This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 1, 2020.
List of mayors of Gotham City
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, Rosguilltalk 04:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally a list that was overwhelmingly decided on for a full deletion at its AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mayors of Gotham City. Despite this, the article was just copied over to the Gotham City article against consensus, and this page was recreated as a redirect. I have already removed the inappropriately merged content, and thus this redirect is not needed. Rorshacma (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The information about the mayors of Gotham City was added there in light of it's deletion. Those that appeared in different media appearances had to have their information listed somewhere. If we want to list the information on the recurring mayors of Gotham City, should we have it listed under each of the List of Marvel Comics characters page and the List of minor DC Comics characters page? --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, they do not have to have their information listed elsewhere, hence the consensus of Deletion, rather than merging, at the AFD. Just because you disagreed with the consensus does not mean you can simply ignore it and perform a merge that was overwhelmingly turned down. Rorshacma (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Procedural close as wrong venue It's a plausible search term for the target, where it's mentioned, in whole or in part. Past AfD decisions are not binding on the potential usefulness of the article title as a potential redirect. I see little reason for deletion. Nom is reminded that consensus can change, at any time. This really is the wrong venue; per WP:BRD, nom should've started a talk page discussion at the target article on whether the re-added content was to be added. Doug MehusT·C 20:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD just ended when the content was inappropriately merged. Needing to create a new discussion to re-discuss what was an overwhelming consensus that just ended would fall under the "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive" line of WP:CCC, wouldn't it? Rorshacma (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't take the view that one must a couple months after an AfD close, but this is pretty close. I would recommend establishing a talk page discussion. I've struck my keep !vote, but I don't endorse deletion. It'll probably get deleted, but my comment is on the record for future establishment to its recreation, following a talk page discussion. I personally don't see a problem with mentioning a harmless list of mayors of Gotham City, though, as long as it's, perhaps, done in paragraph form (to consume less space). It's potentially useful, though I would prefer to see a list of police commissioners (unless Gordon was the only police commissioner!). Doug MehusT·C 17:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete per my discussion above; suggest allowing WP:REFUND or bold retargeting elsewhere. Doug MehusT·C 17:53, 8 February 2020 (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.
B**** Lasagna
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.
Not the actual title of the song, and not a particularly plausible search term. We don't need to create bowdlerized redirects for all articles with profane titles, as Wikipedia is not censored. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lord Bolingbroke, convinced by their reasoning —Shrinkydinks (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't censor, but others do. A literal Google search for "B**** Lasagna" gave about 20 results, so it's a plausible search term. Narky Blert (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haha I found myself thinking about posting the exact same thing (We don't censor, but others do) before I saw your post. :) J947(c), at 23:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; what is to be gained by deleting this, honestly? No policy-based rationale for deletion has been given. It cannot really mean anything else so if anyone searches this up (which people have), the best thing we can do for them is to redirect them using this. J947(c), at 23:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But check the rcats we've used. There's got to be a more specific one we can use under "alternative names." I was confused at first, wondering why someone would be searching for a censored term in Google, particularly since the extra asterisks are somewhat redundant in that the single asterisk is a wildcard character. Nevertheless, seeing it's a censored version of the song title, it makes sense. Now why someone would write a song titled, "Bitch Lasagna," is another question... Doug MehusT·C 15:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Narky Blert Unless there's something more specific and acceptable, that works! Doug MehusT·C 17:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree. This is helpful and should be kept. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2020 (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.
Universal hyperbolic geometry
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. The balance of arguments for deletion is even stronger than the vote count suggests because an edit made by JBL during the discussion invalidates the arguments in favor of redirecting. As almost a week has gone by and no one has disputed that change, I'm comfortable closing this as deletion. signed, Rosguilltalk 22:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; is the name of a nonstandard, nonnotable idea that's not mentioned at the target page –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Weirdly, this redirect was created in December 2015, but the target article hasn't had a section by that name since it was removed in 2013. (The section was removed because it presented a fringe idea with no widespread acceptance and no coverage in sources independent of its creator.) --JBL (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget. It may be "a nonstandard, nonnotable idea" but it's mentioned explicitly at Generalized trigonometry so unless that mention is expunged, that's where it should target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned there strictly as a pointer to another article, where it is mentioned strictly as a pointer to this redirect. There is no actual content on Wikipedia about this topic, and that's because it's WP:fringe and has received no notice from the mainstream world. --JBL (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At least this indicates that the term needs some explanation (probably not an article of its own) to put it into context. Where to place this explanation (and if it should be more than a one-liner, or critical or not) is another matter, but not having an entry for it at all is not serving our readers well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but possibly retarget. First of all, per WP:REDIR redirects do not need to be notable, they need to be useful. The redirect was created because I occasionally ran into the term and wanted to learn more about it, and the target article appeared to be the most suitable one for this. Even with the contents deleted from the target article, the redirect is (still) useful, because it redirects to a more general topic, thereby at least catching the term and allowing infrastructure to be built around it (f.e. linking to the specific term, and reverse lookup of articles linking to the more specific term). The purpose of an encyclopedia is to document and explain what is and to put things into context. This does not stop at mainstream topics, but includes a little bit "out of the box" thinking, for as long as it neutrally presented and sourced. Therefore, the deleted contents in the target article should be recreated, and if it is non-neutral, reworked to be neutral. If this would create undue weight to the contents, it could alternatively moved into the rational trigonometry article and the redirect retargeted accordingly. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the target article appeared to be the most suitable one for this but the target article has never had any content about this in the 4 years since you created the redirect! (As is appropriate, since the topic is crankery.) --JBL (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So what? A redirect from a specific topic to a more general article is perfectly okay, so the reader learns as least some bit about it. Of course, it would be better to actually have the topic covered. In a collaborative project which has no deadline infrastructure and contents are not always created at the same time. I'm not an expert on this topic, so am not a good candidate to create this particular contents, except for just reactivating the old contents. Either way, as a reader I'm open minded and curious enough to want to know what it is and what it is not, so I expect this to be covered and put into perspective in some way in an encyclopedia. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wildberger's universal hyperbolic geometry is not a specific topic in the field of hyperbolic geometry; no one who sets out to study hyperbolic geometry ends up studying Wildberger's stuff instead. Even if it were a subtopic, it would still not be appropriate to have a redirect when there is no content on the subtopic in the target article. --JBL (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is not actually any content on this topic at Generalized trigonometry#Trigonometry, just one sentence fragment, a reference to the original source where this topic is introduced, and a link to the article rational trigonometry (where "universal hyperbolic geometry" appears only as a see-also as the redirect under discussion here). --JBL (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's still got the most content, however little it is. J947(c), at 02:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have boldly removed the sentence fragment from Generalized trigonometry that mentions the phrase "universal hyperbolic geometry" as undue promotion of a nonnotable, fringe concept that is not covered at the target of the included link. My action is not meant to prejudice the outcome of this discussion, and if anyone feels it should be restored until this RfD concludes, let me know and I will restore it. --JBL (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:FRINGE topic essentially put forward by only its author, so essentially WP:R#DELETE#4. Also has a nonexistent target section and one could make an argument for it being an unlikely search term due to its fairly low prominence. — MarkH21talk 04:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, it's not a topic in hyperbolic geometry, but an algebraic representation over (possibly arbitrary) fields which yields (something like) hyperbolic geometry when taken over the reals. If it were a real topic, there would be no place for it in hyperbolic geometry except as a "see also" or a disambiguator. It might be a topic in rational trigonometry (also a fringe article); I cannot tell without reading the references, and a redirect there would problematic as the term doesn't really appear. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 10:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arthur Rubin. Way outside of my subject-area comfort zone, but his argument is strong and what I can understand of it I agree with. --BDD (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2020 (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.
Emmmigration
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, Rosguilltalk 04:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; we should help the readers most by offering a direct redirect. No need for deletion and no policy-based rationale for deletion. J947(c), at 23:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @J947: You'd be surprised to know that there actually is a policy that supports my rationale which is WP:RDAB. This is clearly an implausible typo (as others including myself have pointed out) and there is absolutely no need for keeping this. CycloneYoristalk! 19:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris: There is a reason for keeping it; it helps a portion of people, however small it is. The "policy"/guideline you link to is part of an essay. J947(c), at 03:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@J947: An unlikely typo is not helpful for anyone. Emmigration with the double "m" is the most probable typo and it already exists, which makes this redirect even more unnecessary. CycloneYoristalk! 04:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris: It was evidently helpful for these people. My points are that no policy or guideline advocates for the deletion of this redirect—and keeping it is a net benefit for our readers, however small that benefit is. J947(c), at 04:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak-ish Delete as a less plausible typo. Two 'm's and I'd say "strong keep." That said, it's harmless; what's the usage? If more than 5 pageviews per month, then consider this a "keep." Otherwise, because of the third 'm', it can deleted without prejudice to recreation if someone finds it useful. Doug MehusT·C 17:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From 5 January 2019-5 January 2020, pre-nomination, it had 11 pageviews, even less than unlikely implausible typo Christopher Wilson (reporter), so this can be deleted. Doug MehusT·C 17:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just don't think that this is particularly helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2020 (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.
JEW
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 Jew (disambiguation). Early closure, per WP:SNOW. There is unanimous concurrence with the nom's own rationale that retargeting to the dab page for the topic is best here. (non-admin closure)Doug MehusT·C 15:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom as ((R from other capitalisation)). Usual practice is cases like these when there's a lowercase PTOPIC and also other meanings; see Jaw/JAW for a typical example. Narky Blert (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom, agreed. SITH(talk) 15:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. Hog Farm (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom; best place to target. J947(c), at 23:52, 2 February 2020 (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.
Men's Singles
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.
Men's Singles is not unique to figure skating. Singles is also in tennis, badminton, table tennis, squash, and so on. So, they should be re-targeted to Singles#Sports. Sawol (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. The commonest use is probably in tennis, but that wouldn't be a suitable WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT topic either. Narky Blert (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. These redirects are ambiguous and may otherwise cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per nom; better than having too many hatnotes. J947(c), at 23:55, 2 February 2020 (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.
Durin II, IV, V
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, Rosguilltalk 04:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of these Durins are mentioned at the target article, and are likely not to be significant enough to warrant an expansion of the article just for them. Most of the Durins have points where they are mentioned, but II, IV, and V do not. Hog Farm (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These redirects made sense for the old version of the Durin article. But since the merge from Durin to Dwarf, they are patently unhelpful. A search shows these names do not appear elsewhere on Wikipedia, except as distant ancestors of Thorin Oakenshield and Gimli. Thus, since there are no good redirect targets, we should delete. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2020 (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.