Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 7, 2023.

Lord’s Supper[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "’" makes this redirect quite unhelpful. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep per WP:CHEAP: the default apostrophe on my device is actually the "’" apostrophe, and Wikipedia would become less efficient to navigate if all curly apostrophe redirects were deleted. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That Wikipedia does not use this apostrophe does not make it unhelpful. The redirect would be helpful for cut and paste searches from scanned printed texts or other websites using this apostrophe. Tiny Particle (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:CHEAP. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – curly apostrophe redirects are almost as helpful as hyphen–rather-than–dash redirects. Evidenced by the pageviews. J947 † edits 03:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Supper, Lord's[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 15#Supper, Lord's

Mass, Sacrifice of the[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 15#Mass, Sacrifice of the

Eucharist, as a Sacrifice[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 15#Eucharist, as a Sacrifice

Historical Roots of Catholic Eucharistic Theology[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 20:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalisation makes those redirects quite unhelpful. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. Searching these exact phrases yields very few results, most of which are Wikipedia and mirror sites copying these redirects, or an older version of {{Mass of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church}} in which they were linked. It seems at one point an article was located at one of them, but a series of moves and a merge changed that some years ago. The relevant history is preserved at History of Catholic eucharistic theology. The two redirects nominated here do not have any history worth preserving; the moves are noted in the history of History of Catholic eucharistic theology. – Scyrme (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Scyrme: these exact phrases : I avoided including Historical roots of Catholic eucharistic theology due to it having few capital letters. Do you think it should also be included in this RfD? Veverve (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Superficially it seems more plausible because without the case issues it's a grammatically correct sentence, phrased like a title, and it makes logical sense. However, searching the exact phrase (exactly this case, both variants [H/h]istory) gets 0 hits on Google Scholar and all the Google results are Wikipedia and various mirror sites, so it shares that problem. I could understand if others would rather discuss it separately. – Scyrme (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Creator) - This is more plausible than some other entries today. Catholic Encyclopedia entries are likely to be recreated by someone else a few years down the line. These are cheap and keeping them around means they are likely to be directed to the best place. JASpencer (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A recreation of a deleted page after a discussion is a WP:G4 which should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't create these ones. – Scyrme (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep assuming in good faith (no pun intended) that JASpencer is correct that this format is seen within the Catholic Encyclopedia. Tiny Particle (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a Catholic Encyclopedia entry title. – Scyrme (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep convoluted but reasonably likely search term, both because of other publications and because of particular phrasing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which publications? As I said earlier, search results are all Wikipedia and mirror sites. This is not one of JASpencer's Catholic Encyclopedia redirects; they mistakenly copy-pasted their response here. I summarised the actual history earlier in my original response arguing to 'delete'. – Scyrme (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Only costs a few cents and plausible enough. Also, unless the capitalization is nonsensical (ie. hiSTOriCal ROOTS OF cathOLIC theologY), being miscapitalized is no reason to delete. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 23:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, these are redirects from moves to proper capitalization titles. No problem with the capitalized redirect titles per ClydeFranklin. Jay 💬 08:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

As a Sacrifice Eucharist[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. Salvio giuliano 20:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful, weird wording. I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, doesn't seem plausible. Searching this exact phrase yield few results, which all related either to this redirect or to part of sentence starting with "As a sacrifice, Eucharist" with a comma and not capitalising "sacrifice" unlike this redirect. – Scyrme (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Creator) - Catholic Encyclopedia entries are likely to be recreated by someone else a few years down the line. These are cheap and keeping them around means they are likely to be directed to the best place. JASpencer (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A recreation of a deleted page after a discussion is a WP:G4 which should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom reasoning Tiny Particle (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unusual wording that serves little purpose. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. More details at the other RfD - WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 15#Eucharist, as a Sacrifice. Wikipedia does not have to follow Catholic Encyclopedia's search indices. Jay 💬 19:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Eucharist, Introduction to the[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 14#Eucharist, Introduction to the

Torah-submission[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 16#Torah-submission

Pharaoh in Islam[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 22:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague to refer to this specific pharaoh. I recomment deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague? Are there other pharoahs that have a particular affinity with Islam? The only pharoah "in Islam" that comes to my mind is the one named so in the Qur'an, and if I recall correctly he is the only figure referred to as such (Fir'awn) in the Qur'an. While "in the Qur'an" might be more precise, "in Islam" is consistent with the titles of a large number of articles that relate biblical figures to figures in the Qur'an and muslim tradition, including the current target. – Scyrme (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep My understanding is that, unlike the Bible, there is only one Pharaoh in the Quran (it would be nice to have an article). He isn't known as "the Pharaoh" but is named "Pharaoh" A redirect to an article containing some info on him aides the reader more than a red link. Tiny Particle (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Elizabeth the Great[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 22:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should be made a disambiguation between Elizabeth II, Elizabeth I, Elizabeth of Russia and the current page. Clearly this, if any of the three, would not be the primary topic. Estar8806 (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is. This was already discussed just five months ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth the Great. As noted by the closer, "[t]here is reasonably clear consensus that "Elizabeth the Great" as a descriptor for Elizabeth II doesn't quite hold water at this time." It is doubtful at this moment that consensus has changed enough in such a short period of time. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep while moving and amending the hatnote per A7V2. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add hatnote. I think the deletion discussion is too recent to completely overturn at RfD, and I don't necessarily disagree that the primary topic for "Elizabeth the Great" isn't the book. But given that Elizabeth II has been described in this way (eg by Boris Johnson [1]), and Elizabeth of Russia has also, a hatnote should be added saying something like "Elizabeth the Great redirects here. For people occasionally referred to as Elizabeth the Great, see...". A7V2 (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @A7V2: There is a hatnote, but it seems to be misplaced as it is at the top of the article. Would bringing it down to the Biographer section and adding Elizabeth of Russia be acceptable to you? --Super Goku V (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Super Goku V Ah I hadn't noticed. Yes, I think move that hatnote down into the #Biographer section. A7V2 (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @A7V2: Gotcha. Then I will amend my vote. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't redirect non-notable book titles to their author's article. And it's too confusing, since the subject of the article is named Elizabeth. Wikipedia isn't Google and isn't meant to automatically pull up the author of every book ever published. Let someone seeking that book or phrase use Google, not Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't redirect non-notable book titles to their author's article Sure we do, see {{R from book}}. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Branches of Christianity[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 21:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be better as a DAB with Branch theory and Christian denomination. Veverve (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IMO, someone searching "branches of Christianity" is most likely looking for an article on the various "branches" described in branch theory and doesn't know the correct jargon. A hatnote would probably be appropriate, though. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Most references to "branches of Christianity" online refer denominations or groups of related denominations; seems to be the primary topic. Personally, if I were to search or link Branches of Christianity, I would expect it to go to denominations. "Branches of Christianity" could plausibly be a related term/phrase for Branch theory (as with an {{r from related term}}), but I think a hatnote like ""Branches of Christianity" redirects here, for the [Anglican] ecclesiological view, see Branch theory" would be sufficient (either with or without the "Anglican" qualifier). – Scyrme (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I went ahead and added the hatnote. Veverve (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems a bit wordy. Why not just stop at "the ecclesiological view"? – Scyrme (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because grouping Christian groups into a denomination is itself an ecclesiological view, or at least an use of ecclesiology. Veverve (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. – Scyrme (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have, however, boldly removed the word "ecclesiological," which was IMO unnecessary; that should help with the wordiness. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Gump, Forrest[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 17:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created redirect. Character is never listed or referred to in this format in any of the books or film. Not an academic. Not "Bond, James Bond" AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of redirects exist with the subject's name in reverse (e.g, West, Kanye, Trump, Donald, Lincoln, Abraham, Swift, Taylor). Seems to fulfil WP:CHEAP. Crusader1096 (message) 18:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would this then apply to any fictional character that has a given name and a last name? That could get messy quick. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 08:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think it falls under a sort name. I added the {{R from sort name}} template to the redirect, as that appears to have been the intention. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    as per our discussion on Discord:
    I don't see a precedent to create Family name, Given name redirects for fictional characters unless they are referred to as such in the media. There aren't ones for Wayne, Bruce or Kent, Clark. If the character had an Eastern name, then "Family name Given name" would be fine. Examples as presented in the media in that format, like a name tag, office window, locker label, file folder, sign "Gump, Forrest." or on a report / news article / academic web search. "Connor Sarah" for the Terminator film where the Terminator tries to look her up in a phone book. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hey man im josh. Could help people not knowing what or who "Forrest Gump" is (after all a quite unusual name) finding the article. Also, forrest once was a valid spelling variant of forest, which might add to confusion for non-native speakers of English. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:CHEAP. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

OTAN[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 retarget to NATO per unanaminous consensus. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 16:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to have been a bit of page history going back and forth on whether this should be a DAB, a redirect to NATO, or a redirect to the Otan DAB. In my view, it should likely go directly to NATO as nothing on the Otan DAB page other than NATO, so per WP:DIFFCAPS I support retargeting there, but as it seems contentious, it seemed wise to bring it to RfD. TartarTorte 17:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget In the caps variant, this is clearly a reference to NATO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to a notification: I don't have the time to look into this, but I'm the one who last retargeted the to the dab, the rationale I gave in the edit summary was usage for NATO not common in English, the Kazakhstan party is also sometimes styled in all caps if I recall correctly, the redirect gets very little usage so even if there is a primary topic it wouldn't make sense to have a hatnote for it at NATO. The all-caps styling for the political party is at best rare (I couldn't see any instances on the first page of results in a web search), and NATO is likely the primary topic with respect to usage for either caps variant [2], but I still see it as undesirable for a major article to have a hatnote for obscure topics. – Uanfala (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to NATO, add redirects here for the other Otans. Don't see any other entries that are all-caps. There are official logos where NATO is paired with OTAN right under it. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to NATO as the primary topic at this capitalisation, and expand the hatnote there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to NATO and add a hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page there. I am not a fan of WP:DIFFCAPS at all and think we should avoid disambiguating terms based on their capitalization in most cases. It does not scale well and will create avoidable additional work in the future of the project - therefore, if it can be done in a way which will likely continue to work great in 2 or 3 decades from now, it should be done this way right from the start. The exception is the few terms which are extremely common in one particular capitalization only, like OTAN referring to NATO. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Template:Mainw[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 speedily deleted per G5. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Ambiguous and confusing. Could easily be confused with {{Main}} and I replaced an instance of it being used that way in an article. Not sure what the w is supposed to mean. MClay1 (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Tourism in Capri[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 19#Tourism in Capri

Wisconsin Primary[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 retarget to their respective "Elections in" articles. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 11:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these make sense as redirects, nor is there a good target for these to go to. Some states (such as New Hampshire) have notable presidential primaries referred to as "STATE primary", while some others (such as California and Louisiana) have unique primary systems for state elections referred to as "STATE primary". Neither of those apply here. There is therefore no real primary topic for these terms, but also no useful articles to disambiguate between, so these should be deleted. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Bunch of academic journals[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. Concerns about RfD being inappropriately used to hound an editor are better raised at a venue like WP:ANI, though in my quick skim I didn't see anything that gave me pause.

Aside from that, the delete arguments cited the relevant guideline and the sole keep vote did the opposite, hence a delete conclusion. Legoktm (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially goes against WP:REDLINK to a target so impossibly vast no specific information about that journal will ever be there. See also similar discussion in the past here and here and here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eureka Lott: agreed, withdrawn that one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inappropriate use of RfD several of these were chosen because they were created by a particular editor (myself). Additionally Randykitty obviously should not continue an earlier conflict by voting. Invasive Spices (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "several of these were chosen because they were created by a particular editor"
    Utter nonsense, I went through all major publishers and collected all such redirects. That you created ~25% of them does not make this "an inappropriate use of RFD". Hell, I created some myself. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all which are redirects from proper journal/magazine/newspaper names (or common abbreviations thereof) for which we do not have individual articles yet and which are pointing to the corresponding publisher. These redirects are often important to track down less known publication names in citations (and in general). Often, if we don't have an article about the publication, an article about the publisher may at least mention the publication or may otherwise give additional related information which can help to locate more details about the publication. Even if we don't have the publication covered yet, the very existence of a redirect carries useful semantic information in itself. It tells users that a publication exists and thereby helps to improve/verify citations. This also gets "harvested" by third-parties and thereby helps to improve external databases, search engines, etc. I don't buy the REDLINK stuff, because articles are typically created by people being knowledgable about a topic and having enough time at hands to research and write the articles. They will create an article about a publication regardless of if it is currently a red link or a redirect. In fact, redirects help to shape the infrastructure and build the foundation for a future article. Redirect targets are often a place where information snippets about the redirect topic are accumulated by different editors until enough information has been collected to split it out and move it over the redirect. Without the redirect, this is much less likely to happen (or different pieces of information will be randomly added to several related articles, none ever reaching the threshold for a stand-alone article). Also, if a redirect once existed and was deleted, this discourages people to recreate them as an article. Therefore, deleting valid redirects will have a net-negative impact on the project instead of being an improvement. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "about the publisher may at least mention the publication" These articles won't ever mention those journals. These publishers are too big for that. This isn't case of the Bulletin of the Mathematical Society of Swaziland redirecting to the Mathematical Society of Swaziland. Re " I don't buy the REDLINK stuff, because articles are typically created by people being knowledgable about a topic and having enough time at hands to research and write the articles." On journal topics, article-creation is highly driven by lists of redlinks like WP:JCW/MIS and redlinks being present in articles (citations usually). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. If there was a List of journals published by Foo that mentioned them that would be a different story, but afacs there isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)q[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

John Wiley & Sons Inc. 'A'[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 09:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, this is either a weird typo, or refers to nothing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Loads of pointless redirects to Shinto sects and schools[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of unused or minimally used redirects to this list article which is a huge list with sects it provides no sources for the existence of Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 06:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – while in-line sourcing is preferable, I'm not seeing any evidence to assume that these aren't sourced to the books cited. J947 † edits 09:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This sounds like a content issue. Feel free to clean up the article's sourcing; if any sects fail verification, then they can be RfD'd. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Nonexistent FMR stations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 14#Nonexistent FMR stations

Secondary Period[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 14#Secondary Period

Mulsim[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 11:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect from a typo, not a misspelling (cf. Finalnd, Rcie.) Also, no pageviews in the past few months. Mast303 (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, pageviews fairly healthy. J947 † edits 09:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems harmless. Redirects for typos can be confusing if deemed ambiguous; but that is certainly not the case here. CycloneYoris talk! 21:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - The relevant rcat, {{r from misspelling}}, explicitly states "or typographical error". Searching around with "mulsim", it does appear to be a common enough error. Google brings a large number of relevant results, and on TikTok the tag "#mulsim" has 37.2M views and yields a long stream of content by/about muslims. Accidentally typing two adjacent letters in the wrong order is a common typo (eg. "teh" for "the"); although not all errors of this kind warrant a redirect, this one seems common enough to plausibly warrant a redirect.
    That said, a typo being common on external sites does not necessarily mean people will use it on Wikipedia. The number of views since the beginning of this year is only 3 in total, which although not "no" views (contrary to the nomination), is not many. J947's link covers a span of several years, which shows that it very rarely gets more than 1 hit a day on days that it gets hits at all. The redirect often goes weeks, sometimes around a month, without any hits, which is difficult to see when looking at the whole span but is clear when inspecting a narrower range. It has, on very rare occassions, gotten as many as 6 hits a day but these are exceptions to the general trend. "Healthy" seems like an overstatement, which is why I'm only weakly for keeping it. – Scyrme (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • So yeah, it's a redirect; it isn't terribly important. It's helped 600 readers across the last 8 years and caused negligible maintenance – perhaps the equivalent figure is 10 editors, bringing that to +590? The helped-to-hindered ratio is one that remains constant, so the specific timeframe picked doesn't so matter – I simply chose the longest timeframe to paint the broadest and most accurate picture. It's a clear net benefit in my opinion. J947 † edits 01:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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/2023_March_7&oldid=1145455640"