Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 7

October 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 7, 2024.

IMAX theatre at iSQUARE

IMAX theatre at iSQUARE → ISQUARE (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of said theatre at target. I guess List_of_cinemas_in_Hong_Kong#UA_Cinemas could be an alternative. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2001 attacks

2001 attacks → September 11 attacks (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2001 terrorist attacks → September 11 attacks (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These redirects assume that 9/11 is the only terrorist attack that happened in 2001, which is false. I suggest retargeting them to List of terrorist incidents in 2001. As for 2001 attacks, it can probably be downright deleted by RC,IR as it was made less than a year ago. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of terrorist incidents in 2001 per @SeaHaircutSoilReplace. Hasn't this been RfD'd before? The term is too ambiguous to target an article about any particular incident, even if 9/11 is the most historically significant. Carguychris (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carguychris This redirect has not been RfD'd before, which I find ridiculous. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I think it was something similarly worded and vague, like "2001 terror incident". I just recall making an almost identical comment before. Carguychris (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just found 2001 terrorist attacks via WLH, and added it to this proposal. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per above. There were some similar redirects rfed earlier this year but I forget which. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carguychris and PARKANYAA: you may be thinking of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9#2001 New York attacks (that nomination was withdrawn), although neither of you commented on in that discussion. I too remember something similar to this and that's the only one I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf That was in fact what I was thinking of. I recall another similar one though... but that doesn't really matter I guess haha. Thanks. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA after some more searching I've found Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 9#2001 incident that Carguychris did participate in. The outcome was to delete because it was too vague. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was the other one! Thanks. I saw that - I rarely vote in RfDs but I lurk a lot. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that was it. Carguychris (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with the nomination, these redirects do not assume that 9/11 is the only terrorist attack in 2001, rather that 9/11 would be the primary topic for these terms. All this is saying is that someone searching "2001 (terrorist) attacks" would 'highly likely' be looking for 9/11 over all other topics. While 2001 also had events like 2001 anthrax attacks and the shoe bomb, all pale in comparison to 9/11. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 9/11 is the primary topic. C F A 💬 22:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Tavix @CFA Even if it was the primary topic, I don't think anyone would search for "2001 attacks" or "2001 terrorist attacks" if they were looking for 9/11. Most likely they'd just search for, well, 9/11. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty plausible to me, actually. Redirects are cheap. C F A 💬 14:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Airport

Hall Airport → Kaufman, Texas#Features (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I PROD'd the article about this airport on the basis that it fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD due to a lack of coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources excluding WP:ROTM mentions in aviation-related government and navigational databases. Another user made a good-faith effort to preserve the content by merging it with Kaufman, Texas, article, but the user did not realize that the airport has been removed from FAA records because it has presumably closed permanently (which, in 20/20 hindsight, I should have mentioned in the PROD nomination). Thus, the airport article has been replaced with a redirect targeting an article about a town, but the content discussing the airport should presumably be removed from the target article for the same reasons I outline above. I suggest that both the content and the redirect should be deleted. Carguychris (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carguychris: As long as the content is there, the redirect is appropriate. If the content is removed from the target article (which is not something RfD can or should compel, but something you can do yourself per WP:BRD), then the correct thing to do is to restore the article and send it to AfD. If you think the content is unsuitable for Wikipedia, then I'd recommend the latter course of action (in which case you can close this as withdrawn). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've axed the airport content from the target article, but restoring the previous Hall Airport article solely to AfD it seems excessive. Carguychris (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:RECENTISM Wikipedia is not just about what is there right now, history is also a part of Wikipedia. So if there was an airport there, why would it not be appropriate to be part of the town's history? Just as we keep around Tempelhof Airport article after it closed, then we should have history sections for towns, mentioning significant landmarks that no longer exist.-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tempelhof clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. Hall Airport was a privately owned 2,500' grass strip with no significant facilities. Most small private airstrips shouldn't have Wikipedia articles per WP:ROTM, but many of them do because they're listed in convenient online aviation databases. Carguychris (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the anon here. My preference would be to restore the content to the article and keep the redirect. I agree that this airport isn't notable enough for its own article. I don't agree it isn't worth a mention at the town article. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore content per Presidentman. Being closed doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned at all. A7V2 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzaface

Pizzaface → List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters#Pizza Face (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Pizza Face → List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters#Pizza Face (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

currently unmentioned in the target and with primary topichood completely usurped by a pizza tower character with the same name (good for him :3). was about to retarget there and call it a day, but per wikt:pizza face, there might be some other possible target(s). opinions? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everitt E Boat

Everitt E Boat → Trailer sailer (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target, avoided double redirect to the now-deleted E-boat (trailer sailer) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned at Mini Ton class, an article that needs to be either expanded, merged, or deleted, not sure which. So we could retarget there (removing the resulting circular redirect), but maybe that primary-sourced list of boats should just be removed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boston's best variety

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! 07:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boston's best variety → WWBX (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of "best" at the target article. The only mention of "Variety" is in the references, as a link to variety.com. The slogan for this radio is never implied, and not helpful as a search term bringing articles to a location where the slogan is never mentioned or discussed. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes: "Boston's best variety" is, in fact, the radio station's actual slogan. It's even mentioned on the official website: https://www.audacy.com/mix1041 . Duckmather (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Readers who type this in will not know this from the article contents. Material should be added to the page, or the redirect should be removed, because as it stands its confusing and misleading due to a lack of context at the target. There might be an infobox parameter which could make the former option easier, unsure. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes The reason it's not in the article is because Infobox radio station no longer has a slogan parameter, in keeping with removals in other infoboxes. Discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2021#Removing slogan parameter from Infobox radio station and Infobox television station. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the logo in the infobox on WWBX includes this slogan. That alone is probably not enough, however. A7V2 (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As shown above, this is the slogan for this radio station and it is even in the logo in the infobox, thus being mentioned in the article. No alternative targets have been proposed, and I see no reason to delete. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Target phrase is in the article, in the form of the image of the logo which has the phrase somewhat prominently. As such, this would not violate provoke WP:ASTONISHment. Plausible search term that aids in navigation, as it is extremely plausible that someone may remember a slogan but not remember the random 4-letter callsign. Unambiguous target, as no other subject claims this slogan or status. Useful and WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 07:14, 8 October 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).

20 Years of Noise 1985–2005

20 Years of Noise 1985–2005 → Necrodeath (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Article was redirected about 6 months ago due to lack of notability, but there is no mention of this title at the target. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashchf Lshtshfum

Ashchf Lshtshfum → Jason Bourne (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Appears to be a joke about bad Cyrillic on a passport in a movie[1] Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

when reading the cyrillic on the bourne identity that's supposed to be foma kiniaev Probium577 (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this sort of transcription is now mentioned in the "aliases" section of the infobox at the target. No strong opinion since the redirect does not seem like the most plausible search term (and related redirects like Foma Kiniaev don't exist). 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 15:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is in fact a Russian Wikipedia direct article named Ащьф Лштшфум -> The Bourne Identity Probium577 (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Chalmers

Geoffrey Chalmers → Michael McConnohie (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Name not mentioned at target. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 25 § Geoffrey Chalmers – Keep

Comment the previous RfD noted that the McConnohie was credited as Geoffrey Chalmers and that this was mentioned in the article. Mention was hidden by an IP editor in June 2021 with the comment "I'm hiding this source until verified". The information was sourced to [2] but the current version of that page doesn't include the name (I've not investigated whether it ever did). Googling "Michael McConnohie" "Geoffrey Chalmers" finds a lot of hits making the same connection, but every site is either unreliable (IMDB, wikis) or one I have no idea of the reliability of. This needs attention from someone familiar with sourcing in this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone willing to take a dive into the sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers soliciting input. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tay Keith, fuck these niggas up!

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! 07:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tay Keith, fuck these niggas up! → Tay Keith (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Even if the latter part of the redirect is relevant, if someone has the artist's name, they don't need the second part. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unhelpful. Not mentioned at target, and appears to be a lyric from a song released by Drake (musician). 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 14:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add mention - Google is telling me that it's not just one song by Drake (musician), but a whole long list of songs by various artists (including Travis Scott, Lil Baby, BlocBoy JB]], Metro Boomin, 21 Savage, Co Cash, 6ix9ine, Bobby Shmurda, Meek Mill, Kodak Black, and more...) all apparently being produced by Tay Keith. This makes it a plausible search term, as someone could be very likely to hear the line in multiple songs and want to know why completely different artists are all putting the line in their song, beyond wanting to simply know who Tay Keith is. While the list of songs that contain this line is all from various user curated lists, I did find what could be a reliable source that this is the producer's tagline at GQ... so this is useful information that we should have. Fieari (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As Fieari mentioned, the title of this redirect is Tay Keith's producer tag— it's not uncommon for hip hop producers to have soundbites like this that they add to songs they've produced. In that sense, I can theoretically see the utility of retaining this redirect. But in this particular case, Tay Keith's name occurs at the very beginning of the line, so I'm not convinced people will jump directly to the full phrase instead of just stopping at "Tay Keith" directly. Mentioning the tag in the article could be a good idea, but even so, I lean slightly toward deleting the redirect. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The phrase has been identified as the target's producer tag. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fieari. "ABCDEF is plausible but ABC is also plausible, so we don't need ABCDEF" arguments, as Trilobite is making, are rarely persuasive in the face of WP:CHEAP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a mention, btw, sourced to GQ. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even without mention. Gets the reader to the info that is the most appropriate for the information presented (other parts of 'lyrics' can be used to get to a song somewhere besides us if that is what they are seeking). On an aside: we may want to consider creating an rcat for this type of redirect. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as plausible. It is their producer tag. C F A 💬 22:53, 12 October 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).

Donald Trump as rhetorician

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! 07:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump as rhetorician → Rhetoric of Donald Trump (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

How is this a possible search or article name? This redirect is unnecessary. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perfectly reasonable redirect, consistent with article titles such as Winston Churchill as writer. It's certainly a possible, predictable search term, as it would display as one of several results from entering Donald Trump as. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The overall format is plausible, no doubt. I think the question is whether anyone would plausibly expect this particular combination of person and capacity to go anywhere. As of this writing, there are 0 other "as rhetorician" articles and 3 other "Donald Trump as" articles, all created by Neveselbert. If this is to be deleted, those 3 should also be (ping @ZimZalaBim). Ultimately I think I come down on this being the common situation at RfD of "not worth creating, not worth deleting". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unambiguous target, plausible search term. Fieari (talk) 07:31, 11 October 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).

FZDO

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 List of airports in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 22:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FZDO → Gbadolite Airport (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target; List of airports in the Democratic Republic of the Congo lists this as the code for the apparently unrelated and currently redlinked Moanza Airport. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 03:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of airports in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Not listed at List of airports by ICAO code: F. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the main article there is a redlink, I suggest deletion. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 16:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget or delete per above. Google results make it clear that there is exactly two potentially encyclopaedic uses of this series of letters, Moanza Airport (occasionally spelled "Moanda" or "Muanda") and the Faculty of Correspondence and Distance Learning at Chelyabinsk State University. The airport is by far the primary topic and we don't have any content about the university faculty anyway. I can see arguments both ways for retargetting and deletion and don't immediately have a preference between them. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:REDLINK --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to List of airports in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and add a mention to the ICAO list -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
retarget to List of airports in the Democratic Republic of the Congo per above, and I went ahead and added it to the ICAO list as well. Fieari (talk) 07:06, 9 October 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).

Aero blue

Aero blue → Shades of cyan#Aero blue (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There is no mention of Aero blue in the target page. ... discospinster _talk 16:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It existed when the redirect was created (see [3]), though it was un-cited and a fairly poor description, and the also see seems to point to a fairly different color, so it's not surprising if someone deleted that section (and forgot to look for redirects to it) in the intervening 11 years. :) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That version linked to Air Force blue, which also does not mention "Aero blue" currently. Plus it's azure, not cyan! So changing the redirect won't help. ... discospinster _talk 20:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try. The mention at the target was removed — can it be restored with a source? Any other possible target articles?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wpedia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 14#Wpedia