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.
Leave it alone. It's already in the Arthur Adams article. A redirect to the article it's already in would be circular. I created it to direct to the Gumby article, because Adams won an award for his work on that book, and there is no Wikipedia article on that book. Thus, I created the redirect to the Gumby article. Why is this a problem? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nightscream (
talk •
contribs)
16:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)reply
...The problem is what I stated in my nomination statement. Keeping the redirects in their current state, readers will arrive at the target article and not find information about these redirects, leaving it both unclear what these redirects are meant to refer and why the redirects target their current target. In a case like this, deletion would be preferred per
WP:REDLINK, and I prefer that over retargeting to
Arthur Adams (comics) ... but the redirects are mentioned there, so retargeting there is at least better than the current scenario.
Steel1943 (
talk)
01:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, taking into account the creator's understandable desire not to have these become circular. This would leave the titles
appropriately red on the Arthur Adams page. The single link to
Gumby at
Arthur Adams (comics)#Awards could be used elsewhere in the article if desired in the meantime. I assume the comics are notable enough to support their own articles, since one won an Eisner. --
BDD (
talk)
20:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Retarget, keep, or delete? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Duckmather (
talk)
22:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete all. Isn't really helpful as a searchable title. Because there's no dedicated article or section on this topic at the target, red links or piped links seem to be more appropriate here, which could encourage the addition of pertinent content about the Fun Specials.
If these redirects were to exist, the only possible target I see is for
Arthur Adams (comics), as this is the only place it receives coverage. It's wholly unhelpful & confusing while its pointed at Gumby, regardless of intention. I'm indifferent between retargeting (to Arthur Adams) or deletion. The way to avoid circular links would be... to remove the links at the Arther Adams article, which is allowable, albeit not what the Nightscream intended. The more optimistic fix I feel would be to honor Nightscream's wishes of "not having this point to the author", which leaves "deletion without prejudice to content later" as the only other option, and keeps the links as they are. Utopes(talk / cont)18:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: Applying
RDELETE #10 "the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." Which would still apply if redirected to Arthur Adams.
Nobody (
talk)
07:06, 13 February 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).
Colonization of the Sun (Lagrange Points)
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 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).
Legal term
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 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).
List of NASCAR Banking 500 Only from Bank of America broadcasters
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.
This page doesn't really discuss much about the Bank of America 500/Banking 500 Only from Bank of America/other name for the 500 mile oval configuration races in general, with only slight mentions of it, but no listing of winners. It has no information about the broadcasters of the race before NBC, where many of the races before NBC were broadcast on TBS and some on ABC. It seems that there is nowhere to really put that information in the article. The redirect itself is the result of a
WP:BLAR by the author of the article in response to it being
WP:PROD'd with the content being merged into
Bank of America Roval 400 at
this revision. All of that info has since been removed from the article, so I am unsure what to do with this redirect.
TartarTorte00:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
This content was removed per
this discussion. Ideally this should be either deleted or restored, but given there were no sources in the original article unless there are attribution issues remaining in the current target this can be deleted.
A7V2 (
talk)
08:11, 6 February 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).
2006–07 Ranji One-Day Trophy
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 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).
AI Gore
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.
Tagged as an r from misspelling... and that's putting it mildly. Getting to this page would not arise from a spelling blunder, but from the deliberate intention of typing a capital i as opposed to the name of Al. RfDing this as I thought it may be in reference to an artificial intelligence bit related to Gore, (which surprisingly this page DOES make mention of "artificial intelligence" once, although not in relation to his name.) Utopes(talk / cont)08:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. Not a valuable pattern for all pages that have characters which commonly have identical replacements but I think there's no harm in them existing for higher traffic articles that are more likely to, as mentioned, have OCR'd content referring to them on the internet, as mentioned. Has been getting a smattering of page views over the past 90 days even before this RfD.
Skynxnex (
talk)
17:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I was planning to let this simmer to see if there were any different keep !vote rationales made... I would have expected more specific reasoning beyond "ell and eye look similar so they're basically interchangeable in any circumstance", which to me this has not been established, especially when we've seen cases with O's replaced with 0's being deleted, and etc. And even for those, something like "
T0y0ta" is only going to be seen as Toyota. The elephant here though is that someone typing AI is almost certainly looking for information on exactly what they typed; AI. To me, the association of "AI" meaning "artificial intelligence" would be a hundred-fold more likely than the association with "AI"-but-actually-meaning-the-name-"Albert"-but-not-formatted-like-a-name-at-all-due-to-double-caps-in-first-word. Furthermore, "Artificial intelligence gore" is actually a TOPIC with strong ties to
Artificial intelligence art#Ethics, which becomes a pertinent search term and not just a borderline-meme letter-swap of someone's name to reference a trendy topic, when such topic has zero proven relationship to the person in question, nor is there a reason to believe that people actually look for Albert Gore by spelling his name as "AI", when Artificial Intelligence Gore is the far more plausible outcome to begin with for this term. Utopes(talk / cont)07:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as this is surely at least as likely to cause someone confusion searching for "ai gore" than it is to be helpful to someone copy pasting from an incorrect OCR scan.
A7V2 (
talk)
08:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Looking at google search results for AI Gore -Wikipedia, all but two results on the first two pages are for the former US vice president, one of the others is for a non-notable song or album (I'm not clear which) and the other might be talking about AI-generated horror movies but I'm really not sure. Even if there are other notable things people could in theory be searching for, the evidence very strongly suggests they aren't - especially as we don't have any content that I can find about anything else that could be referred to as AI Gore. So keeping this pointing to the present target is what is going to cause the least confusion.
Thryduulf (
talk)
13:43, 6 February 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).
Friday the 13th (2017 film)
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 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).
Friday the 13th Part XI
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 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).
Coquille (engineering)
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.
Restoring is only ever not an option when the restored content would be subject to speedy deletion. Neither being a stub nor being unsourced are reasons to delete an article, let alone speedy delete it. Whether there is scope for expansion and/or whether the content is unsourceable are matters for AfD to discuss not RfD so when there is a contested BLAR, restoring is almost always the correct option.
Thryduulf (
talk)
14:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete, in agreement with CycloneYoris. This is not a contested BLAR, no one has made an argument for keeping the article. --
Tavix(
talk)01:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
An argument has been made that the redirection is not appropriate, therefore the BLAR has been contested. Further, I am arguing that the content should not be deleted. An objection to deleting article content means that it needs to be discussed at AfD (if anyone still desires deletion). RfD is not AfD.
Thryduulf (
talk)
03:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
It is true that RfD is not AfD—the status of the page since 2017 is a redirect and so deletion of the page can and should be conducted at RfD. Do you have a good faith argument for keeping the article content? What I see is a 'procedural' restore !vote in order to send it off to AfD. That's not the same thing. --
Tavix(
talk)18:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
A bold redirection has been challenged in good faith. There is a good faith objection to deleting the article content that does not meet a speedy deletion criterion. The only correct and appropriate course of action given those two facts is to restore the article content without prejudice to AfD. Everything else is irrelevant.
Thryduulf (
talk)
02:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
We should never be restoring unreferenced rubbish, but I thought I'd give you the benefit of doubt to make an argument for keeping it. I see you have no interest in doing so. --
Tavix(
talk)02:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
We should never be restoring unreferenced rubbish whether something is or is not "rubbish" is a subjective opinion that is irrelevant to whether it should or should not be kept, deleted or restored. The standard for referencing is
WP:V which requires content to be verifiable not verified. I have repeatedly explained why I believe the content should not be deleted at RfD, that you disagree with this argument does not mean I have not made it (and it is depressing that I've had to explain this to you on multiple occasions).
Thryduulf (
talk)
12:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
That something is unreferenced rubbish is my opinion on the article content and is part of the reason that I am recommending deletion of the redirect without the unnecessary step of restoring it and sending it to AfD. I only recommend restoration for articles that should actually be kept, which is why I am so insistent on hearing an argument for actually keeping the content should this be at AfD—that is the only condition upon which I would consider changing my !vote. On the other hand, I am well aware of your opinion of the matter (so your depression over explaining it to me on multiple occasions is unnecessary). It does not sway me in the slightest. --
Tavix(
talk)15:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
No matter how often you repeat your subjective opinions, they do not come close to overriding the deletion policy, the verifiability policy or the guidelines around blanking and redirecting. It is rarely not worth making that explicit so that users who are unfamiliar with the policies or guidelines are not mislead by editors who should know better.
Thryduulf (
talk)
15:33, 30 January 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).
Stone Cougar
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.
There used to be a section there for this alleged breed, now deleted as long unsourced and not actually sourceable. Turned out to be one single breeder's "backyard breeding" experiment with a
Chausie crossbreed, and there are no sources available for this that are not promotional material from the breeder, repetition of that material in social media by someone else, or repetition of WP's own unsourced claims. The claim of recognition by the Rare and Exotic Feline Registry made in that material was false; I checked. So, it's just now-deleted
WP:NFT spam, and the redirect serves no purpose. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:03, 28 January 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).
Friday the 13th Part 2 (2016 film)
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 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).
Home Planet
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.
A home planet is a planet that is the home of an entity being discussed. Because of humans' limited venture beyond our gravity well, the term is mostly confined to science fiction, where it usually refers to any planet but Earth. Planet would resolve the issue of focusing on Earth, but contains no content about the concept of a "home planet", so I favor deletion for want of a suitable target. --
Tamzin[
cetacean needed (
they|xe)
00:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate or delete someone who types Planet in title case is more likely to be looking for a proper noun, not the dictionary definition. There are a few
WP:DABMENTION topics by this name (a
BBC Radio 4 programme and
Enid Dame's Home Planet News which are cited in some articles, as well as decades-old singles by
Misato Watanabe and
Chris Brann) that normally wouldn't be worth a dab page. But per
WP:RFD#K4 we might want to leave something at this lemma instead of a 404 page to avoid breaking external links, and if so that something should be a dab page and not a soft redirect: the latter makes searching the encyclopedia more inconvenient for anyone who doesn't know about
the tilde trick, and still leaves the dictionary definition hidden behind an extra manual click the same as a dab page would anyway (and worse than search results which show the dictionary definition directly in the side bar).
59.149.117.119 (
talk)
00:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per the IP. The Wiktionary entry is not helpful. It only links to Homeworld which says The world on which a person originated. We don't need to trick the reader into multiple clicks for a capitalized entry, and leave him no wiser. Jay 💬16:57, 6 February 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 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).
Defensive alliance
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 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).
Mozart Society of Vienna
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. Relisting comment: For further input on the retargeting suggestion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk!03:57, 28 January 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).