Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 5

< June 4

June 6 >

June 5

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 5, 2024.

Wikipedia:BOOKLINKS

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) Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:BOOKLINKS → Wikipedia:Citing sources#WP:BOOKLINKS  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is one of two shortcuts for the same section. It is little used (41 incoming links), and the title is vague.

It could plausibly be used for the current targets:

• WP:ELYES's discussion of book links (point 2)
• WP:ELNO's discussion of book links (point 15)
• Wikipedia:Citing sources#Links and ID numbers
• Wikipedia:Citing sources#Linking to Google Books pages
• Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Resources
• Help:Citation Style 1#Titles and chapters Specifically the statement that "A link to the actual source is preferred to a link to a Wikipedia article about the source."
• Wikipedia:Google Books and Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels#Footnotes and references

It could plausibly also be used for future sections of:

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Books

Daask (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Way too much of a choice abstain. Moxy🍁 21:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with just leaving this alone? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Excessive shortcuts make them less memorable, so there's some benefit to reducing the number in general. As I said, I find this particular one to have a particularly ambiguous name. Daask (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Shortcuts having (potentially) ambiguous names is not a problem in itself (just look at every single character one and most two character ones for starters) and only becomes a problem if editors are actually misusing it practice and a hatnote cannot resolve the problems. Secondly, having more shortcuts than needed is also not a problem - there is no requirement to advertise all of them and people can use whichever they personally prefer. So you've not actually given any reason why this is problematic. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. I find the idea that excessive shortcuts (are) less memorable... flawed.

• Are you saying that having fifteen shortcuts makes it hard for someone to remember any of them while trying to cite them? Because that's not the case-- people tend to just grab their favorite and only remember that one (for example, when citing Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English I will typically always use the shortcut WP:RLANG.)
• Are you saying that having fifteen shortcuts makes it hard for someone to remember what shortcuts mean when someone else cites them? Because that's not an issue, either. If you run across an unfamiliar shortcut, just... click it and follow it. For example, say someone used the shortcut WP:RFFL and I had no idea what it meant. All I would need to do is click it, and see that it takes me to Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English, and then I'll go, "Oh, okay, it's WP:RLANG."

As for the idea that the title is vague... yeah, that's nothing new, either, many shortcuts are vague and/or imply something unsupported by the actual article they link to. We even have an entire essay on the books, WP:UPPERCASE, reminding editors to actually read the articles linked to by shortcuts, in order to check and make sure that they actually support the points they're cited for. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Incoming link counts never include links in edit summaries, and edit summaries cannot be edited. Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

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).

Tom (programming language)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 17#Tom (programming language)

Macra (rivers)

• Macra (rivers) → Macra (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Macra (rivers) (disambiguation) → Macra (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As far as I can see, there's only one river known (in Roman times) as Macra, and that's Magra (and even that claim is unsourced). I've removed a claim at the translated page Maira (river) because it isn't present in the source of the translation [[1]]. And anyway Macra (river) is red, so delete both these redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep but fix articles if needed. The Magra we can see from Lib Congress subject headings. The Maira was also known as the Macra and the Merula according to A Geographical Dictionary. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC).
  
• Delete we don't have plural qualifiers for things in the singular even if there were multiple rivers with this name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's a redirect so that concern shouldn't apply. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC).
  

  Having a plural redirect to the DAB may suggest to readers there is an article about multiple rivers. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  So a random reader is looking at the DAB page, clicks "what links here" and, because he sees a plural parenthetical disambiguator, makes an assumption that there will be a page about multiple rivers on the disambiguation page he has left. Seems very unlikely to me. However we could redirect to section where that section is "Rivers". This seems to be pure in the sense that we would redirect "Mayors of Foo" to a mayors section on Foo if there was one, or a list of mayors of Foo, or a dab page, or section of a dab page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC).
  

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• 1) Keep, 2) Delete per WP:R#HARMFUL b/c the first link contains non-trivial edit history. Special:Diff/232665485 contains the (unsourced) claim that Macra is the Latin name of these rivers, which seems likely to be correct and is not reflected in any of the sources before us. Kudos to Rich Farmbrough for finding what sources we have. Daask (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete both as we do not have any articles about a collective group of rivers named "Macra". Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Karli Smithedit]

• Karli Smith → Indianapolis FedEx shooting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Samaria Blackwell → Indianapolis FedEx shooting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• John Weisert → Indianapolis FedEx shooting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Amarjit Sekhon → Indianapolis FedEx shooting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Jasvinder Kaur → Indianapolis FedEx shooting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Amarjeet Johal → Indianapolis FedEx shooting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Victims of a shooting generally do not have articles unless they become notable in their own right. It isn't appropriate to associate a search term of their names with an event which took their life. The individuals would already appear in search results on the event article without the need of an explicit redirect. I am unsure if there is specific policy around this, as WP:VICTIM merely mentions outright articles specifically. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

well other victims of shootings typically get redirected to the shooting article. Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting for example. Victims such as Allison Wyatt, Grace McDonnell etc have redirects. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Your argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is poor and is not in itself a reason why the aforementioned should be kept as redirects. We have to ask for what benefit and purpose does an article or redirect serve in its existence? I don't see any value in these redirects and as the victims are all deceased, cannot decide themselves if they'd want their identities associated with such an atrocity. I don't see any policy specific to this circumstance, which is probably why there is no agreed precedent. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

well like i said, most articles on mass tragedy events have redirects with the victims names. If you think its morally wrong or u dont agree with it, you should make this a bigger discussion and not just solely on the FedEx shooting. Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but a poor existing precedent (generally speaking) isn't necessary justification to pursue further of a similar nature. That is the reason I brought them to rfd, as it's a community decision, not solely my own view. As for the bigger discussion, maybe it is warranted, but it's quite a minefield and this only concerns these redirects yet to be reviewed. If the consensus is to keep, then it's a moot point anyway, though in such a scenario i'd hope to see a better rationale than "others exist too". Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Existing precedent is the primary source of policies and guidelines, assuming that the policies Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not are to be believed. If we have no written rule against it, and it is frequently done, then it probably is the community's normal practice to do this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm surprised there isn't a clear policy on this. We should be guided by WP:RPURPOSE. If the victim's name is widely known enough that "Killing of EXAMPLE" is a plausible article title and existing redirect, then I accept a redirect from "EXAMPLE" as well, because it is a plausible way that a reader might search for the relevant article, eg. Philando Castile, Jeff Doucet. Otherwise, I think we should avoid these redirects. I hold this position even, and maybe even especially, if the person is approaching notability for an article in their own right for reasons unrelated to their death. If there are other relevant articles on their life apart from their death, we don't want to usurp those by redirecting rather than showing search results. Daask (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Stubby (Pokémon)edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Stubby (Pokémon) → List of generation IV Pokémon#Bidoof  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Stubby (Pokemon) → List of generation IV Pokémon#Bidoof  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

funny, but i found nothing suggesting that this was ever even speculated to be its name cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

it just occurred to me that "stubby" is an actual word

which means i should look for any mention of a bidoof with that nickname, which is worse than looking for a pokémon with that name for its species cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 20:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Checked Bulbapedia. According to them, while there are no in-game trades featuring a Bidoof named Stubby in any generation, in the Sinnoh games, you can enter a Super Contest and end up facing down a Pokemon with the nickname "Stubby."

The issue is that Stubby is a Barboach, not a Bidoof. This is true in both Gen 4 and Gen 8. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Doing some edit history sleuthing it looks like the original redirect came from pokemon fans reading a (blurry pre-release leaked?) photo of bidoof, and seeing the word "stubby". See Talk:Bidoof#Bidoof and Stubby. The Bidoof article was briefly moved over to Stubby, then moved back when the name "Bidoof" was officially confirmed. Seeing as the redirect was based on WP:OR, it doesn't seem to be getting any use, and the fact there's another pokemon related to the name "stubby" (as Lunamann pointed out above), it should be deleted. BugGhost🪲👻 09:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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).

Magburn

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 17#Magburn

Arzeus

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) Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Arzeus → List of generation IV Pokémon#Arceus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

may admittedly be jumping the gun here. this doesn't seem similar to any possible spelling or pronunciation of its name cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep It's a single character "typo" (really, an alternative spelling). The page history indicates that the name was originally spelled Arseus. Also, Cogsan, RFD#KEEP says that Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. This redirect was created in 2006 (~18 years ago). It's always best to leave these elderly redirects alone unless there is a serious problem (e.g., the wording of the link itself violates BLP ["Bob is a poopy head"]) or if you want agreement to turn the redirect into an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  i kind of don't really buy it being old or possibly linked somewhere else as a possible reason to keep it, since there seems to be no precedent to or acknowledgement of this particular spelling or pronunciation that doesn't involve jumping through a few hoops

  either way, i looked into the time each page was created, moved, or whatever else, and the first name i could see created here was "aruseus", created on september 30, 2006, which was moved to "arseus" on october 2, 2006 (over the romaji being trademarked), and then to "arceus" in march 14, 2007 (over the name finally being confirmed). arzeus was created as a redirect to arseus in december 1, 2006, the day after aruseus was created. i don't know what this is supposed to imply other than "arzeus" being a phonetic spelling of a possible mispronunciation of a then only possible romaji spelling of its japanese name (which would require having never heard "セ" being used) that may have been used for a while before people were 100% sure that that was at least not one of the 3-ish possible ways to pronounce it in english, so i guess change my vote to a very confused weak keep per "i think it could have been used before, maybe". i'm not sure if this counts as wp:cheap, to be honest cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 00:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as per WhatamIdoing; this satisfies the burden of plausibility posed by WP:RTYPO (a single-character 'typo' redirect should be kept), and also satisfies the burden of age posed by WP:RFD#KEEP. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - Plausible typo, old, per above. Reminder that redirects are WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

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).

Zoznam.sk

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Zoznam.sk → Seznam.cz  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A redirect to Seznam.cz seems inappropriate given that these are two completely different websites. Zoznam.sk looks more like a tabloid than independent source, and I can't find any evidence that both sites are owned by the same agency/publisher. I would suggest to delete and leave as an empty page until someone did a research about the site with proper references. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• To be fair, I just notified of this discussion at the target talk page. Jay 💬 16:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Seems to be a completely different website from what I can tell. Delete unless someone can provide proof of these websites being connected. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

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).

Croangunk

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. Consensus that this is a plausible mishearing. (non-admin closure) Ca ^{talk to me!} 08:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Croangunk → List of generation IV Pokémon#Croagunk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

implausible misspelling? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep, the spoken word in English can easily sound like it may have an "n" in the middle and therefore is perhaps plausible someone could be searching a word from what they hear. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  ...wah-huh? I... have never heard "Croagunk" pronounced like that, ever? Isn't it pronounced like "croak" (y'know, as in a frog) with the K lopped off, and then the word "gunk"? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  i was thinking it might have been an accent thing or a "regiice" case, but i haven't seen that in action cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 21:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  It may well be accent related. When I say it, it could at times possibly sound like it has an "n" in the middle. Redirects are WP:CHEAP after all and the bar for keeping is lower, although I don't have too much conviction in this view, hence the "weak". Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Plausible typo of a single character, and possibly a plausible mishearing/"mondegreen". My experience is that English phonetics does tend towards inserting medial n's at syllable boundaries which could lead to this mistake. Regardless, WP:CHEAP applies. Fieari (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

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).

Bunkin Bonuts

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. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Bunkin Bonuts → Dunkin' Donuts  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely typo. Created by same user as #Geegle Earth below. Mia Mahey (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete and DAFTify Cos ^{(X + Z)} 20:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as an implausible typo or misnomer. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• 🅱️elete and 🅱️aftify this 🅱️edirect for being an irrelevant meme (as per CosXZ) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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).

Untitled Guy Ritchie project/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 result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Untitled Guy Ritchie project → In the Grey  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Untitled Guy Ritchie film → In the Grey  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 11 § Untitled Guy Ritchie project/film – withdrawn

Target no longer untitled. After almost 2 months since the previous nomination, the page views for both redirects are incredibly minimal. Delete both per WP:UFILM. Steel1943 (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Untitled Guy Ritchie project, this is still getting viewing figures in double figures, not minimal in the slightest. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  <1 pageview average over the last 30 days seems pretty minimal to me. Steel1943 (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  27 views in 30 days is not even close to minimal - it's being used on more days that it is isn't. Less than 1 use a week is the order of magnitude that typically indicates the utility has passed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Disregarding our obvious difference in opinion, another issue here is that apparently, Guy Ritchie is involved with so many projects simultaneously that we really have no idea which subject a reader may be looking for when searching these topics. For example, one of their projects/films, The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, was apparently in the works during a similar timeframe as these redirects' target, and even had similar starring actors. WP:UFILM disagreements aside, these redirects have even more problems. Steel1943 (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Weak delete Untitled Guy Ritchie film (and definitely don't delete before the 7 days are up). Page views suggest we're into the final stragglers for this one, but it's not completely clear it's utility has quite ended - it would have been better to wait just a bit longer with this one. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Steel1943. "The redirect might cause confusion." WP:R#DELETE. Daask (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:UFILM, no longer untitled post 30 days. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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).

Untitled Beetlejuice sequel

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 12#Untitled Beetlejuice sequel

LGBTP

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 💬 15:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• LGBTP → LGBT  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See page history. It's clearly not the creator's intention but this redirect implies Wikipedia considers the title to be an alternative term for LGBT, which is extremely undesirable to say the least. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to LGBT grooming conspiracy theory#Popularization, with an addition of the origin of the term and sources/coverage. I believe these citations should be sufficient: lizthegrey (talk) 03:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete – Term is not mentioned on any article on Wikipedia. If we're not explaining it, the redirect should be deleted, as it is unhelpful. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Redirect as per lizthegrey only if the information Liz mentions is added to the article. If not, delete as per Maplestrip/Mable. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete unless added to the article. I'm not covinced it is DUE - LGBT grooming conspiracy theory can't cover every viral anti-gay meme - and this isn't the best context to answer that question.--Trystan (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, not mentioned at LGBT grooming conspiracy theory and not even sure if it is DUE there. As a second choice, retarget if the information is added but definitely don't keep it where it is now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete unless mentioned. I don't have an opinion about whether it should be mentioned, but unless it is mentioned the redirect is unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. It can be recreated if there is an article which discusses this acronym. Daask (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Ideally, add a brief mention of it to LGBT grooming conspiracy theory and redirect. If not, delete for now and let it be redirected later if appropriate. Either way, it shouldn't stay as it is. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - quick search shows no actual use. Rankersbo (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Weak retarget to Anti-LGBT sentiment#Conflation with pedophilia, about a very similar topic. The second paragraph in particular nearly touches on the "LGBTP" meme, but instead mentions the related term "pedosexual". I'm tempted to add a brief mention to it, but I don't have much familiarity with citation formatting. It is possible that not all readers searching for "LGBTP" are merely interested in the terminology, but rather want to know about the underlying topic (conflation of LGBT people with pedophilia). Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete and salt to prevent recreation. The false implication doesn't stem from any good-faith use, so we should not give it credence. Raladic (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Refer to this article from GLAAD Guide to Anti-LGBTQ Online Hate and Disinformation on the fact check that it is a fake term only used for hate speech. Raladic (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: LGBTPN, and LGBTPN+ (plus LGBTQIAPN+) are/were used as a legit acronyms with P standing for pansexual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LEILA FERRAZ (talk • contribs) 19:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - I was able to find a few tumblr posts discussing LGBTPN in a non-pejorative fashion--although even in those contexts, it was asserted that this was an anti-queer/anti-trans maneuver to avoid adding the letter Q. I don't entirely buy that assertion, but it seems clear that by far the primary meaning of this acronym (and the only context it is mentioned in RS) is as the pedophilia conspiracy theory, and that uses in other contexts are rare and themselves potentially controversial. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

References

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).

Geegle Earth

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 04:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Geegle Earth → Google Earth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely typo. Created by same user as Geegle earth, which was deleted in 2020. Mia Mahey (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• If "geese" is the plural of "goose", is "Geegle" the plural of "Google"? You might want to check out this user's whole history of redirect creations, some of which are fine, but many of which border on vandalism. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete and DAFTify; this is patent vandalism. Also, the IP's joke about plurals brought my mind right back to this. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Deleete, admittedly funny but ultimately unhelpful. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as is just an unlikely search term. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 16:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete and DAFTify per nom and Lunamann. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 20:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as an implausible typo or misnomer. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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).