This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 26, 2024.
Stetson Bennett's final game
[edit]This is WP:CRYSTAL. Despite rumors of him leaving the game, Stetson Bennett is rostered on the Los Angeles Rams and has not announced retirement. -- Tavix (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
హిరోషిమా పీస్ మెమోరియల్ మ్యూజియం
[edit]As a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 26#టామ్బ్రా డీ, I am nominating the rest of the recently-created Telugu redirects by Abhiramakella with no affinity between the language and the subject. -- Tavix (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce Robinson (civil servant)
[edit]There is no mention of Bruce Robinson at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Lyric Theatre, Belfast. -- Tavix (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No content on this specific group at target. Could be retargeted to Heterotic string theory or similar articles related to the physical application. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Situation I haven't run into here: This was a BLAR to an article that does not currently mention the subject, but restoring the article would go against WP:NFF, which means there isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that the article would survive AfD. I think the best approach is restore article but draftify, which is the better way to incubate something in development hell anyways. (Normally I wouldn't take something to RfD just to !vote restore, since anyone can do that, but if I were to unilaterally restore and draftify I feel like that would be backdoor deletion of the redirect.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 00:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or AfD after restoration?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well, this is really two separate issues. The draft(s) can be restored and draftified, if desired. What needs to be determined here is: Are these appropriate titles to point (i.e redirect) to targets in the mainspace? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both per WP:NFF as the nom points out. This looks like a film that was shelved a long time ago. Unless there has been any recent updates there is no point in draftifying it because it'll just be deleted six months down the road. -- Tavix (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well we can't predict now whether there will be updates in the next six months. But even if there aren't, having deleted history be at a draftspace title is helpful for if the film does get made years from now, letting a future editor know that they can have it undeleted. And if that doesn't happen and it does just get G13'd and never undeleted, then we're no worse off. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 06:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was once a redirect to KWBT (FM), which used to use the KBCT call sign, but that article was redirected due to lack of notability. There is no mention of this at Infinity Sports Network, which became the target to avoid a double redirect, or at KWBT (FM)'s current target of List of radio stations in Texas. The KBCT call sign has since been reassigned to a new FM station in Missouri, but there's no notability there either (I just reverted an attempt to create a stub on it that ultimately did not overwrite this redirect). At this point I can't really see any further reason to retain this redirect in any capacity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bionic Bunny, et al.
[edit]Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
The target of all of these related redirects is a section that no longer exists in the target article. (These are all related to fictional characters or works within the fiction of the show itself — hence doubly fictional, which presumably is why the content didn't survive.) There doesn't seem to be anything relevant in the main Arthur (TV series) article, either. Nor in Marc Brown (author), our article for the author of the Arthur books. Propose deleting these unless some other appropriate target can be found. - dcljr (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki
[edit]Not recently created so doesn't fall under R3, but seems entirely implausible that someone would ever actually type this into their search bar. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Worth noting that despite its CamelCase name, it's less than a year old. Some historical cross-namespace redirects are kept, but new ones are discouraged. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Retracted due to new evidence below. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore history and keep there is a lot of deleted history here, with the earliest dating back to 2002, however the earliest history is now at Wikipedia:Why on Earth would I want to contribute to a wiki after history merging. However, this title was speedily deleted under G6, apparently unprompted (the last activity on the page was two years previously), by RHaworth in 2019. The rationale given was "created in the wrong namespace" but that is incorrect since it was originally created before namespaces existed (RHaworth was later desysopped, in part due to misuse of speedy deletion). This is getting a lot of his - over 200 so far this year even with none recorded for - so it's clearly still providing a useful function. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore history, keep, mark as historical. As per Thryduulf, this is a restoration of an old camelcase redirect that existed before namespaces was a thing. Let history remain preserved. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore history and keep per above. I'm not too sure how it would be marked historical though. Maybe it could be a soft redirect, or maybe ((R from historical name)) can be repurposed? Probably out of the scope of RFD. mwwv converse∫edits 16:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The rcat is ((R with old history)). 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Remedy as described above. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as historical with a note about the Wikipedia:Why on Earth would I want to contribute to a wiki histmerge. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Move without redirect to Wikipedia:WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki to get it out of the mainspace. No opinion otherwise about the edit history. Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It this were unused I could support that, but given the evidence of quite substantial use I have to oppose. Thryduulf (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or redirect to FitzGerald (surname). jnestorius(talk) 02:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Someone entering this title is probably looking for F. Scott Fitzgerald, but the omission doesn't seem to have affinity (AFAICT he was never referred to as "F. Fitzgerald"). If you search for "F. Fitzgerald", F. Scott Fitzgerald is the first result, so the redirect doesn't have much navigational value either. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Kablammo (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Very clearly the primary topic, and there are hatnotes to others who might be searched for. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Thruduulf. It does not lack affinity, by the way, as excluding a middle name is a reasonable thing to do in many cases. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused. Isn't "this modification could just as well apply to a vast number of other titles" the definition of "lacks affinity"? jlwoodwa (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jlwoodwa: Affinity applies to things like a period at the end of a title, being in quotes, etc. In other words, an error that could apply to almost absolutely any title. A title without a middle name only applies to names, and furthermore only names including a middle name. It is always reasonable to leave out a middle name for a redirect, as long as there is no ambiguity in what's covered (or there is a primary topic as in this case). I would support that every single time. I would not support every single title having a redirect from that title in quotes or with a full stop at the end and so forth. Affinity is in regard to much broader variants, not specific ones like this. This situation clearly does not apply to every title (or a vastly broad enough swath of titles). Even if it did, it would still be appropriate all the time, rendering affinity double moot. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Does seem to be occasionally used in product listings and non-RS. If there were usage of the term to refer to anyone else, that low-quality usage wouldn't be weighted very strongly, but the only search results I see are spurious ones about John F. Fitzgerald. (The sources still write out the entirety of "John F. Fitzgerald"; Google just includes them because the substring matches.) Limited usage trumps no usage, so keep. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RfD#D8/WP:RFOREIGN. This is a transliteration of Tom Brady in Telugu script, but Tom Brady is not a subject related to the Telugu language. SilverLocust 💬 02:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per nom. A redirect in Telugu is just not relevant to Brady. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]