Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 30

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 30, 2025.

Somewhere on the Waterloo to Weymouth route

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 19:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The only place on the internet I can find this phrase is at Speed records in rail transport, where the redirect is linked. While the South West Main Line is the Waterloo to Weymouth route this seems very unlikely as a search term. Waterloo to Weymouth route by itself would be a better redirect, though I'd just pipe it. Rusalkii (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Waterloo–Weymouth line maybe, but even Waterloo to Weymouth route is a stretch in my opinion. Seems the redirect being discussed is just for one use where Somewhere on the [[Waterloo–Weymouth line]] would be best. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 11:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
I did not create any new redirects, but I have piped it to the target at the Speed records page. Jay 💬 08:14, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't think even Waterloo to Weymouth route is a particularly good redirect and was not suggesting creating it, just that it would've been better in this case and I probably wouldn't have RfDed it. Rusalkii (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
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).

Paris Black Friday

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 9#Paris Black Friday

2005 Brussels NATO summit

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 8#2005 Brussels NATO summit

Fraysexuality (main article)

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 04:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Implusible redirect. GZWDer (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Who has time to type "(main article)"? drinks or coffee ᶻ 𝗓 𐰁 ₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ 08:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Target subject is not about a type of article (though the target article is about a subject ... like all articles are). Steel1943 (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment we had Fraysexuality, which was merged to Gray asexuality following a BLAR in April. Fraysexuality (main article) was created June 25th as a translation from Porteguese, and then promptly BLARed. I personally think we're pretty clearly good to delete this, as it has been judged not notable at AfD, but opinions may vary on what to do with the history. Rusalkii (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
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).

Eternal Liquid (album)

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 14:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the target or elsewhere. Page was at this title for a few minutes before being moved by the creator. I strongly suspect this is a weird translation artifact, as the word for Jew ("жид") used in the title of the album is the first half of the Russian word for liquid ("жидкость"). Literally translated, the album title would be "Eternal Jew", the Russian name for the Wandering Jew myth. Rusalkii (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

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 akron hammer

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 both. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Neither of these phrases are mentioned in the target article. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:747C:71B6:4CA5:979 (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC) *Redirect to List of nicknames in basketball#L where they're mentioned. (By the way, I did notice those redirects before and thought about nominating them myself.) Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to the list, or is "the l-train" ambiguous?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
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).

daisy, lily, and violet

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 14:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

on top of being unmentioned and minor, that's an extremely vague title... is what i would say, if they weren't seemingly the primary topic for those exact words in that exact order from a quick look. still unmentioned and minor, though, and i found nothing reliable for their inclusion in the list of anime characters consarn (grave) (obituary) 19:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom Thepharoah17 (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
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).

Nile Canal

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 14#Nile Canal

National railway

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 National Railways. Jay 💬 11:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

A national railway is an example of something that might be (but isn't always) a state-owned enterprise. Railways are mentioned a couple of times as examples, but never using this exact phrase. National Railway was a railroad planned in the USA in the 1870s and National Railways lists multiple other entities that have similar names so I don't think this is a good redirect as it stands, I'm unsure whether National Railway or National Railways would be the better target (both link to each other, but neither link to the current target). I don't support deletion as (a) this has been around since 2010 and (b) there isn't anything relevant the search engine finds that isn't the current target or listed at National Railways so search results would be unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

What about redirecting to Railway nationalisation? 135.23.202.10 (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this, and while I can see the connection (and have added it as a see also at National Railways) and it is probably better than the status quo, I'm not certain that it's unambiguously the correct target. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
After more thinking, I'm notnow certain that I do not support railway nationalisation as the target, including for the reasons articulated by Mangoe below. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC) incorrect word fixed Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Retarget To Railway nationalisation. A National Railway sounds like it would be organised and owned by a national level government Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget to National Railways and rearrange entries there so that both National Railway and railway nationalisation are at the top of their sections. State-owned enterprise is a bad target in any case, and Ieel that someone doing this searching is more likely looking to find out about something that is a "national railway" and less likely to be looking to find out about the process of how we got nationalized railroads; and even so, there's a link to the latter on the disambiguation page. Mangoe (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
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).

George Fitcher

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 11#George Fitcher

KineMaster

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 restore. Jay, consarn, Thryduulf, Pppery, Tavix, Joseph2302, mwwv: pinging all participants so you can do whatever it is you think is appropriate now that it is back in mainspace. Note that I am restoring the content from the second-to-last BLAR, as the most recent one was this title being usurped by a completely unrelated movie. Rusalkii (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Redirected to a section that doesn't contain text "KineMaster" was removed by MrOllie. OOCJZ (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Restore and AfD. Jay 💬 07:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the page was BLARed a few months ago. The most recent article content is at Special:Permalink/1287035406.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • delete without opposition to recreation. the extremely few sources across all previous diffs were of debatable everything, not limited to reliability, usability, and existence. the content of the diffs that weren't vandalism was also pretty promotional, so i couldn't see it sticking in mainspace for long. however, i did actually find some sources that seem to be potentially useful, so it can likely be recreated if someone's in the mood consarn (grave) (obituary) 11:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Restore without prejudice to AfD. Where sources exist and need detailed consideration that is far outside the scope of RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Analysis of sources should be something that is encouraged at RfD, not shunned. I would love for someone to present sources here, which could help me decide to restore and/or rescue it and avoid an additional deletion discussion at AfD. -- Tavix (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
to this day, i don't know what policies would discourage checking sources here, especially when it's actively beneficial to the discussion consarn (grave) (obituary) 01:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
right, it would probably be a good idea to plop some sources here so i can have a look at them later
i can't guarantee they're reliable enough to bypass the deprecated source filter, but that's something i'm going to worry myself with when i'm out of work
again, i'll try to have a look at those later, and i doubt more than two of them will be reliable, but it's better to play it unsafe and at least prove that there's something to consider for anyone willing to recreate
and i should clarify that doesn't change my vote to delete, as the pre-blar content is just Not Good™, so it should be recreated entirely, which i can't guarantee anyone will be willing to do consarn (grave) (obituary) 11:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Re investigating sources here and not AfD, this is not explicitly prohibited but really should be to stop these repetitive arguments for bypassing the point of having separate deletion discussion venues for articles and redirects. The substantive content at this title is the article, not the redirect, so discussion about it should happen at the venue all our policies, guidelines and conventions indicate is the place that deletion of articles is discussed: AfD. If we encourage and normalise playing fast and loose with these things (as here) then we have no standing to uphold proper process at other times (e.g. when proper process would be preferential to your POV).
If you want to abolish the AfD/RfD split, then go ahead and propose doing that and if it gains consensus I'll help implement it. However what I won't do is quietly go about implementing it ad hoc by the backdoor because one or two editors dislike the split for some reason. Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
"not explicitly prohibited" works for me consarn (grave) (obituary) 17:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Just because something is not explicitly prohibited does not mean that it is recommended, a good idea, or even allowed. After all we don't explicitly prohibit many things that we don't endorse because it has never previously been an issue - which this wasn't until bees found their way into bonnets about doing things at RfD that nobody previously considered relevant to RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
a little late, but this really isn't a reason to prohibit nomming blars (especially when it's been blar'd as spam, unsourced, and vandalism) or checking sources here, and i don't think explicitly saying that they're permitted would require merging rfd and afd. if something goes to afd, we check sources on it while treating it as an article, with the possibility of coverage not being significant or reliable enough to keep it. if it goes to rfd, we check sources on it and its relation to the target while treating it as a redirect, with the possibility of coverage being significant or reliable enough to make it an article. it's not a backdoor procedure, it's not bees taking a page from the wasp scout handbook, and it's absolutely not a matter of competence or lack thereof, it's standard fare for editing wikipedia
hell, it's not even like sources need to be explicitly brought up or presented for people to go check, they'll ideally do that regardless to determine what to do with any given page consarn (grave) (obituary) 23:38, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm normally in favor of restoring in cases like this, but here there's no need to restore unsourced spam. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless someone wants to provide evidence of notability. -- Tavix (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Striking until I have time to review Consarn's sources. -- Tavix (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Restore the fact that sources have been presented about by consarn suggests that this needs a proper, full discussion to determine notability. Which is the purpose of AFD not RFD- RFD should not be being used for "back door" deletions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
    i still don't think it's worth restoring. maybe having those sources here will help someone who finds the rationale, but restoring one of however many extremely problematic diffs will do the exact opposite of helping consarn (grave) (obituary) 17:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Restore per Joseph. It's best to send this to the guys over at AfD, RfD isn't designed for deciding notability when there's tons of sources to look over. mwwv converse∫edits 17:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
a little late, but here are my opinions on the sources, with the caveat that i may as well be pulling reliability estimates out of my ass and should not be treated as possessing an authoritative opinion
  • the koreatimes ones seem unambiguously reliable
  • aside from the indecipherable glyphs, the tudocelular review seems... shallow? insubstantial? it's probably usable, but... bleh, i'm not feeling it
  • pr newswire... paragraph about how cool and awesome and worth it kinemaster is... nah, not seeing any advertisement-shaped suspicious details here. probably usable for an uncontroversial statement about numbers and stuff, but not a word more
  • wooper is cute, the main page should honestly just redirect to it
  • the first yahoo one is boring. reliable, sure, but boring
  • the kxan one seems... oh my black goat of the woods with a thousand young, it seems usable
  • same for the techradar ones, i'm honestly willing to call them the best the article could have, and it's likely not even close
  • no opinion on prweb, i think my brain turned off for a few minutes when looking at it...
  • the second yahoo finance one is an ad
  • the creative bloq review isn't a blog, wow. it's probably even also usable
  • second pr newswire source, same verse as first... is what i would say, if it was about kinemaster in the first place. i don't know, maybe it can be used for saying that it's compatible with nexstreaming?
  • the gizbot one seems almost usable for a short claim about kinemaster not being chinese, but why would we even have that?
again, not the slightest bit confident in my overly generous evalutation, but for now, my vote will remain a strong return to red. sources exist and are likely reliable, but i actually fell asleep checking some of those sources, so i'm not exactly expecting other people to be giddy for a chance to work on it consarn (grave) (obituary) 23:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  • All of these sourcing issues are beside the point; the article you want to restore is speedyable as G11. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
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).

Kyoto, JP, KY

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 💬 15:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Appears to be misplaced, should be "Kyoto, KY, JP" A1Cafel (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete. There's no place called "Kyoto, JP" in Kentucky. Steel1943 (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. To the best of my knowledge, "KY" is not used with any frequency as an abbreviation for "Kyoto Prefecture". Dekimasuよ! 22:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
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).

لندن

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. Complex/Rational 03:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we need an Arabic redirects for London, since Arabic is not a common language in UK A1Cafel (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete per WP:FORRED drinks or coffee ᶻ 𝗓 𐰁 ₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ 14:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Delete, be bold next time Easternsahara (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
not possible, as the nom isn't an admin consarn (grave) (obituary) 16:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Even admins can delete only CSDs without discussion. Jay 💬 14:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
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).

Glizzy

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 10#Glizzy

2025 Iranian strikes

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 10#2025 Iranian strikes

Family guy catchphrases

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. Complex/Rational 03:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Not mentioned in target. While there a lot of hits for this character saying this I can't find a source I'd actually want use to add to the article. Also, I think the character only actually says this once? Not sure of that one, but it's a bit of a reach for a catchphrase if so. Rusalkii (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

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).

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI