< June 6
June 8 >

June 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 7, 2020.

Insideeus

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. Deryck C. 20:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia, an internet search does not suggest that they are significant enough to be a due mention at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 22:31, 7 June 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.

Community-maintained

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous term, doesn't necessarily refer to software development. I would suggest deletion, although a redirect like Community-maintained software would be fine to create. signed, Rosguill talk 21:56, 7 June 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.

Projekt Gutenberg-DE

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 histmerge and delete. Deryck C. 20:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend, Wikiacc, and Soumya-8974: Please check my work. Project Gutenberg-DE did not contain any significant content history so I deleted it without moving any page history. Wikipedia:Projekt Gutenberg-DE appears to partly depend on what was at Projekt Gutenberg-DE, so I moved all the pre-2016 page history over there. Deryck C. 20:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Projekt Gutenberg-DE is a project to digitize German public domain works. It has an article on de. What happened here:

  1. 2005: someone creates an article at Projekt Gutenberg-DE
  2. September 2015: the article fails PROD due to notability issues
  3. January 2016: GreenC creates an ((essay)) about the subject, drawing on the de article. It is initially (seemingly accidentally) located at Projekt Gutenberg-DE
  4. January 2016: GreenC cuts and pastes the essay it into project space (at Wikipedia:Projekt Gutenberg-DE) and creates a cross-namespace redirect

Meanwhile, this redirect has 32 incoming links from mainspace (a few from templates, most not). I don't think articles should be linking directly to a Wikipedia essay. Delete as a non-useful mainspace redirect, unlink the incoming links from mainspace, and retarget the incoming links from templates directly to Wikipedia:Projekt Gutenberg-DE (as ((PGDA)) does). Wikiacc () 21:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note there should probably not be an interwiki link from the essay to articles in other Wikipedias. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Removed. Wikiacc () 23:47, 7 June 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.

Common Sense( Scottish Magazine)

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 Trainwreck/No Consensus. In the purest sense, WP:TRAINWRECK isn't a !vote per se, but rather an outcome from participation. It's clear from participants here that there's no good way to meaningfully participate against such a huge, indiscriminate list, and it's unreasonable to ask it. Each and any of these can be nominated, and small batches with similar ages and constructs or themes works well, but 80+ pages with varying characteristics is too much to ask. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed disambiguation (incorrect bracket typography); almost no pageviews, with the maximum of three over the last months reached by only two of the redirects. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The DoD kept the Guantanamo captives' identities a secret, until forced to reveal them by a court order, in early 2006. They published two lists, on 2006-04-20, and 2006-05-15. Literally thousands of news papers republished these lists, in 2006. Most of those instances are 404. Some remain. The redirect is for individuals who come across the name there.
No, the name is not "malformed" in the way 1234qwer1234qwer4 means. There was shocking world-class incompetence at Guantanamo, and this is how the name appears on the official list, missing closing parentheses, and all.
Good faith contributors have made similar challenges to other apparently malformed yet legitimate names from that list, and those all concluded with a keep, which is what I recommend for this one. Geo Swan (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: Thank you; I struck it. That was the same case as this one, right? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These redirects were used.

I checked to see how often these redirects were used. I stopped when I got to the 8th entry Bhagyarekha_(_TV_series), which was used 5,246 times. (This is more than half the number for the target article...)

I suggest none of these should be deleted if they were used. Our current engine for counting usage begins in 2015. We no longer have stats for prior to 2015. The stats are updated once a day, so none of the visits, today, by those weighing in in this discussion got counted. Geo Swan (talk) 22:00, 9 June 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.

Slurred speech

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 15#Slurred speech

Template:Infobox World Heritage Site/Wikidata

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. signed, Rosguill talk 01:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UNESCO World Heritage Site does not use Wikidata. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For background, see Template_talk:Infobox_UNESCO_World_Heritage_Site/Archive_1#RfC:_revert_back_to_non-Wikidata_version?. I'm still bitter about this one, so I'll say no more. Mike Peel (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also the talk page of the redirect, Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site/Wikidata, links to a previous deletion discussion: if the redirect were deleted, that link to the deletion discussion would, obviously, also be deleted, which I think would be very undesirable: via that link a non-suspecting user can inform themselves why the template page is a redirect, and not an independent template. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:42, 10 June 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.

Covefe

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 retarget to Covfefe. Completely uncontroversial, and clearly intended to direct to the page on "Covfefe". Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article about covfefe. Therefore, retarget this and Hashtag Covfefe to covfefe, "despite the constant negative press" coverage. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:31, 7 June 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.

Durchgangslager

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 01:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Durchgangslager" (transit camps—such as Drancy transit camp) were not Nazi concentration camps and are not discussed in that article. (The "types of camps" section was deleted as misleading, see talk page.) Should be deleted to encourage article creation. buidhe 10:27, 7 June 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.

Great Economic Collapse

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, internet searches suggest that this term has been used to refer to myriad other economic crashes. I would suggest either deletion or redirection to Depression (economics) signed, Rosguill talk 02:39, 7 June 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.

DWOKV

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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. The FCC puts "D" as a prefix in its systems for deleted call signs, or apparently in this case, ahead of a call sign swap. Doesn't need to stick around. Raymie (t • c) 02:38, 7 June 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.

Chinese SSR

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 keep. I'm convinced by the various keep votes, no need to leave this open. signed, Rosguill talk 00:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The CSR was never referred to as a "Chinese SSR". Delete unless evidence to the contrary can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 02:32, 7 June 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.

Corporate 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These terms are not synonyms. Company town refers to a specific phenomenon where virtually an entire town is owned and run by a single company. "Corporate city" appears to be used more broadly; a google scholar search for the term shows several papers that seem to apply the label "corporate city" to refer to modern cities dominated by corporate office buildings. I would suggest deletion due to the lack of a suitable target. signed, Rosguill talk 02:27, 7 June 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.

Auxiliary aid

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 15#Auxiliary aid

Bablu Dablu Bhaag Lakkha Bhaag

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These appear to be a Hindi transliteration of the show's title. Delete per WP:RLOTE, as there is no particular association between Hindi and the target. signed, Rosguill talk 01:13, 7 June 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.

Arthur Chen (politician)

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 Arthur Chen (disambiguation) which was already done by the redirect's author. (non-admin closure) Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming links suggest Arthur Chen, a KMT legislator, is different from Chen Chi-mai, a DPP member. Jabo-er (talk) 02:37, 7 June 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.
More