May 18

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 18, 2023.

Wikipedia:AntiVandal redirects

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 23:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:R#DELETE, criterion 6. Certainly not longstanding, were created in February. Heavy Water (talkcontribs) 22:14, 18 May 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).

Daniel uk

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 23:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article. Different OSes have speech synthesis names, and this isn't Alexa or Siri. Could also refer to anyone in the UK named Daniel. AngusW🐶🐶F (barksniff) 22:10, 18 May 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).

Bodnick

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 as-is. -- Tavix (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the surname is particularly relevant to Marc directly; are there other people with this surname? Happy to let others decide whether this one does need deleting though. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think that would be wise. Wikipedia:Name pages says:

    Name index articles should only list notable people bearing the name. Therefore, inclusion of red links on name index articles should be limited to individuals who are otherwise clearly notable, but are missing an article.

    The other entries you added probably won't have ever articles or meet WP:N. - Eureka Lott 21:40, 19 May 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).

Wikipedia:Eliminators

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 25#Wikipedia:Eliminators

Redirects to List of iPhone models

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 Timeline of Apple Inc. products by a rough consensus. Note, as an aside, that the 3rd redirect has accrued many views through this RfD by being linked from external search results for list of apple devices and suchlike. (non-admin closure) J947edits 06:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY, as the target was previously at several different titles and covered different product lines, as seen by the hatnote. Currently there are no other incoming links to these and therefore should be safe to delete. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:10, 18 May 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).

Brigitta Dau

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 14:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a page for an actor that just redirects to a random article for a movie they are credited in (and was previously edited to this from a random show they were in for only a few episodes). Unless they were notable for the work or it's the only work they have been in (neither of which seem to be the case) the redirect should probably just be deleted unless there's something else actually relevant to them. Also I'm not sure if this is relevant, but the user who first created the redirect in 2009 appears to have created numerous redirects, some of which may be in similar situations to this one (and many of which appear to be anime characters' names written in a bunch of different ways?), someone might want to look through those and see if any others should be removed. Ringtail Raider (talk) 12:22, 18 May 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).

賀錦麗

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. It does not appear that the name is going to be added to the target, so the conditional keep support does not kick in and give keep a consensus. Keep outright nevertheless has more support than deletion (as well as being the consensus of the prior discussion), and all side's arguments are reasonable interpretations of existing guidelines. signed, Rosguill talk 05:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

References

  1. ^ pinyin: Hè Jǐnlì; Cantonese Yale: Ho3 Gam2-lai6
  2. ^ Hoge, Patrick (2003-11-10). "Harris stumps to gain edge among Chinatown voters". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2023-05-10.
  3. ^ De Souza, Alison (2020-08-24). "What's in a name? For Kamala Harris, maybe an edge with some Asian-American voters". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 2023-05-10.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not been added to the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:46, 18 May 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).

History of Porin Ässät

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 Porin Ässät. signed, Rosguill talk 04:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the target of this redirect to Porin Ässät, because I'd have thought the men's ice hockey team would be primary for Porin Ässät, judging off raw pageviews, but that doesn't seem to be the case. As long as the current target is at its disambiguated title, it stands to reason this should be retargeted. in lieu of bringing this to RfD. However, it was reverted, so we're here any way. J947edits 20:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:33, 18 May 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).

Wind power in Europe

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 rename target article to Wind power in Europe. As pointed out by multiple editors, the article covers non-EU countries in Europe (notably the UK). -- Tavix (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deception. Europe and EU are two different things Randam (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:32, 18 May 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).

Scarfy

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 07:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No longer mentioned in the target. Despite that, there are numerous other places to retarget to (George Danzer, A Very Potter Sequel, List of Kirby: Right Back at Ya! episodes, and perhaps even Scarfies). Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:39, 18 May 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).

Old Bible

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. However there was agreement with the nomination that the current target is not proper, hence retargeting to Bible as a suggested target that had some support. Jay 💬 08:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely unfathomable link, imo - what does "Old Bible" even really... mean? Not sure who might forget the name of the Old Testament - if they did, sensible people would go to Bible and find it linked there...? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AngusWOOF that if this only refered literally to old copies of the Bible that it wouldn't be any more plausible than "old book" or "old newspaper" but its use in mormon phraseology provides "Old Bible" with a second meaning while redirecting simply to Bible covers all interpretations thereby resolving ambiguity. – Scyrme (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still think its unfathomable for anyone to search this. Even if there is direct phrasing of it in Mormon literature (which I hardly see as being reliable.......!), I still doubt anyone would search for it. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattdaviesfsic: The reliability of the sources in which it appears is not relevant to whether it makes a helpful redirect. Many redirects are based on terms that are unlikely to appear in reliable sources (eg. ((r from slang)), ((r from nickname))). These a retained because they are still helpful to readers who don't necessarily limit their vocabulary to terms used in reliable sources when searching for topics.
As for whether anyone would search it, looking at pageviews, this redirect has had a somewhat steady views since it since it was created on 14 March 2023, with as many as 11 views on 10 April 2023 almost a month later. Before it was nominated, the redirect had a total of 101 views and a daily average of 2. That's fairly healthy for a redirect. Admittedly, later in April there was stretch with no views. It's hard to tell whether that whether that would have continued as an enduring trend because this nomination interrupted normal traffic early in May.
Things won't go back to normal until after this is closed. If there are no views for many months after it's closed, then it would be safe to say the early stats were atypical, but as it stands it seems too soon to tell what the long term traffic would look like. In that case, this can be nominated again. However, for now the evidence we do have suggests that some people have found the redirect helpful. Since the redirect is cheap, that should be enough in the absence of a strong reason to delete. – Scyrme (talk) 19:01, 6 June 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).

Chittem

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 04:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is ambiguous with Chittem Narsi Reddy. Not sure what to do here – resolve through hatnotes or disambiguation, or potentially neither? Is this chittem stick referred to simply as chittem sometimes? – in that case the redirect should be kept as is. J947edits 08:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:24, 18 May 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).

Jantra (album)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 25#Jantra (album)

Eukarya Animalia Mollusca Cephalopoda Octopoda Octopodidae Thaumoctopus Mimicus

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 14:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a list of the main ranked taxa to which Thaumoctopus mimicus belongs, from domain downwards (and with the specific epithet erroneously capitalized). No other page on Wikipedia links to it, and it seems highly unlikely anyone trying to find the mimic octopus article would do so by searching for this. And because nothing else starts with Eukarya besides Eukarya, this is confusingly the second thing that comes up when Eukarya is typed into the search bar, above all pages beginning with eukaryote/eukaryotic which would presumably be much more relevant to someone searching for Eukarya (and it's around the fourth or fifth default search result for pages containing Eukarya) Spizaetus (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a redirect page I created when I was 12. I think it's pretty clear it should be deleted. DanDan0101 (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And it looks like another similarly-titled page has already been deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DanDan0101&oldid=809306049#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Eukarya_Animalia_Mollusca_Cephalopoda_Octopoda_Octopodidae_Octopodidae_Thaumoctopus_Mimicus Spizaetus (talk) 05:10, 18 May 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).

MBTA Silver Line line redirects

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 02:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as these names (without the "silver" or "SL") are never used. 1 and 4 are also ambiguous with bus routes. eviolite (talk) 01:59, 18 May 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).