Select Page

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 26

April 26

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 26, 2025.

Supercute!

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 4#Supercute!

Fapstinence

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 4#Fapstinence

Battle Cry: Worship from the Frontlines

This redirect is a WP:BLARed article as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle Cry: Worship from the Frontlines. However, as it stands, the subject of this redirect, apparently a music album, is not mentioned in the target article or in the most related article Battle Cry Campaign, leaving readers with no information about this subject in the event they are attempting to find it. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inogolo

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 💬 20:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inogolo is an online pronunciation guide that is likely non-notable. It is not mentioned in that surprisingly short article, and elsewhere it only appears in a reference at the Justin Bieber article. At the time of the redirect's creation, it was an external link, then later removed in 2015 per ELNO. Unless that link is restored or other type of mention is added, the redirect is not useful. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the above – and probably remove the reference from the Justin Bieber article unless reliability is established (we have plenty of sources to say how his name is pronounced). – GnocchiFan (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2025 (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).

Creation (Dragonlance)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 4#Creation (Dragonlance)

Classic science fiction

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 14:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere near synonymous terms. Much of what would be considered "classic" science fiction predates the "Golden Age" either by a little (e.g. works from the pulp era of science fiction) or by a lot (e.g. works by Jules Verne and H. G. Wells). TompaDompa (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might also add that a fair amount of what would be considered "classic" science fiction, especially outside of literature, comes after the "Golden Age" (e.g. 2001: A Space Odyssey). TompaDompa (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa As a creator, I don't have strong feelings here. Just remove the link rather then red link it from Typewriter in the Sky, where it is used, unless someone has a better idea what to do with it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vague and subjective; a quick review of online lists reveals no direct correlation between the Golden Age and the books listed. The term is broadly used to describe books the critics feel have had a lasting impact on the genre, regardless of when they were written. Carguychris (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2025 (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).

Unimon

Not mentioned at target, though some relevant information exists at List of Digimon Adventure (1999 TV series) episodes (as well as one mention at List of Digimon Adventure characters). Another unrelated topic with the same name is described at Superconducting quantum computing#Unimon. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4, did you mean to suggest deletion or retargettin, and if so where? Rusalkii (talk) 06:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think retargeting to Superconducting quantum computing#Unimon would be reasonable so long as we have information on that; the Digimon information is very limited (but if it is expanded, one can reconsider disambiguating or hatnoting). 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boostedkids

No longer mentioned at target article; I am the creator and attempted to G7 but was declined despite a revert of an attempted article. Jalen Barks (Woof) 23:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the G7 was correctly declined because you are not the only editor with significant contributions, indeed Davide ORO24 and the IP editor have far more significant contributions to the page. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article without prejudice to AfD. The article has multiple claims of importance so does not meet any speedy deletion criteria, if you think it isn't notable it needs to be discussed at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. The only edits were from non-autoconfirmed editors, and it was in such a state that it wouldn't even remotely survive an AFC review; an AFD would be a waste of everyone's time. If the editors want to continue to work on it, it should be in draft space. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was Davide ORO24's only contributions, and he hasn't been active in over a year now. There are no indications that editors want to continue to work on it. -- Tavix (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreeing with the redirector that there is no indication of notability. I'd love to hear an argument in favor of notability, but unless that happens (I'm not holding my breath) then I agree with IP35 that an AFD would be a waste of everyone's time. -- Tavix (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If such AfDs were actually a waste of time there would have been a consensus to this effect in the recent discussions regarding BLARs. Those discussions actually came to the conclusion that either AfD or the talk page was the appropriate venue, not RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The way to show that a AfD won't be a waste of time is to provide evidence of notability. You still have not done this. -- Tavix (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I repeat that the view RfD is an appropriate venue to discuss notability of article content has been rejected by multiple discussions both old and recent. Continuing to insist on it is disruptive and I will continue to make that explicit and ignore your attempts to subvert the process supported by consensus unless and until such consensus changes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a redirect and Redirects for discussion is the correct venue to discuss redirects. (Discussions old and new have validated this position.) I have zero qualms with those who wish to restore the article that is under the redirect, but I will not also support doing so unless evidence of notability has been presented. -- Tavix (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to the previous article attempt moved to draftspace. The main point of this discussion is the current redirect as is is misleading without a mention in the artist list at the target article. Jalen Barks (Woof) 21:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bozzer

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. Rusalkii (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could be confused with Boozer A1Cafel (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not mentioned in the target and I couldn't find anything that suggested this term is strongly related to Boris Johnson. (I am an American though so it is entirely possible I'm totally wrong). Esolo5002 (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For context, this is possibly a reference to the Oxford "-er", the (antiquated) practice of Oxford students adding the suffix -er to various words: e.g. rugger for rugby football and soccer for association football (yes, the term "soccer" was invented in England). It is used by opponents of Boris Johnson as well as his friends and supporters in a self-deprecating way, referring to his privileged background at Oxford University. A variant ("Bozza", -a and -er suffixes are pronounced the same in most non-rhotic British English dialects) is mentioned at List of nicknames of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Do I think this makes it worthy of a redirect? Probably not, especially as I can't find that many references to the "Bozzer" spelling variant and a lot of what I said can quite rightly be written off as original research. But if people can find references, I think a redirect to List of nicknames of prime ministers of the United Kingdom would be the best place for this. GnocchiFan (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmentioned in target. Pageviews indicates that during the period May 2019 to July 2022, in which he was contesting a tory leadership contest and then pretending to govern the country, the redirect averaged 3 monthly views, while the target averaged 767,552. Across the period the redirect was used by 0.0004% of page readers. This is unsupported and not useful for readers. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:11, 30 April 2025 (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).

MOGAI and others

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 4#MOGAI and others

Gender and Sexual Minorities

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 3#Gender and Sexual Minorities

LGBT Living & Weddings

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 3#LGBT Living & Weddings

Superstraight

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 pol#Super Straight. Rusalkii (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to /pol/#Super Straight. Tagging both because of inconsistence. --MikutoH talk! 02:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This seems to be the best target for readers to find out what this nonsense is actually about. It would be better if the /pol/ article had a subsection for this though rather than dropping the reader into the middle of a section which some might find confusing. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom and DanielRigal. It would be better if the /pol/ article had a subsection for this though rather than dropping the reader into the middle of a section... I've MOS:BOLDREDIRECTed the term, which should help. Carguychris (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2025 (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).

PD2

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 4#PD2

Optimistic nihilism

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. Rusalkii (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. This phrase isn't mentioned in the prose of any article, nor does Wiktionary have a page for it. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2025 (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).