Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 9

April 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 9, 2023.

Léon Gillis

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 17#Léon Gillis

The pandemic

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. Keep has a numerical majority, but several !votes are weak, and there's a pretty clear consensus that either Pandemic or List of pandemics will be the correct target some day, just maybe not quite yet. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The pandemic → COVID-19 pandemic (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I think the target is too vague. "The pandemic" could refer to a variety of historical events even if current usage is likely to mean the COVID-19 pandemic. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator - There isn't much else "The pandemic" could refer to on "Pandemic (disambiguation). COVID is clearly the PRIMARYREDIRECT - if someone, somehow unaware of COVID saw people (as they commonly do) refer to it as "The pandemic", they may well look that up and, lo and behold, be redirected to the correct pandemic's article. No-one typing "The pandemic" wants to end up at Pandemic (album) or Pandemic (South Park) or Pandemic (comics). Redirects are cheap, and given that many people refer to COVID as "The pandemic", it is useful, just as The lettuce redirects to Liz Truss lettuce. However, if people don't like it, then I am fine with it being retargeted to Pandemic (disambiguation). Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While there may be a tad bit of WP:RECENTISM here, it's very much justified. Most people who refer to "the pandemic" are not going to be talking about the Spanish flu or the Black Death. Estar8806 (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per creator although a hatnote to Pandemic (disambiguation) won't hurt. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget. I'm not sure whether Pandemic, List of epidemics, or Pandemic (disambiguation) is the best target, but the current target obviously fails the WP:TENYEARTEST. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that this redirect would easily pass the ten year test. Thinking about the future: when people in 10, 20, 30 years time find uses of "The pandemic" in 2020-23 (as it is commonly referred to), they might want to know what that is. The redirect provides them with that. Again, nobody looking for "The pandemic" wants to end up at Spanish flu or 1889–1890 pandemic, or, indeed at Pandemic (disambiguation). COVID is clearly the PRITOP. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
when people in 10, 20, 30 years time find uses of "The pandemic" in 2020-23 (as it is commonly referred to), they might want to know what that is. Yes, and when people find uses of "the pandemic" from the 1990s, they might want to know what that is (likely the HIV pandemic). The point of the ten-year test here is that from a historical perspective, the pandemic that happens to be on our minds right now isn't the primary topic over other pandemics. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The TYT doesn't apply to redirects. Even if it did, HIV wasn't a pandemic - it was an epidemic. "Pandemic" wasn't in common parlance until the late 19th century, with the only major pandemic from then on that could plausibly be referred to as such is the Spanish flu. Between that and COVID, which has been called "The pandemic" more often? I'd bet my house on COVID. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There have been lots of pandemics in history, including the HIV pandemic (that article uses the word "pandemic" several times), the 1889–1890 pandemic, the 1957–1958 influenza pandemic, the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, and the 1968 flu pandemic. See Category:Pandemics for others. And the ten-year test is as applicable to redirects as to anything else in the encyclopedia. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to many of our articles, HIV was and is a pandemic. Anecdotally, I do feel like I usually have heard it referred to as an epidemic, so perhaps that needs to be checked for WP:DUE. But in any case, it is non-obvious that "the pandemic" refers to the 2020-starting one rather than any of the others. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is – it's what the reader is looking for at the moment. While the 10 year test does not apply to redirects, I'm fairly confident that anyone in 2030 searching the pandemic up will be looking for the COVID-19 one, absent any huge repeat! J947 † ^edits 21:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ten-year test applies to redirects. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. All the stuff at Wikipedia:Recentism specifically refers to articles. That's because articles provide an overview of a topic's history, whereas redirects are navigational tools which get the reader where they want to go – at the moment, obviously COVID-19 pandemic. It is somewhat iffy to have a redirect target be temporary, but I imagine the target of this redirect will stay as is for, well, 10 years anyway – there's some leeway in when the change of target back to List of epidemics or whatever should happen.
As I said before, even assuming the 10 year test has any validity in this instance, then I reckon this redirect will indeed pass it in 2030. It's already passed the 3-year-test with flying colours! J947 † ^edits 21:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove there have been many pandemics and this is recentism Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any that you would refer to as "The pandemic" though? Deletion is pointless if it, even in a small way, helps people find what they're looking for. You aren't likely to want to get to Black Death from "The pandemic". Again, this case is analogous to the "The lettuce" situation. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the list of pandemics. "The pandemic" will always refer to the current pandemic or recent pandemic. In the past this did not refer to COVID-19 as it did not occur back then. Add a hatnote on the list to the disambiguation page for this incoming redirect. If wanted, the COVID-19 pandemic can be hatnoted as well. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per creator: while there is some WP:RECENTISM involved this is still the best target. However, I am also fine with retargeting to a disambiguation. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per InterstellarGamer, I see that 'covid pandemic' also redirects where it should; perhaps in a couple years this can be revisited but it's good for now. SmolBrane (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to pandemic, list of epidemics, or another target that reaches consensus; it is recentism to suppose that this only refers to Covid. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to pandemic per nom. Veverve (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete due to the awkward use of "the" and the redirect being ambiguous since we have List of pandemics, or weak retarget to List of epidemics and pandemics (which has List of pandemics as an incoming redirect) since the use of "the" makes the redirect refer to a specific pandemic that has occurred or is occurring. Either way works, but preference to the former. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Currently there is a very clear primary topic for "the pandemic" and it is covid-19. That may change in future, but if it does this can easily be retargetted at that point. Until then however we best serve our readers by taking them to where they almost certainly want to go. A hatnote to the disambiguation page will be sufficient for those who are looking for something other than the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First, the redirect's target lacks a hatnote to Pandemic (disambiguation), but it does have a link to List of epidemics and pandemics in § See also. Second, redirecting to COVID-19 pandemic as the most likely primary topic seems logical today, but that could change in the future; if we wind the clock backwards into the past, the same logic applies – a different primary topic. Should we set the redirect target so firmly to COVID-19, when other possibilities have or could exist? Therefore, the initial proposal makes a lot of sense in that The pandemic may be too vague (without taking a side in the discussion), and we should consider alternate solutions before coming to a decision. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can have this discussion again in the future, when COVID may not be the primary topic anymore. For now... Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are not setting the redirect target "firmly", we're setting it to what the most appropriate target is now. If that changes, then the target of the redirect can and should change. Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 16 April 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).

Noam Chomsky/Colorless green ideas sleep furiously

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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Chomsky/Colorless green ideas sleep furiously → Colorless green ideas sleep furiously (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible redirect. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – {{R with old history}}, when subpages were commonplace in mainspace. J947 † ^edits 10:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The old history referred to appears to be the redirect itself rather than an article. The "What links here" refers to this RfD rather than a reference to a page move. I agree, this is a very implausible redirect. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the article history was history merged into Colorless green ideas sleep furiously in 2008 [1]. The article was at this title in 2001, see this edit from it bein "de-subpaged" [2]. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RFD#K4. Deleting a subpage that's been here since 2002 could be harmful. - Eureka Lott 15:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Age does not automatically confer any value, nor damage if deleted. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you apparently haven't read WP:RFD#K4, let me quote it here for you: Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. - Eureka Lott 03:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:EurekaLott. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RFD#K4: old subpage. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:29, 11 April 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).

United States America

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) Estar8806 (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United States America → United States (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The redirect is missing the prepositions. And was never written like "United States America" I think. So this redirect deserves to get Speedy deleted. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a plausible misspelling. None of the reasons in WP:R#DELETE apply. As for suggesting that this should be speedily deleted, none of the reasons in WP:RCSD apply either. Even if one were to claim that this was not a plausible typo or misnomer, it has been around since 2013, so it is not "recently created" and thus fails WP:R3. Meters (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhh yeah, you are right.... We can actually keep it for those who accidentally write the country name without the "of" ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 09:30, 9 April 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).

Template:Wikiproject Denmark

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. ✗plicit 00:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikiproject Denmark → Template:WikiProject Denmark (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

To be deleted. No point to double every WikiProject-template with a non-capitalized phrase. Unsystematic naming and not harmonizing with other similar templates, see an example Special:Diff/974219244. In total we have 390 such cases, full list here https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/72912 Estopedist1 (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CHEAP, longstanding, harmless, not misleading in any way - indeed, I can't find anything at WP:R#DELETE that applies here. If there has been a recent spate of creating redirs for variant capitalisations, a bundled RfD may be appropriate, but I don't see that as having happened here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Redrose64 -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Redrose64. Veverve (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: the template in question has no use anymore, i.e. no serious backlinks. Many such redirects are already deleted, see User:Ladsgroup/WikiProject template redirects Estopedist1 (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I searched the "Title" column for redlinks beginning "Wikiproject", with a small p, and if you discount those where the "Target" column is also a redlink, these are the only ones that are left: {{Wikiproject_Accessibility}}; {{Wikiproject_Reality_Television}}; {{Wikiproject_Shell_Banner}}. It's hardly "many". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject_Accessibility is deleted by user:Maile66 with rational "not standard name, no backlinks. Redundant". Same applies to the template in question (i.e. Template:Wikiproject Denmark) Estopedist1 (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64 and Estopedist1: in looking through my deletions that day, Template:Wikiproject Accessibility was put up for deletion by Johnj1995. Since I was merely responding to requests put up for deletion at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, I would suggest you do what the majority here believe is correct. — Maile (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion log shows that it was deleted five days ago under WP:CSD#G6. That would appear to be a misuse of the G6 speedy deletion criterion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just undeleted my delete: Template:Wikiproject Accessibility. Hope this is correct, as this has been somewhat confusing to me. — Maile (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This edit by Estopedist1 was a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and did not specify a valid WP:CSD criterion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:18, 16 April 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).

File:Doom-boxart.jpg

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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the file's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doom-boxart.jpg → File:Doom cover art.jpg (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete: Viewing "What links here", the original file was orphaned and then deleted for failing fair use rationale, as well as being an invalid example of the Doom (1993 video game) box art (The Ultimate Doom cover had been edited to remove text which properly identified the edition). The redirect only has creation history, and no talk page. I propose deleting the redirect, because the discussions which link to the redirect reference only the deleted file. Those links would become red links, which is an appropriate outcome for a deleted file. The current target of the redirect is a different file, is of an accurate box art, and should not be linked to by a deleted file. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 05:58, 9 April 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).

P&F

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 25#P&F

Black Hitler

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.

Salvio giuliano

08:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hitler → Idi Amin (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Term mentioned on many biographies, but not Amin's. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just as a note: It's listed, with a source, in Amin's "nicknames" section. Still, the redirect should probably deleted. Applodion (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CTRL-F failed me! Yes, I still think deletion is warranted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Several people have been called this. Page should either be a disambiguation page or possibly an article.★Trekker (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I will need to do more research before I can decide on possibility of disambiguation; this vote will probably be struck after that. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Cursory google search says that there are several people with that moniker like Siad Barre and Sufi Abdul Hamid. However, it is probably best not to make a dab until we have good cites backing those monikers. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't fight strenuously against a dab page, but I worry it'll be a mess for NPOV and BLP issues. I see Hitler (disambiguation) has managed to stay away from "list of people who have ever been called 'Hitler'", but I'm not sure there are enough target articles to sustain this possible dab page without such a list. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a dab page listing all people potentially called "Black hitler" could potentially violate WP:NPOV. Estar8806 (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everything above. Veverve (talk) 22:46, 12 April 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).

Christopher Khayman Lee

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 00:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Khayman Lee → Power Rangers in Space (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Lee has acted in multiple Power Rangers productions, including Power Rangers in Space, Power Rangers Lost Galaxy, and Power Rangers Wild Force, as well as unrelated works like Kickboxing Academy and Safe Harbor (TV series). I am not sure there's a reasonable best target and am suggesting deletion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Red links and unlinked text are perfectly acceptable. Why blue link if there is no best target (not even a disambig page)? — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Power Rangers in Space is what he's best known for. What purpose does red linking serve when it already got PROD'd? Since there's not going to be an article on Christopher Khaymee Lee, the show he's best known for is the next best target. This isn't like "apple" redirecting to "orange". This proposal and the reason(s) thus far given come across like deletion for the sake of deletion. How does deleting this improve the project? If you're going to nominate this for deletion, you might as well nominate Selwyn Ward, Roger Velasco, Tracy Lynn Cruz and a bunch of other PR actors/redirects for deletion too.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CJDOS. And, per Mythdon, the same should be considered for the three pages he noted (Ward, Velasco, Cruz). JPG-GR (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 22:46, 12 April 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).

Jeff Jorgensen

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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Jorgensen → Jeff Bezos (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. I came across the redirect from another discussion, and I was surprised to find it existed. It's a very unlikely search term. Considering he only used the surname for four years and it only became clear that it was his surname at birth around ten years ago, well after Bezos was notable and her was never notable under this name. Estar8806 (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree it's an unlikely search term, but it's plausible and there are no other likely targets. Jeffrey Preston Jorgensen is even more unlikely, but it has seen about a thousand pageviews since its creation in 2013. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Redirects of Nickname Birthlastname aren't uncommon and unless there's a better target, no reason to delete. (Other, of course, when MOS:DEADNAME would overrule that.) Skynxnex (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, apart from that this is IMO quite a likely search term. 1000+ views ≠ unlikely. However, there is fairly unsurprisingly at least one other Jeff Jorgensen on the site, at 2003 Rice Owls baseball team. But that guy's name has been spelt Jorgensen by one source and Jorgenson by another, and is spelt two ways in our article... J947 † ^edits 22:41, 12 April 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).