Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

March 3

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 3, 2024.

Not real

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 10:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can be used in many contexts, and the current target never says "not real" at any point. Unreality disambiguation discusses several options which are infinitely more suitable from my perspective, i.e. derealization, an r from antonym to the reality, or just going to the disambig page if it has to, if anywhere at all. It's impossible to pin down a target I'd think.

Also fiction is still... real. Fiction, exists. (at least its REAL to ME 🥺). Anyway, this baffles. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as vague as h*ck. could be referring to "any currency besides brl" as far as the definition cares cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:15, 4 March 2024 (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
).

Wiimmfi

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) Utopes (talk / cont) 19:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

The article for GameSpy currently links to Wiimmfi, which then links to Mario Kart Wii#Legacy, a subsection that doesn't exist. Nowhere in the current Mario Kart Wii article does Wiimmfi ever get mentioned. Either a proper article for Wiimmfi should be made, or this redirect should be deleted and the link to it from GameSpy should be removed. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is what became of the Wiimmfi mention (which had already been merged with another section before that). It is currently the last sentence of the #Reception section and no longer mentions Wiimmfi directly. *this is not a vote* – 143.208.236.146 (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which means that the GameSpy link is now less than useless, given that's exactly the amount of information that can be gleaned from the GameSpy article itself. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 16:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 22:59, 3 March 2024 (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
).

Viennoise

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 15#Viennoise

Lake Surikiña

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 16#Lake Surikiña

Graffiti S

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. After nearly a month at RfD and no comments following two relists it's clear that another relist will not be worth our time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a fairly normal way for people to refer to the symbol, and is a plausible-enough search term for it. No harm in keeping this redirect. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide a reliable source for your claim? Veverve (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - clearly a name used to refer to this (see for example, [1]), but it may be ambiguous with generic "graffiti" style Ss. But I think someone searching this is more than likely looking for the current target. A7V2 (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unhelpful and potentially ambiguous as stated by A7V2. CycloneYoris talk! 23:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 22:56, 3 March 2024 (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
).

Middle School S

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. With no new comments after the second relist, participants remain evenly divided. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a fairly normal way for people to refer to the symbol, and is a plausible-enough search term for it. No harm in keeping this redirect. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide a reliable source for your claim? Veverve (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a pretty common nickname for it and used to be on the article. EmperorOfTheUS (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a pretty common nickname for it: can you provide a source for this claim?
    used to be on the article: yes, but now it has been remove because this name was not sourced (
    WP:BURDEN). Veverve (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. Not mentioned at the current target. Delete unless a sourced mention is added. CycloneYoris talk! 23:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 22:56, 3 March 2024 (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
).

Pointy S

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. No comments since the second relist, so further relisting doesn't seem likely to be helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Way too vague, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a fairly normal way for people to refer to the symbol, and is a plausible-enough search term for it. No harm in keeping this redirect. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide a reliable source for your claim? Veverve (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Too vague and not specific enough. CycloneYoris talk! 23:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 12:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per CycloneYoris. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CycloneYoris, there are plenty of fonts where the entire alphabet can be described as "pointy". Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paintspot (creator). The target already provides a source. External search for "Pointy S" shows the S which enwiki refers to as the Cool S. If there are alternate targets such as serif(?) fonts (I didn't find any other suitable target), they may be hatnoted. Jay 💬 06:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 22:56, 3 March 2024 (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
).

LGBT reproduction

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 11#LGBT reproduction

Paramount Television International Studios

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) Utopes (talk / cont) 19:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Request to delete this redirect. Checking through the page history of the target page, it seems the editor who moved the article to the now-redirect title was put off after discovering the Paramount Television Studios (PTS) article that it may have a link to the target's actual name (TIS) when a reputable source in-page actually reveals the contrary. PTS doesn't have or never had any international division since formation as their output is rather/instead handled by Paramount Global Content Distribution. Intrisit (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2024 (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
).

Al-Shabaab (militant group and etc.

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 10:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bundle of pages missing parenthesis after their disambiguation. In all of these cases, there is an identical version to this title, plus a closing parenthesis, that already exists. These redirects' entire histories have existed as just redirects, without any past content. Pageviews for all of these titles are low according to massviews. These titles are all implausible due to the missing parenthesis, cannot be predicted to exist, and will not be sought normally. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Wikipedia shouldn't (and doesn't) need such pages, but is there any harm in having them once they've been created? I suppose there could be; is there a non-negligible increase in server costs associated with them existing? Zezizzebezt (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the redirect exists, it's because somebody was dumped onto that page instead of where they were trying to go because some external source (search engine or embedded link or whatever) left off the closing parenthesis and they fixed that problem with a redirect so that it went straight to the correct page. It's not as if the lack-of-closing-parenthesis redirect page would ever be used for anything other than a redirect, so why get rid of it if one or more people have accidentally landed there? ErdrickLoto (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only possible reason for this sort of redirect to exist is because of an external page that mishandles parentheses. We shouldn't need to bloat our wiki with an extra redirect for every single page- and every single redirect- that includes a closing parentheses at the end of the title. Instead, the other sites should fix their link handling in a manner that un-breaks the link. Thus, whenever one of these redirects shows up here in RfD, they typically end up deleted, as per
WP:UNNATURAL. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I would argue that "
WP:UNNATURAL do not explain why these redirects are costly enough to warrant deletion. (To be clear, I'm not proposing the creation of an extra redirect for every single page here - just that the ones that already exist don't need to be deleted.) All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 10:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:WHATABOUT), it is a very necessary article. After all, if RfD were meant to never ever delete any redirects ever... are we only here to retarget redirects??? Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
There are definitely many redirects that need deleting, and I'm definitely not arguing that no redirects should ever be deleted -
WP:COSTLY actually argues in favour of keeping these particular redirects - Wikipedia:Redirects are costly § Incoming traffic is cheap notes that [o]ne valid reason for retaining an older redirect is that it is linked to from outside Wikipedia.) All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 22:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
...Honestly, imo WP:COSTLY just straight-up needs a rewrite lol. Incoming Traffic Is Cheap is confusingly written to the point where it seems to contradict the rest of the article, WP:PANDORA goes against WP:WHATABOUT... Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What about Spectre (security vulnerability? Myrealnamm (talk to me) 01:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Utopes What I mean is that should this redirect page be added to the list? Myrealnamm (talk to me) 01:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest listing it as its own RfD. While an argument could be made as to the idea that if these redirects are deleted, Spectre (security vulnerability should be deleted as well for the same reasons, there's already been a rather extensive discussion on the matter that didn't take into account that redirect. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll see the result of this discussion and I would probably speedy delete Spectre (security vulnerability if this discussion closes as "delete all". Myrealnamm (talk to me) 19:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Myrealnamm:, and apologies for the delay. While it may seem like there's consensus to delete these, the fact that people have !voted to keep means that these titles are certainly not uncontroversial. I purposely did not include Spectre (security vulnerability in this nomination, as the pageviews that it receives is in a higher threshold than the rest here (the nominated pages are all specifically low views), and the title you mention ranks 43rd in viewcount in this category. Pages such as Genie (feral child have previously been kept at RfD on the basis of its viewcount, so I've been incrementing the limit with each bundle to determine the permissible limit, if there is one. So far these types of titles have been getting deleted, but there is no guarantee that all will be. As for your CSD proposal, no speedy deletion criteria applicable to Spectre (security vulnerability, which was intentionally created in 2018, not in error. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:23, 10 March 2024 (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
).

South West Asia and North Africa

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 💬 18:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are mentioned at the target, and, unless they are, there is no reason for them to exist. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2024 (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
).

Reminisce (rapper

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 💬 18:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created as a duplicate of Reminisce (rapper), containing only the first sentence of this article from its previously POV-heavy state at the time, having been tagged as "written like an advertisement". In any case, the edit was immediately reverted and converted into a redirect before an hour had passed in its existence. The missing parenthesis makes this an implausible title to refer to the subject. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:58, 3 March 2024 (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
).

Robbery Under Arms (1943 radio adaptation

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per
WP:CSD#G6. The creator's edit summaries make it explicit this title was created by mistake. Thryduulf (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect missing a closing parenthesis. The page history contains an identical copy of the

Robbery Under Arms (1943 radio adaptation) contents, which was created at the typoed title unintentionally. The article here was created in one edit, and converted into a redirect with the next. The lack of the closing parenthesis makes this title an unlikely term for the subject. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:51, 3 March 2024 (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
).

Nitrilotris(methylenephosphonic acid

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 💬 18:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An acid redirect that is missing the closing parenthesis. This issue has since been fixed, as there is now a correct version in existence at

Nitrilotris(methylenephosphonic acid). Still though, the remaining search term is unlikely to be referred to with the unclosed brackets. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:46, 3 March 2024 (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
).

2 of 2

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 💬 18:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feels like an implausible way to search for this album specifically, as well as an impractical way to search for anything of the type generally. If there were something else in front, a listing like

7 of 9, but I doubt there's anything to be gleaned there... - 89.183.221.71 (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2024 (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
).

What Happened?

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 What Happened. ✗plicit 14:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2024 (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
).

Itzy Bitzy Spider

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 Itsy Bitsy Spider and the songs to Itsy Bitsy Spider (disambiguation). Jay 💬 17:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget the first to Itsy Bitsy Spider and the second and third to Itsy Bitsy Spider (disambiguation) due to a possible spelling. 176.33.244.31 (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2024 (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
).

Oink! (computer game)

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) Utopes (talk / cont) 19:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

This can be confused with the entirely unrelated game Oink! (video game) as the terms "computer game" and "video game" are used almost interchangeably. There is not much to say about the game Oink! in the Beagle Bag collection as it is, and this redirect has no incoming links. Retarget to Oink! (video game). JIP | Talk 18:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget as nominated. Keep the hatnote added by Shhhnotsoloud. If someone wants to split out the other Oink! into a separate article, then we can discuss which prong of
    WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --NYKevin 06:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the current and proposed target talk pages.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget with hatnote as above. This seems clearer. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2024 (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
).

Long film

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 longest films. Jay 💬 18:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Films that are long are not automatically feature films, these are by no means synonymous. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the retargeting suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as per Thryduulf. For the proposed hatnote, maybe something like, "
Long film redirects here. For feature-length films, see Feature film." Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2024 (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
).

Bryant Packard

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 10:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Released by Detroit last July, still a minor league free agent. There's nowhere for this to target. Hog Farm Talk 02:03, 3 March 2024 (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
).

Draft:Caleb Simpson

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 10:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Released last July by Cleveland and is still a minor league free agent. While this is the the draft space, there is no substantive content to be worried about, as this has always been a redirect. Hog Farm Talk 01:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per
    WP:REDLINK.) Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    That move of a redirect from article space to draft space by Yankees10 is indeed very odd. I don't recall seeing that being done before, and I can't immediately think how it benefits anybody? If the redirect is good it needs to be in article space, if isn't it should be retargetted or deleted. In draft space it just makes it harder for someone to start a draft article at that title. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you're right. Redirects aren't articles in themselves-- they can carry the history of past BLAR'd articles, but they themselves aren't articles, they're more like... behind-the-scenes gadgets. Unlike an article, the text in a redirect isn't truly notable or useful on its own and doesn't warrant preservation. What makes them useful is the title (which can be searched for or linked to), and whatever page they point to. Moving a redirect to draft space screws up that first half of the redirect, the title-- if Caleb Simpson were notable, I could see someone typing his name in, but I couldn't see someone appending "Draft:" to the front. That immediately makes a draft-space redirect useless in a way that a draft-space article (done to perhaps preserve the text) couldn't ever be.
    The more I think about it, the more I've come to support the idea of Deleting this. Not sure if any preexisting guideline or essay really applies here since I don't know if anyone's written about the idea of redirects in draft/userspace before-- maybe
    WP:COSTLY applies here after all?? Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    WP:RDRAFT deals with redirects in draft space, but it only considers redirects created by page moves out of draftspace (explicitly only to articlespace, but draft → user would be within the spirit, although I don't recall any such redirects being discussed). In that case the redirect is there to maintain links and discourage the creation of a draft that duplicates an article. None of that is relevant here. I'm going to hold off making a formal recommendation on this one for a bit as I'd like to hear what Yankees10 has to say first (it's possible there is something relevant they're aware of that I'm not). Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • For the record I have zero recollection to why I moved this to a draft space.-- Yankees10 18:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case I'm going to just hand you this
    WP:MINNOW and call it a day lol. In all seriousness, my recommendation for Deletion stands-- as already noted, it's the course of action I would have recommended were this redirect still in mainspace, and Thryduulf already mentioned that the draft-redirect's existence makes it harder for users to make a draft with that title. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Per the nominator, my comments above and the lack of anything contrary mentioned by the page mover. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2024 (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
).

Kyle Marman

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 10:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Released by Cleveland last year; MiLB has him as a free agent. There's nowhere for this redirect to point. Hog Farm Talk 01:54, 3 March 2024 (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
).

Marcos González (baseball)

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 10:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Released by the Guardians in July, not currently with any team per MiLB's website. There's nowhere for this redirect to point to. Hog Farm Talk 01:50, 3 March 2024 (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
).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_3&oldid=1214073603"