Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 12

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) Captain Galaxy (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 9th Air Cavalry Brigade (Provisional) → 9th Cavalry Regiment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

In accordance with WP:R#DELETE, point 10, "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." The 9th Cavalry Regiment page does not mention the '9th Air Cavalry Brigade (Provisional)' at all, and this redirect hampers the encouraging effect of a redlink-to-create-articles in the same situation. I would like the redirect deleted. I will notified Gavbadger formally but have already posted on his talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The referenced information is now in the article with information regarding the formation and organization of the brigade. Gavbadger (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My !vote remains Delete. The redirect does not really lead to any reasonable description. Any search can find the three fragmentary sentences which have now been added about the brigade's establishment. As far as I can see with difficulty on Google Snippet View, this editor responding owns a book which covers the brigade over three plus pages - surely more can be added. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep given that this term is now referenced in the target. Polyamorph (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Paned window (computing). This is a confusing discussion to follow because the situation has changed several times during the course of the discussion. We now have a revamped article at Paned window (computing) (and renamed from Paned window). While the term "edit pane" wasn't mention there for a while after that, it now has a mention thanks to JHunterJ. I now believe any significant concerns about this redirect have been resolved (mine have, at least). That being said, if there are any lingering concerns, it would be best to start afresh with a new nomination rather than continue to leave this open. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit pane → Windowpane  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, which is a dab page. I'm honestly not sure what the intent behind this redirect was. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget Edit pane → Paned window. I was one stop before the final target. It is used for references in multipane windows, where a pane is used for edition, to give help information, mainly for the newbies.--BoldLuis (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BoldLuis, retarget to where? We don't have an article titled Multipane windows and it's not clear what else you may be referring to. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill Now, I retarged to the right article Paned window (It was a fault by me, because I though I was corrected it, but ended a step before it; things of corona stress, sorry). BoldLuis (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't really see how that suggestion is a useful redirect, "edit pane" is still not mentioned at that target, and I'm not sure that the computing section is entirely due to boot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a discussion, it is a talk. You can see edit pane mentioned in (this is only and example):

It was only a way to help people to know what edit pane means (newbies). It you do not see it clear, delete it. I do not think why I complex my life help unkown people (perhaphs, because I was helped when I was a newbie, I dunno). The target article (window pane) was not written be me (I would not write it that way, mixing real and computing windows, but this is a Wikipedia consensus, I think). BoldLuis (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per BoldLuis. --Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 16:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wiktionary defines a computing "pane" as A layer in the build-up of a GUI. GUI=Graphic User Interface. Searching the web, I found no general definition of an "edit pane". It appears to be used in at least two senses: The first is to refer to a panel in a software's display window that has parameters that can be set to change the effects of edits. Example would be the tool-bar in Word for Windows. The other usage is as a place were edits are made prior to being executed by the programme, much like the edit tab in Wikipedia, except as a "pane" that leaves the original open while editing takes place. And BoldLuis seems to be talking about other kinds as well. Since the proposed new target Paned window#Computing lacks any citation to reliable sources, and since finding them may be exceedingly difficult, and defining "edit pane" may be fruitless, I am wondering about the utility of any redirect. I have posted a notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing. I hope they can help.  --Bejnar (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Solving an additional problem. The problem was in the pane window article. I include sources https://www.computerhope.com/jargon/p/pane.htm (includes the preview pane), https://www.thefreedictionary.com/window-pane (computers A rectangular area on a screen in which a document, database, or application can be viewed independently of the other such areas.), PC Mag Encyclopedia: https://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/pane , https://www.definitions.net/definition/window and so on. BoldLuis (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom comment, I remain unconvinced by arguments made by BoldLuis. This redirect is a solution in search of a problem. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bejnar. While the word does have some use, the phrase has no discussion on Wikipedia so we would be redirecting to a dead end no matter where we point this. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Paned window (computing). Thanks User:BoldLuis for the revamp. Deryck C. 13:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Paned window (computing) per Deryck. Despite the lack of mention on the page, it would make more sense to move it there and WP:CHEAP. Captain Galaxy (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Paned window (computing) per Deryck and Captain Galaxy. No other option makes any sense to me. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tavix. It comes down to which is more likely for a reader using this search term: (1) they don't know what a pane is in this context, so the redirect provides some help, or (2) they're looking for specific information about an edit pane, and the results confuse and condescend to them. I believe the latter is more likely (and don't think it's an especially likely search term either way). --BDD (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The target page doesn't provide information about "edit panes", so this redirect is potentially confusing and unlikely to help readers. Not a very active user (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't know what an edit pane is. The most likely-looking entry on the DAB page is Paned window (computing) (which wasn't on the DAB page pane until I added it just now). I read that, and still don't know what an edit pane is.

Note: paned window, which has been suggested as a target, is a redirect to DAB page windowpane. That would not be allowed unde WP:2REDIR; and a bot would be along within minutes to fix the error by retargetting to windowpane. Narky Blert (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The situation is not the same as it was the first time. Several "relist" were done, and someone is mislead because the talk was cut in several sections. Before, I put some examples about its use:

Here you can see an edit pane it is part or section (pane) in the window, dedicated to the edition; other panes can be dedicated to other functions, as the preview pane (this happens in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects).

Surprisingly, I see the same talk again and again. I looks like circle pane, as appears from time to time. Several editions were done to delete the information about what an edit pane is in the target page. I am proud a poor page about the topic was greatly improved. It the objective is delete the redirect without arguments and changing the target page, delete it. But this was not the result in the preceding listing. Brave for democracy. ;-)17:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoldLuis (talk • contribs)

BoldLuis, since you've now made two bolded votes in this discussion, I recommend you strike through your previous one. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to paned window (computing). I added a sentence about edit pane there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Governmental interference → Economic interventionism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This term could refer to government intervention in any sphere, not just the economy. Top results for this term on Google Scholar include interference with religious organizations ([1]), water rights ([2]), higher education ([3]) and elections ([4]). I would suggest deletion due to the broadness of the term. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as ambiguous per nom. Government interference in what? Education? Access to healthcare? Business operations? Wikipedia, even? Any way, we don't have a clear primary topic for this term to go to. Regards, SONIC678 20:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom BlackholeWA (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This rediredct is ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Economic interventionism can be done by economic powers, also.BoldLuis (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all others. When I saw the redirect title, my first thought was it referred to external interference in government itself. This is too ambiguous. WP:XY.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is very confusing, not a good redirect. --Xannir (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 retarget to 2018 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 2018 Wimbledon Championships - Men's Singles → The Championships, Wimbledon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Deletion because the 2018 Wimbledon Championship contains specific information for that tournament whereas the page it is redirected to (The Championships, Wimbledon) is an overview from about 130 individual tournaments and does not contain any information about the specific tournament from 2018. MattRigby5 (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to 2018 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles as a {{R from modification}}: this redirect does not contain the endash. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per JalenFolf. Personally, I think this emdash/endash distinction in titles is a confounded nuisance. It results in mismatches like this one. Narky Blert (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per JalenFolf. Note that Anomie has a bot request open related to hyphen/en-dash mismatches, although I'm unsure if it will cover this situation. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 80. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would cover this example. Pretty much any redirect created by AnomieBOT with a summary along the lines of "Redirecting to [[...]] because titles with en-dashes are hard to type" would be covered. Anomie⚔ 18:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per JalenFolf. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Jalen Folf. Plausible redirect, absolutely no reason for deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Those who want to keep the redirect do so because they think content can or should be added to the article. Weeks later, this still hasn't happened, so I'm defaulting to delete based on the current state of the article. Should a mention be added, feel free to recreate or restore. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Vyrl → SM Entertainment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, internet search results don't suggest a connection between Vyrl and the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as confusing, if there's no mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is actually a connection between Vyrl and the target. Vyrl was a "social networking site" developed by SM Entertainment. It appears to be discontinued currently though. Sources:

1. SM Entertainment to launch photo-sharing app
2. Vyrl Official Website
3. Vyrl PR Video (Girls’ Generation) (a PR video released on Youtube on Sm Entertainment's official Youtube channel.
4. https://www.smentertainment.com/LifeStyle/Ces

--CountHacker (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • @CountHacker: But unless the gist of this appears in the article a redirect to the article is confusing and gets a delete opinion from me. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this thing, and add a mention (and sources) to the target article. If it can plausibly be expanded into an article, though, delete it to encourage creating that article. Regards, SONIC678 17:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. CrazyBoy826 16:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if you add the relevant information into the article. --Xannir (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, with no objections to recreation once such content is added. This is a classic RfD standoff where the only point of contention is the topic's lack of mention. Easy enough to resolve in principle, but we're approaching three weeks of discussion now. I believe this "delete without prejudice" outcome is most reasonable at this point. There's no significant redirect history, so we really don't lose anything this way. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 article. This is a thorny close, as there's no consensus between restoring the article and either merging or deleting it to the target. Given the available options, I think that the best compromise is to restore the article, without prejudice against either a merge (following the necessary research to figure out what and where to merge) or a renomination for AfD. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• National Democrats (Norway) → Norwegian Patriots  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no indication in the target article that this party was known by this title, which is ambiguous (see National Democrats (Norway, 1991)) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to encourage article creation. The first revision of the redirect says this was another party that formed in 2006 and in 2007 merged with the one that the target article centers on. I did find a copy of the article on enacademic.com, which lists some sources. If it can't plausibly be expanded into an article, merge any relevant history if it's deleted. Regards, SONIC678 14:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and revert from redirect to article. When a redirect was made, an article about a political party was deleted. Such a deletion should be conducted after an AFD discussion, or not at all. Geschichte (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore article, which was arbitrarily blanked and redirected in 2015. It might not survive WP:AFD (the Norwegian equivalent no:Nasjonaldemokratene doesn't fill me with confidence), though merging into Norwegian Patriots might be an outcome - but it should at least be given its opportunity there. Narky Blert (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Citation is needed that "National Democrats" is the same as the Norwegian Patriots. I googled "Norway National Democrats" and the first 2 result I got were Democrats in Norway and National Democrats (Norway, 1991). There is no clear distinction that "National Democrats" and "Norwegian Patriots" are the same or successive identities. Even non-wikipedia source results I got were not definitive. Alternatively, make it into a disambiguation page if required. -- Tytrox (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with target: I don't think the old version identified above meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG, but it does contain a (very small) amount of content not present in the target article. Throwing this over the fence to AfD is tempting, but both articles are so trivial that I'm not sure it's worth an extra round of bureaucracy. This would literally be one extra sentence at the target article. --NYKevin 07:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Even parity → Parity bit  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Parity (mathematics). The term does not only apply to parity bits. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget, even parity is a broader concept than just bits. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above. I was introduced to the usefulness of parity by a Martin Gardner article in the 1960s. Narky Blert (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is - all of the articles that use this redirect refer to the Parity bit use of the term. We can add a {{redirect}} hatnote to Parity bit to help those who arrive by search looking for Parity (mathematics). ~Kvng (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kvng: Comment: There are only 11 links, which can easily be corrected. The more general use is clearly more common. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. 11 links-in is a trivial number. I've seen DAB pages with over 3,000 bad links-in after a justified change of some sort. Narky Blert (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: if the Parity (mathematics) target is more common, you should be able to identify more than 11 Even parity links that should point there. There are none at the moment. ~Kvng (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: this is not about how many links we have to fix. The 11 links are not bad, they indicate that the current redirect is useful as it is and does not need to be changed. ~Kvng (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: They seem to have been added^exception by the same person^exception. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you could say they were added by three different IP addresses over a 10-year period. That doesn't sound like a concerted campaign that I assume you're trying to make a case for here. Have you identified anywhere in the encyclopedia that would want to use the Even parity redirect for Parity (mathematics)? ~Kvng (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand your question, but I searched for it thinking it would redirect to the general mathematical topic. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AES3 has a link to Even parity and is referring to an even Parity bit. There are 10 other similar examples. Are there places in the encylopedia where the mention of even parity is referring to Parity (mathematics)? ~Kvng (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I you can't find any such examples then I think we'd have to conclude that, for practical purposes and contrary to your stated reason for wanting to change this, the term does only apply to Parity bit. ~Kvng (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:COMMONNAME. Nobody calls the property of being even "even parity"; that is almost always referred to as evenness. "Even parity" is much more likely to refer to the parity bit usage. --NYKevin 23:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above BlackholeWA (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 20:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Th Canis Majoris → Theta Canis Majoris  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Th Capricorni → Theta Capricorni  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Th Carinae → Theta Carinae  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Meaningless abbreviation added by a badly configured bot. Th is an extremely unlikely search term. Theta, θ, and very occasionally tet, are used. Lithopsian (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – meaningless, unlikely, and not needed. Senator2029 “Talk” 05:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Th is an unlikely search term and not a useful abbreviation. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Transliterations aren't appropriate anyway, otherwise we'd be confusing A with Α, for example. ComplexRational (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 20:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Enchanter (character class) → EverQuest#Crowd control / utility  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The enchanter character class is not exclusive to EverQuest. A quick web search suggests that at least Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen, Tree of Savior and Divinity: Original Sin II feature a character class called "Enchanter" Not a very active user (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as ambiguous. It's also in some variants of D&D, see e.g. here and here - which are different from each other. Narky Blert (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Depending on the franchise what enchanters do can vary. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 revert to stub. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• FC Ciudad de La Habana → FC La Habana  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Two separate teams, as you can see on the Spanish Wikipedia. JTtheOG (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If there's WP:RS that this is a separate team, then revert to Special:Permalink/702739544 and add the source. However I'll note that es:Fútbol Club Ciudad de La Habana seems to be a bit of a mess, it has just one external link (to RSSSF), and two of its interwiki links are to FC La Habana rather than FC Ciudad de La Habana. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to stub. The articles es:Fútbol Club Ciudad de La Habana and es:FC La Habana are very clearly talking about different football teams, founded in different years, with different home stadiums, and so on. However, I concur that there is a lack of sources here. Per WP:NTEAM, I think we have to fall back on WP:GNG, which neither article appears to pass (so far as I can tell). Nevertheless, I think that's AfD's problem. Judging notability can be complicated and RfD is poorly equipped for it. I would recommend nominating both articles for AfD once RfD is done with them. --NYKevin 04:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 10:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to stub on basis that they are separate clubs. GiantSnowman 10:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to stub per above. CrazyBoy826 17:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.