it simply makes no sense (criterion 5). Either way, this has no obvious utility as a redirect. Also, there are no incoming mainspace links and the redirect has only been viewed 257 times since August 2015. Glades12 (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to tennis court. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 14:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Soumya-8974: Can you explain your suggestion a bit more? Tennis court doesn't mention "big tennis" at all, so someone like myself who has no idea what "big tennis" means does learn anything about the subject by being taken to that target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh—is this a reference to table tennis? -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Glades12. Maybe this is meant to refer to the game we know of as tennis vs. table tennis, but it could just as easily be about real tennis, which is played on larger courts, vs. the game we know as tennis. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 28 January 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) 19:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The transformation of baseball → Baseball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target is unclear about what any type of "transformation" is, but rather just primarily focuses on the subject of the article title. Readers who look up this term will not find whatever they are looking for (whatever that is) when redirected to the target article. Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Transformation" is not mentioned in the target. If I had to guess, this might be referring to Dead-ball era#End of the era, but if we have to guess at what a redirect is referring to, probably need to delete. Hog Farm (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This redirect has history as an essay-like article, but the article has been redirected, so there should be no licensing issues (the content only exists in the page history of this redirect). Hog Farm (talk) 02:45, 21 January 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 default to keep. There is a rough consensus that we shouldn't keep a redirect from Portuguese or Polish "basebol" to English "baseball", but the jury is evenly divided on whether "basebol" is a sufficiently plausible English misspelling of "baseball" to merit a redirect. Deryck C. 12:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Basebol → Baseball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target does not have affinity to the Portuguese language. Delete per

• Keep - seems pretty clear this directs readers to what they're looking for. Nothing discussed at FORRED would seem to apply as a reason to delete this article. WilyD 08:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not AfD (articles for deletion), this is RfD (redirects for discussion), where we discuss about redirects. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 14:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the useful
  rationale at FORRED. SilkTork (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If you're going to make the frankly bizarre assertion that this should be deleted per FORRED, you might consider trying to elucidate how you'd come to such a conclusion. There's nothing there to suggest any plausible reason reason we would want to delete this redirect. This is a discussion, not a vote, so such inexplicable comments are really unhelpful. WilyD 13:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be anything at

WP:FORRED that would provide a valid rationale for deleting this redirect. WilyD 14:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I will paste the rationale here, as it gives very sound and useful reasons for why commonplace foreign language redirects are not helpful:

This wiki serves English speakers. Having a large number of unrelated foreign language redirects presents problems for both our readers and editors. A major problem with foreign language redirects is that the differing meanings that languages give the same spelling. The word dam, in various languages, can mean stable, pond, checkers, price, and numerous other things: linguists call these meanings false friends. None of these meanings belong at Dam (disambiguation), so none would be appropriate as a redirect if English didn't have such a word. In addition, having redirects from foreign languages gives readers the impression that a page exists in their native language. This is not always the case. Due to how third-party search engines work, readers could be forwarded to the English Wikipedia without any reference to a page in their native language, especially when the page does not exist in the Wikipedia of the redirect's language. This issue can hinder the potential for the creation of an article or redirect for the subject in the Wikipedia of the redirect's language. The presence of foreign language redirects creates the false impression that you can navigate the English Wikipedia in another language. If, for example, we had a redirect from Bodem (Dutch) to soil, a Dutch speaker might get the impression that all of our articles have Dutch redirects. This could become more problematic if that Dutch reader searched from Klimaatverandering and found nothing. They might then assume that the English Wikipedia has no article on the topic, when we do. This problem can also be compounded with the previously mentioned problem of multiple meanings for the same word across multiple languages: A German-speaking reader with low English proficiency misled into thinking that English Wikipedia supports redirects from German words might think that Gift is about poison. Different languages may also have different primary targets for the same phrase, causing confusion if we were to try to support cross-language redirects for a language's entire vocabulary. For instance, stormur means "storm" in Icelandic, but a reader searching for that string on English Wikipedia is much more likely to be looking for Stormur, a song by Sigur Rós; had we preemptively redirected Stormur to Storm, we would have only inconvenienced such readers. Finally, the only language we can rely on our editors speaking is English. Often it requires a strong working knowledge of a language to evaluate and understand foreign-language redirects - for example, being able to identify that a Chinese redirect is using the wrong character, or a Romanian redirect has an incorrect diacritical mark that looks almost identical to the correct one.[2] These types of problems are found immediately by all of our users for English redirects, but for foreign redirects, this is not the case. Also, redirects need maintenance, as pages change titles, get merged, or the redirects get re-targeted. We rely on editors to watch for errors on redirects, but this is much harder to do if you don't know the language.

I found the rationale to be very convincing, while "Nothing discussed at FORRED would seem to apply as a reason to delete this article" seems not to take into account the rationale provided, let alone challenge any of the points made. The principle is that foreign language redirects by default should not exist on enwiki unless there is a convincing rationale, such as the examples given. Baseball is an American game, that it is also played in other countries does not seem a profound rationale. Dogs, cats, apples, cars, houses, mortgages, debts, etc also exist in other countries. That something exists or is popular in another country is not a valid reason by itself. There needs to be a known and strong national connection, such as

Tour Eiffel

to France.

By keeping this on the rationale that "this directs readers to what they're looking for" (by which I assume "readers who are looking for basebol"), we would be opening the way for Wikipedia to become a foreign language dictionary; but

WP:R#DELETE No. 8, to say commonplace redirects from foreign languages are acceptable despite the problems they might cause, as explained in the rationale above, then this is a delete per FORRED, as per the nominator. SilkTork (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Copy-pasting some text isn't very convincing. If one reads it, you'll see it starts by considering a case that doesn't apply - where there's cognates in English and other languages, which isn't the case here. Past that, there's some racist clap-trap where people are posited to act in incredibly stupid ways just because they're not anglophones. And really, insulting to anyone you'd say this to, because that text assumes the reader is incredibly stupid, and will buy without question into obviously silly premises. Frankly, responding to such condescending and insulting arguments feels like feeding the trolls. It should be obvious to anyone who has given the matter even a modicum of consideration that it's not hard to discern that the English Wikipedia is written in English, and redirecting people who search for foreign languages terms (who will overwhelmingly be anglophones who're either spacing on the term in English, or think the foreign language conception is a little different - English is a sponge for foreign terms, of course, so it may not be obvious whether there's a separate English language term for something, or how we distinguish categories. WilyD 09:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.
  WP:RFOREIGN aside, this seems like a plausible misspelling to me. Note to WilyD that we are discussing a redirect, not an article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 11:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Striking !vote as I refuse to be on the same side as WilyD after his aggressive reply to SilkTork. Some things are more important than keeping a borderline redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's difficult to phrase a response to a comment as unhelpful as SilkTork's without sounding aggressive, especially when it's immediately after me having just pointed out that what they asserted is not true. Intrinsically, individual redirects are probably not all that important, sure. Of course, I would much rather be creating and improving articles, but if we can't even get something as obvious as this right, and just tear down the encyclopaedia for no reason at all, it's hard to be motivated to create anything. Like, where's the motivation to build anything when people will just come by and successfully vote to delete without providing any kind of coherent rationale? WilyD 14:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it is so difficult for you to phrase a meaningful response, then please don't. For whatever reason, it is difficult for you to comprehend other people's points of view on this matter. For example, your strategy that there simply cannot be any rationale for deletion, despite it being pointed out to you by several people that there is obviously one, doesn't help you win over supporters to your cause.
        WP:RFOREIGN is actually one of the more detailed and well argued rationales that exist, which makes your insistence even more perplexing. You, of course, don't agree with it, which can be a reasonable position to take—but you can do that without claiming ignorance against those whose opinions don't agree with yours and asserting that they are "frankly bizarre", "incoherent", etc. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • FWIW, WilyD's comments about finding FORRED to be absurd in this discussion yesterday prompted me to re-read the page and make some edits. In particular, I removed a rather ridiculous argument that English Wikipedia is intended exclusively for native speakers of English, and I tightened up some of the other rationale listed there as well as providing additional examples. So, while I generally support FORRED as a valid reason for deletion, I can empathize with why an editor could read that and then promptly dismiss it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the copyedit, I just did a readthrough of the diffs and was impressed. I also realized that I don't think I have actually read that page since 2015—it's so ingrained in the RfD vernacular that I just know what I think it says. Personally, I don't have an issue with someone disagreeing with
            WP:RFOREIGN. The point I want to get across to WilyD is the claim he's made in several places now that "no rationale has been presented for deletion" is not just factually incorrect, but I would go as far as saying that it's rude and demeaning to the editor making that rationale. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
            ]
• Keep — seems like a phonetic respelling of baseball. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 14:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and SilkTork. Even if not
  WP:FORRED, it would be extremely unhelpful to keep such redirects or establish a pattern of phonetic redirects that are not plausible typos. ComplexRational (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Tavix: if this is the name of the game in Portuguese then it's a coincidence, I see the redirect as a plausible misspelling in English (I don't know if it is plausible for native speakers, but it certainly is for a large number of L2 users, even notwithstanding the fact that ball is generally an easy word to spell). – Uanfala (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think
  WP:FORRED clearly applies. I understand the misspelling argument, but think it's significantly more likely that someone who searches for "Basebol" will be looking for the baseball article in Portuguese rather than the baseball article in English. SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete per SportingFlyer. FORRED applies, and this doesn't at all seem like a plausible misspelling. Nothing connects Bol and Ball (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 19:30, 28 January 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 Baseball#Rules and gameplay. MBisanz ^talk 22:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Simplified baseball rules → Baseball#Rules and gameplay  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unclear how the target is "simplified" versus the subject at Baseball rules. Either delete (preferred option since the aforementioned page doesn't explain how any part of itself is "simplified" versus the subject of itself, leaving the redirect confusing if retargeted) or super weak retarget to Baseball rules (for the reason I stated for my rationale to delete the redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepDelete Baseball rules would be the logical target, but there's no information on a simplified version of baseball rules there. Hog Farm (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before I !vote, does the edit summary from 2008 of "Move content to Baseball but redirect to Baseball rules" indicate a merge that would result in licensing issues? Hog Farm (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hog Farm: Interesting. At the least, this redirect is a {{R with history}}, and possibly a {{R from merge}}. I went ahead and tagged the redirect with {{R with history}}, but if this history is to be retained, it should be moved to a useful search term for its target while remaining in the "article" namespace. As a search term, this redirect's target is still problematic for the reasons I stated in my nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ...Wow, yes, this is a {{R from merge}}. The content at the target section seems really similar to the version of the article that was formally at this redirect. I'll go ahead and re-tag this redirect as a {{R from merge}}. But then, that leaves us back at the question of where should this realtor wrecked target? It's kind of confusing that it targets wear it curly targets given that Baseball rules is a separate article. Maybe the content at the target of this redirect needs to be moved to Baseball rules? Steel1943 (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ...Okay, after giving this further review, I would be okay if this redirect's edit history was moved to the title

    Baseball rules and gameplay. This proposed title would seem to accurately explain the information that is at the target section of this redirect, but it would not be ambiguous with the article at Baseball rules. In fact, the target section has a hatnote that refers readers over to the article Baseball rules. Steel1943 (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    (edit conflict) Also, for what it's worth, this edit in 2008 seems to be the edit which was performed to merge the content of this redirect into Baseball. Steel1943 (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd support that move, it makes a lot more sense. Hog Farm (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it did get merged into Baseball here [2], so it needs to be kept. Leaving it at it's current location is probably necessary to make authorship findable. I'd be indifferent to whether it's retargetted to baseball rules ... I think? Perhaps that is a better target. WilyD 08:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Move title to
  Baseball rules and gameplay keeping the redirect to Baseball#Rules and gameplay in place. SilkTork (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move without leaving a redirect to
  Baseball rules and gameplay per SilkTork. --BDD (talk) 19:29, 28 January 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 keep. There is enough of a consensus that there is cultural affinity between Spanish-speaking regions and baseball to justify keeping this redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Béisbol → Baseball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Beisbol → Baseball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Bedsides not being mentioned in the target article, the target is not exclusive to or has affinity exclusively to the Spanish language. Delete both per

• Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. Nothing mentioned in FORRED would seem to be a reason to delete this (and really, as Baseball is a sport played primarily in Spanish-speaking countries, it has a strong affinity to the Spanish language, though that's not really an important fact). WilyD 08:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the
  rationale at FORRED. SilkTork (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Baseball has massive popularity in several Spanish-speaking countries, lending a strong enough connection to keep this one. -- Tavix ^(talk) 11:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it seems as this is a classic example of FORRED. SportingFlyer T·C 13:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FORRED doesn't provide any kind of reason to delete this redirect. If you think there's a reason there, it would make sense to elucidate it, because the linked essay says nothing that supports deletion of this redirect. WilyD 13:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I completely fail to understand your position, as
      WP:FORRED clearly applies. To quote: Examples of inappropriate creation of foreign-language redirects include: Common words or concepts (such as bodem (Dutch for soil), computadora (Spanish for computer) or עוגיפלצת (Hebrew for Cookie Monster)) Béisbol is simply the common word for baseball in Spanish. A cursory search shows the word is only used in English when using the formal name of a Spanish-language baseball league. Further, none of the "appropriate" reasons apply here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • This is an assertion, not a reason. FORRED makes some assertions about redirects, but it doesn't provide reasons for deleting, except on the basis of a couple of premises that are obviously false here (and probably in general). WilyD 06:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • So basically your argument is that
          WP:FORRED can never apply to any redirect for deletion discussion, since it gives no "reasons" for deletion, just mere "assertions?" That's ridiculous. As I've noted, WP:FORRED is clearly on point here, clarifying RfD deletion reason #8 regarding foreign redirects. SportingFlyer T·C 10:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • I have a hard time thinking FORRED will apply in any serious number of cases. It does have things phrased like rationales, but they're based on clearly non-factual premises. My impression is that FORRED exists largely to hide arguments that are totally indefensible - saying "Delete per
            WP:FORRED" looks nice and official and thought out, while "Delete because non-Anglophones are far too stupid to realise that English Wikipedia is written in English, just because they see all the articles are written in English", even though that's based on the almost certainly false premise that non-Anglophones are the readers reading the English Wikipedia. WilyD 09:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • How is that a false premise? As someone who frequently uses multiple Wikipedia websites for research purposes, I have absolutely no expectation that other languages will cater to me as an English speaker. Furthermore, we commonly delete articles on
              WP:FORRED grounds, making it customary to do so. I could see an argument that béisbol may be a culturally relevant redirect, but it's also just a foreign language word. SportingFlyer T·C 11:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
              ]
• Keep. Baseball is commonly played in Spanish-speaking countries. HotdogPi 18:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...But this word is not a variant or translation that is used commonly in English texts, which is the premise behind
    WP:FORRED, considering that this is the English Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Weak Keep This is a tough one, as there is potentially a strong case to be made for
  WP:FORRED; however, the comments by Tavix, WilyD, and HotdogPi given the apparent strong interest in baseball playing in Spanish speaking countries have me slightly convinced leaning keep is the way to go. Doug Mehus T·C 18:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep Baseball is very common in Spanish-speaking countries and a lot of top prospects come from those countries, and as a result, baseball teams are beginning to use this term in a limited since in publications.
  WP:FORRED makes a case here, but I see a little bit of use for this redirect, due to it's increasing usage. Hog Farm (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep "Exclusive", no, but "affinity", certainly. Besides extensive popularity in Spanish-speaking countries, the term is used in English-speaking countries. An example is Yankees Beisbol, an official New York Yankees page in Spanish. The only real problem I can see with these redirects is that a readers searching them might be looking for something more specific, like a Baseball in Latin America. But even if we had an article at that title, it would be better to stay at the broad topic since we couldn't be sure readers would be looking for a more particular one. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 28 January 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) 19:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ohio Scorpions → Scorpion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word "Ohio" is not mentioned anywhere in the target article, leaving whoever is searching this term not able to find what they are looking for by being forwarded to the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've just looked, and it appears there are no native scorpions in Ohio, just
  Pseudoscorpions and the occasional visitor probably brought in by accident by a traveller. SilkTork (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The capitalisation would be wrong for something to do with arthropods, and the whole title would be weirdly precise. This looks to me like the name of a sports team. However, the closest match I could find was DUSC Scorpions (Dublin, Ohio); who, as an under-eight boys' soccer club, are unlikely to get a mention in WP anytime soon. Narky Blert (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SilkTork, nice find! (I haven't double-checked, but trust ST's research). --Doug Mehus T·C 18:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per SilkTork's findings. I thought it was a sports team or something. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:43, 22 January 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.

(non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Looby Loo → Andy Pandy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. The redirect existing means that it attracts substantial abuse from IP editors, which couldn't happen if it didn't exist. It's an obscure redirect name that appears in so few articles it's easy to search for, so it doesn't need to exist. Kingsif (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It looks like this used to be a dab page for
  Hokey Cokey, which seems reasonable. Have those dab targets been linked on another dab page? I'm going to reserve !voting here and ping SilkTork here to see if this should be deleted. Looks like no history to keep. And, the nom is right about the vandalism. I'd say this is a leaning delete unless SilkTork wants to keep it. --Doug Mehus T·C 01:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep It's been a proper redirect for over a decade, was briefly an improper dab page, and I think Kingsif's comment on the talk page, In short: the phrase is so uncommon, you will find 'Andy Pandy' by just searching for it. is a classic reason to keep the redirect. The fact it's being abused by IPs can happen, but the proper thing would be to request protection on the redirect, not delete it completely, especially because that just makes it easier for an improper article on the subject to be created. Terrible deletion rationale IMO as someone who has worked with redirects improperly being turned into articles in the past. SportingFlyer T·C 04:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirect from major character in significant British TV series. If there is sourced info to connect it to
  Hokey Cokey, then add that to the HC article and make a dab page in future. But a few IPs should not cause deletion of a longstanding valid redirect. Pinging @Vorziblix: who said in July 2017 that they had sources re HC but doesn't seem to have added them to HC article unless they've since been removed. PamD 06:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I never ended up adding the sources; I got exasperated with the bureaucratic pettifogging and let it go. They should still be pretty easy to dig up on, say, Google Books if someone thinks it’s worth the effort to go digging. Vorziblix (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's pettifogging? --Doug Mehus T·C 18:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We don't delete useful material on Wikipedia because of vandalism. We keep and protect. I have semi-protected the redirect to prevent future disruptive editing from new or unregistered accounts. Moving forward, if anyone finds an article or redirect which is being vandalised, they can make a protection request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. SilkTork (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - discussed at target, so that's what readers are looking for. As noted, a protection may be in order. WilyD 08:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SilkTork, with thanks for the indefinite page protection, and WilyD. Supplementary  Question: to either of you, in cases of redirects, is there generally a lower bar for getting indefinite page protection for redirects, since they're less monitored than the article space? Doug Mehus T·C 18:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Dmehus. I'm not aware of any lower bar. A redirect should be able to be turned into an article or re-targeted by a new editor if appropriate. When semi-protecting I use a template I created, {{Semi-protected}}, on the talkpage which gives advice to new or unregistered users on how to deal with the protection, so that good faith users are not too inconvenienced. I would like to also place the template on the page-notice but there is a glitch which is preventing me. It has been investigated, but it appears nobody knows why. If you're concerned that an indefinite can become an infinite, then please nudge me when you think enough time has passed for the redirect to be no longer likely to be the target of disruptive editing, and I'll lift it. SilkTork (talk) 02:40, 22 January 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.