. There were concerns noted about the time it would take to evaluate the redirects that were originally nominated and subsequently unbundled. Many of the deletion discussions still remain open, and the ones that have no comments have not yet been soft deleted, as was a concern listed in the discussion. As such, the issue of time to evaluate should no longer be a factor in stopping this discussion from being closed.
:There were two delete votes and one vote to keep. The original nominator (a delete vote) made the point that this wasn't mentioned at the target, which is true and relevant. The second delete vote came from an editor who made a solid argument that there's not a relevant place to retarget this to. The keep vote came from a concern regarding time to evaluate the number of nominations, which is no longer an issue. As such, the result is delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
It is not helpful to redirect to a target that has no mention of the subject in question. These redirects do imply that these songs charted, so they may be notable per WP:NSONG. Deletion to encourage article creation may be desirable. -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
:If the singles are a part of an album and if that album has an article (or a section of an article) with a track list, then these should be redirected there. If the track list is using {{tl|Track listing}} then they can even use the built in anchor system. Gonnym (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- Trainwreck there are too many redirects here to examine individually for notability and suitable alternative targets which per Gonnym are likely to exist in at least some cases (and some may be mentioned in a discography article/section even if the album is not notable). Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
::Sure, we can do it the other way. Unbundled. -- Tavix (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
:::That does not help. There are still too many to evaluate in a single sitting. These need to be nominated in much smaller batches after retargetting those with obvious targets. Keep all without prejudice. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
:::: You do not need to evaluate all of them in a single sitting. You can take several sittings to evaluate them if you want. Keeping them as-is is the least helpful option. -- Tavix (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::Given that all of them will (soft) deleted if there are no comments, this imposes a time limit of 7 days to evaluate 133 redirects that have apparently not had any sort of WP:BEFORE done, in addition to all the other redirects nominated in that time period and everything in people's on and off wiki lives. This is not reasonable. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::There are actually 137 of these. I'd suggest closing and renominating in smaller batches, as proposed above. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::{{re|LaundryPizza03}} I've already broken them up as small as I can. I guess I can break Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 21#Passion (Amen UK song) up slightly more, but that'd be a bit silly. -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::You nominated one batch of 137, split over ~133 discussions in a WP:POINTY attempt to claim it isn't a trainwreck. Nominate them in batches of fewer than 10 per day. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::There's nothing pointy at all about recognizing the fact that there are 130-something bad redirects to UK Singles Chart and concluding that the most efficient way to handle them would be to nominate them in a batch RfD discussion. Everything since then has been an attempt to accommodate you, and I feel that I have been very reasonable in doing so. -- Tavix (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::{{re|Thryduulf}} Soft deletion would be a Good Thing because the current target is so unhelpful. Editors can then recreate them at their own pace to targets that are actually helpful. That was the strategy for the original nomination. Leaving these discussions open for two weeks equates to an average of less than 10 redirects per day, which I feel is more than a reasonable time frame to evaluate these redirects being that's the path you wish to take. I have therefore requested that these discussions remain open for an additional week. -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note to closer: I hereby request that this discussion and the similar ones like it remain open for an additional week to give editors ample time to evaluate them. -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- :Two weeks is also not long enough, especially over Christmas where many editors will not be available. These should be nominated over the space of several weeks. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- ::Two weeks is plenty of time, especially given your request of {{tq|fewer than 10 per day}} (137 / 14 ≈ 9.79). That said, I'll leave it up to potential closers to leave them open past two weeks if desired. Ironically, you could have evaluated much of them by now based on the time you have already spent on this discussion. Any findings yet? -- Tavix (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- ::: You will find the chart info for each song listed above in the various lists created by 03md. For example, "Look at Us" by Northern Heightz is in User:03md/List of UK top 40 singles in 2004. That's why each of these were created. Just because a song charted doesn't mean it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Soft delete all. These redirects were created a couple of years ago by User:03md based on a desire to eventually have articles on all UK top 40 singles. They're maintaining such chart listings in their user space (see Special:PrefixIndex/User:03md/), so all these songs will be listed somewhere in those. The redirects listed here are by music acts who also don't have articles, so there won't be any obvious redirect targets unless the title is ambiguous and can be redirected to an unrelated topic to its original intent. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:23, 22 December 2023 (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).
