Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 9

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) 19:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• One Minute Closer to Death → Death Magnetic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No assistance to navigation. Probably a rumoured title before release. Failed to find any reference to this title at target, nor at any other page. If there is a better target I have missed, I would remain in favour of retargetting. Richhoncho (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak redirect to Ranking Roger, maybe? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 22:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not retarget to the above suggestion. In the absence of a plausible target, the best solution is to delete this. We don't want to confuse readers who may end up in an article where there's no mention whatsoever of the title in question. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ranking Roger who, according to Google, has a song by this title.Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No mention of this title at Ranking Roger so again no help to navigation. Richhoncho (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete [updated] while the song is listed in many catalogs, there are no reliable sources discussing it Wiki-psyc (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

• See the last revision at the target before the working titles were removed. Jay (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment That revision makes mention that "One Minute Closer to Death" was the working title. Wiki-psyc (talk) 14:02, 22 March 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.

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. Jay (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiffle®ball → Wiffle ball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Wiffle(r)ball → Wiffle ball  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The difficulty/unlikeliness of typing the registered trademark symbol, the lack of a space, and the fact that the concept predates the trademark make these redirects unlikely, unhelpful, and possibly misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The logo on the official website does show the ® symbol after "Wiffle" but not especailly prominently. On first use on other pages the symbol is inlcuded - e.g. the welcome page begins "Dear WIFFLE® Enthusiast:". However usage on the news page includes "[T]he WIFFLE ® Ball was inducted into the National Toy Hall of Fame." with that spacing. Putting all this together I don't think that the unspaced registered trade mark symbol is a likely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even if the unspaced registered trademark was was used more often in promotional material it’s highly unlikely that the average person who type that trying to search for it.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:34, 11 March 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.

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 restore article. Only

(non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Canoeing at the 2017 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival → 2017 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Missleading in templates such as Template:Events at the 2017 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival. Should be deleted to provoke page creation. CLalgo (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - valid redirect, and to preserve page history. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral On one hand, there shouldn't be an article about this, per
  WP:NOTDATABASE (and due to the fact that no other content seems to exist about this). On the other, even if properly targeted, this is an unlikely search term (giving this is a rather unlikely topic as well), and there is no content about this (other than a line in the sports-by-sports medal table) at the target article (which is itself not much better than a database entry). Removing the redirect would not remove any functionality or valuable content (previous versions of this redirect are entirely unsourced); though at the same time keeping it is a redirect to discourage article creation is also a valid concern. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete to encourage article creation. Nothing in the completely unsourced history that would help with that. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to the article per
  WP:BLAR. The objection to the previous article content was one editor disputing notability, the redirect has been objected to with an assertion that it is notable. The place to determine the answer to questions of notability of articles is AfD not RfD. The article was partially sourced, not completely unsourced so the assertion that there is nothing that would help writing a sourced article is incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore and AfD per Thryduulf. I don't feel that it is appropriate as a redirect however since there is next to no information at the target (so second preference delete I suppose). A7V2 (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to the article as there are others like it.Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:26, 10 March 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.

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 doesn't seem to be any appetite for a retarget, restore, or deletion.

(non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Nasty Party → Theresa May#Early Parliamentary career  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Appears to have originally been an article retargeted to

• Delete entirely. The original redirect doesn't mention the phrase "Nasty Party" at all (and such a redirect seems borderline PoV/disruptive). The Theresa May reference at least mentions the phrase, but I don't see it being notable enough for this redirect ot exist. — Czello 11:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is, or restore: It certainly is a known and probably notable expression enough and probably ought to be included in Conservatism in the United Kingdom—it is used routinely in discussions around British politics to describe the shifts in positioning of the UK's political parties (i.e. following shifts in public attitudes and Howard's failure in the 2005 General Election, the Conservative Party moving away from social conservatism and towards the social liberalism of the David Cameron/George Osborne years). Examples of it being used: Guardian 2002, Independent 2021, BBC 2002, BBC 2008, BBC 2021, BBC 2021 again LabourList 2016. The neutrality argument here seems weak—the phrase is associated with Theresa May. The redirect does not say to the reader "Theresa May is a nasty party" nor "Theresa May is a member of a nasty party". If you read it like that, the neutrality argument would also apply if to any other redirect target (e.g. the Conservative Party or 'Conservatism in the UK'). Redirecting any political slogan or expression could have an obtuse interpretation, but we should assume a sensible reader who can grasp a modicum of nuance. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a little bit of content at Compassionate conservatism#United Kingdom. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A plausible search term that's discussed in sufficient depth at the target article, which is about the person who introduced the term into mainstream political discourse.
  WP:RNEUTRAL, which the nominator cites, explicitly contradicts their argument. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I did not make my rationale particularly clear - my thought process was that it could be redirected to Conservatism in the United Kingdom or Conservative Party (UK) as a non-neutral representation of the Tory party. The keep arguments are a good rebuttal to that but just thought I'd try to make myself clear. Bonoahx (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plausible search term and May is definitely associated with the phrase. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:29, 9 March 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.

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) JBchrch talk 01:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Department of Finance →
  Finance minister  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

• This is the right place. Convert to
  set index per nom, I'll see if I can draft one shortly. eviolite (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Actually, while drafting it I found this section

  Ministry of Finance#Named "Department" that already lists ministries of finance called "Department", which serves largely the same purpose. Retarget there instead. eviolite (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Retarget to
  Ministry of Finance#Named "Department" and tag as {{R from ambiguous term}}. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Retarget to
  Ministry of Finance#Named "Department" per User:Eviolite --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment businesses have finance departments... but would not have ministries. And universities have academic finance departments (teaching) and operational finance departments (like a company's finance dept) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest bundling these redirects that also point to Finance minister:
  Finance Departments. Jay (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul WolFowitz → Paul Wolfowitz  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Paul WolfoWitz → Paul Wolfowitz  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible capitalization in the middle of the name. Created in 2008 and not relevant camel case titles. By a user who created redirects with various possible misspelling and capitalization combinations. Suggest deletion. Jay (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar RfDs related to the user's capitalizations:

HoWard Taft and Howard TaFt, RfD for HoWard TaFt. Jay (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete both per nom. These don't seem to be receiving much traFFic in the Way of pageviews, apart From a Few mostly relatively small spikes here and there. Regards, SONIC678 06:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• DeLete both per nom and Sonic678, implausible typo. Bonoahx (talk) 10:03, 9 March 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.

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!} 06:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Vlad Puttin → Vladimir Putin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target is not known by this name. This looks to be a parody twitter handle with a handful of tweets in January 2018, and not mentioned at the target. Suggest deletion. Jay (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no reliable sources use this term (all I can see are Twitter handles, Reddit posts, and comments on other forums), and it is not a plausible typo. Bonoahx (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:52, 10 March 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.

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. Limited participation despite two relists. There was no strong opinion for or against the nomination for deletion (assuming this was for deletion, considering the sock creator rationale). Redirecting to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl#Release as a target better than the current, with no prejudice against a renomination. Jay (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Connection Tour 07 → Nintendo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nowhere mentioned in article, and creator of redirect is a confirmed sockpuppet. QuickQuokka ^[talk] 16:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl#Release which has a minor mention, or Delete since it's likely not helpful. It used to be mentioned here on Nintendo Australia, the original target, but the material was not merged when the article got AfDed. There was also a mention in a now-deleted article but of course, that doesn't exist anymore. eviolite (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:11, 9 March 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.

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) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Kyiv Internatioanl Film Festival "Molodist" → Kyiv International Film Festival "Molodist"  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect for an unlikely misspelling Atlantic306 (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  K4; this is an {{R from move}}, which was the article title for a few months. Those few months were enough to see this redirect garner some views from old links, and we are better served not breaking them. It isn't like this redirect is causing any signficant harm. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per J947, and because redirects are cheap, and there's nothing wrong with keeping some typo redirects around. Fieari (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I was the one who unthinkingly mentioned the possibility of RFD in an edit summary while adding {{R from misspelling}}. It was not a serious request for nor attempt at an RFD nomination, and I should have considered the implications more carefully. I am neutral to the nomination as it currently stands. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:25, 9 March 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.