Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 23

December 23

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 23, 2020.

Kobe (basketball player)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 30#Kobe (basketball player)

Zoë Robins

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. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoë Robins → Power Rangers Ninja Steel#Cast (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete per WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC; there seems slim justification for targeting this actress here, as opposed to one of the other productions in which she has appeared. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:22, 23 December 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.

Trevira

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. While there's a clear link, the name is not specifically mentioned, and also potentially refers to much more than this particular polymer. Regardless of the state of the potential draft, consensus here seems to be that this redirect itself is not helpful in its current form. ~ mazca ^talk 14:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trevira → Polyethylene terephthalate (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete Term does not appear in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term was present in the target article a long time ago (citing Polymer science dictionary), but was removed in this edit in 2010 by a user who is no longer active. Some of the other trade names removed in that edit have since been restored. Apparently the brand name Trevira originally belonged to Hoechst AG (whose article doesn't mention it), and then it was spun off as an independent company Trevira GmbH [1]. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete Google tells me that Trevira is a German-based manufacturer of flame-retardant polyester fabrics in which I presume Polyethylene terephthalate is used. Again based on Google the company's name might also be a metonym for the product, but in any case without any mention in the article the redirect is unhelpful. I haven't had a detailed look but it wouldn't surprise me if the company and/or their product was notable enough for an article, if so this redirect should be deleted per WP:REDLINK. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: ∃ Draft:Trevira; we'll see. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence on PubChem [2] or SciFinder that this name refers to this polymer specifically. Given this and the potential for confusion, delete, of course with no prejudice against the draft space article being eventually moved there. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:35, 24 December 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.

Faesteg

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. Withdrawing nomination thanks to Thryduulf's explanation. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not mentioned at the target, unlikely despite the short edit distance, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Faesteg" is the soft mutation of "Maesteg", and as this mutation occurs following prepositions like the words for "to", "at" and "beside" it is commonly encountered for place names. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thryduulf. I don't speak Welsh, but I do know that "M" transmutes to "F". Most European languages inflect words by changing their ending; but Welsh often changes their beginning, confusing though that may look to speakers of Germanic, Romance and Slavic languages. Narky Blert (talk) 19:25, 23 December 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.

You.

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 30#You.

List of P-Pop Artist

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 18:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of P-Pop Artist → List of Philippine-based music groups (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I nominated this redirect as a CSD for promotional creation, but this was contested. This redirect was recently created as an article to promote certain bands. The creator is now blocked, and others turned it into a redirect, but i don't see the need to keep the promotional history around. It isn't that great a redirect either given its grammar. CMD (talk) 16:04, 23 December 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.

Wood & Wire

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. As the draft appears ready for mainspace, there have been no other issues to prevent deletion of this redirect. ~ mazca ^talk 13:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wood & Wire → Beggars (album) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There seems to be no connection between the source band and the target album. The album was recorded in 2009, and the band was formed in 2011, and there does not seem to be any overlap in musicians, or any other reason for the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've just noted a draft at Draft:Wood & Wire that has been submitted for AfC review, which would obviously have to be moved here if approved. Pinging Robert McClenon to have a look at it. Pahunkat (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beggars (album) includes a track titled "Wood and Wire", so this is (more or less) a {{r from song}}. If the draft is approved, which seems likely, the redirect can be deleted and a hatnote added to the band's article. If it's not approved, the redirect should stay. - Eureka Lott 21:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have looked at the draft, and may approve it. I tagged the redirect because I did not see any connection. I thank User:EurekaLott for explaining what the redirect is for. I will add a hatnote to the band draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, I created this redirect after moving an article to draftspace (log here) so is good to see the draft has been developed. For now keep the redirect until draft is accepted. Polyamorph (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Polyamorph - The deletion of the redirect and the acceptance of the draft are a database transaction. The draft cannot be accepted while the redirect is in place, because the draft must be accepted in place of the redirect. There is a hatnote on the draft that will take the place of the redirect when the draft is accepted. So the two actions are indivisible. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely what WP:G6 is for. Until the draft is ready for mainspace there is no justification in deleting this redirect. But if you do intend to move the draft to mainspace immediately after this discussion then I would support deletion on closure of this RFD. Polyamorph (talk) 19:55, 26 December 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.

Old Style calendar

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 Old Style and New Style dates. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old Style calendar → Old Style and New Style dates (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Old style calendar → Julian calendar (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Old Style Calendar → Julian calendar (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget all to Julian calendar. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. We may assume that readers first want to know why it is called 'Old Style', from there they can determine which of the old-style calendars is relevant. Although the term usually means Julian, it has been used to refer to Asian calendars too. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget all three to Old Style and New Style dates and let readers decide which of the various 'old styles' is relevant to their needs. Per Thryduulf's comment below, it is really unhelpful to have conflicting proposals in one bundle like this. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose [retargetting Old Style calendar] per John Maynard Friedman. The current target is the most helpful for readers. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Added two more redirects --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget the newly added two to Old Style and New Style dates per the comments above. user:Soumya-8974 it would be significantly less disruptive if you made complete nominations from the start rather than assuming other people know what your rationale is based on only a subset of your findings. @John Maynard Friedman: making you aware that the nomination has been significantly altered since your comment. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Besides the unclear consensus, it seems best to keep this with the below discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:48, 23 December 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.

Old Style and New Style 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 retarget. There is broad agreement that Old Style and New Style dates is a marginally preferable target for the first two redirects. There's less of a consensus regarding O. S., but defaulting to the disambiguation option in the absence of a clear consensus seems to be the safe bet in this type of disagreement. Therefore:

retarget New Style dates and Old Style date to Old Style and New Style dates
retarget O. S. to OS, the disambiguation page

~ mazca ^talk 14:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Style dates → Adoption of the Gregorian calendar (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Old Style date → Adoption of the Gregorian calendar (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

O. S. → Julian calendar (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to Old Style and New Style dates. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Old Style and New Style dates is more Anglo-centric and specific about dates. Adoption of the Gregorian calendar is more international. I would go by usage, but Special:WhatLinksHere/Old_Style_date shows it is not used. --Error (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree (retarget to Old Style and New Style dates)--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget O. S. to OS (disambiguation); clearly this is a 2LA, and can be used for many topics. It should point to the disambiguation page, since pre-1960s orthography for English would include a space in such an initialism. (just look at how WWII films spell acronyms, with spaces and periods) -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a fair comment but WP:Common name would support the original proposal. Your concern would be met by adding a {{Redirect}} hatnote to the article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It clearly isn't the common name, since it is a redirect, and not an article. The disambiguation page is more useful, and some people still use the orthography with periods and spaces (such as government bureaucracies) -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - What mattes is not whether the most common name for the target is "O. S." but whether the target is the most common meaning of "O. S.". It's difficult to be certain given that Google refuses to distinguish between "O.S.", "O. S." and "OS", even when you ask for verbatim results, but from personal experience, the usage for dates is the only time I can remember seeing "O. S." with both spaces and full stops. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - From my personal experience, people will not encounter dates of this form, even in history books. So it will not be the most common meaning of "O. S." since it isn't used, because even history books use modern calendars. Thus, the most useful target is the disambiguation page. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget O. S. to OS and the others to Old Style and New Style dates, IP's arguments about disambiguation seem sound. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:31, 30 December 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.

Lumberton, NC μSA

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 withdrawn. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lumberton, NC μSA → Robeson County, North Carolina (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 27 § Abbeville, LA μSA – keep

~~Bizarre redirect; Lumberton, North Carolina would be more precise but no less peculiar. 74 views in the last year. Delete.~~

~~The history suggests that this was part of a mass RFD proposal in 2017 which was closed as a WP:TRAINWRECK. It might be worth revisiting that discussion to look for other lurkers.~~ Narky Blert (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: which RfD are you reading? Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 27#Abbeville, LA μSA was closed as keep on the basis of the arguments with no mention of trainwrecks at all. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments made in the last discussion since when nothing has changed afaict. Note µSA refers to "micropolitan statistical area" not "United States of America". Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw (nom) per arguments given. This shows the advantage of categorising redirects. Narky Blert (talk) 12:49, 23 December 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.

Next Alberta Liberal Party leadership election

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 18:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next Alberta Liberal Party leadership election → 2017 Alberta Liberal Party leadership election (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No longer upcoming. No better target? Paul_012 (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Alberta Liberal Party leadership elections which will link to whatever one is next when there is one and make it clear there isn't an upcoming one when there isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no "next" leadership election to speak of. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Next" always means upcoming and the 2017 is obviously not. Less Unless (talk) 16:51, 25 December 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.

Ayesha Erotica

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. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Erotica → Slayyyter (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The redirect subject (Ayesha Erotica) could warrant her own article however there are very few Reliable Sources with information on her. The current target article contains little information on Ayesha. Per WP:RFD#DELETE #10, I believe this qualifies it for deletion. Additionally, Redirecting Ayesha Erotica to Slayyyer gives the false impression that they are the same artist. Looking at the history it appears the redirect has been deleted many times before, although not through this process. SkinnyMariah (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to article version without prejudice to prod or AfD. An unsourced article has been here a few times but reverted each time, most recently by Alexf. The article really isn't/wasn't great but it doesn't meet any speedy deletion criteria and is basically neutral and could could serve as the basis for a decent article if someone wants to improve it - even without that I wouldn't like to predict what way an AfD would fall so restoring it for a proper discussion seems best. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a sensible redirect from a related topic, as this seems to me to be a classic example of an artist that's received multiple passing mentions, in the context of Slayyyter, but does not seem to have anywhere near the coverage necessary to provide a useful, verifiable article. While I get the principle behind Thryduulf's suggestion to revert it and potentially AfD it, I personally would not wish to return this to mainspace for any length of time: It's an entirely unsourced BLP that, while neutral, is full of unsourced information including a full name, combined with overt speculation, and a strange factual error in that the infobox seems to claim that her birth name was Catherine Slater, which is the very Slayyyter that the OP of this discussion wants to distinguish her from. An article can still be created here over the redirect, if there's actual sourced information to demonstrate notability, but it seems to me that a redirect is the best way to serve our readers right now. ~ mazca ^talk 21:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sensible redirect per Mazca. feminist (talk) 15:05, 23 December 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.

First inauguration of Donald Trump

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. WP:SNOW closure. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First inauguration of Donald Trump → Inauguration of Donald Trump (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This should be deleted. It suggests that there will be a second inauguration when the President lost the 2020 election. He only had one inauguration, not two. cookie monster (2020) 755 05:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Narky Blert (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Narky Blert, just because there wont be a second does not mean this wasn't the first. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your WP:CRYSTAL ball may be more highly polished than mine. Narky Blert (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thryduulf said it best. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although unusual to refer to it in this way it is correct and unambiguous. The redirect got ~450 page views in the last 90 days, so it is being used. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page views prove it's a plausible search term. Less Unless (talk) 16:56, 25 December 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.

Wolfe Sr.

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. In this case most participants note that the search results give better results for this particular query than any other potential target. ~ mazca ^talk 16:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfe Sr. → Wolfe (surname) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The current target is the outcome of an earlier RfD. The trouble is this redirect continues to be an impediment to readers: the various people known as "Wolfe Sr." are more or less easily accessible through the search results, whereas the current target lists only one of them (several others were identified in the previous discussion, and there are certainly going to be more that were not mentioned then). Deletion remains the optimal course, but if the redirect is to be kept, then the very large index article at Wolfe (surname) will need to be expanded with an exhaustive list of people known as "Wolfe Sr.", with annotations making it clear they're known as that. – Uanfala (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pings to participants in previous discussion: Soumya-8974, Dmehus, BD2412, Hog Farm, CoffeeWithMarkets. – Uanfala (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only two pages with "Wolfe Sr." in their title now have entries in the name list. Any other "Wolfe Sr."'s, where it's not in theie WP:COMMONNAME, seem less likely and perhaps a solution waiting for a problem.—Bagumba (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all articles about people who are known as "Wolfe Sr." have "Sr." in their titles, like Robert M. Wolfe. The search results are doing a decent job of returning those people, that's why I believe deletion is preferable to keeping. Of course, iuf the target is updated, and each entry for a Wolfe St. is annotated to make it explicit he's known as that, then my objection will be weaker. Still, I don't think this is sustainable, as that sort of stuff is not something that editors who will maintain this page in future are likely to be aware of. – Uanfala (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think search gives better results in this case. (t · c) buidhe 21:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per buidhe. I'm open to being proven wrong here, but for the most part, I don't think anyone is referred to as "Wolfe Sr." generally. Someone like Herman L. Wolfe Sr. would just be "Wolfe" unless in a specific context where you might expect to read about his son too. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 31 December 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.

Goodnet

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Goodnet