Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 26

November 26

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 26, 2020.

Messianic judiasm

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 3#Messianic judiasm

Success is unbounded

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. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Success is unbounded → Social status (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This might actually be an article, but it's functioning as a redirect now and I think the title has so vague a connection with social status that this should just be deleted. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This phrase occurs nowhere else in enwiki. The article text (the only contribution of that editor) has not received AfC scrutiny and could be regarded as an abandoned draft similar to WP:G13. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how the title of this redirect is even related to the target at all. Also has zero chance of becoming an article. --pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 04:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Rhythmic top 10 singles in 2015

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 3#List of Rhythmic top 10 singles in 2015

HoganStand.ie

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) feminist (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HoganStand.ie → Hogan Stand (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It is the S. The sources use Hoganstand.com. I made it first as HoganStand.com and then HoganStand.ie followed, but by another person. So Hoganstand.ie (no capital S) makes sense, along now with Hoganstand.com. Publisa (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The website that was HoganStand.ie is now HoganStand.com and is styled as HoganStand. HoganStand.ie looks like a website under construction with lorem ipsom text, and is now non-notable. Bogger (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that as at today. http://www.hoganstand.ie appears to be a legitimate operational website. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, no reason to delete. The capitalization is non-standard but the redirect is harmless due to the lack of ambiguity. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason to delete: an understandable spelling variant. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pomme Terre

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 4#Pomme Terre

The Netherlands National Holidays,

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. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Netherlands National Holidays, → Public holidays in the Netherlands (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete Comma punctuation at the end makes this a very unlikely redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The comma is an unambiguous error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. It's unlikely, that someone would search something like this, and, it doesn't help that the S and , keys, are far apart from each other. Also, are there any similar redirects, like this? Regards, SONIC678, 18:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of largest cities in the United States

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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest cities in the United States → List of United States cities by population (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

List of largest US cities → List of United States cities by population (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Those redirects are too ambiguous. They could also mean "List of United States cities by area". I would suggest either deletion or dabifying if I think that neither area nor population is the primary topic. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add a hatnote. Whenever I've searched using these exact search terms (although for countries other than the US), I've only ever wanted population. Population is by far the most common measure of the size of a city when comparing them, so it is the primary topic in my experience. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, hatnote is already at the top of the page. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The plain, expected meaning of "largest city" in an everyday context is that of a largest population. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you ask anyone what the largest city in the United States is, you'll almost always get New York (or LA or Chicago). You'll never hear someone say Sitka. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I know this is only a rough measure, but when I searched for "largest US cities", the first four pages were only for size, with no mentions of area to be seen. The current target is definitely the most logical and useful one. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify – Draft is available under List of largest cities in the United States. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose a disambiguation here per WP:TWODABS give that the current target is very much the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no need for a 2-entry disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC) But I'll store away in my mind Sitka as the largest US city by area in case it comes up in a pub quiz![reply]
Keep per above. The page has had an appropriate hatnote since December 2013. - Eureka Lott 17:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Megarocket

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. A disambiguation page could be created and discussed on its own merits, but take care to adhere to MOS:DAB. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Megarocket → Commander Keen (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Could also refer to very big rockets like Saturn V and Space Launch System. In fact, an otherwise reliable source called SLS a megarocket. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

is the suggestion to retarget the redirect or to create a dabpage?--65.92.160.124 (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dabification. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Megarocket" is ambiguous and Search is better: currently giving 3 mentions (2x Keen and 1x SLS). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing in Wikipedia actually called "Megarocket". There's WP:PTMs (like the "Bean with Bacon Megarocket" of the current target), and there's popular press usage of "megarocket" as a vague descriptor for really big rockets. Neither of those kinds of targets would be suitable for a disambiguation page. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Snoopy's siblings

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 Snoopy#Siblings. There is more support for Snoopy as the target both here and at AfD. Also, the content was merged to Snoopy so unless there is consensus that it should instead belong to List of Peanuts characters, the source article title should logically target the merger destination. There is some suggestion that the AfD closer was wrong to bring the discussion to RfD, but bringing this discussion back to AfD or to the article talk page would only prolong the discussion. If anyone disagrees with my closure, I am happy to vacate it. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snoopy's siblings → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snoopy's siblings (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snoopy's siblings, this article should be merged and redirected to either Snoopy or List of Peanuts characters, but the AfD did not achieve consensus on which one in particular. Note to closer: This RfD cannot be closed as no consensus which defaults to keeping the article in its current state, as there is clear consensus that the topic should not have its own article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But until this discussion is closed, shouldn't the article be restored rather than being a non-functioning redirect? In my experience, one does the merger first, then puts the redirect in place, and it points to where the information now resides. I can't see where the current form serves anyone. (NOTE: I have heavy Peanuts COI.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a merge discussion on the talk page of the article. Dream Focus 04:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per my vote at AfD, List_of_Peanuts_characters seems appropriate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The information wouldn't fit there. You'd just add things to the list that don't have their own articles, and then they'd get deleted by someone else later on. The information should be merged into the Snoopy article instead. Dream Focus 13:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps consensus, I think the Snoopy article is a better target. The list article currently features major characters with their own stand-alone article, and even if there's room for minor characters, they seem more relevant to Snoopy himself. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum. Why is it acceptable to close an AfD as no consensus and shift the burden of decision to RfD? If the consensus at AfD is merge then the closer must make a determination about to where. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. RfD is the wrong place to discuss this, the AfD should have been relisted to get the consensus about a destination. Failing that then you should have initiated a merge discussion on the article talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore article and have the merge discussion on the talk page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I merged the content into Snoopy. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect to Snoopy. Geschichte (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

L'

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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

L' → Ľ (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Might also refer to the similar letter Ĺ, as well as French articles and determiners. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, seems like a plausible search term and the current target still seems like the most likely option. Expanding the hatnote there should resolve the ambiguity. Disambiguation would be a second choice. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate per Rosguill. Geschichte (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

North Carolina Historical Review

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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Historical Review → North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No content about this topic at the target (or anywhere). Possibly a notable journal, so WP:REDLINK probably applies. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to State Archives of North Carolina as a publication originally by the North Carolina Historical Commission in 1924 NCPedia and later known as Office of Archives and History JSTOR which according to the wikipedia article is a part of the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources agency [1] Add R with possibilities as possible standalone journal. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There doesn't appear to be a mention at the suggested target at this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete', not mentioned anywhere so no useful targets. No problem with it being recreated if a sourced mention does get added at one of the suggested pages, otherwise a redlink seems best. ~ mazca ^talk 13:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to encourage article creation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and let it become redlinked. This is a useful candidate for a stand-alone article. Probably it should have been created with R|with possibilities. Johnnie Bob (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.