Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 31

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

March 31

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 31, 2023.

Wikipedia:COMMONKNOWLEDGE

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 Wikipedia:Common knowledge. Salvio giuliano 21:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this should point to WP:Common knowledge? Of 5 backlinks, 2 clearly intend that, and the other 3 are ambiguous but I think more likely mean that than the current target (which does not contain the phrase "common knowledge" once). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, retarget. It's what I would expect that redirect to lead to. DFlhb (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Zero-G Datafiles

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! 20:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Result of a link to an ambiguous page name and subsequent double-redirect fixing. I can't find any article on the intended subject, which is a series of audio sample CDs. Omphalographer (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have no memory of this, but looking at the article history, it looks like this was my own dumb fault. I redirected the article to
Zero-G apparently under the impression that this was an article about the audio company Zero-G, which is obviously not the case. As we have no proper place to redirect to, let's just kill it. Popcornfud (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Talkback) 19:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Aha! Yes, that's right. Thank you. I've updated the redirect to point to that page. Popcornfud (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no mention of Datafiles at the audio company, but there is some explanation at Sampling (music). Maybe Retarget there and pipe the link there to Zero-G Ltd. Delete as second choice, so the search can take over. Jay 💬 08:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added information about the Datafiles, cited to a reliable secondary source, to the Zero-G article. The bigger question is whether Zero G is notable enough to deserve an article at all, but that's a separate issue. Popcornfud (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Retarget to Zero-G Ltd. Jay 💬 16:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Merry Little Batman

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 21:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This animated special seems to have been among the animated projects cancelled at HBO Max in 2022. ★Trekker (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has mention at 3 different list articles with differring information. Delete in preference to search results. Jay 💬 07:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Move (song)

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
(non-admin closure) Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I think Ludacris' song is the primary topic. I suggest retargeting to Move Bitch. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose since even if it would be the primary song compared to other "Move"s (it seems like it is possible that it is), it is not primary enough given it's a partial match. For example, Move Bitch gets 2,319 views in the last 30 days while Move (Moby song) alone has 1,419 views (one of about ten exact title matches). Skynxnex (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Skynxnex (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Skynxnex's findings --Lenticel (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Station1 (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A primary topic would be difficult to assert given it's a partial title match, and the criterion for
    WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by usage is "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    WP:PDAB; also, the Ludacris song isn't even titled "Move", so this request is a bit... ludicrous. 162 etc. (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

When Laura smiles

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. Consensus appears to be to maintain the redirect as is with added {{
(non-admin closure) Estar8806 (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Onel5969 intended to nominate this redirect for discussion, but was blocked by a script bug. I have now fixed the issue, so they can provide their rationale here. signed, Rosguill talk 16:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. And thanks for fixing it. My concern is that I do not know what this phrase has to do with the target, since it is not mentioned there. Onel5969 TT me 16:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is the title of a poem by Campion. -
    Talkback) 19:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep and tag with {{
    R without mention}} (if mention isn't added) – Plausible search term, unlikely to be notable enough for its own article. Redirecting to the author would provide the most information possible to a reader: by whom it was written. Randi Moth TalkContribs 21:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Zero-entry

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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per third party search engines, the concept of "zero-entry" is not exclusive to pools. Apparently, this refers to the lack of a set of stairs leading to/from a different flat elevation, which can also apply to certain doorways or showers/bathtubs. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak disambig. The most common meaning seems to be the swimming pool type (an exact synonym for "beach entry", discussed above) but not to the extent of being clear primary topic. It is also used as a synonym for generic step-free access using shallow gradients, for things that have no entry cost (including loans) and zero entry mining (mechanised to the extent that humans do not need to enter the mine). However I'm not sure to what extent the latter two are just partial title matches, and we don't seem to have any content about the mining use anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the term overwhelmingly used on enwiki to refer to the pools, and in many instances, used simply as "Zero entry" without the "swimming pool" qualifier. May be disambiguated if there are other usages on enwiki. If there is only one other usage, hatnote to that, with pools as the primary. I see
    Step-free access, but that leads to Accessibility. Jay 💬 07:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Yungur language

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 8#Yungur language

Tards

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of disability-related terms with negative connotations#T. Salvio giuliano 07:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fram (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Iravaakaalam

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 17#Iravaakaalam

MedCrave Group, LLC

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 03:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No information at the target, one of thousands of predatory publishers. It's not special enough to deserve its own mention.

b} 03:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

IntechOpen

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 soft delete. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 03:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

No information at the target, one of thousands of predatory publishers, though would be more accurately described as a vanity press than a predatory publisher. It's not special enough to deserve its own mention.

b
} 03:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC) To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).

Richest people of Ukraine (2009)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 7#Richest people of Ukraine (2009)

Sm.

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 8#Sm.

2026 Berlin state election

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 03:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2026 elections did not happen yet, and now the 2023_Berlin_state_election did happen ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This should absolutely be a redlink per
    2023 Berlin repeat state election article. This was created from a move from the 2026 page to 2023 but the edit history is at the location of the moved article. The edit history here is slightly troubling as an article was BLARred after a declined PROD, but the page was unsourced and one sentence at time of BLARring, so I am ok with deletion in spite of that somewhat weird page history. TartarTorte 12:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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
).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_31&oldid=1150350889"