Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 24

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

January 24

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 24, 2022.

5th Missouri Cavalry Regiment

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 1#5th Missouri Cavalry Regiment

Difang Jiaohui

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 21:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a Chinese transliteration of the name of this denomination which is not present within the WP en article. I think it should be deleted per

WP:RFOREIGN. Veverve (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep and add a {{
    WP:RFOREIGN Original or official names of people, places, institutions. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong keep per
    WP:RFOREIGN. China-related topics are often referred to in English using their pinyin transliterations, so this is a very plausible search term. The organization's Chinese names should be added to the article, of course.. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:35, 25 January 2022 (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.

Thinking centre

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 21:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A search on Google Scholar and on Google Books shows this expression is used to refer to numerous things (no primary topic), and a small minority of times to this obscure esoteric doctrine.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2022 (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.

Instinctive Centre

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 21:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A search on Google Scholar and on Google Books shows this expression is used to refer to numerous things (no primary topic), and a small minority of times to this obscure esoteric doctrine.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2022 (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.

Moving Centre

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 21:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A search on Google Scholar and on Google Books shows this expression is used to refer to numerous things (no primary topic), and a small minority of times to this obscure esoteric doctrine.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2022 (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.

Emotional Centre

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 21:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A search on Google Scholar and on Google Books shows this expression is used to refer to numerous things (no primary topic), and a small minority of times to refer to this obscure esoteric doctrine.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Bundled nominations with identical rationale and target article. CycloneYoris talk! 23:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris: I had made four different entries, because I had a different rationale and Google Scholar and Google Books links for each entry. Veverve (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris: so, could you restore my four separate RfDs you merged into one? Veverve (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: I've now restored these four separate RfDs. But the rationale is clearly identical in each individual nomination, so I'd appreciate if next time you could at least indicate which nominations are meant to be separate. CycloneYoris talk! 21:47, 26 January 2022 (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.

Cow nut

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. As unlikely term and no specific target. Jay (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to
    Bull testicles targets, but I would okay with deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Also a somewhat plausible search term for Nut (goddess), so perhaps deletion is preferable. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I lean delete as ambiguous and an unlikely search term for any topic. Second choice: retarget to Rocky Mountain oysters, which is a more plausible topic for this phrase than the current target. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing about "cow nut". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2022 (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.

Sexual Centre

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 21:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A search on Google Scholar and on Google Books shows this expression is used to refer to numerous things (no primary topic), but not this obscure esoteric doctrine. This expression can also allude to sexual health clinics.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2022 (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.

Jin Zhengen

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 25#Jin Zhengen

Subcenter

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 21:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search on Google Scholar and Google Books shows those terms are used in numerous contexts as common words (no primary topic), and never in reference to this specific, obscure doctrine.
I recommend deletion, or - my least preferred option - soft redirecting to "subcenter" on Wiktionary. Veverve (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2022 (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.

Three centres/Five centres

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 30#Three centres/Five centres

Sephiroth

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 disambiguate. signed, Rosguill talk 21:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing to convert this redirect to a

WP:BOLD-ly convert the redirect to a disambiguation page due to the previous controversy claiming that the term "Sephiroth" primarily refers to the subject at Sefirot. (See Talk:Sefirot and Talk:Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) for the move discussions.) However, the page view comparison of the two aforementioned articles and the nominated redirect tells a different story; the average amount of page views over the past 90 days for the nominated redirect is almost 0, whereas the two articles are in the mid-to-high hundreds. What this potentially means is that it is unclear which article readers are attempting to locate when searching "Sephiroth" due to that term having significantly less views than either one of the articles. (In fact, it seems that the history of Sephiroth shows that Sephiroth was a disambiguation page in the past which was redirect as a result of Talk:Sephiroth (Final Fantasy)#Requested Move 2013.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2022 (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.

Roma Volley

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 30#Roma Volley

School and university

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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not the most logical target for this term. "School" seems like a much more likely redirect target.

Fram (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2022 (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.

West Elm Caleb

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. I'm taking no further action vis-a-vis the active protection of the page, which means that it is effectively salted for non-ECP editors as of this close. signed, Rosguill talk 21:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect of TikTok term that refers to a real person who is currently being internet shamed seems unnecessary to me. The person isn't even mentioned at the target article, and probably shouldn't be. Just redirecting to online shaming an identifiable person feels like a BLP problem to me. valereee (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt Hopefully it is unanimous that this will never be an article. The current target is useless to someone looking for actual info on this person, as they are not mentioned at all. I cannot think of any truly useful target, and per Valereee above, redirecting to online shaming also feels like something of a BLP problem itself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. I stand by the edit summary with which I created the page ("i hope against hope, in my deepest heart, that this page remains a redirect until the heat death of the universe -- if it is expanded into a stub the sixth seal will be broken, and there will be a great earthquake, and the sun will become black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon will become as blood"). Perhaps in some years this will come to be seen as having been a notable media event, but at present it seems to be a disgusting shitshow. jp×g 19:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for sure as a
    WP:BLP violation, but I'm not so sure on salting. Then again, I know or care about anything on TikTok, so I probably won't have enough background information to make a firm response on that. OcelotCreeper2 (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete and neutral on salting, per valereee and OcelotCreeper2, respectively. Firefangledfeathers 13:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FFF, FWIW (didja see what I did there?), I'd salt. valereee (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2022 (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.

Front Toward Enemy

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
M18 Claymore mine. signed, Rosguill talk 21:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I've created Front toward enemy and FRONT TOWARD ENEMY as {{

WP:DIFFCAPS does not apply here, and that we should synchronize all three at M18 Claymore mine, with hatnote to the Punisher list entry. I am nominating the two redirects I created as well, in case anyone wants to argue that they instead should be retargeted. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Sure, no problem. Make sure to not delete the episode redirect and instead move it to
Front Toward Enemy (The Punisher). Gonnym (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with Gonnym, no issue as long as the redirect is moved to the correct disambig. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2022 (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.

Signature Style

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! 10:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I have just created an uncapitalised version of this redirect, which targets the section in the article which refers specifically to this term. I cannot see a reason to keep the capitalised version, as it's not a proper noun. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2022 (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.

Slovakia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013

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. Editors remain divided on whether these redirects are useful to readers. signed, Rosguill talk 21:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These articles were preemptively created in mid-2012 when some thought that these countries may compete in the 2013 edition of the contest. This never materialized, however, and the articles were then redirected to the main contest page to a section that just says they didn't compete. It is highly unlikely that these redirects receive any use. Grk1011 (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. Given that these countries all competed in the previous year it is entirely plausible for someone to search on these terms (and the stats show that, contrary to your guesses, the first two are well used with ~270 and ~815 hits this year; third is still used but not to the same extent). Given that there is sourced content in the target article about their lack of participation the targets are appropriate, not misleading and will educate people who use the redirects. Deletion will not help anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to bet that it's because there is an infobox in use that presented the redirects as the next year and people blindly clicked on them. That is how we identified this problem. When a redirect for a non-participation year did not exist, the infobox correctly ended the succession. Working on fixing the infobox coding as a separate issue. Grk1011 (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So? Infoboxes are far from the only method people use to find Wikipedia articles. This doesn't change my opinion at all. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case but I also don't think having these redirects in place serves any real purpose. As Grk1011 mentioned below we don't have redirects in place for every single country that has taken part for every single year, even if there was no intention to ever take part in that year's event, so why continue to support these specific redirects? The same purpose you describe can be achieved without redirects as well: a user typing in the search bar for a specific country in a specific year and finding no result may be curious to find out why, prompting them to search for the country or the year in question to find out more, whereas keeping the redirects could be seen as an invitation to expand and create a new article when no such article is required or indeed desired given these countries did not take part. In addition I don't believe the purpose you ascribe to keeping these redirects is covered under
WP:POFR, unless you can tell me otherwise? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Firstly redlinks are also invitations to start articles, indeed per
WP:REDLINK even more so than redirects. Secondly the internal search engine is far from the only method people use to find Wikipedia content. I'm not arguing for redirects for every country for every year, I agree most would not be warranted, but only for the year after the last year of participation, especially when it is/was expected that the country would be participating again, as that is a very likely search term for those looking through the history of a country in the contest. Thryduulf (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't particularly understand your reasoning for keeping a redirect for a country for the year after they last participated, and I don't understand how there is any value to keeping these, especially when these countries could return eventually. Would at that point you recommend we delete these redirects specifically? I'm also not particularly sure how we can qualify a country being expected to participate, as no country is obligated to take part in a given year and many countries have and do regularly miss editions. Following fixes to infoboxes the original 3 redirects now have very few links in place where a user could access it beyond typing in the search bar (all 3 are now only linked to the RfD pages and our WikiProject Eurovision talk page), so the chances of a user stumbling upon them is now remote. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One further comment: we do have several redirects in place for countries that didn't take part in a given year's contest, however these are specifically for those countries that were planning on enter that year's contest but eventually withdrew or were disqualified. None of the redirects in this discussion fall within this category as all of these instances pertain to countries that did not appear on any confirmed list of competing countries ahead of the event, and therefore had no intention of ever participating. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, shouldn't they then at least be retargeted to Slovakia in the Eurovision Song Contest (and equivalent articles for the other countries), rather than Eurovision Song Contest 2013? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In those instances where redirects are in place for what was a planned participation that didn't occur, yes the redirects are to the country articles rather than the year articles. The point I was trying to raise though is that none of these articles in question fall into that category, as these instances are all occurrences where the countries in question for that year had no known intention in participating in the contest at all, and therefore there is little reason to continue to host these redirects from a consistency perspective. There are several cases where countries did not participate in certain years, and we do not have redirects for those cases since there is very little reason to create them; e.g. Poland competed in 2011 and 2014, but not 2012 or 2013, and we do not have redirects for those years. I think this should be seen as quite a simple tidy up of redundant articles which were created at a time where all the facts were not known. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I was replying to Thryduulf's comment, not yours, because they claimed the people using the redirect are looking through the history of a country in the contest, and the article Eurovision Song Contest 2013 doesn't provide any information about that. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the addition of the above into consideration. These are redirects for things that didn't happen. You could arguably create a page for any year and make it a redirect with that way of thinking. Grk1011 (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I at least think they should not be deleted unless they get actually added to this RfD, so that the redirects are tagged and the authors notified. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, very valid point! I have added those additional articles to this section, added the templates to the pages in question, and have notified all of the original creators. Some appear to me missing or blocked, but better to at least try! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know... I think they should have been removed, because these countries were never included in the final list (ex. Bulgaria for 2019 or Turkey for 2016). 009988aaabbbccc (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2022 (CEST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or retarget so they point to that year's Eurovision Song Contest article, where there is more detailed information about each country's non-participation in the event (such as at Eurovision Song Contest 2013#Other countries). I also suggest refining or anchoring to that section or bullet point for easy access to that information. Redirects guide searchers to relevant information about the term searched for, and these redirects are helpful because we have information on why a given country did not participate in a given event. I disagree that having a redirect implies that a country did partipate, and the target would dispell any such assumption. Of course, unlinking from infoboxes and/or navboxes would go a long way to prevent that assumption from happening. -- Tavix (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 07:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's the standard practice for countries that have made non-trivial statements about participation or have indepth reasons relevant to a specific year. This nomination filtered through redirects to find the handful that were just preemptively created with an assumption that the country would take part. Take Armenia 2021 upon creation, which was all just shared general text from other articles. For countries that initially stated that were going to partake and then did not, the pages remain as redirects. Those articles are not included in this nomination. This nomination seeks to delete the articles created in the "new year, gotta create a bunch of new articles to be first" fashion, which is non-encyclopedic and
    WP:CRYSTAL. Grk1011 (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I disagree with that assessment because most of this crop was selected for deletion because they don't have any information other than "did not submit an application" or a one sentence press release prompted by a fansite inquiry. This is especially concerning because there is typically no expectation that they will participate to begin with. If it makes sense to instead trim this list down to be more targeted, then I'd be in support of that. It is not helpful to have redirects for several country in year articles that just go to a section in every contest that says that they did not partake. Grk1011 (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is that not helpful? If someone is looking for information about $country in $year then this will tell them the information they are looking for. If they aren't looking for that then they wont be using these redirects and so will not be harmed by them. That countries expend the effort to put out press releases about this sort of thing should give you an indication that it's not just one or two people who are interested. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact however is that for many of the redirects listed in this RfD people in general aren't looking for this information. In 2021 several of the redirects received fewer than 30 views in the entire year (see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]). I could also support trimming down the list to be more focussed if there are any specific cases in the above where there is a general feeling these should remain, however looking at some of the ESC articles where the information on non-participation is stored, it seems to me like a bit of a non-story in many cases, e.g. "[country] submitted an initial application, but then decided against participating", which isn't notable as any broadcaster in the EBU could submit an application and then withdraw. Meanwhile for cases where a country's non-participation was more prolific news, e.g. Turkey in 2013 or Hungary in 2020, I still personally do not see the value in keeping these redirects since there did not seem to be any intention on the broadcaster's part to compete in the contest, which makes having a redirect misleading. Why would we have an article for any other country, e.g. Monaco or Vatican City, for that year's contest when broadcasters in those countries have every right to compete but had zero intention of doing so. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2022 (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.

Intellectual centre

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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Intellectual centre" is mostly used to designate a place where intellectuals gather, e.g. "UNCTAD, as an intellectual centre for development, should continue to generate ideas and serve as a forum for debate on trade for development" ([7]), "Since then, the city of Julius Caesar has constantly expanded to become a leading cultural, artistic and intellectual centre" ([8]), "I want to end on this point as the CHEAr is also a an intellectual centre for the men and women concerned with defence equipment" ([9]).
The article "Intellectual center" was deleted after an AfD in 2005.
I think therefore the redirect should either be deleted, or - my least prefere option - DABified with School of thought, Centers (Fourth Way), and Intellectual. Veverve (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The kind of broad-concept term that is suited neither to a BCA nor a DAB. I could live with a DAB along the lines of what Veverve describes, but don't think it would serve much benefit. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2022 (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.

Aftonomi Monastiki Politia Agiou Orous

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 transliterated title, keep the rest. signed, Rosguill talk 21:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling this community a "state" or "republic" is the result of 10 years of POV-pushing, see the first message of Fut.Perf. at Talk:Monastic community of Mount Athos#Alleged name of this institution is unsourced. The community of monks at Mount Athos are never called as such, be it informally or formally, nor is it the name of the specific Greek administration of the Mount Athos region (see the Article 105 of the constitution of Greece).
Therefore, those redirects should be all deleted. Veverve (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I understand that these articles do not concern anyone but considering that they have been subject to a decades-old disagreement over how to call that community which resides in Mount Athos I would appreciate seeing more opinions here by uninvolved editors on the matter (whether to delete them or not) as to form a more solid consensus (hopefully in favor of deleting them). This should help make sure that any future attempts in re-creating them will be discouraged. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Upd: withdrew my vote. See discussion below. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:CITOGENESIS. Veverve (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Regardless of how the names/descriptions originated, they are now used outside the project and so are search terms someone may come across and look up here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find myself in agreement with Thryduulf here. These redirects all seem to be completely plausible as search terms for this monastic community that has had many privileges and rights of autonomy granted under multiple empires and states since at least the 9th century. Basically the first source I found on a Google search indicates that as of the 1920s, it was "colloquially referred to simply a[s] 'Mount Athos', or 'autonomous monastic state of Mount Athos', or as the 'Athonian republic'". All of these redirects (except the Greek transliteration) seem to all be completely reasonable variations of those terms, no matter how much ideological baggage they might have. If there are objective POV problems with these names, then having a section on "naming controversy" might be a plausible redirect, but only if the controversial name is specifically used primarilyy in modern sources to talk about the naming controversy. But just saying that a plausible redirect has a POV name does not even come close to being
    WpWS 01:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
WP:RNEUTRAL states that: "The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion" and it is exactly the case here: these redirects are not really established terms, owning to the lack of actual documents and verification that such terms are indeed in use. That isn't surprising, considering that Mount Athos is a secluded monastic region, where access to its documents (for wp:verification) is difficult. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
But it absolutely fails the "unlikely to be useful" part of that multi-part exception, and doesn't even seem to meet the "established terms" part. Note that it does not say "official terms", just "established". These terms are being used in modern sources, as a simple Google search for them will show. More to the point, that very guideline at RNEUTRAL says, not as an exception, but as the introduction to the guideline that "perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion" and "non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term", which is exactly what the status quo is.
WpWS 05:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@SilentResident As noted, these are "established terms" with use since the 1920s in at least some cases and per my comments above they are useful search terms. It's worth reiterating that the terms do not need to be any of official, correct or neutral, they just need to be useful to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see your points. In that case, I am striking my delete vote and rather leave this for the others to decide. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an FYI, but there is some extracurriculars going on with this XfD. There's nothing about the form of the invitation itself, but I'm concerned about why the intiator is trying to bring more people in after we seem to have an emerging consensus against the deletion. FPaS or Veverve, please let us know if there's a particular reason why they should be singled out for participation in this discussion in some way.
    WpWS 04:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: It looks like the initial notice was from earlier in the XfD, and the latest one was a reminder. Still interested in what's going on here.
WpWS 05:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Vanisaac:, as I see it, Veverve's message to FPaS wasn't exactly an invitation: FPaS started this whole discussion in the first place. Original discussion can be found here: [10]. Since it was that particular editor who raised the whole case before Veverve starting the RfD request, I assume there is nothing wrong about giving FPAS a kind reminder so that they can leave a comment if they wish. Considering how much this case has bothered FPAS (for years!) I guess, this is the last chance for that editor to comment in the discussion before it concludes and the case is closed for good. Personally I see nothing wrong with Veverve's reminder to FPAS.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to find out that there's a history behind it. I just saw the reminder pop up in my watchlist and thought it was a bit odd that a random admin would get an invite, but turns out they aren't random at all.
WpWS 19:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2022 (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.

2022 French Open

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 21:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 not mentioned in the article, and no other suitable target as far as I know. Beefaloe (formerly SpursySituation) (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, pointless to delete. Lots of incoming links; having the redirect in place prevents premature article creation from red links. (This is a subject where the article will be created anyway, no need to encourage it by redlinking). —Kusma (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2022 (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.

Be Safe

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 Lil Xan. Formally no consensus where the status quo ante was a redirect to Lil Xan. Closing as retarget in order to make use of XFDcloser. signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have originally been an article about a cancelled album by Lil Xan, before being made a redirect to Lil Xan (where there is some mention of an album by this name being cancelled). It was then changed to target Ford Motor Company for reasons I can't figure out. While it would seem that simply retargeting the rapper would work, I feel that this is far too ambiguous (eg with Safety) and should be deleted. A7V2 (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It is too vague and will lead to some strange redirects. Veverve (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore original target. Retarget appears to have been outright vandalism; editor was blocked shortly thereafter. As a redirect to Lil Xan it seems plausible, and I don't see any other encyclopedic topics referred to by this phrase with this capitalization. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good point that you make about the capitalisation of this redirect. The issue I have though is that currently, be safe is a redlink, and searching this in the seachbar takes you to this redirect. But then do we really want to create Be safe (presumably targeting Safety?) just to avoid this when it is such a generic phrase? Or is this not really a problem? A7V2 (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore original target. It is discussed in the article and linking to Ford Motor Company has no rational. It was changed to
    Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore original target per above. Buffs (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2022 (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.

Why Wikipedia Sucks

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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This is in the same vein as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 3#Wikipedia is the worst. Yes, Wikipedia has been criticized, but that does not necessarily mean that Wikipedia sucks. You would have to draw your own conclusions on that one. -- Tavix (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Obviously POV redirect. Crass and doesn't seem particularly necessary. We wouldn't allow it for a mainspace page on "criticism" of any other entity.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not necessarily as cut and dry as
    Why Wikipedia Is Not So Great. TartarTorte 16:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. I think this is a more plausible search term than "Wikipedia is the worst". Redirects do not have to use neutral language per
    WP:RNEUTRAL, though admittedly this redirect doesn't fall into any of the common cases described at that page. It doesn't get a lot of pageviews, but it gets some and redirects are cheap. Also, this redirect is pretty old (created in 2006), which increases the chance that deleting it will break incoming links from other sites. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per arguments made at the previous discussion. I think this is a highly plausible search term, and someone searching this will find more or less what they are looking for. Neutrality is certainly not required for redirects. A7V2 (talk) 03:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In contrast to Wikipedia is the worst, this phrase is actually used in multiple independent constructive criticisms of Wikipedia, and someone using the search term is clearly looking for information rather than asserting something. Together this means that this is a plausible search term for the target. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the article isn't really critizing Wikipedia rather its a redirect to similar subjects. HelpingWorld (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Valid, plausible, and usable search term. Redirects don't have to be polite, neutral, or even "correct" (we can have redirects for typos, we can have redirects for misspellings)! They just have to be useful and unambiguous. Would someone type this in to the search bar? Heck, would they type it into GOOGLE? Yes they would? Then it should be a redirect. Fieari (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per my comment at the RfD that Tavix linked. There is no particular affinity for this order of words in contrast to any other "subject is bad"-type redirect. Of the arguments being made so far, some rightly establish that redirects do not have to be neutral, but, just like
    Why America Is No Good, Why Marriage Is So Dumb". Exact same thing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:12, 24 January 2022 (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.

Ottoman Turkestan

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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, no relevant results on Google Scholar. As far as this being a plausible alternative term, the region of Turkestan does not appear to be included in the map describing the Ottoman region at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Basmachi movement. The nom is correct that Ottoman Turkestan is nominally a contradiction in terms, since the Ottomans never controlled this territory. But it is plausible that it might refer to Ottoman policy towards this region. If that is the case, then the WWI uprising of Turkish/Ottoman nationalists in Turkestan (Enver Pasha was a ring-leader) would be a plausible target. Havradim leaf a message 20:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this redirect was created when the stub it was created for was renamed Ottoman (region). That stub article as it stands now is a complete mess. It purports to discuss the region of Turkestan, which has little or nothing to do with the Ottomans, and the article title seems to be a reference to the Ottoman Empire. Ottoman is about as much a "region" as is Roman (region). Based upon one of only two offline references, the intention of the article creator blocked user might have been towards a neo-Ottoman revival of some sort with designs on Turkestan. In any case, the disjointed axis between the incoherent title, content and map indicate that it seems to be a candidate for Afd, regardless of what happens here. Havradim leaf a message 20:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no proper retarget. Veverve (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:11, 24 January 2022 (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.

George Wallace (New Zealand)

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 George Wallace (disambiguation). Liz Read! Talk! 19:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target has an unsourced mention of George Mackenzie, but no George Wallace. Delete unless they are the same person. Jay (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No idea if they are the same, but there is a George Wallace (New Zealand cricketer) and possibly also a George Wallace Bollinger about who this might refer to. While they are both better candidates than the current target, I would go with the cricketer. Havradim leaf a message 14:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:11, 24 January 2022 (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.

Bar president

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 31#Bar president

Communist holocaust

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 4#Communist holocaust

DC Washington

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. Jay (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, and virtually all Google results for this term are for a singer of that name. I suggest deleting this redirect, and if people feel the singer is notable, they can create the article for him. Smartyllama (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following

D.C. Washington redirect for the same reason:Smartyllama (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Since I checked the pageviews before reading Tamzin's comment, the period free one got 187 pageviews in the 365 days before the nomination, while the period one got what seemed like 47 (I think I set the dates for this one as 1/24/21-1/24/22). And like Tamzin said, there's nothing on the encyclopedia that I'm aware of that could be confused with this at the moment. OcelotCreeper2 (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since they appear to be useful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2022 (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/2022_January_24&oldid=1069908281"