From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 5
July 7 >

July 6

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 6, 2020.

Hornet Interceptor

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 Hornet (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete unless someone can find a new target; it is not mentioned here. Of the WP:Broken redirects to this page, this is the only one that didn't have its own history, and it was {{ cn}} tagged for being unreferenced when it was listed. -- 2pou ( talk) 23:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Retarget to Hornet (disambiguation). 122.61.86.240 ( talk) 10:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Hornet (disambiguation) or disambig. while the Star Wars use is the clear primary topic, both the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet and Hawker Fury are aircraft known as "hornets" that perform(ed) interceptor roles and do sometimes get called "Hornet interceptor", and its plausible other military aircraft listed at the dab page are too - however this is not apparent from the dab page so a separate one may be justified. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of minerals (complete)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 22:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The use of "complete" is misleading, considering that Wikipedia is, and will always be, a work in progress. That, and the target lists could change at any time, meaning that their current state is not complete ever. In addition, please see Talk:List of minerals approved by IMA#Requested move 30 January 2020 for further context. (Also, at the present time, these redirects do not have any incoming "(article)"-namespace links.) Steel1943 ( talk) 22:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  • ( edit conflict) Keep all per K4 as {{ R from page move}}s ( courtesy link for others) that aren't ambiguous. This redirect on its own received 11 pageviews last month and I suspect the other redirects posit similar figures —  J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • "...aren't ambiguous"? See List of minerals (versus List of minerals approved by IMA and is alphabetically organized list pages.) And who is to say that the "IMA" is the only source of determining what is "complete"? ... which is a claim that comes with advocating to keep these redirects as unambiguous? Steel1943 ( talk) 23:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    ...That, and the linked move discussion actually supports the deletion of these redirects. One editor agreed that the use of the "(complete)" disambiguator to describe these list articles was misleading, and other than the anon editor who chimed in suggesting a "(Total)" disambiguator, no editors supported retaining the use of the "(complete)" disambiguator and agreed that the disambiguator should be removed. Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is always a work in progress, and will never be complete. In other words, the use of the word "complete" anywhere in an article's name (unless part of a proper name) is about as accurate and useful as having the word "other" as the first word of an article title. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    Fair enough. I personally think that as an unlikely search term these redirects' views are mostly from people looking for the current target articles and thus should be kept even if incorrect, but I undrstand this is a view not shared by many. —  J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. It's misleading to have a redirect that says "complete" to a list that explicitly says it's not complete. -- Tavix ( talk) 00:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all (1st choice, especially the ones following the format of "A–B"), since Wikipedia is constantly a work in progress, and there are most likely minerals that have yet to be discovered. For the others that don't follow that format, if they're worth keeping by any chance, weak retarget them to List of minerals (2nd choice, the most suitable alternative target I could find), putting the letter ones at the appropriate sections. Then again, the term "complete" is potentially misleading, as it's a list of minerals on Earth, and that list keeps being updated throughout the very many years. Regards, SONIC 678 01:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural close – I would !vote all of them "delete" if it is not a WP:TRAINWRECK. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 04:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • ...Yeah, can't say this will be a WP:TRAINWRECK, so best not breathe that into existence. ( WP:BEANS) All the redirects have the same issue as identified in my nomination statement and do not individually target different random, unrelated targets. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • @ Soumya-8974: just because a lot of redirects are nominated, it doesn't mean that the nomination is automatically a WP:TRAINWRECK. Please at least read what you are citing; the first sentence of that is A nomination of a group of related pages for deletion or renaming which fails due to the disparate nature or worth of the pages. That obviously does not apply to this nomination. —  J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom-- Devokewater ( talk) 06:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per nom and as ambiguous. Could also refer to Mineral (nutrient). Narky Blert ( talk) 12:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all ambiguous and misleading. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY of complete knowledge. -- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Discoverers of the Americas

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 19#Discoverers of the Americas

AKKKPG

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Unlikely search term. Song is never referred to as such. Google search for the abbreviation comes up empty. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 21:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Oppose deletion: It is a useful redirect. A short abbreviation instead of typing full name, to reduce time consumption. Empire AS Talk! 04:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. See WP:MADEUP. Redirects are most definitely not for promoting your ideas; this is an encyclopedia, not an advert. Unused abbreviation outside of here. —  J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per J947. Further, Empire AS's comment "If it will be on Wikipedia then other search engines would also show it" offends against both WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX. Narky Blert ( talk) 12:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Devokewater ( talk) 15:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Above users are right. Completely made up. 1.38.164.204 ( talk) 01:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Run (upcoming TV series)

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) 15:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC) reply

As per precedence in several archived discussions in WP:RFD: Target subjects no longer upcoming, thus the redirects should be deleted. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete all per nom. To be fair, at least this Hamilton movie was still upcoming at the time of the nomination before the current COVID-19 pandemic uprooted studios' plans (thus the Hamilton one would have been appropriate right now had that pandemic not taken place), but it'll suffice to say that these works have already been released, so these five redirects have pretty much outlived their usefulness. Regards, SONIC 678 22:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per nom. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 00:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per above. Free them up for any future series or films of the same names. Narky Blert ( talk) 12:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the Irresistible and Capone redirects, as they are drawing a large amount of traffic. Whether it's an external link or people actively searching this term, I think that these redirects are clearly still serving a purpose (we can reconsider deleting them once the films have aged a bit). Delete the others. signed, Rosguill talk 19:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Capone (upcoming film) averaged 1 page view a day before the nomination, so I wouldn't call that a "large amount of traffic". And regarding Irresistible (upcoming film): Prior to the nomination, the title had incoming links in two articles: Seaborn Jones Memorial Park and Rockmart, Georgia ... which have since been bypassed: [1] [2]. Steel1943 ( talk) 13:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply
      Ok, but since July 11th views have shot up for Capone (upcoming film), whereas Irresistible had a similar spike that happened after those links were bypassed. signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Yeah, both had a rather large view spike after they were listed on RFD. My guess in that is because their targets' talk pages are now informed of this RfD discussion since the redirects are tagged via Twinkle. If the redirects' targets are popular (which I'm assuming these are), there's bound to be a good lot of passerby gawkers viewing the nominated redirects when they click the redirect's link on the target's talk page. Steel1943 ( talk) 01:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
      Also, if their target page is tagged with WikiProject banners, then these RFD discussions show up on and WikiProject page set up with an "Alerts" page. All I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure this is a meta cause (RFD nomination) and effect (readers clicking the redirect due to notifications and alerts) situation. (If I recall, this is the very reason why the {{ Rfd2}} template is set up hardcoded to show only the days' page views prior to when the nomination started.) Steel1943 ( talk) 01:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
      It seems weird that they would spike 5 days after the listing thought. Was an alert action carried out on that day? signed, Rosguill talk 22:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
      I'm not sure ... Delayed reaction, maybe? Either way, both spikes in page views have subsided since. Steel1943 ( talk) 14:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hamilfilm

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 ( talk) 01:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Unnotable madeup WP:NEO. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I probably should've cited a source there, but #Hamilfilm or #HamilFilm was a widely trending hashtag about the film, and Hamilfilm is pretty popularly used to casually refer to the film. Definitely not made up. BanjoZebra ( talk) 22:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
@ BanjoZebra: Fair enough. I revised my nomination statement. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not called Hamilfilm. 122.61.86.240 ( talk) 10:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep very, very widely used to refer to this film making this is a highly plausible search term. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, mentioned in RS, [3]. signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (strongly). It's mentioned and used in reliable, and it's very, very widely used to refer to this film (it's 100% not "made-up"). Paintspot Infez ( talk) 00:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hamilton (2021 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 Withdrawn. The first three comments have convinced me. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 ( talk) 22:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Wrong year. Film released in 2020. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the lead of the target article, the film was scheduled for release in 2021 so that date will appear in sources and this will remain a plausible search term. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this was also the original title of the article until moved 3.5 months later. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The year was changed to 2020 so people could watch it during the COVID-19 pandemic, and like Thryduulf said, sources say 2021 so it's possible for people to get confused. OcelotCreeper ( talk) 22:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above ( K4 pageviews). —  J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Vanangamudi (2018 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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Film (subject of target page) not yet released. 2017 and 2018 are failed WP:CRYSTAL. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tiny car

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. signed, Rosguill talk 19:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:OR. No such official designation exists. Maybe redirect to Tiny (car)? Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep. Microcar has never been an official designation, it's a description that has only become popularised and widely accepted in the last 40 years or so. For the less well informed visitor, "Tiny car" is probably quite a useful redirect and you will find that somewhat imprecise description used in countless media articles over the years to describe cars which are smaller than the norm and I will happily provide references if required. A hat note would better serve those looking for the very obscure cyclecar brand Mighty Antar ( talk) 22:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Reply. "cars which are smaller than the norm" can apply to subcompacts, superminis, etc. So maybe you would have a (tiny) leg to stand on if it were "Tiniest car", but your own definition doesn't fly. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Official designation? We do not require a man in a bowler hat to use such common English words. Andrew🐉( talk) 00:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Reply. You can use common words any way you please. Just don't equate them to other terms here without sources. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Reply. As I did say previously, I can provide sources - Classic Cars (magazine) Feb 1992 "Classic Motoring Years – tiny cars of the 50s" - an article exclusively about "Microcars". Three Wheeler News Feb 1961 "Tiny car with a big heart" - the NSU Prinz. Prior to the 1970's the only place you will find the term Microcar applied exclusively to what we now think of as microcars is in one specific magazine. Mighty Antar ( talk) 11:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Vague-- Devokewater ( talk) 21:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Being colloquial is not a reason to delete, and nor is not being an official name (in fact it is policy that articles don't even need to be an official name!). This is clearly a plausible search term but is arguably a bit ambiguous. Perhaps another hat note or two on Microcar? A7V2 ( talk) 11:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Eastern wear

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 Thryduulf ( talk) 00:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

A Scholar search suggests that this term could refer to types of clothing other than folk costumes. I would suggest deletion, unless someone can find a better target or a strong justification. signed, Rosguill talk 20:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete no connection between the two -- Devokewater ( talk) 21:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, this can also refer to stuff in Africa, Oceania, parts of Europe, etc., which are geographically in the Eastern Hemisphere but some countries of which are culturally part of the "Western World." Whether they're Eastern or Western is a matter of debate, to say the least. Regards, SONIC 678 22:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

South Mexico

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 19:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Southern Mexico was deleted at an RfD in June 2014 to make way for an article that doesn't exist yet. This redirect is synonymous. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 13:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:STATUTE

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 19#Wikipedia:STATUTE

Nazi slave labor camp

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 Forced labour under German rule during World War II. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Vague term with multiple meanings, could also refer to Arbeitslager, POW camps, or Wehrmacht detention sites. Too vague to disambiguate imo. b uidh e 05:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Buidhe's comments suggests he or she does not know what a POW camp is. The Geneva Convention lays out how POW camps should be operated - humanely, basically. Barracks comparable to those used to house the captor country's own frontline troops. The captor country could call on POWs for work - for pay, under humane working conditions. So, not slave labour.

    Did the German military justice system operate German military personnel who committed crimes, like the US military operates military justice prisons like Fort Leavenworth? If so, those confined there would be convicts, not slaves.

    I looked at Arbeitslager. It was my impression that slave labour was employed at the camps that were primarily used for killing people, and that other concentration camps killed slaves by working them to death.

    If the SS distinguished between camps that primarily killed people and those that killed them by working them to death, that is not an argument to delete this redirect. Rather it is an argument to change its target to the brief article that explained the distinction between these kinds of Nazi camps.

    If we don't have an article that distinguishes between the different kinds of Nazi camp that used slave labour why don't you Buidhe start one? Geo Swan ( talk) 13:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC) reply

    • Were Soviet (or Polish) POWs treated according to the Geneva Conventions? Of course not. b uidh e 19:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Captured Soviet soldiers were not treated according to the Geneva Conventions, and were sometimes worked to death as slave labour, because the Soviet Union was not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. Buidhe, The terms of the Third Geneva Convention oblige signatories to treat the captured soldiers of other signatory nations humanely, in humanely run POW camps, run by their military.

        Captives from non-signatory countries got no protection. And soldiers captured by non-signatory countries, like the Soviet Union, were not under any Geneva Convention protections, either.

        In fact the USSR continued to employ their captives as slave labour, for years, sometimes decades, after the defeat of the Axis.

        Weren't the camps where Soviet captives were employed as slave labour run by the SS, or some other Nazi organization? That is an argument for keeping this redirect, or giving it a broader target, as I suggested above. Geo Swan ( talk) 20:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as misleading, unless someone can think of a better target. As one example, the Alderney camps used forced labour but weren't concentration camps. Narky Blert ( talk) 18:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Narky Blert, I saw a documentary on the German occupation of the Channel Islands. I paid particular attention as I have cousins who lived there during World War 2. That documentary discussed how many slave labourers who were worked to death there, by the Nazis. Nominator wants to distinguish between the Nazi camps where unwanted individuals, like jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and leftists were worked to death, and camps where most prisoners were marched straight to the gas chambers. But gas chambers and death through overwork on starvation rations were equally part of the "Final solution".
A year or two ago a scholar published a book about the history of concentration camps. Reviewers and other scholars said her book was the definitive work on the subject. The first camps called "concentration camps" were used by the Spanish, in Cuba, and other colonies, not long before the Spanish-American War. A few years later the British held Boer civilians in camps they called concentration camps, during the Boer War. Americans used concentration camps in the colonies they captured from Spain. Nazi Germany was not the first or the last country to use concentration camps.
The key element that makes a camp a concentration camp is that those held there are held there due to their identity or ethnicity - not because they stood accused of a crime.
Nominator wants to distinguish between the Nazi camps where most new prisoners were marched straight to a gas chamber, and camps where prisoners were merely brutally overworked on starvation rations. However, they both meet the scholar's definition of a concentration camp.
May I draw your attention to Alderney_camps#Two_concentration_camps? It says, "The other two camps became concentration camps when they were handed over to be run by the SS from 1 March 1943, they became subcamps of the Neuengamme camp outside Hamburg."
May I suggest that it is not the redirect that is misleading, but rather the arguments offered by the nominator. I am going to ping K.e.coffman, as your delete is merely a briefer version of Narky Blert's. Geo Swan ( talk) 21:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Nazi camps that detained Poles

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. The early discussion of types of camps proved tangential to the question of whether we list camps (of any sort) where Nazis detained Poles specifically. The delete voters have convincingly argued that we do not. -- BDD ( talk) 19:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Misleading, while there were Polish prisoners at many Nazi concentration camps, Polish people were detained at many camps outside the concentration camp system. b uidh e 04:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC) reply

If there were Polish criminals who faced charges and were convicted during a trial, and served a sentence outside the Concentration Camp System, this would not be an argument for deleting this redirect.
Did the Nazis confine Poles, who weren't accused of genuine crimes, outside of the concentration camp system? Can you name even one of these Nazi detention camps that was not a concentration camp? Geo Swan ( talk) 13:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • There were millions of Polish forced laborers [4] above and beyond the hundreds of thousands in Nazi concentration camps. [5] USHMM says there were tens of thousands of places the foreign workers were forced to work, but the encyclopedia hasn't been published yet [6] For specific examples, consider than the entire Polenlager system was outside the Nazi concentration camp system. b uidh e 19:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC) reply
    • You keep trying to redefine the nature of camps. Your redefinition is bogus.

      Genuine, Geneva Convention compliant POW camps were not concentration camps. Jails and prisons where convicts are held, or suspects awaiting trial are held, were not concentration camps. But all other camps, where people were held due to their ethnicity, religion, political sympathies, or sexuality, were concentration camps. Geo Swan ( talk) 21:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: it's unclear what this redirect is trying to accomplish, as the target is neither a list, nor does it specifically focuse on Polish victims. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with both the nominator and K.e.coffman; this redirect is misleading. -- pandakekok9 ( talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 10:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to List of Nazi concentration camps. List not article. 122.61.86.240 ( talk) 10:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • This comment makes no sense, that list includes camps where Poles were not held and does not include the types of camps where most Poles in "Nazi camps" were held. ( t · c) buidhe 10:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with the arguments that this redirect is possibly misleading. If Polish prisoners in Nazi concentration camps ever gets a list section then it would be an appropriate target, but it may be putting the cart before the horse to redirect there now. signed, Rosguill talk 19:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dancing Israelis

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

This redirect is recently created and an implausible search term in this context. While the target article mentions early reports of Israelis reacting oddly to the attacks, it doesn't mention dancing. There may be possible confusion with Donald Trump's claims of having witnessed similar behavior from Arabs. Our search results for the term mostly return topics related to actual Dance in Israel, though this doesn't seem like a likely search term for that either. BDD ( talk) 19:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Burushi language

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 19#Burushi language

9/11 conspiracy theories regarding Jews or Israel

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 9/11 conspiracy theories. signed, Rosguill talk 19:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

"9/11 conspiracy theories regarding Jews or Israel" was a standalone article until 2005. Such conspiracy theories generally fall into one of two buckets: Israel had some sort of general foreknowledge of the attacks, as detailed at the current target, and Israel actually was responsible for the attacks, as described at 9/11 conspiracy theories#Israel. I propose we prefer the broader place for these redirects and retarget to 9/11 conspiracy theories. While this action seems uncontroversial enough, the underlying subject matter is controversial enough that I thought discussion best. -- BDD ( talk) 18:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Second Babylonian dynasty

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 14#Second Babylonian dynasty

Bush knew

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. There is a strong consensus that the circumstances of this redirect sway weakly towards keeping the redirect - this is the strongest showing of "weak keep"s I've seen in a long time. Deryck C. 02:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC) reply

This redirect was deleted following Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 16#Redirects implying Bush's direct involvement on 9/11 but recreated in February this year. Google searches for "Bush knew" relate to a whole host of things that someone prominent with this surname did or is alleged to have known (mainly, but not exclusively, George W. Bush).
From the first five pages of google hits, George w. Bush is alleged to have known: all about CIA interrogation methods/CIA torture, Harambe's mother (whether that is Harambe or not isn't clear from the snippet), the 9/11 attacks were planned, how he wanted to be remembered, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Guantanamo prisoners were innocent, he couldn't declare war on Iraq without congressional approval and other things. George Bush senior knew how to be a loyal friend, the art of the deal, he was no Reagan, not supporting the German Chancellor would be destabilising and every foreign leader in the world. Barbara Bush knew about politics and that literacy is critical to success. CIA torture and 9/11 are the only two topics that could be primary topic, but there is nothing to choose between them in terms of prominence so I think deletion is probably the best way to go, but I wouldn't object to disambiguation. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Pinging those involved in the previous discussion (who aren't blocked): @ Ivanvector, BDD, Patar knight, CoffeeWithMarkets, SteveStrummer, SmokeyJoe, Champion, Eric0928, Billinghurst, Tavix, Tazerdadog, Arthur Rubin, and Snow Rise: Thryduulf ( talk) 16:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep I'm surprising myself, since I was a plain "delete" on this during the last discussion, and the fact that it was closed as delete should've solidified that. But I'm looking back at Patar knight's argument in particular pointing to a New York Post headline of "BUSH KNEW". It's a reasonable enough shorthand version of the topic; while the descriptive title is totally appropriate, it also means we need to give readers some leeway, since they're unlikely to type in "September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories" on their own. And I'm not too concerned with the ambiguity either. Sure, this could refer to any foreknowledge of anyone named Bush, but how many other such cases are encyclopedic and likely search terms? Finally, I'm looking at other redirects to the page and only see minimal access via terms with Bush's name. -- BDD ( talk) 18:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep... I actually lodged no formal !vote in the previous discussion, but rather only commented on a relatively minor rhetorical point raised in the discussion, but since I've been pinged here, I'll get off the fence and give a more directly functional opinion. My take, similar to that expressed by BDD at the end of his !vote above, is that there are probably no other topics (aside from the subject of the target article) so expressly associated with this phrase in an established idiomatic fashion, which are also notable encyclopedic topics. In other words, I feel that anyone actually putting that phrase into a search query here is unlikely to be looking for anything other than the conspiracy theory in question. I think if they are using that particular phrase to try to engage with the topic, they are also likely to (at least initially) be dissatisfied with the skeptical information they find there, but that's really neither here nor there with regard to this determination. I will admit that the evidence presented (largely in the form of google hits) is not exactly a gold standard with regard to determining the semantic focus of the phrase, and that we're leveraging a certain amount of "common sense" here in deducing what those figures mean--this is clearly not ideal, but unfortunately sometimes is the nature of the beast when it comes to redirects, and I think the (admittedly minor) utility gained probably just barely suffices to make this the most pragmatic solution. It's a close call though, surely.
...or even weaker support for disambiguation Alternatively, I guess that the competing suggestion of making this a disambiguation page would be my second choice, but there my concern is that this page would just become a cache-all for every kind of conspiracy theory that exists in relation to the Bush family, and most of those topics would probably have even less justification than the current target article for being considered a presumptive meaning behind the phrase, pushing the whole situation a little closer towards outright OR.
Ultimately my take here is that there probably is some utility in keeping the page, but the issues here are notable enough that I wouldn't lose sleep over any of the three likely outcomes, deletion included. Snow let's rap 19:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • delete my reasoning is unchanged, it is ambiguous; maybe it is known and expected phrase from an American non-neutral PoV. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per my reasoning in the previous RFD. It's a popular, memy shorthand for 9/11 advance knowledge conspiracy theories that doesn't apply to other things that members of the Bush family knew. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 15:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, due to the phrase's prevalence as a meme. For what it's worth, searching on DuckDuckGo almost all of the top results are about 9/11. signed, Rosguill talk 19:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think there's consensus to keep, but I don't feel comfortable closing it myself given that I !voted in the previous discussion. Sure, "Bush knew" became a meme of sorts after Harambe, but the meme references 9-11 which is easily the primary topic for the phrase. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Stockholm Tunnel Rail Lines

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Name changed by a sockpuppet to: Stockholm Tunnel Rail Line 11 Devokewater ( talk) 15:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Name changed by a sockpuppet to: Stockholm Tunnel Rail Line 17 Devokewater ( talk) 15:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Name changed by a sockpuppet to: Stockholm Tunnel Rail Line 19 Devokewater ( talk) 15:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom and discussion below. Also requested by only editor of the page. - 2pou ( talk) 16:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Devokewater: You may get a better/faster resolution for this by posting to WP:RM/TR#Requests to revert undiscussed moves - 2pou ( talk) 15:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Thanks 2pou, I've posted it there. -- Devokewater ( talk) 15:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Sorry, Devokewater, I appear to have misled you. I didn't check these histories to realize that you had already moved the templates back to where they were supposed to be, and now you are asking that the leftover redirect be deleted... I removed that RM/TR post to avoid confusion. This is the correct place, unless you want to request a speedy CSD with Twinkle. But letting this play out, I support deletion. - 2pou ( talk) 16:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Vandalismus

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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 15:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete all of these per WP:RFOREIGN. The concept of vandalism has no particular affinity with the German, Esperanto, Galician, Italian, Latin, Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Danish, Dutch, French or Czech language, as vandalism is something that happens everywhere in the world. Not a very active user ( talk) 14:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wine vandalism

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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 15:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The term "wine vandalism" is not explained in the target article, and the target contains no mentions about wine or any other kinds of alcoholic drinks. Not a very active user ( talk) 14:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Not mentioned, and term seems to be ambiguous- Google hits suggest a variety of different uses for the term. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete ambiguous -- Devokewater ( talk) 16:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this junk, honestly I didn't know "wine vandalism" was a thing before this. The article doesn't mention wineries or vineyards or any such thing, like entering the term "wine vandalism" into Google might suggest. As such, it might be better to just do without this redirect. Regards, SONIC 678 20:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Digital Sepltuario

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 speedily deleted by Fastily under criterion WP:CSD#G7. The target page was moved to draft space and the resulting redirect speedily deleted. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

implausible typo Ingratis ( talk) 13:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Simple vandalism

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The term "simple vandalism" is not explained at the target page. In fact, the word "simple" doesn't appear at the target page at all. Not a very active user ( talk) 13:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ongoing vandalism

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The target article contains no information about ongoing vandalism. According to the redirect's history, this redirect originally was a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress (which was later moved to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.) Not a very active user ( talk) 13:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Spamdalism

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The current target contains no information about spam. Also, the term "spamdalism" is not mentioned in any Wikipedia article. Not a very active user ( talk) 13:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

EPrix de Beijing de 2014

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. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 15:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

This race in China has no strong ties with French, so no need for French redirect. Looks to be redirect from page move, but nothing link to it- so no harm in deleting it Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. SEPRodrigues moved the article to this title and then immediately back again in 2017 (possibly to create the redirect?) without explanation. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. -- Devokewater ( talk) 21:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as non-sensical. In what situation would someone use de but not Pékin (French for Beijing, per thier article on Beijing).
    SSSB ( talk) 08:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A moção e a criação do redirecionamento foi o resultado de um equívoco meu. Na época, minha intenção era renomear o título da página sobre o referido ePrix da Wikipédia em português que estava no padrão da Wiki anglófona, mas em um ato falho acabei renomeando foi a página em língua inglesa. Em seguida, ao perceber o erro, reverti minha alteração, porém foi criado automaticamente um redirecionamento. SEPRodrigues ( talk) 13:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Using Google Translate on the above comment, it looks like they meant to move the page of Portugese Wikipedia, but accidentally moved it on English Wikipedia instead. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 11:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Al-Khushaym

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete. This was created as a stub about a dune in the Emirate. In 2012 user:Staszek Lem redirected it without comment. [7] It is not currently mentioned at the target page. A similar name Khushaym is a distant settlement in Saudi Arabia. – Fayenatic London 10:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

L2 norm

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. It seems that D.Lazard's revisions on 27 June should have cleared up any confusion with the current target. Otherwise, participants seem rather split between the two targets, so I am calling it no consensus. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Could also refer to the norm used on the space of square-integrable functions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 14:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Retarget to either Norm (mathematics)#p-norm or Lp space. Same action for Lp-norm, Lp norm, p norm, p-norm, L2-norm, 2-norm, L1 norm, L1-norm, and maybe several others, which must all have the same target. I have a slight preference for the first target, but, in any case, each possible target must be linked to the other. D.Lazard ( talk) 15:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Nobody asks for deletion, and this is not a deletion discussion, but a retargeting discussion. Moreover, the preceding RfD has been closed by following the advice of a sockpuppet, with comments of only 3 regular editors (including the nominator). So the normal action would have been a relisting rather than a closure. Nevertheless, this discussion is misplaced here, as it concerns only mathematicians, and generally mathematicians do not watch this page. So, it should be better placed at the talk page of one of the suggested targets or at WP:WPM. However, as it is here that the discussion started, it is better to not change of place, and I'll simply notify the Wikiproject Mathematics. D.Lazard ( talk) 21:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Disambig: It’s not clear to me what the best target is; the term seems to be either an Euclidean norm or a norm on L^2 space, which is a Hilbert space. This suggests the page should be a disambig page. —- Taku ( talk) 22:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Lp space, which has the more relevant discussion. Euclidean space is a Hilbert space, so it doesn't have to be either/or. A disambig page just feels like an unnecessary extra layer for such a dicdef-y search term. -- Trovatore ( talk) 23:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC) reply
    (It occurs to me that if we want to be super-picky, what I said about Euclidean space being a Hilbert space isn't quite true. Euclidean space per se doesn't have a distinguished origin, so it's not even a vector space. But if you're thinking of it that way, it also doesn't make sense to talk about L2 norm (or any norm) on it. Anything we want to say about a Euclidean norm should be covered at Lp space. -- Trovatore ( talk) 17:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply
    Euclidean space is not a vector space, but Euclidean vector spaces are inner product spaces. They are normed spaces, and Hilbert spaces for the Euclidean norm, that is the norm defined by the square root of the "inner square". This norm is a L2 norm only if one has specified an orthonormal basis. D.Lazard ( talk) 20:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget to Lp space. Per the above : the reasonable targets are this one and Norm (mathematics)#p-norm, and the former indeed has all the content associated to L2-norm (indeed the norm page redirects to it). jraimbau ( talk) 10:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The target of this redirect is presently Norm (mathematics)#Euclidean norm. I have just rewritten this section because of its confusion between Euclidean space, Euclidean vector space and (each is a special case of the preceding). The Euclidean norm is defined on every Euclidean vector space, but is a L2 norm only if an orthonormal basis has been chosen, that allows identifying it with So, as in general the Euclidean norm is not an L2 norm, the present redirect is wrong. Nevertheless, I have left in the section that in the case of the Euclidean norm is an L2 norm. D.Lazard ( talk) 20:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Do not retarget. The L2 norm is a very simple norm, defined clearly at the current link. After D.Lazard's edits, the technical details discussed here are clarified, and can be clarified further if desired. -- Yoderj ( talk) 17:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    I have linked to Norm (mathematics)#p-norm from the current redirect target. This gives an opportunity for readers to read about the more general form if desired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoderj ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, pandakekok9 ( talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 10:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fudge (euphemism)

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 Minced oath. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned on the article. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jancok

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned on the article. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Not mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia that I can see. Jančok seems to be a Slavic surname, but there is nobody with that name who has an article at present. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:RFFL. It's Indonesian (see id:Jancok), and seems to be less versatile than the F-bomb. Narky Blert ( talk) 12:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fuque

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 13#Fuque

Vaffanculo

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 Italian profanity. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned on this f***ing article. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Former WPHD

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 19:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

WCBF is not the only station that could be considered "former WPHD"; there is a disambiguation page at WPHD that lists three other stations ( WENI-FM, WQBF, and WEDG) that would be considered dome form of "former WPHD". That said, I'm not sure this is would be a common enough search term to merit even a retarget. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

WCB-FM

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 -- JHunterJ ( talk) 11:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

None of the entries on the target dab page are called "WCB-FM" in any way; this redirect seems to be the product of a page move to a not-quite-correct title, but most page move redirects appear to be ineligible for speedy deletion criterion R3. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Making Waves: The Art of Cinematic Sound

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 procedure close. The article has been written (thanks User:Erik). I'd like to emphasize that most likely the article would have been written far sooner were it not for the redirect, and far later were it not for this RfD. Nardog ( talk) 21:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Not helpful. The film isn't even mentioned in the target article because it lost the 100% status. And even if it was, it would still be unwarranted as it would tell you nothing about the film except the RT score. (I find redirect creation like this, seemingly done just to eliminate red links, detrimental to the project.) Nardog ( talk) 00:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Retarget to Cecelia Hall. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 00:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    Oppose retargeting to Cecelia Hall. As far as I understand Hall is just one of the many subjects of the film. If an article about the director ( Midge Costin) existed, I might support retargeting to it, but it doesn't, so deletion is the only sensible option (aside, of course, from article creation, which I might do when I have time). Nardog ( talk) 03:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Recreate already. The film has 63 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Just create a stub out of it in a few minutes. I would do it if I wasn't sure about mucking up the RfD process. Erik ( talk |  contrib) ( ping me) 12:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Write the article. Clearly passes WP:NFILM; reviews in The Guardian, Variety and at BFI, and that's just from the top half of the first page of a Google search. @ Erik: if you want to have a go, just add a draft (even if WP:STUBby) at the bottom of the redirect Making Waves: The Art of Cinematic Sound, below the notices. RFD encourages writing articles, and that could result in a speedy close. Narky Blert ( talk) 12:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_6&oldid=968878096"