Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 3

September 3
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 3, 2021.

Southeast Asian temple
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  00:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Southeast Asian temple → Temple (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Poor redirect from specific wording to overly broad target. Doesn't seem to be a good target; the term could refer to wat, candi of Indonesia, etc. Doesn't seem worth disambiguating, so suggest deleting unless someone thinks otherwise. Paul_012 (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Winston (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as there are temples in Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc., so there will be multiple targets like Buddhism in Southeast Asia and Hinduism in Southeast Asia, and a target such as Southeast Asia would still be broad.  Jay (Talk) 20:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as vague. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Official reports
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  00:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Official reports → Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

While the source this targets is very near and dear to my heart, I have to admit that the current target is most certainly not the primary topic, especially at this capitalization. Hog Farm Talk 20:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very dear to my heart as well, but I agree with the nom this is far too vague for its current target. Unless anyone has any suggestions for a sufficiently encompassing target, it is also probably too vague/broad to attempt a disambiguation page, so deletion seems best. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. This could refer to innumerable official reports, including e.g. Norwegian Official Report, and any number of air accident investigations such as 2002 Überlingen mid-air collision. Narky Blert (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that there is one incoming mainspace link to deal with. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's significant that the sole mainspace link appears to be referring to this in the generic sense. (Although its confused a bit by this target being a collection of official reports). Hog Farm Talk 00:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mdewman6. Winston (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as ambiguous and potentially confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

I am always right attitude
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 11%23I am always right attitude

Białcz (dizambiguation)
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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.  Speedily deleted by Materialscientist per WP:G7.  Molandfreak   (talk,   contribs,  email) 22:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Białcz (dizambiguation) → Białcz (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Implausible misspelling; and if linked (as it was when I found it), the result will be a WP:INTDAB error. Narky Blert (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (Since deleted per WP:G7.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

WP:Other stuff exists
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 02:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * OTHER → Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * OSE → Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Otherstuffexists → Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * OTHERSTUFFEXISTS → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * OTHERSTUFF → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Other Stuff Exists → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * OTHERSTUFFEXIST → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * OtherStuffExists → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Other stuff → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Ose → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * OTHER STUFF EXISTS → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * OTHERSTUFFEXITS → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Other → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Other Stuff → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Other stuff exists → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]


 * Other stuff exist → Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

I hope this isn't too controversial or turns into a trainwreck, but these should all target the essay that actually has "other stuff exists" in its title. The section at the deletion discussion essay, as implied by its section heading, is really addressing whataboutism arguments, which are weak in deletion debates as each article should usually be judged on its own merits, but in other contexts such as here at Rfd and for consistency in article titles, "other stuff exists" examples can have high precedential value as we seek to be consistent across the encyclopedia and treat analogous things analogously. The "other stuff exists" essay does a good job of teasing this apart while also relating and linking back to the concept applied to the deletion context. So, while many users who link-drop some form of WP:OSE in discussions think of it negatively and in the deletion-discussion sense, users actually following those links would be best served (at least outside of AfD) by being brought to the actual OSE essay. Those who actually wish to point to the section at the deletion essay can use one of the handful of other redirects that target that section. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: So as to not interrupt the use of any of these redirects, I have not tagged them with the RfD template. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete OTHER and Other, they are far too general and should not be shortcuts. Retarget the rest to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I agree with the idea these should all share a target, but disagree on which. The "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" essay is viewed five to six times more frequently than the "other stuff" essay (in the last 90 days, 28 average daily pageviews for "arguments to avoid" vs. 5 for "other stuff exists") and should be the target of all of these. This also supports my anecdotal notion that editors are meaning to refer to the deletion debate essay when they use these shortcuts, and that notion is supported (weakly I admit) by the number of shortcuts that exist: there are 40 shortcuts redirecting to the "what about article x?" section while only 3 shortcuts point to "other stuff exists", and the essays were created within a few months of each other nearly 15 years ago. "What about article x" also already has a prominent hatnote to the more general and less-viewed essay. Long-term, I think the solution here is for ATA to evolve into an essay on arguments to avoid in general, as many of the points made here apply to discussions about content anywhere, rather than the narrow scope of article deletion. But that's a discussion for a different venue. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Retarget . Concur with Ivanvector's squirrel in all reasoning, with one exception: turn WP:Other->WP:OTHER into a disambig page, because other stuff exists :-), see & . An additional reason is that it is not good to turn a redirect into a redlink, because it is in use in hundreds of pages and may be used in page  histories. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've gone ahead and tagged all of these for RfD - none were tagged until now (so procedurally, the discussion should not be closed until seven days from now). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 08:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (Re-)Target all to the AADD page as per above. I was surprised to see OSE doesn't actually currently target there; I'm afraid the bold redirect of these widley used shortcuts wasn't a great move. There's also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but that seems to be heading to the right place for the time being. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Target to AADD per Ivanvector, except for WP:OTHER which should be either deleted or turned into a disambig. The reality is that the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is such a common rebuttal in deletion discusions, and has been for (by my measure) something like fifteen years, shows that it has significant support.  Redirecting OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to the essay is a problem because the essay was plainly written, in part, to critique that (common, widely-accepted, and extremely longstanding) position, ie. the essay spends huge amounts of its text arguing that it's sometimes valid to make OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, when the people who use the link are almost unformly going to intend to point to the much more well-known and more broadly accepted essay that discourages them. I do think that it could be useful to eventually have it point to a broader essay that isn't just about deletion discussions (in my experience OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not just cited in deletion discussions, but in any sort of discussion where other articles are used as arguments), but it simply isn't reasonable to have WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS point to an essay that largely says the opposite of what the people linking to it intend. Basically, the link redirects need to point to the argument that people who link to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are most likely trying to invoke (so people unfamiliar with it can read up on it and decide how to respond to it), not to an essay that disagrees with it. Strenuously oppose any of these pointing to When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments - it is a very controversial essay with low acceptance, and not one that many editors are likely to attempt to refer to via a shortcut, especially not these shortcuts in particular. --Aquillion (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * All targeted to the AADD page as per abov while Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments should be linked from the AADD page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I dislike shortcut disambiguations (shortdabs?), if a shortcut is too vague to refer to one project topic specifically then it's not a good shortcut. However, the OTHER shortcuts are frequently used. Rather than disambiguate, I would suggest they be treated the same as the others; hatnotes at that section can deal with disambiguation, and/or we can add one that loads the prefixed Wikipedia:Other search results (see Lembit Staan's comment above). Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Demba Jarju
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 The Gambia at the 2016 Summer Paralympics. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 17:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Demba Jarju → The Gambia at the 2016 Summer Paralympics (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Delete to encourage article creation. Jarju competed in 2012 and 2016, and is linked at both The Gambia at the 2012 Summer Paralympics and The Gambia at the 2016 Summer Paralympics. So makes no sense to redirect him to the 2016 article Joseph<b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that his biog is there. But this is trivial. Delete the redirect if you think its better. Victuallers (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Refine to The Gambia at the 2016 Summer Paralympics where the reader sees what they want to see: some information about Jarju. — &thinsp;J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Refine per J947. The 2016 article gives everything one would want to know about the athlete, including a link to the 2012 article should someone want to learn about his previous Paralympic appearance. WP:NOLYMPICS states that Paralympic athletes need to have medaled for notability, which Jarju has not done, so we should not be deleting to encourage article creation. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Stellar skateboard
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 01:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Stellar skateboard → Stellan Skarsgård (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Joke redirect, frequent vandalism target at Stellan Skarsgård; not a plausible mispronuncation, as the edit summary in the creation of this redirect purports. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Winston (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Stereotpyic behaviour in giraffes
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 15%23Stereotpyic behaviour in giraffes

List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one debuts
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 05:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one debuts → List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This redirect pointed to a section in List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones that has now been removed from that article. User removed the section with this edit, stating that "Number-one debuting songs is becoming very common nowadays in streaming era and it tends towards WP:RECENTISM ...". That view I tend to agree with myself, especially with the way number-one debuts on the Billboard Hot 100 have exploded over the past couple of years (12 of them in 2020 alone, tripling the previous record of four in both 1995 and 2018, not to mention the 8 so far this year). I can't say what the future holds for number-one debuts on the Hot 100; it might very well continue to produce the volume of this year and last, bringing the overall total of these debuts (going all the way back to September 1995) to well over 100 by the late 2020s. I struggle to see the significance of a lot of these number-one debuts; many have achieved this thru, as Bluesatellite pointed out, streaming ... which during their opening week of release can be enough to propel them into the number-one spot, and frequently has. This is the nature of the Hot 100 today, not back in the 1990s when the likes of Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston and Mariah Carey setting the bar high was much more of a milestone. So I back the removal in the above article, though it leaves this redirect. What should we do with it? Turn it into its own article with all the Hot 100 number-one debuts or simply delete it? MPFitz1968 (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Debuting at number one seems more and more trivial in today's music industry. It's not the 1990s, when it was considered special achievement to enter the singles chart at number one. It's similar to albums chart prior to SoundScan. Back in the 1980s, it's not common for an album to debut at number one on the Billboard 200, but now nearly all number-one albums achieved the position in the first week. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

AgroFair
<span id="Oké bananas"> Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 15%23AgroFair

Jusched
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 05:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Jusched → Java (software platform) (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Not mentioned at target, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep - starting from around the late 90's (roughly contemporary with Windows XP, as I recall), Java Update SCHEDuler was an update reminder application for the Java runtime environment software that ran in the background (or as a service, maybe) whenever Java was installed. It did periodically check for and download updates, but those updates often also shipped with bloatware (the Yahoo! toolbar and McAfee antivirus were famous ride-alongs) which it would then automatically install, and it sometimes also did things like change your default search engine. It was also so poorly coded that it leaked memory for the entire time that it ran, until it eventually consumed enough system resources to crash the host computer. In other words it behaved in all practical ways like a trojan horse virus, to the point that some antivirus softwares actually detected it as a virus and quarantined it, and there are numerous surviving blogs (here's one from 2018) about how to "remove the jusched.exe virus". We don't seem to have any information about it at the target article, but that is the right article for this to point to. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 01:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: This term is not mentioned in the target article. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 08:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As is seen by following the link kindly given, that is not in and of itself a valid deletion rationale. — &thinsp;J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The redirect is not useful without Ivan's explanation. So unless we have something on this utility, just like the Java (software platform) section which mentions Ask.com and McAfee, Delete.  Jay (Talk) 20:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.