Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 15

May 15

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 15, 2021.

Porte des Lions

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 23#Porte des Lions

Agrinegosyo

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#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agrinegosyo → Agribusiness (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This appears to be a redirect from Filipino, delete per WP:RLOTE unless a justification can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Reply to Rosguill: No further justification. Please proceed with the deletion. Thanks. Unilimited247 (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2021 (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.

Rosemary Burnett

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. There is consensus that the redirect is not helpful, and rough consensus there is WP:SNOW chance of the preexisting article to survive AfD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Burnett → Glasgow (Scottish Parliament electoral region) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

the target page Glasgow (Scottish Parliament electoral region) does not mention Rosemary Burnett. She was second on the Greens Party's "list" for the Glasgow region in 2007, but a reader who is redirected to Glasgow (Scottish Parliament electoral region) will have their time wasted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore per WP:BLAR without prejudice to AfD if anyone desires. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I failed to find a mention anywhere. She is clearly not notable, so restoring is an inappropriate exercise in pointless bureaucracy. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tavix —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tavix. Worth nothing that the redirection has not been contested in the approximately 10 years since this occurred, so I agree restoring is probably excess red tape here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:23, 24 May 2021 (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.

Law for the Vlachs of Cetina (1436)

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. Log:

2021-05-15T21:11:17 Guettarda (talk | contribs) deleted page Law for the Vlachs of Cetina (1436) (R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace) (thank)

(non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Law for the Vlachs of Cetina (1436) → User:Veni.Sponsa.Samurai/Law for the Vlachs of Cetina (1436) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Cross-namespace redirect Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Super Ψ Dro: Why not tag it with {{Db-r2}}? ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know about that deletion rule. Do I add the template or it doesn't matter now? Super Ψ Dro 14:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done: I've added {{db-r2}}. Java Hurricane 15:00, 15 May 2021 (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.

Voiture trolley

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 deleted by Athaenara per G7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voiture trolley → Food cart (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Other than in the hatnote, "Voiture trolley" is not mentioned in the article. Without a properly sourced mention, this is ambiguous and should be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as page creator) not per nom, but because the very existence of the term as a synonym for food cart or serving cart appears dubious, and because this redirect has lived out its purpose. I created this redirect because the deletion of its predecessor article left a lot of redlinks. Over time, those redlinks have been removed or resolved, and the few that remain are extraneous members of "See also" sections that can be removed. Ibadibam (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CSD#G7. -- dylx 12:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A clear-cut case. As stated above, there's no reason at all to have this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2021 (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.

Portsmouth Council

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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portsmouth Council → Daniel Webster Council#History (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Some readers may wish to visit Portsmouth City Council in the UK or Portsmouth, New Hampshire's city council instead. Maybe the redirect should be replaced with a disambiguation page instead. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 11:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done --evrik ^(talk) 00:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't quite work out what's gone on here, but the RfD tag has disappeared. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Evrik moved the redirect under discussion to Portsmouth Council BSA (still targetted at Daniel Webster Council#History_ and overwrote the resulting double redirect with the dab page. They also removed the RfD tag from Portsmouth Council BSA. This was wrong for several reasons (not least the edit history is all over the place) but I'm not sure best how to clean it up. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The `original redirect and its edit history is with Portsmouth Council BSA, which still points at Daniel Webster Council#History. In place of the original Portsmouth Council redirect is a new dab page. --evrik ^(talk) 13:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate using evrik's text. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2021 (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.

Caiman (Star Fox)

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. Hog Farm _Talk 02:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caiman (Star Fox) → List of Star Fox characters (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This Androssian lieutenant used to have an article in 2005 from May to August, until it was redirected to List of minor characters in the Star Fox series back when the target was at that title. However, since his section was removed in September 2006, he hasn't been mentioned for years at the target, and the article about the only game he appeared at the time, Star Fox 64, doesn't mention him (nor does Star Fox Zero, the only other game where he appears), so I'd prefer deletion here, but I'm opened to being swayed otherwise. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 07:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom - fancruft that doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:14, 16 May 2021 (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.

Minor characters associated with Quidditch

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. There appears to be a rough consensus that the content of the redirect has WP:SNOW chance of surviving AfD, and thus can be deleted without the need for the extra bureaucracy. Anyone who believes that the preexisting article content, which consisted purely of unsourced plot details, deserves to be kept can raise this at DRV. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters associated with Quidditch → Dumbledore's Army (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Minor Harry Potter Characters associated with Quidditch has nothing to do with Dumbledore's Army. This redirect should be deleted unless a suitable retarget can be found which talks about the topic of the redirect. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per nom. Dumbledore's Army is neither about minor character nor about character necessarily related to Quidditch. —El Millo (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This used to be an article before being unilaterally redirected. It shouldn't be deleted as that would mean an article is deleted without discussion on its merits. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 03:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore without prejudice to AfD per WP:BLAR per J947. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It has been an uncontested redirect for more than a decade, so I don't think "restore and AfD" is the best option here. It should be deleted as obvious fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only time it's acceptable to delete article content at RfD is when the content has already been discussed for deletion (it hasn't) or meets a speedy deletion criterion (it doesn't). Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can WP:IAR here given that the original article had zero references and was solely plot material, and is furthermore not mentioned in the target article. To do otherwise is to engage in pointless bureaucracy._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR is never a justification for speedy deleting anything. IAR is only for actions that uncontroversially improve the encyclopaedia, the only times speedy deletions are uncontroversial are when they unambiguously meet one of the criteria at WP:CSD. Additionally, even when a page does meet one of the speedy deletion criterion it becomes inelligble for speedy deletion if one or more editors express good-faith objections to speedy deleting it. Finally, none of the factors you mention are speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, Restore only if it is immediately sent to AfD afterwards due to non-notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's been a redirect for over a decade, which is way past time for it to be established as a redirect. I oppose restoring it, and echo Zxcvbnm's comment regarding "pointless bureaucracy", given such an AfD would be a clear "delete". -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am sympathetic to the arguments for restoring and sending to AFD, but given that the old content here is completely unsourced plot-only fancruft that has not been an article since 2007, that long period of time without the redirection being challenged seems like a form of consensus in itself that the history here isn't fit for a standalone article. Not useful as a search term per nom. Hog Farm _Talk 02:27, 24 May 2021 (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.

Tyrium

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) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrium → Neodymium (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentoned anywhere on Wikipedia. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tyrium was first listed in Chemical symbol by Spangineer in 2005 here as a suggested name for neodymium. The entry was removed from the list in 2016 by an IP here. If this can be confirmed as an early proposed name of the element then it should be kept as a redirect. Polyamorph (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep following further research. This seems to be an alternative name for Neodymium proposed by John and Gordon Marks in a postscript of a paper where they proposed an alternative presentation for the periodic table. The only copy of the original 1994 paper I can find is here, I'm not sure which journal this was published in. A later paper by the brothers published in Found Chem in 2010 doesn't mention the alternative nomenclature. Still, seems a valid redirect. Also see here and here. Polyamorph (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Marks brothers nomenclature seems not used seriously by anyone else in scholarship (not even by themselves in their 2010 paper, except niton for radon). Double sharp (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. And if it isn't mentioned in Neodymium then it is a bit pointless. But it is a real thing which is why I suggested there is no harm in keeping it. But I'm a bit meh about it so have changed my !vote to weak keep. Polyamorph (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdewman6 (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since Tyrium was indeed suggested as a name for Neodymium per the different references provided by Polyamorph. Jay (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:56, 15 May 2021 (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.

Kobe Jones

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 22#Kobe Jones

Lists of Serbian saints

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 19:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serbian saints → List of saints of the Serbian Orthodox Church (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Serbian saints → List of saints of the Serbian Orthodox Church (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Serbian Saints → List of saints of the Serbian Orthodox Church (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Only concerns the saints of the Serbian Orthodox Church, not all Serbian saints, so these redirects should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fixed incorrectly formatted nominations, and tagged redirects which didn't have an RfD tag. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The articles were moved by the nominator without discussion. While I may agree with the new page title, those are reasonable redirects, and virtually all Serbian saints are those canonized by the Serbian Orthodox Church. There's no policy-based reason for deletion. No such user (talk) 08:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per No such user, and add a hatnote if there's a corresponding list (or part of a list) somewhere of Serbian saints of the e.g. Catholic Church. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:32, 22 May 2021 (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.

Vyond 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 00:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dead meat videos → Vyond#"Grounded" videos (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Behavior Card Day → Vyond#"Grounded" videos (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ohohohohohohoh! That's it! Ground these redirects for 27610693649276 years (aka Delete). These are a popular type of Grounded video using Vyond, but they don't seem to be notable enough. Dominicmgm (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2021 (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.