Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 22

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

April 22

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 22, 2024.

Climate change in Bahrain

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Climate change in Bahrain

2021 Chinese FA Super Cup

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 19:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subject never existed to begin with, similar to the 2022 edition in the same compeition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IDontHaveSkype (talk • contribs) 10:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirect was not tagged for RfD, I have now done it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Possible search term based on the other yearly versions that exist. There's a brief explanation that the cup for this season was cancelled, which is contextually relevant and useful. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sensible redirect, as the main article explains it was cancelled. Also assists with categorisation, which clearly lists the event in the cancelled category. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:52, 23 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).

Deplorable

Another confusing vocabulary word redirect. Not everything that is deplorable is part of Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables". We don't have deplore, so maybe a soft redirect to Wiktionary will have to do. Duckmather (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crosswiki to wiktionary per nom Okmrman (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Switching my vote to Delete because WP:NOTDICT Okmrman (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
  • Delete I'm partial to the stance in the previous discussion that search results are adequate here and there does not need to be a DAB page for partial title matches. However, there are partial title matches so I don't think a soft redirect to Wiktionary is the best option. Though, I'm not really familiar with when it is best to use them. ― Synpath 06:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Combine a {{Wiktionary}} link with a “see also” section as well. Bwrs (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Synpath. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Synpath. No incoming. WP:NOTDICT. The pageviews were the highest in 2022 for some reason, and died down. I don't think those readers were looking for the dictionary definition of deplorable. Jay 💬 11:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Synpath, I'm more swayed by their arguments and agree that there is a good chance that a reader is not going to be looking for a dictionary definition here. signed, Rosguill talk 16:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

📵

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 Restrictions on mobile phone use. If that article gets merged somewhere, the redirect will follow. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I'm going to mark this for speedy deletion since there were suggestions in the original deletion discussion to redirect it to Etiquette in technology#Cell phone etiquette, which quickly got put down but someone still redirected it here anyways. I'm just gonna make this discussion to see if the discussion still holds up since it happened all the way back in 2015. Okmrman (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment previous discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 6#📵 Okmrman (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the time of that discussion in August 2015 this was a redirect to Mobile phones and driving safety, the present target was considered but rejected and it closed with a consensus to delete. The present iteration was created in February 2016, but as it has a different target (and things might have changed in 9 years) I've declined a G4 speedy deletion nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, disambig or write a broad concept article. There should be a disambig or broad concept article about prohibition/restriction and similar of mobile phone use. In addition to the current target, such is discussed (in various contexts) at Mobile phone jammer, Mobile phones in prisons, Mobile phones on aircraft, Mobile phone use in schools, Mobile phones and driving safety, Radio quiet zone and possibly others. In the absence of such a page, then we should target where the character is mentioned. There are three such pages but No symbol#Unicode and fonts is by far the most helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there are so many different ways to interpret this emoji, the majority of readers are going to be disappointed. Cremastra (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In what ways other than "no mobile phones" can you interpret this? Thryduulf (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mobile phone#Use. That section has subsections on the prohibition/restriction of mobile phones in various contexts, such as while driving, while walking and in schools. -- Tavix (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the main section, and most of the subsections, are about the opposite of "no mobile phones" I think this would be a very confusing target so I don't support this suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good thing; explaining where mobile phones are allowed is good context for establishing where mobile phones are not allowed. -- Tavix (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were to use this redirect I would be looking for information about where, why and/or how mobile phone use is prohibited or restricted, not information about where they aren't. I was confused about why you were suggesting a target that was the opposite of what the symbol means, having already read your rationale for suggesting it. Someone who doesn't have that context will likely be even more confused.
    I intend to draft something better (probably a broad concept page, but I'm not certain yet) but it'll likely be Monday or Tuesday before I get time. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I originally explained, the section I recommend does have information about where, why and/or how mobile phone use is prohibited or restricted. That section could be better formatted to suit those needs, as well as include other information and links to eg mobile phones in prison or mobile phones on aircraft. If you feel that section is confusing (I have no idea where you get that sense from), that is where I would suggest your efforts be spent. -- Tavix (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The section is not confusing in the context of the article. Arriving at that section when searching 📵 is what is confusing. Rearranging the article to account for one incoming redirect to it would not be an improvement. Thryduulf (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've drafted disambig/broad concept article hybrid at Restrictions on mobile phone use, it needs work but it's a better target than anything else we have. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you've taken the relevant concepts from Mobile phone#use and turned it into an outline form. To demonstrate that all it takes is a bit of rearranging and adding of sections to make it "less confusing", I present Mobile phone#Restrictions. A separate page is wholly unnecessary. -- Tavix (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 04:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or redirect to a better target, do not delete. An emoji is a valid search term. Gonnym (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 14:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment For context, when the emoji was added as part of Unicode 6.0, its definition is where phones are forbidden. Just like the "no one under 18" emoji means that anyone under 18 is forbidden. That's the best way to interpret the emoji as how it's formally defined from the discussion above. – The Grid (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the close of WP:😃↪️📊2️⃣, the best expression of the status quo regarding emoji redirects is that [e]moji should be redlinks only when we want to encourage the creation of an article about that emoji and/or its meaning. Therefore, as I'm not aware of any editors suggesting that there should be an article about this emoji, this redirect shouldn't be deleted.
    Per the same expression of the status quo, [e]mojis with meanings that correspond to multiple articles should target a list, disambiguation page, set index or other place where readers can follow links to the article(s) relevant to their search. Since the start of this RfD, such a place has been developed at both Restrictions on mobile phone use and at Mobile phone#Restrictions. In my view, whether or not this information is better as its own article or as a section in Mobile phone may be outside the scope of the present discussion. I therefore support a retargeting to Restrictions on mobile phone use; with the understanding that - if that article is merged-and-redirected to Mobile phone#Restrictions - the target of this redirect will be automatically updated to match. To be clear, this !vote should not be taken as expressing an opinion on whether or not this information belongs in its own stand-alone article; but rather, as a result of my thoughts that a determination on this is a matter best suited to a different process (e.g. WP:AFD/WP:PAM).
    All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 09:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Retarget to Restrictions on mobile phone use. Do not delete. Enix150 (talk) 23:24, 29 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).

Sultan Abd-al-Rahman I of the Umayyad Sultanate

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unique for Wikipedia. Not seen in the wild. Unlikely to be typed due to complexity.. Delete. Викидим (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 14:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Constantine. Jay 💬 11:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There never was an Umayyad Sultanate, Abd al-Rahman declared himself caliph, not sultan. And even then, the Umayyad caliphate in al-Andalus is rarely termed 'the Umayyad Caliphate' without further qualifications to avoid confusion with the Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus. Constantine ✍ 10:34, 3 May 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).

Walter Rhodes (murderer)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Walter Rhodes (murderer)

Wikipedia:←

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Wikipedia:←

Donkey Koung 64

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 14:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

implausible misspelling cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:36, 22 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).

Hollywood and the United Kingdom and Ireland

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 14:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently accepted at WP:AFC/R (here & here), but - as far as I can see - the target article only contains information about the United Kingdom, not Ireland. In addition, if Hollywood and the Republic of Ireland existed as an article, it would be unclear whether a reader was looking for information about Hollywood and the UK, or about Hollywood and Ireland. I'm therefore proposing deletion per WP:XY & WP:R#D2, as the inclusion of Ireland in these redirects (when it isn't mentioned at the target article) could cause confusion. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 10:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as misleading, as there is no information there about Republic of Ireland. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 16:41, 28 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).

Hollywood and the Republic of Ireland

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 14:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently accepted at WP:AFC/R, but - as far as I can see - the target page doesn't include any mention of Ireland. Proposing deletion per WP:R#D10/WP:REDLINK. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 10:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't mention Ireland once. There is no reason why a redirect about Ireland should point to a page about another country. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as misleading. Republic of Ireland is not the UK. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:06, 24 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).

A. A. Abbott

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. With no mention added at the target after nearly a month of discussion, I am inclined to close in favor of the slim majority for deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 15:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add to target. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. The name today (according to a quick Google search) is more closely associated with Helen Blenkinsop, for which we don't have an article. While Samuel Spewack also used the name as a pseudonym and would warrant a disambiguating hatnote should an article exist on the primary topic, redirecting as-is is more likely to confuse readers. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blenkinsop is a recent user of the name (there's also the author of The Bazique-player's Hand-book, and various others). If you are prepared to write an article for her, then great. If not, don't destroy a valid redirect on that basis. (There also some other A. A. Abbotts.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Also the founder of this town: Kalkaska, Michigan. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • comment would this is better off as a set index? --Lenticel (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not yet been added to the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep adding a mention at the target is most appropriate here. Frank Anchor 20:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and others as ambiguous. I tried to see if I can add a mention to the current target, but did not find sources. The current target is also poorly sourced. Jay 💬 07:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Okmrman (talk) 16:42, 28 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).

Oorum Unavum

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. If someone wants to work on making a suitable article, feel free to ask for a WP:REFUND. -- Tavix (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. Page history didn't seem very useful either. DrowssapSMM 14:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD if not notable, was an article for 7 years before being single-handedly blanked by an IP a couple months ago. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or restore?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 16:42, 28 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).

Lev Trotskij

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Lev Trotskij

Easing function

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Easing function

Jackahuahua

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Jackahuahua

January 1, 2003

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 Portal:Current events/2003 January 1. signed, Rosguill talk 15:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No information about this date at the target page, although contains some further unique history. Unlike Jan 2, this has been to RfD before, and closed as no consensus. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Utopes: as you had gone through the previous RfD where Tavix's suggested target was suggested, what did you think of it, and what do you think of it now that it has been suggested at this RfD as well? Jay 💬 15:36, 1 May 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).

January 2, 2003

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 Portal:Current events/2003 January 2. signed, Rosguill talk 15:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No information about this date at the target page, although contains some history. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:40, 22 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).

Kyra Tierney

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Kyra Tierney

2024 French Open – Men's doubles

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The events are currently a month away. It is the case of WP:TOOSOON

All these also redirects towards 2024 French Open#Events

PrinceofPunjabTALK 05:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @PrinceofPunjab, FYI, this isn't the correct format to use for a multi-RfD. I'll reformat the listing & tag the other redirects for you now. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 08:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reformatted nomination and tagged all nominated redirects :) ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 08:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though the sections are currently blank, they are all mentioned in the article. I don't see the harm in going ahead and establishing these redirects. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This doesn't fit the definition of WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTALBALL, as the events have indeed been confirmed and scheduled. These are useful redirects that can be expanded later on if/when the individual articles are notable enough to standalone. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These are scheduled events.GobsPint (talk) 22:25, 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).

10-year-old Ohio rape victim required to cross state lines to obtain abortion

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 are divided over the extent to which this is a plausible search term, and whether it is harmless beyond/despite that. signed, Rosguill talk 15:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Nominating for deletion. The redirect is overly specific and too long and is therefore an unlikely search term. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nothing has changed since the discussion closed a year ago last week. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep per Thryduulf and WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close I didn't realise that their had already been a previous discussion on this redirect, I was kind of tired when I nominated it and forgot to check. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned anywhere in the article, but most importantly, not mentioned ANYWHERE on the Internet. If this was a news headline that could be hypothetically copied in, that'd be understandable(??) but still incredibly unlikely to be naturally searched. This is just, bits and pieces of the articles opening sentence and lead, but as a redirect. Restating the prose of the article, but as a redirect, makes these specific 14 words a novel and obscure synonym for the subject, (evidenced from no user on the Internet has said this ever with zero results outside of Wikipedia). It can't even be a synonym, it's a synopsis. It's unsearchable as a string of words that exists nowhere else, and a year later has STILL never been stated anywhere else on the Internet. The alternative redirect being: 10-year-old (the rest of the title) "from Ohio to Indiana" already exists and is the stylization that seemingly headlined in reports. I don't really like that redirect either, but at least the title benefits from existing, and can be copied into the search bar and/or can appear first when users start typing this in, if they happen to start their search with "ten-dash-year-dash-old" exactly. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects are not the way to promote very tenuous news reporting. See the NPR reporting in some detail on (probably?) this case, [1]. Essentially, we will most likely never get the facts straight (whatever the truth is, due to privacy concerns), so there is nothing of notability here for the article. Redirecting a headline of a single-source new story with no corroboration to our article where for this very reason the story cannot be published does not seem to be useful for anyone. --Викидим (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Okmrman (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a plausible search term, largely due to its length. Shocking to me that this was apparently discussed before and it didn't lead to a delete then... Sergecross73 msg me 22:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title is a variation of 10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion which I brought up at the previous RfD and suggested bundling. Either both would have been deleted, or neither, and there was support for keeping the latter as an actual headline, the reason I didn't vote the last time, and also because I probably expected the previous RfD to go for a second relist. Jay 💬 08:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - whilst is is very long and specific, it is likely that someone could look it up. Also WP:CHEAP. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirects may be cheap, but that doesn't mean we have to keep absurdly implausible ones like this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Nor does that mean that we need to delete them. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a novel and very obscure synonym for the subject, deleteable per WP:RDEL #8. The title is WP:SYNTH taken from pieces of the article's synopsis and extended in an unnatural fashion that is more of a Google-search random-selection of details and explanations, also appears nowhere on the entire Internet. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps not especially plausible but harmless and takes people where they clearly intend to go. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try this one more time. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: extremely implausible search term. DrowssapSMM 02:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete keeping every potential news headline as a redirect on the very small chance someone may look it up is quite useless and is a WP:SYNTH concern. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nobody has made a very convincing argument that this redirect is harmful other than being an "implausible search term", which in fact is not one of the reasons for deletion. Redirects don't exist solely as standards-compliant search keywords, nor is there any requirement whatsoever for them to be concise or short. People use Wikipedia in different ways; the fact that this title was created is evidence that someone thought it was useful, as are its non-zero pageview stats. The arguments that this title is a WP:SYNTH issue or actively confusing don't make sense to me:
    • "10-year-old" - the girl was 10 years old at the time
    • "Ohio" - these events occurred at least partially in Ohio
    • "child rape victim" - the girl is a victim of sexual assault
    • "required to cross state lines to get an abortion" - law prevented her getting an abortion in the state she was in, thus in order to obtain an abortion she was required to travel to another state
None of this is synth: it's all described in the very first sentence of the article, with multiple citations. In the absence of compelling arguments for deletion, redirects are cheap. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, while my vote for this redirect is keep as per WP:CHEAP, I'd like to point out that implausibility is an outgrowth of WP:RGUIDE point 1: "If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect." The opposite of that-- "if it's not plausible for someone to enter the name, we shouldn't keep"-- doesn't require too much logic to reach, is aided by the implication that such an implausible redirect would be inherently unhelpful, and historically has been used quite often as a benchmark for redirects, being the basis upon which WP:RTYPO, WP:RLANG, WP:MIXEDSCRIPT, and other such oft-cited essays are grounded. You'll note I didn't mention a certain part of WP:COSTLY. There's a reason I didn't. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:50, 23 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).

Chinatown, Auckland

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 Chinatowns in Oceania#New Zealand. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was added by an account who also added a Chinatown template to the Balmoral article, this was later reversed. Whilst Balmoral and Dominion Road especially has a large Chinese presence the area is still overwhelmingly European and I've never heard it known as Chinatown. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:17, 22 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).

Universe (Benee song)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 11:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 'Universe' was a song released by a very small artist with the same name and stylisation as New Zealand singer BENEE, however even though the song was never hers, when it was released, it appeared on her spotify artist page, making many people assume the song was hers and obviously why this article was made around that time. George (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect creator here, feel free to delete! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:20, 22 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_22&oldid=1223830485"