Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 9, 2024.

黑鬼[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 Gweilo#Related terms. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally a redirect to Infernal Affairs II (which has a minor character by this name), was retargeted by me several years ago to The Black Ghosts (short story) as that's the original name in Chinese, and recently an IP editor from Ireland is edit warring to retarget it to Black people which is an inappropriate target per WP:RFFL; that article does not (and should not) contain a list of slurs in a bunch of languages spoken in countries which aren't even mentioned in that article.

The usage of this word itself is covered briefly at list of ethnic slurs and gweilo. I have no opinion except that this definitely shouldn't be a redirect to the current target nor a Wiktionary redirect. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to gweilo, possibly refined to gweilo#Related terms. I strongly agree that the current target is highly inappropriate. I kinda want to do something to help users looking for The Black Ghosts (short story), but I don't think a persistent hatnote at the top of gweilo would be appropriate... maybe a small note at the top of the Related terms section? Not sure. Might be best just to forget it in the end. Fieari (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to gweilo and probably get an admin to semiprotect it if someone edit wars over this redirect. Okmrman (talk) 14:56, 12 May 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).

Dendrolaelaps aberratus[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 💬 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autogenerated article based on one reference, which has now been deleted. Only is mentioned at the List of Dendrolaelaps species article. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, there are give-or-take 100 other dendrolaelaps articles in a near identical situation. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of Dendrolaelaps species as the relevant article that gives (admittedly, very little) information about each species. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 03:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notably, the only blue links on the page are (or at least should be) links to standalone articles, or are (currently inappropriate) unmentioned redirects to the main genus. If we don't have a dedicated article, a red link seems more appropriate in this instance. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, although deleting the redirect would remove the ability to reach the species list from somewhere else. Another proposal could be to unlink the redirects and red links from the species list page, leaving only blue links to actual species articles. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there would be a need to reach the species list from somewhere else. Per WP:REDYES and also via a lot of species' precedent, it's more useful to keep species that we have no content on as red links (instead of redirects). Someone who types in "dendrolaelaps aberratus" will already know that it is a species of the dendrolaelaps genus, so the list of dendropaelaps species list doesn't add benefit; a red link may be more beneficial to indicate a true lack of content for the specific species they searched for. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point actually, thanks! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:56, 13 May 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).

Qp pocket[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. ✗plicit 23:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Only mention is at famoxadone, where it is linked, but is not defined. Term would need to be defined somewhere for this to be a proper and useful redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:56, 12 May 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).

Electric Vehicle Associates[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. ✗plicit 23:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Vehicle Associates was a manufacturer of electric cars in the 1970s and 80s. The redirect currently has one incoming link, at AMC Pacer#Electric Pacers, because I replaced a link to de:Electric Vehicle Associates with an WP:ILL template. The company is also mentioned at EVcort, among other articles. Recommend deletion to resolve the WP:SELFRED and to encourage article creation. - Eureka Lott 22:46, 9 May 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).

PDFcast[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. ✗plicit 23:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this so called pdfcast that I hear about since I get literally nothing about it when I search it up. Okmrman (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Danbloch @Fieari Thoughts? Okmrman (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I found it. PDFcast is a filesharing service for PDFs, entirely unrelated to podcasting in any way, shape, or form. It does not appear to be sufficiently notable to create an article on it, or even mention it in any article, as it entirely lacks mention in any secondary source I can find. As such, I'd say it's best to simply delete this redirect outright. Fieari (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm unable to find sources bout this and it isn't mentioned in the target. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:56, 12 May 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).

Podguide[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. ✗plicit 23:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no mention Okmrman (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Search reveals this term has multiple ambiguous meanings, including "someone who guides you to find interesting podcasts", "a podcaster who acts as a guide for a hobby or task", "a podcast about travel", or even "the leader of a church youth group (which is called a pod by some churches?)". As a neologism, I could even imagine it being used to describe someone leading a dolphin-watch or whale-watch tour boat, or perhaps the leader dolpin/whale of a group of dolphins/whales. In any case, I don't think we have any information about whatever the hypothetical searcher is looking for, and while a lot of the uses of this word do seem related to podcasts in one way or another, we don't talk about these aspects of podcasting specifically. So chuck it. Fieari (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the only reliable source I'm able to find is this Bloomberg piece, which uses the term to refer to iHeartRadio's platform for travel podcasts. This could maybe be retargetted to List of travel podcasts. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fieari. There is no single agreed on definition, and no particularly common candidate among the different defs. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:52, 13 May 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).

Podcasting by traditional broadcasters[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. ✗plicit 23:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect does have some actual history but not even an ounce of it made it into the podcast article. Okmrman (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could be a potential restore. Okmrman (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not gonna decide until someone else does. Okmrman (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the subject is not notable, it isn't mentioned in the target, and there isn't a good article to retarget. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see a restore working. The old article was stale when it was replaced by a redirect in 2012, and has no citations (okay, one, but it's about a trivial point and the target is long gone). An interesting article could be written on this topic, but this isn't it. Dan Bloch (talk) 04:10, 13 May 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).

Podfade[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. ✗plicit 23:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Not mentioned in the podcast article and probably never will. Okmrman (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Slang term for a podcaster suddenly cancelling their podcast without announcement, warning, or explanation. As you say, we're not a dictionary, and someone searching us for the term won't learn what it is anyway. Fieari (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the few sources I'm able to find barely mention it. Looks like the term was defined in The New York Times, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:36, 12 May 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 radio stations with podcasts[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. ✗plicit 23:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Says list but no list Okmrman (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on my own discussion. There isn't really anything to say about this. I don't think the actual podcast article would go off rambling about how much radio stations use podcasts. Okmrman (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on my own discussion. Don't think this "list" would become notable anytime soon. Okmrman (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Oops didn't mean to reply twice Okmrman (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this could potentially be turned into a stand-alone list article at some point as a considerable number of podcasts have been created by radio stations, however, at the moment I'm unable to find sources that discuss these as a group or set and I don't see any retarget options. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:59, 12 May 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).

Podjack[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. ✗plicit 23:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at its edit history, it appears that someone was trying to use Wikipedia as some sort of dictionary. Looked through all the podcast article and can't find anything relating to the supposed definition. Okmrman (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ASAP This seems to be an actively harmful redirect, as when searching this term I found that some other online dictionaries have used wikipedia's redirect as an endorsement that this a synonym for podcast, and it isn't. Podjacking is apparently the act of hacking an iPod so that the hacker can futz with the target's playlist without the owner of the iPod being aware of it. As iPods are basically not a thing anymore, and the limited nature of what said hackers were able to do (oh no, my Beatles album playlist is now mixed with my Rolling Stones playlist! Whatever shall I do given that I already liked both of these albums enough to put them on my iPod?!?!) means that I doubt this term is enduring in any way... heck, when I was searching for the term, I was imagining it was more like hijacking a podcast or taking over the name of another podcast, but it's not, so... anyway. I'm rambling on too much now. Delete this as soon as possible, it appears to be actively harmful to other projects on this internet. Fieari (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not finding any reliable sources on this and it's not mentioned in the target. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:43, 12 May 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).

Podnography[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 History_of_podcasting#Podnography * Pppery * it has begun... 19:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missed that one. Whelp! Into the bin it goes. Okmrman (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear to be mentioned in history of podcasting. Still extremely skeptical since it is literally just made of a single sentence and with only one source. Okmrman (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm leaning towards delete and remove reference in History of podcasting as not really noteworthy. Okmrman (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to History of podcasting then due to reliable sources being added. Okmrman (talk) 22:01, 12 May 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).

ThinkFree Office[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. signed, Rosguill talk 17:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted because ThinkFree was spun off from Hancom in October 2023. ThinkFree Office is now a separate product under a separate company from Hancom Office.

There are several articles on the Internet where it is mentioned that Hancom Office was previously known as ThinkFree Office. Here are some of them: 1) https://softwarekeep.com/blogs/comparisons/compare-microsoft-office-vs-hancom and 2) https://www.softwareadvice.com/portal/thinkfree-office-profile/

You can also check the websites for each product to see that they are different: 1) https://thinkfree.com and 2) https://office.hancom.com Juanma281984 (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spinning off took place fairly recently and I guess many readers will still be searcng for ThinkFree office, which was once a notable term for Wikipedia, and then they'd be lost if we delete the redirect. — kashmīrī TALK 02:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The primary role of Wikipedia is to provide accurate information. It is crucial to clearly inform users that ThinkFree Office was sold as Hancom Office, instead of suggesting that ThinkFree Office is synonymous with Hancom Office. This distinction supports the encyclopedia’s commitment to factual accuracy. Each product license is sold individually, and on Wikipedia in Korea, these products are categorized as separate entities. It contravenes Wikipedia’s principles to obstruct the provision of distinct, accurate information on the ThinkFree Office page and redirect all content to Hancom Office. Providing a detailed account of ThinkFree Office’s unique history on its dedicated page aligns more closely with the public interest. Additionally, there is significant confusion at present, as individuals searching for ThinkFree Office often mistakenly believe it can be purchased from Hancom, or that it is a product of Hancom. It is necessary to address and rectify this misinformation Longtailmonkey (talk) 05:19, 13 May 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 Perpetual Virginity of Mary[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 Perpetual virginity of Mary. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently double redirects, as I just moved the target article to a more common name and one less likely to be confused with the teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary. I thought about changing the redirect to the latter article as more appropriate, but with the "the" at the beginning, I think it's not a very likely search term and not necessary; in the past 9 years (as far back as the pageviews analysis goes), the two redirects have gotten a combined total of 107 views. The current target (now a redirect) has gotten nearly 20K views in the same time period, so it should probably stay. Smdjcl (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to perpetual virginity of Mary - The page itself begins with the definite article, so it's definitely not unlikely someone would add the definite article when searching for the topic. Fieari (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both per Presidentman and Fieari. Adding the definite article in a common teaching seems way more plausible of an error than omitting a word from a way less known book title. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both per above. Plausible and harmless. No need for deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 19:18, 16 May 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 Decepticons[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. ✗plicit 23:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through its target, I see "factions" rather that types or list(s). Listing it here for a take on this. Intrisit (talk) 13:23, 9 May 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).

Category:21st-century African singers[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. ✗plicit 23:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page had been set to redirect to South African singers, but that redirect leads Template:singers by nationality and century category header to place all African singers into South Africa. Deletion would resolve the error. Mason (talk) 05:22, 9 May 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).

Inosine triphosphatase[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! 08:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect should be deleted, as it is incorrect - inosine and inositol are two different compounds, the enzymes in question are different and catalyze different reactions (inosine triphosphatase and inositol-polyphosphate 5-phosphatase). Enzymes are also [in this list], under numbers 3.6.1.73 and 3.1.3.56, clearly showing they're different. Reason apparently does not meet criteria for speedy deletion, so I am requesting here. KormiSK (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this one is very confusing, but apparently 'inosine triphosphatase' is an accepted synonym for 'inositol-polyphosphate 5-phosphatase' at the link you provide and also at the BRENDA/KEGG/IUBMB (etc.) databases. The enzyme described by EC 3.6.1.73 is called inosine/xanthosine triphosphatase, and shortening the name to 'inosine triphosphatase' is not recorded as an accepted synonym. I think it's fine to leave it at that for now, but I may find myself interested in seeing if this is some odd historical nomenclature artefact or maybe even an error in the databases later. ― Synpath 06:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 01:49, 9 May 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).

W2000[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 💬 09:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first result I get when google searching is Walther WA 2000. There is also Hercules W-2000. Okmrman (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Hercules W-2000 as the most likely target, with a seealso link at top to Walther WA 2000. "W2000" to refer to the OS isn't really a thing to my knowledge. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic? Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - disambiguation pages are not for manually compiled keyword search results. We have a search engine for that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget? Disambiguate? Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate for now per Presidentman's showing off of possible targets. May get deleted though in the future! Intrisit (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence any of the targets mentioned may be referred to as simply "W2000" so disambiguation is inappropriate. We do not have W-2000 and the correct WA 2000 already exists. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mdweman6, none of the targets are actually shortened to "W2000" (rather than similar keywords), so it doesn't warrant a disambiguation page. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 03:04, 10 May 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).

Wikipedia:ANI AUTISM IP[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! 08:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Unuseful redirect that goes to a very specific ANI case. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 00:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the previous RfD, it's used in some edit summaries, e.g. this one. That suggests it's at least marginally useful. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful to those reverting under its rationale. Not harmful, cheap, and actively useful somewhere. Fieari (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added the link to previous RFD and neglected to comment that I did. Skynxnex (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Feari, but may deleted though in the future! Intrisit (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Feari and WP:RFD#K4. We can't update links in edit summaries so we shouldn't break them. Nickps (talk) 14:04, 10 May 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_9&oldid=1225181871"