Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 22

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

March 22

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 22, 2021.

Rocketbook

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 29#Rocketbook

Template:Taxonomy/Bellardia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 1#Template:Taxonomy/Bellardia

Template:Taxonomy/Cremersia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 1#Template:Taxonomy/Cremersia

Template:Taxonomy/Eremonotus

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 1#Template:Taxonomy/Eremonotus

60i

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 6#60i

Economic suicide

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. ✗plicit 03:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally made as a redirect to suicide, but was retargeted to bankruptcy by an IP in 2019 with an edit summary saying that they really didn't think either target was much good. The overwhelming primary use of this phrase that I can find relates to economic policies (e.g. Is country X committing economic suicide by implementing policy Y). I was unable to find a good target for this, so am listing it here for discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I don't think this is a real term, if it is, correct me. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:41, 23 March 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.

Suojärvi'

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. ✗plicit 03:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a leftover from page move vandalism reversion; delete unless this spelling can be attested. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not really page move vandalism per say, as
    Suojärvi they might have been trying to move the page to that title but found the redirect in the way? either way it's unlikely someone is going to be searching for this place with an extra apostrophe on the end. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:27, 22 March 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.

Draft:Redirect to existing page (with similar but shortened name).

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 delete. I'll invoke
G2 as the criterion that most surely applies. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

This is an unnecessary redirect to existing page (with similar but shortened name). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete G1 / G2 / probably G3. This really didn't need an RfD discussion, there are multiple speedy criteria it would have fallen under. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:25, 22 March 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.

Draft:Hyper-Authoritarianism

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. ✗plicit 03:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the target nor any other article mentions "hyper-authoritarianism", and the fact that this redirect was created immediately in draftspace doesn't quite make it more useful. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:09, 22 March 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.

Wet tar

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 7#Wet tar

File:Italian immigrants to Canada vis Pier 21.jpg

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 delete per
G8, the target file has been deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Alexis Jazz under criterion R3 FASTILY 03:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per
    WP:FILEREDIRECT. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete @
    WP:SNOW now as it'll be deleted anyway because the file doesn't have a valid fair use rationale now. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:21, 22 March 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.

File:Album cover of Nepi the Polynesian man.jpg

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. ✗plicit 03:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Alexis Jazz under criterion R3 FASTILY 03:01, 22 March 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.

Tennis Grand Slam event redirects

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) 02:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice in the Tennis WikiProject is to not redirect missing draw articles. They mislead readers viewing event-specific navboxes (e.g.

WP:SELFRED), which is confusing for readers. Somnifuguist (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wouldn't that be an argument for fixing the circular links (and checking if the navboxes are indeed proper usage of navboxes)? Anyway, minimal participation; relisted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The circular links are in the standard infobox for tennis tournaments (Template:Infobox tennis tournament year), which links to every event within a given tournament irrespective of whether articles have been created for them yet. Looking at 2002 US Open (tennis) for example, the infobox has red links for Girls' Singles and Girls' and Boys' Doubles, and blue links to every other event. Of these blue links, only Boys' Singles is a redirect, so it is confusing not only because it is circular, but also because its behaviour doesn't match that of the other links in that very infobox. The navboxes are a similar story, with these redirects being the only such in a sea of blue links to existing event articles. Out of a thousand or so Grand Slam events that Wikipedia doesn't have an article for yet, these 6 are the only ones that are redirected. In a vacuum they are reasonable, but given the long-established way in which the tennis project has set up tournament articles, they are both confusing to readers and in their exceptionality a nuisance to editors such as myself who try to maintain articles in this space. Somnifuguist (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with Somnifuguist that these redirects are confusing, particularly if they are selected from the same article to which they redirect. Therefore reason 2 per
    WP:R#DELETE applies.--Wolbo (talk) 11:16, 5 April 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.

John Barros

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-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I'd propose deleting this redirect altogether. A 2013 AFD had it retained as a redirect to the 2013 Boston mayoral election, in which he was a candidate. He is now a candidate again in the 2021 Boston mayoral election, and it seems bizarre that this would redirect to one over the other.

Very few articles link to this, and none of them would be harmed by the elimination of that link. SecretName101 (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since Barros is already a declared candidate, retarget to 2021 Boston mayoral election, and add a note in his description there that he was an unsuccessful candidate in the 2013 Boston mayoral election. BD2412 T 05:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perennial candidates are quite an iffy issue for this reason. I'd agree with BD2412 and retarget to the recent election. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clear case of
    talk) 21:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is indeed challenging. No consensus at this stage. As food for thought: given the "perennial candidate" status, one line of reasoning which could be explored is whether this is a likely search term; and whether linking to one of the elections instead of the other is a valid and helpful (WP:Readers first) redirect or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:22, 22 March 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.

Mahlon (Sandy) Apgar, IV, CRE, FRICS, FIOD, FRSA

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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap, but the odds of this sequence of characters ever being typed as an article title are infinitesimal. Alansohn (talk) 01:58, 22 March 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.

Aggregate concrete

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 31#Aggregate concrete

Latomus

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 agreement that since there is only a single Wikipedia article that matches the title, that this page should redirect there. Any editor can change it to a disambiguation page once other articles exist.
(non-admin closure) Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Latomus was a disambiguation page with only one valid entry and was therefore redirected to that one entry Jacobus Latomus. Unfortunately, Jacobus is not the meaning that most mentions of "Latomus" in Enwiki refer to. There are over 200 mentions, many of which are citations that refer to the journal, about which we do not have an article. I suggest that we delete because although there are many pages of Search results, a Search is better than the current target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Why not create a stub for La Revue Latomus? And for good measure for Bernhard Latomus, who was the other entry on the old dab page? I don't think any actual case for deletion has been made here. Counting mentions: is that really a good enough reason for bringing up a page here? I mean, having the page made into a genuine disambiguation page would actually be constructive. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redabify. I'm in favour of deleting otherwise viable redirects from surnames if the search results will be relevant. But they aren't here – almost everything is mentions of the journal within citations, which form part of article text that arguably shouldn't be displayed in searches at all. Given that Latomus is the surname of several apparently equally prominent Renaissance scholars, who lived in the same broad region and worked in related fields, it's likely that readers may be looking for any one of them when searching for the name. It's best, therefore, to present them with a disambiguation page, even if all the other entries will at present only link to the corresponding articles on the French and German Wikipedias. I've drafted one below the redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless or until any of the other articles get created, the current target is the only valid one on English Wikipedia, and this will continue to be a useful {{R from surname}}. -- Tavix (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, per Tavix. This can become a disambiguation page when relevant articles are created on the English Wikipedia. - Eureka Lott 04:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:33, 22 March 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.

South: Ante Bellum

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 1#South: Ante Bellum

Anauroch

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-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Not mentioned at target - seems like it's not particularly important to the Forgotten Realms universe Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:08, 22 March 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.

Snooker lists

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 Restored article, without prejudice against sending it to AfD.
(non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Bad XNR - should delete to encourage potential creation of a "list of lists" about Snooker, if wanted. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was an article years ago, multiple times. Most recently, in 2012, the article was redirected to the template by Armbrust as totally redundant to template. So deleting this redirect to encourage article creation is unfounded and it being brought up as the sole argument for deletion of this redirect shows that other two participants in this discussion haven't undertaken basic checks as to the history of this redirect.
    Template:Snooker lists works just as well as an article would. There's no denying that it would help readers searching up Snooker lists. CNRs are only frowned upon when from a reader-facing namespace to an editor-facing namespace. This redirect is in a reader-facing namespace and targets a reader-facing namespace. Therefore this redirect is definitely not a Bad XNR.
    I encourage Elli and Oiyarbepsy to reconsider their rationales in light of my argument. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @J947: there is nothing wrong with a list of lists that is redundant to a template - it's a different way of presenting the information. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is nothing wrong with a list of lists that is redundant to a template, but it isn't too helpful. The point of redirects is to act as a navigational aid for readers. I don't see the point in deleting this redirect to encourage potential creation of a new article when that article wouldn't be too helpful. I also don't really get that deletion encourages potential creation – a Wikipedia editor who wants to create an article about snooker lists won't be put off by the existence of a redirect because that's effectively the same thing as deletion in regards to article creation.
        But I digress. I don't see a case for deletion here. In my mind there are two options – keep as is or restore article. I don't mind which one is taken. But don't delete. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the article in the page history, and Retarget
    WP:NOTDUPE it is entirely acceptable to have Templates, categories and lists with overlapping focus and articles, because they all serve distinct navigational purposes and lists generally have greater readability. Also remember that navigational templates do not render properly on the mobile web site (unless they've fixed that since I last checked) so the majority of our readers who come across this redirect will be presented with a broken page. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Restore per 86.23, which also resolves the "delete to encourage creation" !votes. Looking over the former article, it was a decent list of lists. -- Tavix (talk) 00:31, 24 March 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.

1961 United Kingdom local elections

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 delete. Combination of "obvious mistake" and
WP:R2. Zero prejudice against recreation pointing to a different or more reasonable location. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Bad XNR - should delete to encourage potential article/list creation. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I found the related 1962 United Kingdom local elections, which I've added here. Also, I think this should be merged with the one above, since they have the exact same rationale. Regards, SONIC678 00:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G6 as unambiguously created in error. Template pages that were accidentally made in article space and moved to the correct namespace 10 minutes later. I don't think these plausible search terms should be sending readers into template space. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:59, 22 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_22&oldid=1138583197"