From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 19
September 21 >

September 20

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 20, 2019.

Anisa Moghaddam

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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Anisa Moghaddam is a co-writer for a song on this album and another Grande album. Not really serving any purpose with the redirect Richhoncho ( talk) 21:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, having two possible targets means there really isn't one it should point to as I don't see how one is any more notable than the other. Encourage article creation, now or distantly in the future, by WP:REDLINK. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and Zeke. Performer-to-performance redirects are generally harmful, given they discourage article creation and a single performer may have multiple performances. While there is useful page history (see here), straight deletion would have been more appropriate than redirection in this instance. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 17:48, 28 September 2019 (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.

Eirin! Eirin! Tasukete Eirin!

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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC) reply

These are song lyrics. The song in question is mentioned in several articles but there's no actual content to point this to. Even if there was, this should probably still be deleted. — Xezbeth ( talk) 21:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I don't really understand how this would actually aid in navigation because in order to get it just right you would already need to be somewhat familiar with the subject matter, which implies you already know a more direct route to get to where you're going. I can't see how having this is superior to not having it in that case. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:47, 23 September 2019 (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.

QWE

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. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Not in use as an actual abbreviation of QWERTY, could easily be an acronym for something else. signed, Rosguill talk 20:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm sick of this. Why does the same person who looks like an admin but is not have to mess with all of my redirects? Page QWE didn't exist before, so that means that it can only be short for QWERTY. Barracuda41 ( talk) 21:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
So, technically any editor can nominate any redirect for discussion or tag it for speedy deletion (although the latter is then pending review from an admin, and if someone has a habit of bad CSDs it could result in sanctions). But that's not a complete answer, as it doesn't explain why I'm looking at these redirects in the first place; I have new page patrol permissions, which means that I can approve new articles and redirects to be released to search engines for indexing. I would estimate that I do the lion's share of patrolling redirects, as every day I patrol the end of the backlog to make sure nothing gets missed, going through 100-200 redirects per day on average (and sometimes as many as 500+). I haven't taken an exact count, but I would estimate that of the redirects I look at, I nominate maybe 3% for discussion. Believe me, I'm not trying to pick on you, and there's been several times that I actually approved redirects created by you that I probably would have nominated for discussion had someone else created them, simply because I didn't want to start a fight and because the redirects in question were, if not really useful, then at least harmless. Despite this, redirects that you've created probably account for at least 10% of the redirects that I nominate for discussion.
These redirects are neither mine nor yours, they are Wikipedia's, and should serve the purpose of creating a useful encyclopedia that is easy to navigate. The ones that I nominate for discussion or deletion are ones that I think do not fulfill this criterion, usually because they go against either WP:FORRED or because they meet criteria #1 or #8 of WP:R#DELETE. I would suggest thinking carefully about whether a redirect actually meets one of the criteria at WP:RPURPOSE before creating it. I think that this specific redirect is actually a borderline case, and I would appreciate it if other editors would weigh in, even if only to disagree with me––I was going to let it pass but then doubled back and brought it here after deciding that the benefit of this redirect did not outweigh the possibility of confusing someone looking for something that uses this as an acronym or something else (such as QWERTZ or Quechuan languages, which has an ISO code of QWE). The same cannot be said about many of the other redirects that you have created, such as this one. signed, Rosguill talk 22:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
QWE doesn't have to refer to anything. If the page didn't exist before, it's probably because QWE doesn't actually refer to any existing concept to begin with and so a redirect is not justified. Even then, I would have to ask why QWERTY, already a pretty short term, needs further abbreviation, let alone one that is used popularly enough to make this a viable search term. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There's no evidence that "QWE" is used as an abbreviation for anything, and it can't work as an abbreviation for keyboard layouts because it would be ambiguous between QWERTY and QWERTZU. 50.248.234.77 ( talk) 10:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No evidence that it is short for QWERTY, but there is evidence that it could be an acronym for one of the following (and probably others).
QWE Quality Week Europe
QWE Quality Work Environment
QWE Quebecor World Europe
QWE Quality Web Education (website)
QWE Quarter Water Entertainment (Los Angeles, CA)
If this info leads editors to another option, I probably wouldn't disagree. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 12:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Clarification. That list came from a Gsearch, not WP. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 08:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Then if it can refer to more than one thing, turn the page into a dab page instead of deleting it! geez! Barracuda41 ( talk) 02:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply
The purpose of disambiguation is to differentiate between articles whose subjects are referred to by the same title. Per WP:PARTIAL and WP:DABABBREV, it's not really appropriate to create a disambiguation here, as you're essentially asking to create a disambiguation between partial matches (which don't belong on dab pages) and several topics that we don't currently have articles for. signed, Rosguill talk 02:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP is not the place to make up abbreviations that may be useful for other article searches. 4.7.25.147 ( talk) 23:12, 21 September 2019 (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.

Columbiahalle

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 per WP:G7 by Anthony Bradbury (non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 18:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

It does appear to be a concert venue in Berlin, but it's not mentioned at the target, and it's not clear that it's appropriate to add it to the article given its scope. I think that deleting and leaving as a redlink for now is likely the best course of action, unless someone finds a better target. signed, Rosguill talk 20:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - an article was previously deleted at this title which was written in German and deleted for that reason. While there is de:Columbiahalle, deletion might encourage someone with an interest in the topic to write a proper article here. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 21:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
More: it was deleted under speedy criterion A2, which suggests it was copied and pasted from dewiki, which is not allowed. Just FYI. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 21:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - I created the redirect and agree with your reasoning. I don't see myself making an article for the venue either. Also, the venue was just recently renamed to "Knorkatorhalle" so, if there was any more reason to delete the ' Columbiahalle' redirect there's that. I grieve in stereo ( talk) 02:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete because it's not mentioned at the target. A red link or an interlanguage link in articles where it's used would be better. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 03:25, 21 September 2019 (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.

Apjak

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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Unclear why this redirects here, given that it did not seem that the target ever used this abbreviation/acronym, and APJAK doesn't exist. Might be a made-up WP:NEO. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - There are instances of the acronym "APJAK" (always uppercase)—e.g., this source and within APJAKTU. I created APJAK as a redirect to the same target, so the lowercase/mixed-case version has no value any longer. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:01, 28 September 2019 (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.

Misspelled U.S. state names

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 mainly per the WP:TRAINWRECK concern mentioned by many participants. Individual renominations are encouraged. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 14:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC) reply

See also #Misspellings of chemical element names, below. Some of the misspellings for Virginia are also ambiguous with Vagina. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 17:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I've turned Ohayo into a disambiguation. I believe Ohaio should redirect there as the Japanese term in all of its variants is used a lot. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 02:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
KAVEBEAR, I've boldly redirected this one and am striking this from the list. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Do over per AngusWOOF. While there are several examples in this list that I would vote delete on, I pity the closer trying to make sense of a discussion with a half dozen editors each with a different list of ten names that should be deleted or kept, while others make broad statements about the entire set. signed, Rosguill talk 22:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: None of the pages were tagged, all are now tagged and creators notified at least once. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all. Sure, some of them are bad (New Hampster?), but this is a huge nomination of disparate topics (they can't all be addressed appropriately in a single discussion), so come back and renominate them individually or in little groups. Please don't renominate Oiho, as it's an easy typo to make. Back in the 1990s and early 2000s, at this intersection in Jackson Center, Ohio, the sign read "Ohio Street" on one side and "Oiho Street" on the other. If someone can put it on a street sign by accident, it's definitely a plausible typo. Nyttend ( talk) 00:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • PS, please don't renominate EPnnsylvania, either. The first two pages of Google results include several hits in surprisingly good sources: Epnnsylvania in a federal court opinion from Pennsylvania, EPNNSYLVANIA in Federal Election Commission records, ePnnsylvania in a 19th-century history of a region of Pennsylvania, and ePnnsylvania in the title of a Pennsylvania law. PPS, please don't renominate Pennfylvania. This is a plausible misreading of "Pennſylvania", the state's name written with a long s, as was common for more than a century after it was founded. Nyttend ( talk) 00:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Close discussion and renominate individually or in groups Net was cast just a little tiny bit too wide here. Many of these are plausible typos and while such redirects may no longer be necessary because of Wikipedia's autocomplete function, they do WP:NOHARM. Some of these may need to be investigated as ambiguous, and the rest still might be entirely superfluous but I wouldn't waste my time trying to delete them. Admittedly, I'm too lazy to care enough to scroll through and see how many fall into each category, but no doubt I'd find plenty in each one. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all Broadly agree with several commenters above that this nomination simply goes too far in trying to paint these all with the same brush. More nuanced multiple nominations in smaller batches would be more likely to result in the truly problematic ones being removed. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all, since many of these are plausible typos and the list is too long to make individual decisions on these. Xichigan should probably be retargeted to Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry, though. Ohio State fans have a tradition of X-ing out the letter M during the week before The Game, so they call Michigan "Xichigan". Aside from the redirect itself, all of the top Google results for Xichigan have to do with the rivalry. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 00:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Re-nominate individual entries with a reasoning. I for one would delete the "New Yourk" variants as unlikely misspellings, but as somebody said each editor has their own reasons to keep or delete some of those. — JFG talk 13:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Close and renominate a few at a time, per others.
That said, unless someone can find a WP:RS for Haway as an alternative spelling or misspelling of Hawaii, it should redirect to Geordie. It's an alternative spelling of 'howay', see wikt:haway. Narky Blert ( talk) 14:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Close and renominate, with one discussion per target state. The comments above indicate that many of these are affected by local culture of individual states, which tells me a separate discussion is needed for each target state. Neon Merlin 22:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Endorse one state at a time. That looks a really good way of breaking the discussion down into bite-sized chunks. Narky Blert ( talk) 21:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the Virginia and West Virginia ones: You would be surprised how often I see these in my own state (I live in Virginia but within a stone's throw from West Virginia). It's sad. I would Keep Hawaii too, as that is technically a misspelling, it's actually Hawai'i. The spelling was anglicized to Hawaii. The rest, I can't speak for. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:48 on September 23, 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep All: The aren't harming anyone. If they help one person find the page, a year, it is worth it. Oldag07 ( talk) 02:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Provisional keep all per above, I may have an opinion on some of the individual ones, but this nomination will only result in a WP:TRAINWRECK, support the proposal to nominate one section for each individual state. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 10:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Close and renominate individually per all others in favor of that. This discussion is quite a trainwreck indeed; I would personally be in favor of keeping Ulaska, Flarida, Haway, Ohaio and Texos as (semi-)plausible, retargeting Xichigan to Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry and deleting most of the others. Geolodus ( talk) 18:03, 26 September 2019 (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.

Vanzolinius

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 2#Vanzolinius

Kamehameha (weapon)

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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 23:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

So, what we have here is a case of an editor, User:Kaithehedgefox, who has basically spent the last two years vandalizing the project, a large part of that being by creating inappropriate or trolling Redirects, as you can see by their Talk Page. They were recently finally banned for their vandalism, so I started the process of going through their remaining Redirect creations, and decided that, rather than go the process here for every one, it would be more prudent to just nominate them all for deletion at once. Based on the fact that the user has seemingly not made a single good faith edit during their entire tenure here, it seems a safe guess that none of these redirects are appropriate. Just among the ones I did look at, there is a mish-mash of implausible spellings, unnotable fan characters, and made up terms that are not mentioned in the target articles. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)}} reply

  • I understand your perspective, but bundling all of these creates a huge danger of a WP:TRAINWRECK. Many of these seem frivolous, but others, such as "Nikolas Tesla", are benign and even helpful. -- BDD ( talk) 16:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep all per BDD and per WP:ADHOM (which itself is a poorly targeted shortcut). Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 21:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • WITHDRAWN by Nominator - Point taken. I was hoping this was an easy shortcut to take, but I understand the argument that the mass nomination was not the way to go. Rorshacma ( talk) 22:03, 20 September 2019 (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.

Superlatives galore

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 keep. As per below, there's a clear consensus that the nomination is improper by rationale, in execution, or both. – Darkwind ( talk) 06:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not a search engine. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 16:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • If the title is accurate and verified in the target, I don't see any issue with it, espcially if the target is a hard page to find or has a difficult name (eg: PSR J1748−2446ad). Keep Biggest bee per It is the largest known living bee species. Keep Biggest jesus statue per It is the tallest statue of Jesus in the world. Retarget Biggest mosque to List of largest mosques. Depending on how it's measured, there are multiple candidates. Keep Biggest truck stop per the world's largest truck stop. Delete Fastest pitch ever recorded. The record is now shared with Jordan Hicks (see WP:XY). Keep Fastest pulsar per the fastest-spinning pulsar known. Delete First American Princess per Since her parents have never married, she has no title and is not in the line of succession to the Monegasque throne. Delete First synthesized as ambiguous. Keep First woman in space and First woman into space per Tereshkova became the first woman in space. Delete Heaviest star and Heaviest subatomic particle. The target says it's the most massive, but does not say anything about the weight (cf. Mass versus weight). Top quark does say that it's heavier than the bottom, though not the heaviest. Delete Hottest life, vague. Retarget Oldest star to List of oldest stars. It doesn't seem like the oldest stars have articles. Delete Oldest zoo in the world. The article says its the oldest continuously operating zoo in the world, and the Zoo article makes it clear that zoos existed earlier. Delete Rarest isotope. The article says it's the rarest primordial nuclide, but that's not necessarily the same thing. Keep shortest flight. The target does specify that it's the shortest commerical flight, but then again Flight length seems to only be concerned about commercial flights anyway, and the current target is the only thing listed for the shortness superlative. Keep Shortest time interval and Smallest time interval. The target explains this at Planck time#Physical significance. Keep Shortest war and Shortest war in history per The conflict lasted between 38 and 45 minutes, marking it as the shortest recorded war in history. Delete Smallest number, it depends on the context. Delete Smallest room. The smallest room is a mushroom. Keep Smallest snake per It is the smallest known snake species. Delete Smallest splanchnic nerve, not mentioned in target. Keep Smallest tortoise per the world's smallest species of tortoise. Delete Smartest woman and Smartest human. She has had the highest recorded IQ per Guinness, but doesn't mean she is the "smartest": Guinness retired the "Highest IQ" category in 1990 after concluding IQ tests were too unreliable to designate a single record holder. Keep Tallest man ever per the tallest person in recorded history. -- Tavix ( talk) 17:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep all pending the nominator doing some WP:BEFORE on these, and coming up with a better rationale then "superlatives are the worst" (see what I did there?) Also, as of this edit, more than half of these are not properly nominated. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 21:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep -- I think these should be nominated separately. I would personally recommend keep for some and delete for others. -- Dolotta ( talk) 21:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all The nom uses WP:NOTGOOGLE as their rationale. However, this is an essay about notability and using Google. It has nothing to do with regards to these terms being valid redirects. I was buzzed here about my biggest bee redirect (ho ho). Seems a perfectly fine search term to me, as do all the others listed here. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 21:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: None of these redirects were tagged, but I have now tagged them all. Also, @ LaundryPizza03: In your nomination, you claimed that Oldest star targeted HE 1523-0901, which it does not but rather targets List of oldest stars, which I have corrected in the nomination; did you mean to actually nominate Oldest known star, which targets HE 1523-0901? Steel1943 ( talk) 22:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep rarest isotope as this is for the rarest primordial nuclide. I created this redirect when trying to answer the question about what is the rarest isotope. The main purpose is for our readers to be able to find this fact easily. Doing a Wikipedia search did not easily find it until I added the redirect. The target is not likely to change quickly and so will be stable. Perhaps in future there could be a List of rarest isotopes which would be a more suitable target, but it does not exist yet. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google is irrelevant as this is an encyclopedic topic or question to answer. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep The nomination is a vague wave at an essay and so is a frivolous reason to start such a train-wreck. I'd have speedily closed this myself but it's late and I need to go to bed rather than plough though so many pages, reverting this disruption. Andrew D. ( talk) 23:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep. It's absurd to reject these superlatives for the provided reason; clearly the nominator has not read all the targets, per Graeme, if nothing else. Nyttend ( talk) 00:33, 21 September 2019 (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.

Iron Essay

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. The CSD nomination 14 years ago was entirely valid, this redirect was inappropriate then and it is now, and is unused. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not a publisher of orginal thought. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 15:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete no content was merged and the redirect does not help navigation. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:21, 21 September 2019 (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.

Chlorine is manufactured

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. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Implausible search term. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 15:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • delete never had any merged content, and is not a good search. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 03:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Might be asking as to the manufacturing process but we don't do redirects to individual sections unless said sections are the results of article mergers, do we? (not rhetorical, genuinely asking here because I don't know, never seen it happen before) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete agree with Graeme, this clunky term is unlikely to be useful Dartslilly ( talk) 14:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not expected to be used as a search term. 4.7.25.147 ( talk) 22:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:33, 22 September 2019 (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.

Iridium-77 (element)

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. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC) reply

There is no 77Ir isotope, which would have no neutrons. Implausible search term either way. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 15:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete both. Very implausible strings; it's not even clear if they refer to the element or the physically impossible 77Ir. ComplexRational ( talk) 19:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Anyone who understands much about chemistry will understand that "Element-Number" refers to the atomic mass of a specific isotope, and anyone who doesn't understand that is quite unlikely to know that iridium's atomic number is 77. Nyttend ( talk) 12:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not an expected search term. 4.7.25.147 ( talk) 22:55, 21 September 2019 (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.

Prano Bailey-Bond

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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC) reply

irrelevant The Banner  talk 14:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Makes no sense to link someone's name to a page where their only notable work, or at least one of their only notable works, is listed. Subject's notability not likely to be achieved, but even so, encourage article creation by WP:REDLINKing the name. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:18, 21 September 2019 (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.

Fdf.dk

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 28#Fdf.dk

Palestine mountain gazelle

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 28#Palestine mountain gazelle

One-party participatory democracy

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 Politics of Zambia#Government and constitution. -- Tavix ( talk) 19:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC) reply

This redirect is not very helpful. Many people will be looking for one-party state, so it should be deleted to give search results instead. Zerach ( talk) 08:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 14:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I'm trying to decide whether this phrase is outright contradictory or not. There's only a single passing mention of any political party at Participatory democracy, surprisingly. If it's a contradiction, by all means, retarget to Zambia as a quirk specific to that country. If not, perhaps deletion, but simply retargeting to One-party state could also be appropriate. -- BDD ( talk) 18:53, 20 September 2019 (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.

Caña (Chilean slang)

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. -- BDD ( talk) 18:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC) reply

WP:R#DELETE #8, the word "caña" is never used in the article Hangover. © Tbhotch ™ ( en-2.5). 22:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 14:29, 20 September 2019 (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.

Iraq and Syria

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 Iraq–Syria relations. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 20:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Not a helpful redirect. I'd suggest either redirecting to Iraq–Syria relations or deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom ("not ... helpful"). This redirect was recently created, has no incoming links, and no meaningful traffic. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Iraq–Syria relations, sounds like a plausible search term. 85.76.1.1 ( talk) 05:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Iraq–Syria relations, sounds more plausible than the current target. – Sonicwave talk 00:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The retarget is fine, but I think we're better off deleting this entirely as it's a non-notable search term. SportingFlyer T· C 02:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Iraq-Syria relations. - BRAINULATOR9 ( TALK) 17:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Iraq–Syria relations. There's access to the terrorist organization there too. -- BDD ( talk) 15:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP:XY. This redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 18:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    I wrote XY, though of course that doesn't mean other interpretations of it are invalid. Here, we have an easy "location in which both topics are discussed" in their bilateral relations article. -- BDD ( talk) 16:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 14:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget. XY only applies if we don't have an article covering both topics, and the Iraq-Syria relations article covers both topics and their relationship with each other. Nyttend ( talk) 00:34, 21 September 2019 (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.

Sakuga

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 Sakuga Group. There isn't a slam-dunk consensus here for anything, nor would a "no consensus" close with no action satisfy anyone. -- BDD ( talk) 19:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Per Wiktionary, sakuga is: In Japanese animation (anime), a sequence of noticeably higher quality, used to highlight a particularly important scene. It's not mentioned at the target or at Anime, nor is it likely appropriate to add mention of it to either of the articles. It's possible that the term is notable enough to merit its own article, but as a redirect it is not helpful and I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Not useful as redirect to Animation article. Could instead possibly be a part of Anime article text. -- Janke | Talk 23:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Either soft redirect to wiktionary:Sakuga, or retarget and mention in Anime. I'm not sure if the term really is notable enough for it's own page. 85.76.1.1 ( talk) 07:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Retarget to Sakuga Group. Seems to be the closest match although it can be argued that it's just a partial title match. I'm fine with delete as well. -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Soft redirect or retarget per 86.76.1.1. - BRAINULATOR9 ( TALK) 17:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 14:28, 20 September 2019 (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.

List of Animated Feature Film

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. -- BDD ( talk) 18:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Pointless unused redirect. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Move without redirect to List of animated feature film and mark as {{ R from singular}} AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There are literally thousands of these, and it makes no sense to discuss them on a one-off basis as opposed to making a mass nomination that would treat them consistently. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 19:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Move as per AngusWOOF. -- CptViraj ( 📧) 10:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, harmless. Feel free to create List of animated feature film if you think it would be useful, but there's no need to tie its fate to this redirect. -- Tavix ( talk) 12:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  •  Done, and now the redirect is up and running in a shorter amount of time than waiting for this RfD to resolve. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Move per AngusWOOF. This redirect has no value or utility, and while it is true that there are thousands of these, that's no reason to tie this one's fate to the others. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 18:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as {{ R from other capitalization}} (it's in title case, but {{ R from miscapitalization}} could work too) and {{ R from singular}}. Wug· a·po·des​ 20:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Why? Yes, it could be tagged as {{ R from other capitalization}}, but what purpose would that serve? It is clearly not a viable search term (anyone typing this title will see either the target article or the redirect created by Tavix) or useful for linking. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply
      • @ Black Falcon: because if someone is trying to write an article this could very easily be what they put between square brackets. It's not strange for people to link to these lists in title rather than sentence case (it is a title after all). It's a useful {{ r from singular}} because someone might make a typo or, more importantly, may link to it like this [[List of Animated Feature Film]]s ( List of Animated Feature Films) which uses this redirect but still produces the correct plural text. Wug· a·po·des​ 06:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply
        • I thank you for your explanation, but... if someone adds a title-case link within a list (e.g. [[List of Animated Feature Film]]s), that should be corrected, not encouraged or retained, as such a link does not conform to the Manual of Style. And, further, while you point out a possible use of this redirect, the combination of title case and the plural difference makes it rather implausible that it would be used. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 17:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per others. - BRAINULATOR9 ( TALK) 16:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just a note, I read those who said "move" as thought they were saying "delete" when I was assessing consensus, so thus, I did not yet see consensus when I performed this relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 14:27, 20 September 2019 (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.

Battle of south guangxi

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 keep. Remember that not everyone searches in the search bar. Nyttend ( talk) 00:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete as a redirect that is useless for linking as well as searching (absent the redirect, the search engine would automatically direct the search to the article). The redirect has no incoming links (except links related to this RfD) and no useful page history. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 01:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom, the capitalization of the redirect is incorrect, so this will never be useful for linking. 85.76.0.232 ( talk) 05:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:RCAPS, plausible miscapitalization. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 06:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    • WP:RCAPS notes that the search function is generally case-insensitive, meaning that the redirect is not useful for searching. That leaves just linking, and WP:RCAPS is based on the premise that a "aid[s] linking from other articles and external sites". While you raise a good point for redirects from alternative capitalizations in general, this particular redirect should not, and has not (as far as I can tell), ever been linked. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:RCAPS and LaundryPizza03. - BRAINULATOR9 ( TALK) 17:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Same comment as above, then... -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
      • Yeah, redirects like this one just encourage people to use an incorrect capitalization, which is something we should avoid as incorrect capitalizations and other misspellings reduce the overall quality of this wiki. 85.76.11.88 ( talk) 12:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 14:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a harmless {{ r from miscapitalization}}. I wouldn't recommend creating redirects like this, but now that it's here, there's no sense in deleting it. - Eureka Lott 17:37, 20 September 2019 (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.

Template:Soviet

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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Unused for many years. It does not follow the standard naming convention for redirects of wikiproject banners. Magioladitis ( talk) 07:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 14:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as no value and unused. Unlike articles, templates aren't the same idea as "plausible search term" and given this one is unsed there's no need for "convenience of linking" either. DMacks ( talk) 03:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per DMacks. DrKay ( talk) 08:54, 22 September 2019 (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.

Lord Althorp

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. -- BDD ( talk) 14:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Retarget to Earl Spencer (peerage) or Disambiguate. No evidence that this is the primary topic, in fact by pageviews, the current target page is one of the least visited articles: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=John_Spencer,_8th_Earl_Spencer%7CJohn_Spencer,_5th_Earl_Spencer%7CJohn_Spencer,_3rd_Earl_Spencer%7CCharles_Spencer,_9th_Earl_Spencer%7CGeorge_Spencer,_2nd_Earl_Spencer%7CCharles_Spencer,_6th_Earl_Spencer DrKay ( talk) 07:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

The 3rd Earl was a very prominent politician *during his time as Lord Althorp* - leader of the House of Commons who pushed through the Reform Act, etc. This is not true of any of the other people who were known as "Lord Althorp," as far as I'm aware. (The 6th Earl to a much much lesser extent.) The 8th and 9th Earls are better know *as Earl Spencer*, but nobody much calls them Lord Althorp. Do I need to explain how courtesy titles work? john k ( talk) 09:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC) reply

For this American, john k, that could be quite helpful. And what do you think of the hatnote suggested by Shhhnotsoloud? -- BDD ( talk) 18:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I'll accept that the 3rd Earl is primary topic by long-term significance, so keep and place a hatnote {{ redirect|Lord Althorp|other people with that title|Earl Spencer (peerage)}}. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 18:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 14:25, 20 September 2019 (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.

Square Enix Ultimate Hits

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 Square Enix#Business Model. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 18:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned at the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 21:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 14:25, 20 September 2019 (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.

Lauren Orlando

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. -- BDD ( talk) 18:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Redirect from a non-notable person to an associated organization whose article completely fails to mention her name at all. I get that she is associated with it, that checks out in sources, but if her involvement isn't important enough to actually get her named in the article body then there's no need for a redirect. Bearcat ( talk) 21:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 14:24, 20 September 2019 (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.

Ultimate Hits (Square Enix)

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 Square Enix#Business Model. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 18:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned at the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 21:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 14:24, 20 September 2019 (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.

Misspellings of chemical element names

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 per WP:TRAINWRECK. Individual nominations in the future would be a better/clearer option if any of these redirects are still in need of discussion. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 19:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC) reply

These misspellings are rather implausible. There are some particularly funny ones, too, like "Buryum", "LEad", and "Alliminuim". I don't have enough time to tag these... – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 14:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Keep all. Without taking the time to look through these individually, misspellings in general are harmless. -- Tavix ( talk) 17:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. None of these redirects were tagged. I have now tagged them all, and notified their creators. Steel1943 ( talk) 20:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete:
  • Uthium. It bears no resemblance to the target, I can't discern that it should refer to lithium.
  • Kloreen as highly implausible; it almost looks like a phonetic joke and is too dissimilar from the targets to be a plausible {{ R from misspelling}}.
  • Calium per WP:XY; it could also be a misspelling of kalium (potassium).
  • Kalcium, only one typo but seems less plausible than the others because it's the first letter.
  • Buryum, same rationale as for kloreen.
  • LEad; I know that we sometimes hold the shift key too long, but it should be autocorrected in the search bar and has no use in linking.
  • Alliminuim, more than two misspellings make this highly implausible as well.
  • Weak delete:
  • Asstatine. While possibly plausible, I'm not sure if this could be considered a joke or vandalism; also note that its creator was indeffed for creating abusive redirects (maybe an admin can review this).
  • Uninunium. Although this has only one typo, the structure is fairly predictable, so misspelling this particular "un" seems rather unlikely. It's also less likely that this will be searched since the element was renamed to roentgenium.
  • Unonoctium, same rationale as for uninunium.
  • Weak retarget:
  • Dubnadium to oganesson; I'm finding several sources suggesting that it was once a proposed name for element 118, but it was not as widely discussed and could also be deleted (it is not a plausible misspelling of dubnium).
  • I don't see harm in keeping most of the others with only one reasonable typo or missing letter, especially those targeting sometimes difficult-to-spell names such as praseodymium and hydrargyrum. ComplexRational ( talk) 20:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Asstatine - clearly deliberate vandalism by an editor shortly thereafter blocked for "creating highly abusive redirects". If it's useful someone will recreate it. Neutral on the rest per Tavix more or less. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Organesson - I misread the correct name for something like six months before my brain realised there was no "r" there, so I think this is a likely misspelling. I don't at all agree with the idea that we should preserve every possible typo as a redirect, which seems to be the rationale for keeping some "misspelling" redirects, so I will be happy to see most of these deleted. Mirokado ( talk) 21:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep. Some of these are plausible redirects, asstatine isn't, and overall this is far too big of a group to handle all at once. Please come back and nominate them individually, so that each one can be addressed separately without causing a good deal of confusion. Nyttend ( talk) 00:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Any that are kept should be marked with a R from misspelling template. Anyway given the history of Uthium it should definitely be kept. Previous prod and db-A7 were rejected, and a redirect to Lithium should satisfy those that come across Uthium. Otherwise I would be agreeing with deleting LEad and the others that ComplexRational suggested to delete. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Specifically regarding Dubnadium→ Dubnium and User:ComplexRational's comment: The proposed name for oganesson seems to have been "Dubnabium]] (for which we have no redirect) per a passing mention in Fontani's Lost Elements book, but that book's index mentions "Dubnadium" as an alt and to me that seems like a reasonable guessed spelling based on element-name patterns. And that ref notes it was rejected because it was too close to dubnium. So I say delete this one per WP:XY: it itself has no meaning and is a possible R-from-mis-spelling from several not all of which are obvious. DMacks ( talk) 16:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I find these redirects to be harmless, taking very little data space (even potentially preventing creation of redundant articles on the same topic). Mikael Häggström ( talk) 19:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep harmless redirects per above. Paintspot Infez ( talk) 00:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all; redirects for (mostly) plausible misspellings are harmless. The more implausible ones (Kloreen?) can be renominated individually. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 13:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Please re-nominate these individually. shoy ( reactions) 14:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Hygrargyrum. It is the Latin name for the chemical element. The rest sound too implausible (Uthium? What?), so I'm in favor of Deleting the rest. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 17:09, 26 September 2019 (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.

Thai redirects to Gautama Buddha

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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Not needed per WP:FORRED, articles are not specifically about Thailand. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Strongly delete: พุทธประวัติ; the word " พุทธ ประวัติ" means "history of Buddha", not Buddha as human.
Thanks. -- Garam ( talk) 12:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 13:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, anyone searching here in Thai should probably go to, I don't know, the Thai-edition Wikipedia. Short Thai or other language terms would be one thing as they would be more likely to spread and become loanwords in other languages, but phrases this complex aren't useful on the English Wikipedia or any Wikipedia outside the Thai edition. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. -- Spasemunki ( talk) 20:17, 24 September 2019 (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.

Aniti-advergame

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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Implausible typo for " Anti-advergame". – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 12:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - harmless, 13 years old. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Changed to delete - 13 years old sure but zero hits in the default stats window. Since it's an implausible typo of a title which is a redirect to a different title, it's a maintenance issue (if that redirect's target changes). Since literally nobody is using it, might as well preemptively clean it up. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:54, 20 September 2019 (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.

Antitritium

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 Tritium. Article creation is encouraged. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 14:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in the target, possibly due to lack of significance. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 12:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Retarget both to Tritium. Terms are not mentioned there either, but there will be less surprise. I would suggest that both terms have possibilities, or at the very least deserve mention in a broader article. Lithopsian ( talk) 13:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget both to Tritium per Lithopsian. ComplexRational ( talk) 20:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The Antitriton topic actually appears to be notable, with several publications on the topic. So it could get a mention at antimatter. Until someone actualloy writes a paragraph, I don't think it matters much with article it points to. But the redirect should not be deleted. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:36, 21 September 2019 (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.

Third industrial revolution

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 Third Industrial Revolution. -- BDD ( talk) 18:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC) reply

The target of this has been changed several times. Current target is not mentioned in the article, but is related and plausible. But the book The Third Industrial Revolution is a closer match with the actual wording. I think we need a discussion to avoid moving this back and forth. I recommend the book. MB 03:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Darkwind ( talk) 08:35, 20 September 2019 (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.

Waymarking.com

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. -- BDD ( talk) 18:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in target. Waymarking.com is a specific website; there is no information in this article and I find the redirect confusing. Recommend delete. MB 03:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I too find this confusing. Delete Waymarking.com. Rwood128 ( talk) 09:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Looking at Waymarking.com, a website for Waymarking, I can see the redirect was intended to provide info on the concept, for lack of a page for that website. For those with an inkling of what is Waymarking, which I gained just now(!), it may be helpful. For that I say keep. DadaNeem ( talk) 09:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, we wouldn't redirect Cars.com to Car if it didn't have its own article. Either it's notable or it should be deleted. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 15:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Waymarking.com is more closely related to Geocaching than Trail blazing. The website was created by Groundspeak Inc. (the dominate geocaching company) as an alternative to creating more virtual caches. If the redirect is to exist, it should point to something on the geocaching article, not trail blazing. – Sparkgap ( talk) 16:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Darkwind ( talk) 08:33, 20 September 2019 (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.

Lakshmi (Buddhism)

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. -- Tavix ( talk) 19:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC) reply

These redirects have misleading disambiguators, as Lakshmi and Saraswati already have significant amounts of content about their observance in the Buddhist tradition. Kisshoten and Benzaiten specifically covers the deities' adoption in Japanese religious traditions. I would suggest deleting this redirect, and perhaps creating Lakshmi (Japan), Lakshmi (Japanese religion), Lakshmi (Shinto), etc, although it's not clear to me that readers are likely to search for these subjects this way. signed, Rosguill talk 17:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The issue seems to be standardization of article names. Kisshoten and Benzaiten are simply Japanese language translations for these deities that feature in Mahayana Buddhist texts. Several Asian-language Wikipedias treat them this way as well. Another option could be to keep the names of the current articles as those that focus on Japanese-specific Buddhism and extended traditions (Shinto, Shugendo, etc). In this case, Saraswati (Buddhism) and Lakshmi (Buddhism) may serve as their own articles to distinguish between larger overarching traditions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism; similar to how Yama breaks into Yama (Hinduism) and Yama (Buddhism). Keep for now as they are still extensions of Buddhist tradition. -- Invokingvajras talk 18:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I admit to minimal knowledge of Buddhism, but these do look problematic. Lakshmi touches on Buddhism in a few places, liking to Kisshoten in the Japan section but also to Palden Lhamo under Tibet and Nepal. The situation with Saraswati is similar. It's probably better to either retarget to the main articles or delete. -- BDD ( talk) 19:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 18:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No additional comments after first relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Darkwind ( talk) 08:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Close. Best to take this to a relevant wikiproject or the Reference Desk and get input from those who are more knowledgeable about Buddhism. Once they've offered comments, come back here and create a new nomination with links to, or text copied from, the comments in question. Nyttend ( talk) 00:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Having re-read Invokingvajras comment here, as well as having consulted some friends of mine that are more familiar with the subject matter, I am not seeing a clear argument for why to keep these redirects. Yes, these are concepts that have importance in Buddhist, Hindu, and Shinto traditions. I am not opposed creating articles for Lakshmi (Buddhism), Lakshmi (Hinduism) etc. following the model set by the articles about Yama. However, if we see that as being the optimal long-term solution, then we should delete these redirects to encourage article creation. Moreover, in my opinion the core problem with the current redirects is that they suggest that the current target articles about these religious figures in Japanese traditions comprise the entirety of these deities in the Buddhist tradition, something which seems to be trivially false. I admit to being out of my depth when it comes to deciding how information about these subjects should be split across multiple articles, but for as long as the current division of content is maintained across the relevant articles, I think that these redirects are actively misleading and should either be deleted or redirected back to Saraswati and Lakshmi respectively. signed, Rosguill talk 01:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Rosguill. Nyttend's advice isn't bad, but these seem too problematic to just leave as they are in the meantime. -- BDD ( talk) 19:47, 8 October 2019 (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.

Returning citizens

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 5#Returning citizens

Anty Matter

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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Implausible typo. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:05, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Funny, but useless. What's next, "Auntie Matter"? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:09, 28 September 2019 (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.

Seetee

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 4#Seetee

Template:Project Florida template

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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Unused and useless. It does not follow the standard convention for redirects Wikiproject banners. Magioladitis ( talk) 07:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom as an unused (no significant links, virtually no pageviews), non-standard project banner redirect. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:05, 28 September 2019 (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.

Template:Project Florida category

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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 06:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Unused and useless. It does not follow the standard convention for redirects Wikiproject banners. Magioladitis ( talk) 07:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom as an unused (no significant links, virtually no pageviews), non-standard project banner redirect. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:06, 28 September 2019 (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.

Template:PCP

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 29#Template:PCP

Piripicho

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. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Per WP:FORRED, these 3 redirects all appear to be foreign language words or phrases and I'm suggesting deletion. "Piripicho" appears to be Spanish and might be slang. I can't tell what language even that "Ŝot Brot" is supposed to be. The 3 redirects combined have only 8 total pageviews in the last 90 days. Chris857 ( talk) 03:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete all (I added yet another variation of "sot brot" to the nomination). "Piripicho" is Venezuelan Spanish slang meaning "penis", not used for a USB drive as far as I know. There's a mention of it in our Venezuelan Spanish article, but it's hardly worth having the redirect. I cannot find any explanation for "sot brot" that doesn't circle back to Wikipedia. 50.248.234.77 ( talk) 04:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The objective of Wikipedia is to add to its readership's knowledge, not to its readership's confusion. These redirects have so far accomplished the reverse. flowing dreams ( talk page) 06:10, 26 September 2019 (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.

Space navigator

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. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Generic sci-fi term that does not appear within the target, a line of devices for viewing 3D models. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:45, 20 September 2019 (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.

Lps04

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. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Again, this redirect page has no obvious connection to its target article. ― Susmuffin  Talk 01:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Searches point to some HP Cordex LPS04 printer. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: or speedy delete as an improbable typo or abbreviation. The creator of this redirect seems to be obsessed with (disruptively) making bizarre redirects. See [5]. Toddst1 ( talk) 09:27, 25 September 2019 (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.

Pp2013

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. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC) reply

"Pp2013" has no clear relation to the article that it redirects to. Yes, it could be a shortened version of "PAW Patrol 2013", but that would not be obvious to the average reader. ― Susmuffin  Talk 01:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. This isn't a common abbreviation. Could be for powerpoint 2013 for all I know. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - someone needs to have a word with Awikivisitor20122018 ( talk · contribs) about their "shortcuts". They are the creator of all of the ones we've been discussing here over the past few weeks. From their history they've been doing this since at least last December, and this new set was created yesterday. Also, what's up with their blocked doppelganger Awikivisitor21122018 in all this? Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 21:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: or speedy delete as an improbable typo or abbreviation. The creator of this redirect seems to be obsessed with (disruptively) making bizarre redirects. See [6]. Toddst1 ( talk) 09:28, 25 September 2019 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_20&oldid=1073158654"