This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 13, 2024.
Environmental Analysis of Computing
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 23:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
At this title for a few days. As far as I can tell this phrase is not used, it has exactly one Google hit.
Rusalkii (
talk) 19:20, 13 April 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).
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
Microsoft. Jay 💬 18:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This redirect is technically correct, since the only Microsoft entity we have an article that is a "Company, Limited" seems to be the Japan subsidiary. However, I think the vast majority of users would be looking for
Microsoft, which is also the first and basically only result on Google. Thus, I propose retargeting this redirect to
Microsoft.
Toadspike (
talk) 16:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The creator of this redirect also created several others targeted at
Microsoft Japan around the same time and was later blocked for being a sockpuppet. I am not sure if
WP:G5 applies, since the redirect might be useful. If someone else determines that G5 applies, they may freely CSD the redirect and close this discussion as moot.
Toadspike (
talk) 16:25, 13 April 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).
Verticon
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.
No mention of "Verticon" at the target page, nor anywhere on Wikipedia besides in a section of
ASCII art as a section header without any meaningful content nor specific description. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Unsure about this one, given the work in question is titled Vertécon, not Verticon. I could see
Vertecon going there, though.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 13:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Is the Verticon mentioned in that article a typo, or an English equivalent name? Jay 💬 14:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Struck in favour of the mention at target. Jay 💬 06:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Verticons, as far as I know, are basically an alternative name for Kaomojis, but they can be composed of Western characters as well. Since the term occurs in the net (and I even saw it in a book some while ago), deletion is no valid option, as people might enter the term into our search engine. I have therefore added a sentence about them to the target page, so they are now covered explicitly rather than only in general. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 16:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Doooo you have a source for that? If so, happily keep. If not, we probably shouldn't have it added to the page.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 17:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 20:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Okmrman (
talk) 15:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per Matthiaspaul's helpful addition to the article, which I see has now been properly given a
WP:RS as well.
Fieari (
talk) 06:28, 19 April 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).
Psychological addiction
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Editors did not come to an agreement on the target nor whether it should be deleted once an ambiguity was identified in the term's use in medical circles and common parlance.
(non-admin closure)—
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh) 19:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Tagged the redirect as a "R from merge" and notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Okmrman (
talk) 15:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator's follow-up comment.
Steel1943 (
talk) 17:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator's follow-up comment.
Okmrman (
talk) 20:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Note that content
was merged to the target in 2006. Jay 💬 07:26, 27 April 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).
Abdur Rahim (politician)
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 person in question does not have a Wikipedia article, and the article where
Abdur Rahim (politician) redirects to, is a general article about the Muslim name
'Abd al-Rahim that has absolutely nothing to do with the person in question.
Crampcomes (
talk) 12:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. The redirect is tagged "R from incomplete disambiguation", and the target article is indeed a disambig page; there are multiple "Abdur Rahims" and "Abdul Rahims" listed on the page that are politicians, such as
Abdul Rahim Hatef,
Abdul Rahim Malhas, and
Abdul Rahim (Afghan politician). While I do think that the disambig page could do with a bit of reorganizing, this redirect is entirely correct. Note, for the record, that Abdul vs Abdur is a transliteration issue; in Arabic they'd all be written the same way. (edit added 13:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC))
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 13:18, 13 April 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).
Tracy Grandstaff
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.
Weak oppose. While Grandstaff may have been involved with those other series, I would argue that Daria remains what she is primarily known for.
DonIago (
talk) 14:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:RFD#D10/
WP:REDYES (to encourage article creation). Basically nothing about her at the current target anyway.
A7V2 (
talk) 04:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Striking my above, I'm not sure now. This has history as an article, but it was merged (though I don't see that much, if anything, has been added from the old article) after a brief discussion here
Talk:Daria#Merge. I still don't think this is a suitable redirect as things stand, and I wonder how appropriate it would be to add information about Grandstaff's other roles at the current target.
A7V2 (
talk) 05:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree that the current situation isn't ideal. I'm not aware of any precedent for a scenario like this, nor do I have ideas for the best way to proceed other than leaving the redirect in place. Part of the problem seems to be that there aren't many sources that talk about Grandstaff herself, which makes having her own article (the best-case scenario) challenging, and wedging what we do have into Daria, for instance, is a bit awkward. It's not even clear to me whether we have any information regarding the casting of Grandstaff as Daria; presumably it's based on her involvement in B&B and TRW, but we obviously can't just say that. So, essentially, I'm left with being open to suggestions while feeling that deleting the redirect doesn't really benefit anyone.
DonIago (
talk) 13:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 21:27, 5 April 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 💬 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Tagged the page with {{R with history}} and {{R from merge}}. The page has been repeatedly turned to redirect and restored. The subject is not suitable as a redirect, and I would prefer it to be deleted but at AfD because of its history. Jay 💬 11:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator comment: In light of the redirect's history, I agree with Jay that it should be discussed at AfD. —
Goszei (
talk) 23:50, 20 April 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).
Hail eris
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. Refining to #In popular culture. Jay 💬 05:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention at target, I propose deletion.
Veverve (
talk) 22:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, seriously? This is definitely a good redirect, as are almost all the others, which are going to be a weekend time-sink.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 11:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Randy Kryn: Is there a reason "Eris" starts with a lowercase letter? It looks like a mistake to me, but for all I know, there could be some Discordian symbolism behind it. Note that
Hail Eris does not exist.
Nickps (
talk) 13:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No, thanks
Nickps, this is just a lowercase redirect that someone lowercasing the proper name would use. I haven't done a count of how many deletion requests are here, but I do know that the editor has opened an ANI thread on me for my concerns and reverts that a WikiHatchet is being taken to this topic in a two-day time period unlike anything I've seen on Wikipedia, with most of it apparently not knowing the topic. You're right, the uppercasijng didn't have a redirect, fixed.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I added the uppercased version to the RfD because the nom's concern (no mention) has not been addressed. I won't comment on the nom's intention, that's for
WP:ANI, but the argument itself has merit in my opinion. Why have this redirect if the reader finds nothing about its subject when they follow it?
Nickps (
talk) 13:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Sounds good. These terms should be on the page itself, as they are well known elements of the topic (were they removed in the deletions?). Even if not mentioned, they are directly related to the topic Discordianism and known among people who know of the topic and have read the books. It is a parody religion, or religion, or philosophy, but has people like me who know of it but don't run around practicing it (although I do carry a pope card in my wallet so am on the sidelines somewhere).
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
FWIW, known among people who know of the topic and have read the books is generally not quite the argument for keeping a redirect with no explanation at the target, since those people aren't really provided any further information by looking up the term either, while other readers may just be confused. (Not saying this necessarily applies here, but it does not seem like the correct argument.)
1234qwer1234qwer4 14:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, but it goes to knowing that the wording of the redirect is a real thing and that some readers may be looking for it. It's original research/knowledge but attesting to the redirects usefulness ought to be counted, no?
Randy Kryn (
talk) 14:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Retarget both to
Eris (mythology); Discordianism is not the only religion that worship(ed) Eris, and given the redirect title, it's probably far more helpful to redirect to Her page specifically.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 01:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That makes no sense at all. "Hail Eris" only refers to Discordianism.
Viriditas (
talk) 04:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
For the record, I'm not terribly opposed to Keep as per "yeah no this IS specifically Discordian". I'm mainly opposed to outright deletion. I will note, however, that
Eris (mythology) does have a section on Discordianism-- should we target to
Eris (mythology)#In Discordianism? (edited on 13:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC))
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 09:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
We should target the redirects to a section or WP article which covers the "Hail Eris" sentence, and if such a sentence is not covered anywehre on WP then the redirects should be deleted. And it turns out that the sentence is discussed nowhere on any WP article.
Veverve (
talk) 14:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Most likely that
Discordianism is the topic searched for with this term.
Eris (mythology) is linked in the first sentence of the article. Retarget to
Eris (mythology) would not be an improvement but would be preferable to deletion.
Peter James (
talk) 21:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Retarget to
Eris (mythology) or keep? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 10:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep or Retarget to
Eris (mythology)#In Discordianism - Lunamann brings up a good point that if it's not appropriate for the article on Discordianism as a whole, then the section in the article on Her dealing with Discordianism seems to be the next best target. I don't feel strongly either way, but deletion isn't needed here when there're viable targets for both redirects. —
Jéské Courianov^_^vSource assessment notes 16:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, and I'd like to say a big thank you to Skyerise for her contributions to polish up this article.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 12:46, 16 April 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).
Avanturine glance
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 by nominator. There is no consensus.
Namesnik knows the subject, I do not. The reasonable thing to do in this case is to withdraw.
(non-admin closure)Викидим (
talk) 03:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No clue where this one comes from, not used anywhere in or out of Wikipedia. The possible proper spelling "Aventurine glass" contains way too many differences.
Викидим (
talk) 03:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
«Авантюриновый блеск (avanturine glance) = кислый плагиоклаз» <avanturine glance = sour Plagioclase> (Krivovichev V. G. Mineralogical glossary. Scientific editor
A. G. Bulakh. — St.Petersburg: St.Petersburg Univ. Publ. House. 2009. — 556 p.: page 11 ) --
Namesnik (
talk) 11:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I am not an expert, but I do not think that A.g. term exists in English. Someone, somewhere, would have used it in a way for Google to pick it up. It is easy, for example, to find sources for "sour Plagioclase". Perhaps, a typo, or mis-translation in this particular book?
Викидим (
talk) 06:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Well then there must be two typos, or rather, at least twenty. The fact is that two dictionary entries are devoted to avanturine glance. This reference book has a separate section devoted to the translation of foreign names of minerals («List of foreign names of minerals», mainly English and German). And there is this mineral there too (only in English, without the German version): «Avanturine glance = авантюриновый блеск» (ibid., : page 440 ). The form of the word «
avanturine» is noteworthy. We are probably talking about texts from the 18th and 19th centuries. --
Namesnik (
talk) 10:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
In both cases the native language of authors is Russian, so another explanation is possible: these are simply attempts to translate the Russian term into English to the best of authors' knowledge.
Викидим (
talk) 22:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 21:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The last statement is not true. I already said. I repeat: ″This reference book has a separate section devoted to the translation of foreign names of minerals («List of foreign names of minerals», mainly English and German)″. The expression «List of foreign names of minerals» does not allow for double interpretation. This is not an attempt at translation. And foreign names of minerals. In the case where there is an English name, the author gives one name. In the case where there is German and English, the author gives two names. In the case of “Avanturine glance”, the author gives one option. English. This name does not exist in the German glossary. I wrote all the articles about glances (
Russian,
German,
English) and did not include a single synonym without a source. --
Namesnik (
talk) 11:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the target talk. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Do not delete. The redirect has a source. Not just a source, but a mineralogical dictionary. In this source, the second half is devoted to foreign terms. Two dictionary entries are devoted to
avanturine glance. What else is needed for an ecyclopedia? No information is superfluous. Even about a rare or old name. --
Namesnik (
talk) 09:35, 15 April 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).
Punctured plane
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Participation was limited despite two relists, and there was no support for the status quo.
Puncture (topology) was one recommended target. Retargeting there as a better target. Jay 💬 05:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This used to be an avoided double redirect to
Punctured neighbourhood, which used to redirect to this glossary (though has since been retargeted). However, this is not really conceptually related to punctured neighbourhoods. One place where this is described is
Scheme (mathematics)#Examples, though there might be similar content portraying this topic from some other mathematical field's POV.
1234qwer1234qwer4 00:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
REDIRECT I would have expected this to be a redirect to
Puncture (topology), or perhaps to
Complex plane (in the context of
meromorphic functions), both of which I would prefer to the current situation. Redirecting to the top of a glossary page doesn't help the reader much, I think.
Tea2min (
talk) 11:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
One might also consider redirecting this to the disambiguation page for
Punctured, which may be expanded with additional uses in mathematics. Redirecting to the complex plane seems like a good idea for something like
punctured complex plane, but the current title can refer to planes over other fields as well. Note that there are also the
Punctured set and
Punctured surface redirects.
1234qwer1234qwer4 14:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Out of context, "Punctured set" does not seem to mean anything useful. And it does not even appear in the Glossary of topology. I would delete that redirect.
PatrickR2 (
talk) 05:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 21:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more go. A lot many targets to consider. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak retarget While there is not really any information specifically on punctured planes at
Puncture (topology), it does mention the Moebius strip as an example of a punctured projective plane. Among the presented options, this seems to me the most obviously useful target.
Felix QW (
talk) 12:01, 16 April 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).
Differential algebraic variety
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Limited participation despite two relists. There was no support for the status quo, nor opinion on the nomination's proposed targets. Diffiety was a target for which there were conflicting opinions. Retargeting to Differential algebra as a better target than the current. Jay 💬 06:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
IMO, such a discussion should be better placed at
WT:WPM, since the interested editors are necessarily participants to the wiki project mathematics.
D.Lazard (
talk) 08:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
diffiety. "Diffiety" is a
portemanteau for "differential variety", and this is the only mentioned article that contains a definition of something that may be called a differential algebraic variety.
D.Lazard (
talk) 09:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 21:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of the three proposed targets. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:07, 13 April 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).
Filtered ring
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 21:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of proposed target - Filtration (mathematics). Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:54, 13 April 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).
Order of Accendo
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 article. The article may be taken to AfD. Jay 💬 06:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention at target, I propose deletion.
Veverve (
talk) 22:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep,
this used to be a full article and was merged to Discordianism for some reason. As a merge this redirect is both allowed and useful. Maybe the nominator can withdraw this and several others? Thanks.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 12:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete not connected to target article. This is not Discordianism, but something different. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk) 03:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Its former full article said it was a spin-off of Discordianism. Seems the two routes here are return the article, which is reasonable, or redirect it to Discordianism, which is even more reasonable.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 03:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Restore and send to AfD. Not discussed anywhere on Wikipedia, is not a useful redirect. Utopes(talk / cont) 17:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 09:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Please note that this used to be a full article and was merged to the target and, for some reason or a'nutter, was removed. As a former merged article there should at least be a redirect to the original target page (or, as an alternate, bring back the original page).
Randy Kryn (
talk) 11:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Restore and ship to RFD as per Utopes. While this isn't a useful redirect, the article could become useful.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 13:27, 14 April 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).
POEE
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 POEE, Delete the .org entries. Jay 💬 17:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention at target, I propose deletion.
Veverve (
talk) 22:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep/RestorePOEE, DeletePOEE.org &
Poee.org (which, from wayback snapshots, does not appear to be operated by the original POEE)
DefaultFree (
talk) 15:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The WP article should not be restored, as per
WP:BURDEN.
Veverve (
talk) 18:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Even if it turns out there are no non-primary sources to restore POEE in the article, that doesn't call for deletion of the redirect.
WP:RFD#D10 supports deletion If (1) the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and (2) the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. (2) is currently true, but (1) is not, as there isn't scope for a full standalone
Paratheo-Anametamystikhood of Eris Esoteric article. There isn't a general prohibition on redirects not mentioned in the target, only specific prohibitions in specific situations that don't apply here (
WP:RFD#D8,
WP:RFD#D10). Also see
WP:RFD#K5 and the
POEE pageview stats - it has several daily pageviews, even before being RfD'd.
DefaultFree (
talk) 00:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep and restore. This is associated with the topic.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 11:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete no mention at target. #8 above "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. " and #10 from above "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." This cannot be expanded into an article based on current information. And the article should not be restored unless independent sourcing can be found and based on BURDEN. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk) 03:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Looking at the page history the term used to have its own page and was merged. Merges usually get redirects, yes?
Randy Kryn (
talk) 03:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Some articles get merged, then the merged content is deleted, then the redirect is deleted. This happens often.
Veverve (
talk) 18:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 09:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
POEE was the original organizatioanal denomination of Discordianism, and is mentioned at the article on the book. What seems determinative to this nomination is that this used to have its own article, which was merged in 2005 (the redirect/merge is the subject of this discussion), which goes to show its connection to the redirect target is substantial enough to allow this redirect to stay. The original article contained: "Paratheo-Anametamystikhood Of Eris Esoteric or POEE is a manifestation of the
Discordian society. According to the
Principia Discordia it is a tribe of
philosophers,
theologians,
magicians,
scientists,
artists,
clowns, and similar
maniacs who are intrigued by
Eris goddess of confusion and her doings. Furthermore it states that 'POEE subscribes to the
Law Of Fives of Omar's sect' and 'POEE also recognizes the Holy
23..'. Paratheo-Anametamystikhood can be taken to mean "equivalent deity, reversing beyond-mystique".
Randy Kryn (
talk) 12:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, section has been partially restored with a third-party source and others are available.
Skyerise (
talk) 18:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Randy Kryn and
Skyerise: Can you also give your opinion on Poee.org and POEE.org? Jay 💬 06:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I would say thay both could be deleted. RK may feel otherwise.
Skyerise (
talk) 23:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Agree. My comments above are about Poee as a redirect. I don't even know if it's common practice or not to have .com eddresses etc. as redirects.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 02:24, 21 April 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).
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 an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 06:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at target. Possibly non-neutral name.
jlwoodwa (
talk) 21:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment, a bot will recreate this page if it gets deleted because
George W’s palace exists and not a part of this discussion. Utopes(talk / cont) 03:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Given the only difference between the two redirects is what kind of apostrophe they use, I do believe bundling should be done here?
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 18:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bundled
George W’s palace. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:01, 13 April 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).
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. Per
WP:G14. Jay 💬 06:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Until yesterday,
Black French was a disambiguation page with two entries:
Black French people and
Immigration to France. Then another user removed the second entry, which I agree with. Therefore I redirected
Black French to
Black French people. I don't believe a disambiguation page is needed, as "Immigration to France" doesn't seem like a page someone would be looking for if they search for "Black French".
Kk.urban (
talk) 05:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per G14 unless the DAB is restored. Crouch, Swale (
talk) 18:39, 14 April 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).
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 💬 06:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
No mention at target, and it is only a word of which only a definition can be given (
WP:NOTDICT), so I propose deletion.
Veverve (
talk) 22:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok apparently, Afflux is a holyday. Still gonna keep my vote unless there is some other reasoning since most people probably know afflux from the actual word.
Okmrman (
talk) 03:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
KeepDelete per below, seems to be a topic holyday, doesn't harm the encyclopedia to keep this as a redirect of a religious holiday.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 12:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Okmrman (
talk) 02:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Note, since "afflux" is an actual word this redirect should probably be renamed "Afflux (Discordianism)".
Okmrman, would that be adequate for your purposes?
Randy Kryn (
talk) 11:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as per
WP:SURPRISE and Okmrman; this is a normal word as per
wikt:afflux that someone could easily type into the search bar and come away with "Wait, what the heck is a Discordianism??" Also, note for
user:Randy Kryn: As per
WP:MOVEREDIRECT moving a redirect is nigh useless and also automatically creates a double redirect-- if you feel like a different title would help, just... make the alternate title as a separate redirect.
𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (
talk) 13:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks, have done so and changed by !vote here.
Randy Kryn (
talk) 13:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Was this relisted? There's no relist template. Utopes(talk / cont) 02:13, 18 April 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).
Dominika Hašková (Q105156345)
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 💬 06:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Per longstanding consensus redirects with Wikidata codes aren't useful.
* Pppery *it has begun... 01:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Makes sense. But for context, I wish you had added a link to prior discussion on this consensus or referred to a guideline.
Grk1011 (
talk) 12:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I also concur that a link to the relevant consensus/policy would have been helpful when listing this nom.
Sims2aholic8 (
talk) 09:13, 15 April 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).