This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 6, 2023.
Dirty african
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 00:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Appears to be a novel term that is not listed as a slur at the target article. Google search of the term does not reveal that this is a notable slur or has a citation to prove as such, and per discussion on the target page, every slur should have a citation to warrant its inclusion. Since this is not mentioned at the target and is unlikely to be included, it appears to not be useful and fails
WP:R#DELETE#8The Night Watch(talk) 23:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
It also says in the fourth paragraph of the target article that "Ethnic slurs may also be produced as a racial epithet by combining a general-purpose insult with the name of ethnicity, such as "dirty Jew", "Russian pig", etc. Other common insulting modifiers include "dog", "filthy", etc. However, such terms are not included in this list." Thus, it is unlikely that this term will be ever included in the target article.
The Night Watch(talk) 23:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete - No article links to this, no mention in target article.
Richard-of-Earth (
talk) 03:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Pr 0211
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 Procedural close. Wrong forum. Editors are free to either boldly make this change or open a merge discussion at a relevant article talk page. signed, Rosguilltalk 00:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)reply
There is an article about another planet in the system,
Pr0211 c. The recommended solution would be to create a new article about the system, like we did at
Kepler-277. An alternative would be to merge both planets into a single article about the system. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 08:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
ExpandPr0211 into a full article because it is sufficiently notable. I am open to both keeping the exoplanet article and merging them to the star article. I am not sure whether
Pr 0211 should be deleted, but it should be retargeted to
Pr0211 if the latter gets made into a full article.
InterstellarGamer12321 (
talk |
contribs) 10:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
MergePr0211 b and
Pr0211 c into a
Pr0211 article. As with the Kepler-445 and K2-21 planets, these articles are short and can be consolidated into a single article about the planetary system.
SevenSpheres (
talk) 17:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Add the merge request tags and procedurally close this. Jay 💬 13:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Kepler-445
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 Procedural close. Nothing for RfD to do here, merge discussions can proceed and content can either be merged or moved to this title if need-be without an RfD discussion about it. signed, Rosguilltalk 00:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Currently, there are 2 other articles about planets in the same system, but there is a proposal at
Talk:Kepler-445d#Merge_needed to merge all of them into a single article about the system. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 07:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Procedural close. All merge requests were already in place before this RfD nomination. @
LaundryPizza03: what was your expectation with this RfD? Jay 💬 14:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Matt Pearce (baseball)
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.
Released by the Cards in 2018, so obviously no longer within the scope of the current target. I do not believe there is a good target for this redirect to point to.
Hog FarmTalk 04:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 04:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)reply
No longer plays minor league ball according to milb.com; I don't think there's a good target. Google searching suggests that there might not be a primary topic for this name anyway.
Hog FarmTalk 04:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Razvedupr
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 no consensus between keep and retargeting, with a final editor expressing ambivalence between the otherwise evenly-split opinions. signed, Rosguilltalk 03:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Looks like this could refer to
GRU (Soviet Union) or
GRU (Russian Federation) ... but it's unclear in what context. Seems the word is mentioned in both articles, but it's not clear if the word is synonymous with either subject, or if it's some sort of subtopic.
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Since the target article has a disambiguating hatnote pointing to the other relevant article where it is mentioned, there is no need for any change here. However, if the term is really important we could add a {{Redir}} hatnote specifically for the "Razvedupr" term as well. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 09:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
This does not address the ambiguous problem at all. This would not change any aspect of the existing problem at all.
Steel1943 (
talk) 17:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
GRU (Soviet Union). Razvedupr is short for “intelligence directorate.” I see it was used for a predecessor: Soviet Red Army intelligence 1921–41,
[1] which doesn’t have a separate article and is covered in the early history of that one. —MichaelZ. 14:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep or retarget? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards,
SONIC678 22:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 03:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep or Retarget, it does not make much of a difference.
GRU (Soviet Union) provides more context than the current target though. The term is not ambiguous, it only happens to be mentioned in two articles, because the current GRU is a branch of the erstwhile GRU, and have the same history, which is duplicated in the articles. Jay 💬 08:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
Disambiguate as instructed by Scyrme above, to cover all possible meanings/interpretations/spellings/understandings.
Softlavender (
talk) 04:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 00:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm also okay with the dabify proposal. --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Either Retarget to "vlog" or disambiguate, per Scyrme (I would lean toward the latter).--
Gen. Quon[Talk] 21:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate - Multiple possible targets is exactly what disambiguation is for.
Fieari (
talk) 05:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: All that is needed now is a dab draft. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 02:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Created a draft below the redirect. Feel free to amend it as needed.
The entry for the mail-order distribution service technically breaks the guideline for one link per entry, but I think it warrants an exception; both articles mention the service and it was jointly founded by both so it's not clear which would be linked if there were only one link. Guidelines aren't absolute laws, and I don't think it's too problematic to pragmatically allow two links in this circumstance, at least until an article for the service itself is created (assuming anyone decides to write one in future). –
Scyrme (
talk) 18:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Video log should probably be discussed after this redirect is sorted, to decide whether to retarget it or simply amend the hatnote to
Vlog. –
Scyrme (
talk) 18:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict)(Nominator here) Looks good to me. Someone unaware of this discussion may pare the mail-order distribution service entry back to one wikilink—either way, readers should find the dab entry helpful.
Rotideypoc41352 (
talk·contribs) 18:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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.
Bible is defined as "a collection of religious texts or scriptures that are held to be sacred in Christianity, Judaism, Samaritanism, and many other religions". Therefore, it is biased to state the god of the bible is the god Christians have theorised.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
SUPREME BEING
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.
Comment are there any religions that regularly put this phrase in all caps?
AngusW🐶🐶F (
bark •
sniff) 17:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. Clearly no need to be written in all caps.
CycloneYoristalk! 22:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Hegelese
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.
Hegelese is used frequently in books and scholarly articles.
gobonobo+c 02:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I withdraw my proposal after Gobonobo's comment.
Veverve (
talk) 02:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Difference Between Fichte's and Schelling's Systems of Philosophy
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 04:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. Note that "Unhelpful" isn't true as this serves as a way to reroute external links with malformed targets, which can easily appear by accident in any
Markdown-supporting site or application. However,
there is precedent to delete such redirects, as this is accounted for in {{New page DYM}} that automatically creates a link to the target with the ending parenthesis should the reader land on a non-existing page due to such an error.
Randi MothTalkContribs 22:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. Given {{New page DYM}}, this is less helpful than a redirect might usually be, but at the end of the day redirects exist to save clicks and this redirect existing does just that. See
pageviews. J947 † edits 01:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 04:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Harry Singh
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 04:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear.
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Harry is the father of
Maria Rosario Vergeire. He's a baranggay captain which fails
WP:NPOL. Furthermore, notability can't be inherited from relatives. --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 21:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete. There are several people named Harry Singh on enwiki, but none having an article that can be a proper target or for disambiguation. I don't believe
Harry Singh Arora is known as Harry Singh. Jay 💬 05:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 00:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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 04:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Either due to
WP:RLOTE or it being unhelpful, I think this redirect should be deleted.
Veverve (
talk) 00:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete per RLOTE -
Elohai is a more common transliteration, and is a redlink. It's just a Hebrew word.
Walt Yoder (
talk) 04:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
Biblegod
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 04:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 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. A clear majority believe that
WP:DIFFCAPS applies here; the minority in favor of unifying the redirects is further divided over which target they should both point to, making keep the only viable result. signed, Rosguilltalk 00:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Title could refer to either the song from this 2020 album, or Linkin Park's "Crawling" song that came out many years before, that has this as the first line of it. I suggest a disambiguation for this one.
Colgatepony234 (
talk) 17:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Considering the amount of "Keep" votes... if this does get kept I suggest adding a hatnote targeting to the Linkin Park song, for those looking for that.
Colgatepony234 (
talk) 21:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Adding
Crawling in my skin to this nomination, as suggested above. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 00:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Retarget both to
Crawling (song): it is the most well-known piece of art with those lyrics. Those lyrics from Linkin Park hve also been used in numerous memes over many years until this day (see
the KYM page).
Veverve (
talk) 02:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep both – I do think that
WP:DIFFCAPS should apply here.
"Crawling in my skin" has the primary association of the Linkin Park song. The fact that it isn't mentioned on the article is irrelevant:
Wikipedia can't include them due to copyright in most cases, it's still a useful target that is the primary meaning for the phrase.
With the naming conventions, it's much less likely for someone to search "Crawling in My Skin" for the lyric, but this is the correct name for the song. I'd say it's likely that most of the searches with this capitalisation will target the song rather than the lyric.
This does also mean hatnotes on both targets pointing to each other.
Randi MothTalkContribs 23:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)reply
In case my pre-relist !vote isn't clear, I also support keeping both as-is. -
Eureka Lott 18:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).