Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 5

February 5

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

Ski Aggu

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 💬 05:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ski Aggu → List of number-one hits of 2023 (Austria) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Only a redirect to the number one list of songs in Austria. No other information whatsoever. CeolAnGhra (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mentioned in numerous other articles, such as Joost Klein, List of number-one hits of 2023 (Germany) and 2023 MTV Europe Music Awards. WP:REDYES and WP:RFD#D10 also likely apply as he has articles on other language Wikipedias such as in German [1]. A7V2 (talk) 07:48, 6 February 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).

WGBH in Boston

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 13#WGBH in Boston

Shock(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. ✗plicit 23:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shock(film) → Shock (2004 film) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

RDAB title, but has some history which duplicates its target. I feel it should be deleted, but it definitely shouldn't be kept as there's multiple films with this title. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the missing space between the word and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Shock (film), targets to Shock (disambiguation)#Films. 176.33.241.125 (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it hasn't been an article since 2008 and doesn't appear to contain any useful history. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RDAB. See also WT:CSD#Improper disambiguation redirects, where a CSD criterion for RDAB has been proposed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RDAB. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:33, 7 February 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).

"Fart alarm" and "Fart extinguisher"

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) 16:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fart alarm → Flatulence humor (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Fart extinguisher → Flatulence humor (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Neither of these devices has any mention in the target article. They should be deleted. Marsbar8 (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fart alarm was merged to the target, and Fart extinguisher was merged to the target even while the Fart alarm AfD and the Fart extinguisher AfD were in progress. The former AfD closed as merge, but the closer Johnleemk did not tag it with the {{R from merge}} (probably because this template was brand new then, having been created only 2 days before the close in 2006). The latter AfD closed as no consensus/keep, although content had already been merged by then. Jay 💬 19:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fart alarm; weak retarget Fart extinguisher to Air freshener. Under current guidelines, we should have a very good reason to delete a {{R from merge}}, and I don't think that the mere fact that "... the target article contains virtually no information on the [subjects]" is enough. As for retargeting #2, arguably the term falls outside the scope of the current target (as stated in the lead sentence) because its most common use appears to be for air freshener candles or sprays, which are practical items as opposed to practical joke devices or novelty items. PleaseStand (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These expressions are mentioned nowhere in Enwiki: do not redirect to a different article with still no mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Devices with such names are mentioned nowhere on Wikipedia to my knowledge. They may have been merged at one time, but all the information merged has been deleted. They apparently aren't notable enough for inclusion. Fish567 (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try, considering that the edit history may need to be considered...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Redirects exist to guide readers to where there may be content on a topic. Conversely, where there is no content, there should be no redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:27, 23 February 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).

Zhong xina

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 23:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhong xina → John Cena (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This is not a name referred to at the target page. This title is seemingly in reference to a meme that Cena was involved in, but using this alternative name to reach the subject does not seem likely, with this many deviations from his actual name. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zhong xina as page creator as well as the corresponding pages that I didn't create John Xina and John xina per nom. There used to be a paragraph on his page devoted to this meme but clearly it must only have cited WP:KYM. ~~lol1 VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 12:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC); edited 20:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lol1VNIO: I've just nominated all three of these redirects for speedy deletion per WP:CSD G7 (author requests deletion) - but you should know that if you want to delete a redirect of your own making next time, you can just tag it with {{db-g7}} yourself instead. Duckmather (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Duckmather: I only created Zhong xina and not the others. I admit I should've worded more precisely. Best wishes, ~~lol1 VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lol1VNIO: Thanks for noticing, I just trouted myself. Duckmather (talk) 20:20, 7 February 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).

Convention No 192

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 ILO Convention No 192 per Thryduulf, delete Convention No 192 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convention No 192 → International Labour Organization (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

ILO Convention No 192 → International Labour Organization (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. There is no Convention 192; it does not exist. This was orginally made as a redirect to Convention 182 (Worst Forms of Child Labour), but subsequently changed to a redirect to the ILO. Both are confusing, since redirecting to the ILO implies it might actually be something in existence, while 182 is clearly not 192 and a redirect could imply an equivalance, rather than a mistaken entry, which I do not see as a common problem. Furthermore, the next convention will be numbered 192, so at the point the new Convention is adopted (not likely for a number of years) a new article can be created. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe bundle Convention No 192 as well. Jay 💬 10:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with the other redirect as suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Convention No 192 as ambiguous, UNESCO and the European Commission at least also have conventions with this number. No comment (yet) on the ILO redirect, researching is taking more time. Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget ILO Convention No 192 to Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention. There are a number of sources I've found that refer to Convention 182 as 192, e.g. UN Committee Meeting minutes (Paragraph 64, page 8), Research paper (I think for the Norwegian Government) (footnote 5, page 4), Danish Institute for Human Rights (first bullet, page 7), UN Committee report (paragraph 231), Office of the Ombudsman, Government of the Philippines ("Strategies" pdf page 2), Focus Malaysia (archive link) (second paragraph). If/when there is an actual convention 192 a hatnote should be added. Thryduulf (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Thryduulf. Nice research! JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JesseW: does your comment refer to both redirects or only to the one I recommended retargeting? Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least ILO Convention No 192 but I am fine with retargeting the other one, too. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:54, 9 February 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).

List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 17#List of atheists, agnostics and other nontheists

Philadelphia Highway Patrol

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Highway Patrol → Philadelphia Police Department (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Should be deleted, as there's no mention of PHP on PPD's Wikipedia or official website (at least major one) 83.168.137.1 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be their official site https://philadelphiahighwaypatrol.com/ and along with a news stories (such as [2]) and books [3]) make it clear it's a real thing and part of the police department (as to the main PPD website not mentioning it, I believe it's because they refer it to as just "Highway Patrol" and not "Philadelphia Highway Patrol". For example [4] has the uniform description for the Highway Patrol.) Seems like there's probably enough material where a mention/content could be added to the main PPD article so keeping without a mention is fine. (Note, this was nom'd here 28 minutes after it was WP:BLAR'd for the second time, the second blar'ing also removed a PROD.) Skynxnex (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
note, that the site isnt on gov domain and the adress from the site doesnt show anything resembling police headquarters on google street view (only a water department is visible) 83.168.137.1 (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The PPD's official site also seems to be a dot com. Many government agencies in the US have non-.gov-y domain names for various reasons. If there's more doubt, https://www.phillypolice.com/programs/philadelphia-youth-police-camp/ lists the same address as the one mentioned on the Highway Patrol site. And if you search for "philadelphiahighwaypatrol.com" on Google, there's lots of places that seem to believe it's their official site. Do you actually believe this doesn't exist? Skynxnex (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
im not saying it doesnt exist, just the PHP site seems funky, especially how it isnt in my opinion directly mentioned on the PPD site 83.168.137.1 (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skynxnex. I've added a brief mention to the target article, though it's possible it could be expanded with more research. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:02, 5 February 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).

The Return of the First Avenger

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Return of the First Avenger → Captain America: The Winter Soldier (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Avengers 1.5 → Captain America: The Winter Soldier (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Both should be deleted. Neither term is used in the film or in coverage of the film. Avengers 1.5 was mentioned briefly in one interview in 2013 by Anthony Mackie, but that is all. -- ZooBlazer 17:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete made-up name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as these are not common ways to refer to this film at all. —El Millo (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unofficial names. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:35, 6 February 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).

Cube-free integer

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 withdrawn. JBW (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cube-free integer → Square-free integer#Cube-free integer (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. This links to an article which doesn't mention "Cube-free integers", nor is there any good reason why it should. The redirect was created in May 2022, and redirected to a section in the target article which was removed less than eight hours after it was introduced. The edit-summary given for the removal said, rightly I think, that the concept of a "Cube-free integer" is not notable. The expression does occur in some web pages and publications, but unlike "square-free integer" it does not appear extensively in mathematical literature, and my searches have failed to find evidence that the concept is notable enough to be the topic of a Wikipedia article; moreover, whether it is notable enough or not, it isn't mentioned in the target article for this redirect, so having the redirect is unhelpful. JBW (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept of "cube-free integers" has been mentioned and defined in the article, and still is, since 2009. Even if it doesn't go into much depth, we don't expect redirects to be guaranteed notable. People who search this term will end up in the right place; deletion does not help our readers here. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my proposal. I came to this redirect because of a talk page post which pointed out, quite correctly, that it was a redirect to a page section which no longer existed. However, I didn't realise that the concept is briefly mentioned elsewhere in the article, so just changing the redirect so that it doesn't target that nonexistent section is a better solution than deleting it. JBW (talk) 10:21, 6 February 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).