Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 22

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

September 22

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 22, 2023.

Vixy Reinard

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. Per WP:Merge and delete#Record authorship and delete history, I will be recording the history at Talk:List of Star Fox characters#"Vixy Reinard" listed at Redirects for discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

talk] 16:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep per {{R from merge}} - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject is not mentioned at the article and the only content that was merged was 2 lines of original research that never received a reference on its original page, or on the page that it was merged to. If, in the off-chance this character gains notability in the next decade, the page can be undeleted and presumably restored. In the meantime, it is a misleading redirect that points readers to a page where they will be inevitably disappointed by the redirect's implied (false) promise of information. As mentioned by Zxcvbnm, this hopefully will encourage people to seek out the relevant Fandom page instead. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

talk 22:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

I-95 exit list

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. While normally a discussion like this would be closed as "no consensus, default to redirect in absence of support for the status quo", in this case redirect !votes advocated redirecting to an as-yet-uncreated/unspecified target that I cannot default to, despite the lack of support for keeping outright. signed, Rosguill talk 21:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target article does not contain a list of exits on I-95. The article of the version prior to

WP:BLARring is unworkable as many of the transcluded pages no longer exist. TartarTorte 23:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on retargeting / expanding?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 01:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

talk 22:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Phytophtires

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 💬 06:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFOREIGN: According to French Wiktionary, phytophtire is a dated French name for an insect in a suborder of Hemiptera that included aphids and cochineals. This seems rather an obscure redirect to have on English Wikipedia, as the term is not mentioned in any article on English Wikipedia (nor on French Wikipedia for that matter). I suggest therefore it should be deleted. Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Paul Orban

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 💬 06:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a logical target for this article title. Orban was a pulp illustrator and it would be better to leave this as a redlink per REDYES until someone (possibly me) gets around to finding the sources and creating an article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wither skeleton

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 💬 17:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Valuejet

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 Value Jet. signed, Rosguill talk 21:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be retargeted to a disambiguation page instead. There is an active airline called ValueJet, operating since 2022, which makes the old redirect to the defunct ValuJet Airlines confusing. The fact that there is no mention of the new airline on either ValuJet Airlines or Valuair doesn't make it better. Renerpho (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I’ve started a very rough draft of a dab page at
    WP:ONEOTHER apply here? I haven’t checked, but if one of them is the primary topic, should the redirect be targeted there (with a hatnote to the other page)? (As a side note, if ValueJet (Nigeria) is the primary topic, it could potentially be moved to just ValueJet
    .)
The existence of
WP:TWOOTHER situation than a more straightforward ONEOTHER). I suppose the question then might be of whether to have two hatnotes (eg. {{Redirect}} and {{Distinguish
}}), or to have a disambiguation page and just have the one hatnote that points to that dab page.
Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 11:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not actually sure what the primary topic is. The Nigerian airline is the only one that's currently operating, and it's the one I was looking for when I noticed the missing dab page; but ValuJet Airlines was much larger, and the name became almost synonymous with the 1996 crash. If I had to create a new airline, I wouldn't want to call it Valuejet to avoid bad associations, but that's a different story... Renerpho (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Renerpho (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar

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 💬 06:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created this so I could create an article based on the fallout of the death of the redirect target. I was told "no" via someone converting this into a redirect, only for someone to do the thing I was planning on doing at

2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis. This redirect is now moot, and I am pissed off. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

What is the
reason you think this redirect should be deleted? Being pissed off is not a good reason (note that the diplomatic crisis article is also a redirect as of this writing). VQuakr (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe that people are far more likely to search for "Hardeep Singh Nijjar," "Nijjar," or "Canada-India [crisis/incident/etc.]." "Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar" is more appropriate as a
WP:CONCISE title for an article that the mentioned search terms would instead redirect to. Mootness comes from there being consensus for an article at Hardeep Singh Nijjar. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar seems like a perfectly reasonable {{R to section}} to me. There has been discussion at Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar#Split content to Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar where the consensus is not to split off the death into a separate article, so I don't think that restore/AfD is necessary or likely to be useful. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The BLAR has just been reverted by the creator, Lukt64. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And is on the main page now?!?!?! What exactly am I doing wrong that Lukt64 didn't? I don't understand this. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was doing it wrong. He made a three-sentence stub that was totally pointless because everything is in the main article. Another user copied-and-pasted a lot of content over, making it a still-pointless redundant duplicate. Lukt64 should not have restored the article because there was nothing on it that wasn't already on the main article, there was consensus against a split, and a proper split that avoids so much duplication was not performed. Reywas92Talk 20:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:SPEEDY criterion G7. There is clear consensus at Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar that the fork is unnecessary at this time so I don't think AFD is the right path; something shouldn't be sent to AFD when the consensus outcome is already to retain as a redirect. VQuakr (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Talkback) 19:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep with {{R to section}} - Even though people might search for "Hardeep Singh Nijjar" or some variation of "2023 Canada-India diplomatic crisis", a quick search on Google Trends reveals slight but subsequently dwindling interest in searching for "Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar". Retaining the redirect with its history intact doesn't make sense as it was mostly copied from the current article. Lord Clayton7 (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and refine to Hardeep Singh Nijjar#Death and subsequent diplomatic dispute (to fix the section link). As long as we have sufficient content about his death, then a death redirect makes perfect sense. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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
).

Yeni Mersin İdmanyurdu

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 3#Yeni Mersin İdmanyurdu

Phalaenea crataegella

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 30#Phalaenea crataegella

The Presidents of the United States of America

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 3#The Presidents of the United States of America

Judea deleda est

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 💬 07:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly translates to "Judea must be destroyed", although neither phrase is mentioned at the target. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I'm just going to assume that the phrase exists in some literary form (shouldn't it be "delenda est Judaea"?), since neither of these are what we would expect someone to type for it. In the first instance "delenda" is misspelled; and it's highly improbable that someone would search in all capital letters using 'I' for 'J' and 'V' for 'U', as if searching for the meaning of a Latin inscription without bothering with lowercase letters. Even if the phrase—in this order—has a legitimate reason to be a redirect, neither of these is a probable search formulation. P Aculeius (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: aside from the typo in Judea deleda est (the correctly spelled Judea delenda est does not exist), this just seems generally implausible. The reference to Carthago delenda est is clear, but I can find no evidence that this phrase has been used to refer to the Bar Kokhba revolt (or indeed the Roman-Judean wars more generally); google search just brings up a bunch of weird antisemitism. At best this is unhelpful. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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
).

Invasive carp

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 29#Invasive carp

Life is but a dream...

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 29#Life is but a dream...

Baw with a ba

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 💬 07:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is supposed to be a transliteration of the lyric? I could not find any information online to verify this particular pronunciation, but maybe it sounds similar-ish. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tag team boxing

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 29#Tag team boxing

Daniel Schneemann

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 21:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the target says it that he exists. I mean, yes, there is a mention at the target, but as a redirect this isn't useful to the reader.

talk] 20:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The target contains too little substance to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no good target. He is mentioned at Columbus Clippers#Roster also, and other pages too. There is more information in the search results than what the redirect can provide. Jay 💬 07:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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
).

A human

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 3#A human

95th

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) Duckmather (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Currently redirects to a disambiguation page, but all the related disambiguations there are

partial title matches which should be removed. Thus this redirect has no purpose and obscures search results, of which there are many not listed in the current disambiguation page (i.e. the search results are superior to the DAB page). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Mdewman6. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the PTMs are to be removed from the target dab, that has to be done first. I don't see much activity at the dab - only one edit this year, and it was in March. Keep for now. Jay 💬 06:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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
).

Scotched English

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 and send to AfD. Frankly, as a personal opinion I think that the pre-existing article is in G3/G10 speedy-deletion territory, but given the contested PROD and now contested BLAR, it is reasonable to insist that more process be followed here. signed, Rosguill talk 21:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly it's kinda offensive linking what is essentially broken Scots (because Scotched English is essentially broken Scots) to the Scots Wikipaedia. Broken English does not redirect to English Wikipedia and Spanglish and Broken Spanish do not redirect to Spanish Wikipedia. The Scots article has been a thing since 2005 as well, so saying that it's just Scowiki is wrong CiphriusKane (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, equating an English variety with a Wikipedia doesn't make sense. I will note that the reason this redirect exists while similar ones don't is probably that Scots Wikipedia was written in Scotched English rather than Scots until 2020. But that doesn't really justify a redirect. Justin Kunimune (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's more accurate to say broken Scots rather than Scotched English. The amount of Scotched stuff was a lot less than was made out to be, especially as a lot of the "Scotched" stuff was actually just different dialects being mixed together/niche words being used inappropriately. Also, the Scotchers only started showing up in 2010 from what I can tell, while the wiki itself was founded in 2005, so saying "until 2020" is inaccurate CiphriusKane (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a section ("Controversy") in the Scots Wikipedia article about that very controversy. Maybe it should be a redirect to that specific section? HappyWith (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While at a period of time, a number of articles on the Scots Wikipedia were in broken Scots, that doesn't mean that this term should redirect to that wikipedia's article, given that it refers to broken Scots in general, and the Scots wikipedia a few years back is not the only example of broken Scots. I don't really think that there's any good target on wikipedia right now. If a section to the article on the Scots language about the frequency of this practice were to be added, I'd support retargetting there, but as of now, I support deletion. TartarTorte 20:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless there's actual content about Scotched English on its own somewhere (and not its role in a controversy), I think deletion is the best option here. Someone searching this will likely not be looking for the Scots Wikipedia incident. This is also supported by the fact that there is no mention of the word Scotched anywhere in the target (outside the hatnote). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forgot to check the history. Restore and AFD – this has been contested multiple times in the past, an AFD should settle things here instead. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot that this page has gone through in the last 3 years for it to be deleted at a RfD - draftification, draft objection, PROD decline, and a BLAR which is now being questioned. It was unsourced, however there were multiple maintenance tags added, before it was BLARd. Restore and AfD. Jay 💬 16:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, what is basically broken scots does not related to a wikipedia. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 11:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article there was an article at this title which was redirected by an editor to the current target. That target isn't appropriate - it doesn't mention the term and even if it did it's about a specific instance of a more general phenomenon. Deleting the redirect would act as a backdoor deletion of the article, it should instead be sent to AfD if someone wants to delete it. Hut 8.5 18:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion: Idc if this is restored or kept, but the phenomenon is mentioned, albeit not by name, in the target. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 04:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article per others above. - jc37 19:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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
).

Poor country

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 29#Poor country

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_22&oldid=1178470628"