This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 9, 2020.
Division algorithm for integers
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.
Retarget to
Long division. Apparently, this redirect date from the time where
Euclidean division was called "Division algorithm" (although this article is not about an algorithm). Retargetting to
Division algorithm would be possible, but, although this article has a section "Long division", it is focused on computer algorithms, and it is probable that
Long division is more convenient for most people searching for this phrase. Note that each possible target is linked in the hatnote of the other (for
Division algorithm I have just added it).
D.Lazard (
talk) 07:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Template:R from slang term
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.
There might be a strong argument for deletion of the second nom, {{
R from slang}}. These were created by the same editor, who made both of these on the same day two minutes apart, and who hasn't edited since early 2014. The first nom, {{
R from slang term}}, may have possibilities of becoming an rcat template; however, I see no need for two such similar redirects. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 12:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 22:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Agree that they should point to the same target if both exist, neutral regarding the eventual target but whichever is used, the existing transclusions should be reviewed for if the new target is appropriate --
DannyS712 (
talk) 06:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget to R from colloquial name. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 21:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Paine Ellsworth, had you seen this suggestion? I'd expect you to support it (though of course you're under no obligation to do so!). --
BDD (
talk) 19:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Template:R from colloquial name per Headbomb. I don't see why not. Non-neutral is a separate question, which should be applied or not individually. --
BDD (
talk) 19:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Paris of the South
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 disambiguate. There's definite consensus that the current redirect target is ambiguous and hence not the correct choice. "Paris of the X" has been specifically shown as a highly used cliché for many locations, and there are certainly plenty of general mentions of multiple places being "Paris of the South", so a disambiguation page seems to be the most helpful option for readers. I will draft a disambiguation page based on some of the suggestions here, and explicitly encourage others to improve it. If someone wishes to create a general article talking about, or listing places, involving "Paris of the X", that also seems to be encouraged here. ~
mazcatalk 12:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)reply
This nickname is neither unique to Asheville nor mentioned in the article. Google does give hits for Asheville, but also for
Buenos Aires,
Nice,
Barcelona and
New Orleans, the latter the only mention in article body text I can find (at
List of city nicknames in Louisiana, it is the title of a reference at Buenos Aires). I'm torn between deletion and a
List of cities nicknamed Paris of the South. Given the lack of article space mentions I'm not certain a dab page is best, but I'm not opposed if people prefer that option.
Thryduulf (
talk) 18:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. The only article with a sourced use of "Paris of the South" is
List of city nicknames in Louisiana referring to New Orleans, but even that source is an archived web page.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 14:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 22:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
A disambiguation page should probably list
Carrboro, North Carolina ("The Paris of the Piedmont"), perhaps in a see also. --
BDD (
talk) 14:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, while it may be possible to write a proper article on this term, or at least a set index article, based on the responses here it's not immediately clear what should be included in such a list, and I think it's unreasonable to expect the discussion's closer to take that on. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to
Veracity of statements by Donald Trump#Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory. Wikipedia's coverage of this strange controversy has been quite fluid with several previously-suggested targets being deleted and/or having mentions removed. Later participation generally seems to conclude that this target has settled as the most helpful encyclopedic mention of her. ~
mazcatalk 12:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)reply
False light libel BLP violation. This person and her death is unrelated to his resignation.
ConstantPlancks (
talk) 18:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned at target. CrazyBoy826 16:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
There is an ongoing discussion about the target at
Talk:Joe Scarborough#Lori Klausutis. Someone has invoked a
10+ year old consensus (that does not mention Klausutis by name). In my opinion, it is very likely something about the incident is to be included, but it is too soon to tell, whether Klausutis will be named and in which section that would be.
Politrukki (
talk) 16:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Just fyi, I made the redirect when there wuz still content naming her in the "Resignation" section. As it is currently the redirect makes no sense, since someone removed the info afterwards.
Kingoflettuce (
talk) 17:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Kingoflettuce: Why don't you restore the removed content? --Stay safe,
◊PRAHLADbalaji (
M•T•A•
C) This message was left at 17:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm sure I could and be justified in doing so since that's the consensus that was reached, albeit some time ago. Right now there is an ongoing re-discussion though, so I wouldn't want to be disruptive or anything. But certainly "Lora Klausutis", if not deserving of an article of her own, has much relevance to (Redacted) her former Congressman employer.
Kingoflettuce (
talk) 17:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I did not invoke any consensus. The text has serious BLP concerns, among other things, suggesting the LP resigned due to a death when the resignation was announced a month before the death. Some text may be added on the subject. But, I can’t imagine that it would be added to that section anyhow, making the redirect invalid. And be careful. There isn’t the tiniest shred of evidence suggesting he killed her.
O3000 (
talk) 19:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm simply making a factual statement that insinuations, if not straight-up accusations, have been made that Joe killed her. I'm not making any original claims and FYI, Trump wasn't the first to raise it either. You should be careful not to censor and gaslight
Kingoflettuce (
talk) 05:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Useless redirect, hurtful and unnecessary. Speedy delete. --
Anvilaquarius (
talk) 17:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete for now. We need settled, current consensus to mention her by name if there's going to be a redirect. (For now, I am not expressing an opinion as to whether we should do so.) --
BDD (
talk) 19:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The second article looks like the correct target -- assuming the article remains, and if so, her name remains in the article.
O3000 (
talk) 20:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - given this name has been in the news recently, the redirect should exist, and this is the most logical target for it. (
Donald Trump's Joe Scarborough Murder Conspiracy Theory, linked above, would be an even better target, but I've just nominated that one for deletion as a clear case of NOTNEWS.)
Robofish (
talk) 00:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: This name is a likely search term.
Joe Scarborough#Resignation is the best target. Donald Trump did not start this conspiracy theory. It has been around for almost 20 years, and Michael Moore also raised the issue. So redirecting to "Trump tweets" is not appropriate.--
Jack Upland (
talk) 01:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete Per BLP policy. Conspiracy theories or Trump tries could be a possible redirect, but surely surviving family deserve better treatment than being dragged into baseless conspiracy theories. --
Cantabwarrior (
talk) 02:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Since when was "surely surviving family deserve better treatment..." part of Wikipedia policy? We might as well scrub out all unsolved murder articles here, for starters. Let's not pretend that Joe Scarborough is of zero relevance here...
Kingoflettuce (
talk) 05:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete She is not notable. Jimbo weighed in on the AfD ages ago. Delete and salt. This is pathetic. It was deleted when her husband made a direct appeal that his dead wife not be used in a political spat almost 20 years ago. Pathetic that hacks want to continue this. Stop. Delete. She is not a part of this farce.
ConstantPlancks (
talk) 07:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
What's pathetic is your harping on what mighty Jimmy said ages ago (precisely!), disregarding whatever else has happened since then--and the fact that we're discussing a redirect here. She may not be notable enuf to warrant her own article (the AfD proves that much) but her name remains a likely and relevant search term that, as things stand, should redirect to Joe Scarborough's article.
Kingoflettuce (
talk) 07:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Her name is not part of this. Dragging her name through this is disgusting. It adds nothing. Nothing has happened that makes this person part of this. Nothing has changed that in 20 years. It's hackery.
ConstantPlancks (
talk) 18:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Why was this created over the previous delete (multiple times)? Not new. Jimbo said it best ant it's still true. Review everything here and it's not the only time.
Articles_for_deletion/Lori_KlausutisConstantPlancks (
talk) 07:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. On the other hand, I have seen the targeted article and I think it is short. Lacks the Chinese coronavirus origin by the POTUS, by the way.
BoldLuis (
talk) 23:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Some of the keep and redirect votes appear to have been made moot (or at least weakened) due to changes in article content and the deletion of related pages. At this time,
Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump#Joe_Scarborough_murder_conspiracy_theory and
Mika_Brzezinski#Trump_tweets appear to be the two pages that still mention Klausutis in the article text. Courtesy ping to editors whose suggested targets do not currently mention Klausutis,
Robofish,
Jack Upland,
Bejnar
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 22:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Liberal theology
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
Religious liberalism, which links to the articles that would be covered in a dab as a broad concept article. --
JHunterJ (
talk) 11:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)reply
This phrase, "liberal theology," does not refer exclusively to a left-leaning application of Christian theology and as such, should not redirect exclusively to "Liberal Christianity". This is quite a blatant case of christocentric bias.
ItsPugle (
talk) 21:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or disambiguate. In any event, the current target cannot stand. Compare
Liberal Judaism (a DAB page),
Liberal Islam and
Liberal Catholic (a DAB page), and for all I know interpretations of other denominations or religions.
Narky Blert (
talk) 03:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete' or convert to a dab page per Narky Blert - multiple valid targets --
DannyS712 (
talk) 06:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate as a valid search term, but with no agreed on target. For example, I immediately thought of
Liberation theology.
Jontesta (
talk) 17:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Boiling Springs, Pennsylania
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.
@
J947: Is there a way to check if any articles link here? It's an unnecessary page if none do.
Ezhao02 (
talk) 21:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
People search this up more than they are linked here; links cause a relatively small portion of redirect pageviews. — J947[cont] 21:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
In that case, is there a way to check how often people search
Pennsylania, a redirect that currently doesn't exist and is based on the same misspelling?
Ezhao02 (
talk) 21:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
No – but, I've created that redirect as I deem it to be a fairly common misspelling.
Ezhao02, again: please read
RHARMFUL. Apologies if you already have, but it should be considered the most important guideline at RfD. — J947[cont] 21:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your input. I read RHARMFUL the first time you mentioned it, and I think you may be right about the redirect.
Ezhao02 (
talk) 00:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Ezhao02: There is: go to the redirect; in the menu on the left-hand panel, select under Tools "What links here". In this case, zero mainspace pages link to the redirect. In the same menu, click "Page information", and at the bottom "Pageview statistics". Change date type to monthly, and select a start date as far back as possible, and you'll see that the redirect has negligible page views (6 in the last year).
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 18:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - It's 10 years old and it took me awhile to catch the error. This isn't ridiculous, isn't harmful, and may be occasionally helpful.
Hog Farm (
talk) 22:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Las Vegas/Climate
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.
Implausible search term. People who want to get to content would go to
Las Vegas and click Climate in the ToC. CrazyBoy826 21:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep as an {{
R from old history}}: this is from February 2001; a month after Wikipedia was created. — J947[cont] 21:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per J947. This really old thing is worth keeping because it's helpful by specifying the intended section, even though we don't also have
Climate of Las Vegas, also a helpful title. Regards,
SONIC678 21:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per everyone above. With a redirect this old there is a high likelihood of incoming links that would be unnecessarily broken.
Thryduulf (
talk) 02:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retarget to
Majoritarianism. I agree, but I thought of the noun first, although I suspect that the adjective gets more use. --
Bejnar (
talk) 05:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Do not retarget. To me, and probably to most other people who are not very familiar with philosophy, "majoritarian" simply describes a type of system for counting votes or electing representatives (like the ones used in parliamentary elections in the UK). This appears to be covered at the current target (but I'm not sure if
First-past-the-post voting is not relevant as well – that was the target of the redirect for the two and half years after the article that stood at this title got merged there). I don't believe that the the political philosophy of
Majoritarianism encompasses these topics (and the article itself goes at some length to emphasise the distinction). Disambiguation might be a good option, as the term is indeed also used as an adjective for the political philosophy, and additionally as a noun referring to a supporter of a majority party (the latter according to the OED). –
Uanfala (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Tavix(
talk) 18:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Majoritarianism per Narky Blert. Uanfala's points are well taken, but until we have such a disambiguation page, retargeting doesn't strike me as obviously harmful. --18:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
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.
Positive and negative definite and semidefinite and indefinite
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, Rosguilltalk 20:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Too long a search term and fails the
WP:XY policy.
Captain Galaxy (
talk) 13:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
JudæoChristianity
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, Rosguilltalk 20:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)reply
DeleteCamelCase in Wikipedia has been dropped since 2002, so I agree that there's no reason why these redirects should have been created in 2007 in the first place. Both redirects had no pageviews from 11 March 2020 to 8 June 2020 (before these are nominated for RfD). --
im temtem •
hOI!! •
fsfdfg • alt account of
pandakekok9 04:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom - unlikely search term, unneeded --
DannyS712 (
talk) 06:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Negative semi-definite
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 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.
Pion (publisher)
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.
Keep, if it's not mentionned, mention it. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep bearing in mind
WP:BURDEN (The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material), I have added a sourced mention of Pion's association with SAGE at
SAGE Publishing#Acquisitions.
59.149.124.29 (
talk) 03:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per Headbomb. Although it is nice if a redirected term is mentioned on the target page, this is not a hard requirement for a redirect per
WP:REDIR. Redirects like this one serve as anchor plates for links (f.e. from citations), they indicate a relation (in this case a former name or ownership relation) and help reverse lookup. I find it counter-productive to nominate such redirects for deletion. If someone want them to be mentioned on the target page they should just add it there. However, sometimes this is not practical, as the creator of the redirect may not have time for it (because he is working on something else like providing a citation) or may not have enough knowledge about a publisher topic to add a whole section, but (with the source in his hands) he might still know that the publisher relation and therefore that a redirect should exist. Content contribution and infrastructure work do not necessarily happen at the same time. Nominating such redirects for deletion is putting them on risk of being deleted accidently, and thereby a piece of knowledge provided by a contributor to be lost. That's a waste of our resources.
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.
K-
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 disambiguate (although k-short and k-long are not ambiguous with k-). --
JHunterJ (
talk) 11:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate(?) Some precedent at
A-,
B-,
D-, etc. –
Hyperik⌜
talk⌟ 14:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Dab per Hyperik. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 23:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate per Hyperik. I started a dab draft on the
K- page. --
im temtem •
hOI!! •
fsfdfg • alt account of
pandakekok9 07:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Rollout: The Game of the Risk-Takers
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, Rosguilltalk 20:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Subject not mentioned or explained at target, as it is simply an unrelated other game by the same company.
Fram (
talk) 12:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Retarget to disambiguation page
Rollout, where I added an entry.
BOZ (
talk) 17:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Where it has correctly been removed again (not by me). Please add "disambiguation" to the long list of enwiki things you should perhaps refresh your knowledge of (just like redirects, notability, involvedness, and so on). Sheesh.
Fram (
talk) 06:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
8:46 (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 restore article and AfD. Seems it's best to
WP:IAR and just preempt this RfD, restore the article, and AfD to decide the best course. There's enough concern about RfD deleting page history of content that might be notable. —
Bagumba (
talk) 07:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
This used to be a standalone article until
QuestFour changed it into a redirect citing "non-notable film that fails
WP:NFILM". There is currently no mention of this film or related term at the target. There are no incoming links to this redirect. Either this redirect should be deleted, or the target should have content related to the redirect title. —
Bagumba (
talk) 12:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Restore article without prejudice to an AfD. RfD is not a competent forum at which to judge the notability of articles. The redirection was done boldly and in good faith, but I agree it is not appropriate so it should be reverted.
Thryduulf (
talk) 14:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Restore article per Thryduulf and nominate it for AfD. --
im temtem •
hOI!! •
fsfdfg • alt account of
pandakekok9 04:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
2020 coronavirus outbreak in 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 delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 20:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Implausible typo. Only had 3 total pageviews since creation. --
im temtem •
hOI!! •
fsfdfg • alt account of
pandakekok9 09:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
You dismiss three uses as if that was beneath notice. Why don't you see this as proof the redirect is useful?
Geo Swan (
talk) 19:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Three uses is not enough as justification for the keeping of this redirect IMO. It could as well be just be the creator loading his redirect three times, as pageview by the same user is counted every time per the
tool's FAQ. If you consider that as a justification for keeping this redirect, I might as well program a bot that will create millions of redirects with a comma at the end of it, and say it's useful because I say so.
im temtem •
hOI!! •
fsfdfg • alt account of
pandakekok9 04:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The redirect
Bhagyarekha ( TV series) is also under discussion today. It has
been read over 5200 times. So, if three times is too few, will you agree that 5200 is enough to justify retaining a redirect? Where, between 3 and 5200 do you draw your line.
Redirects are very cheap to retain. We aren't going to run out of space for redirects. There is no real possibility that these two redirects would be needed for actual articles, about something else. So I continue to think even just three usages is enough to justify retention.
Geo Swan (
talk) 22:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, this thing, I'm not sure people will search this with a comma at the end, also, are there other "2020 coronavirus outbreak in X," redirects, that could be bundled with this one?, Regards,
SONIC678, 18:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Only one other of the sort, which I added. Though it has a period instead of a comma, the same line of reasoning applies.
ComplexRational (
talk) 20:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
2020 Bavaria coronavirus lockdown
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 Bavaria, refine the rest as below.
Keep the Bavaria one, refine the France one to
COVID-19 pandemic in France#Lockdown, and refine the others to the sections suggested by pandakekok9. Regards,
SONIC678 18:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Janta curfew
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.
Oppose nom's proposal. Retarget both to
COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in India#Janata Curfew per TemTem and Mayankj429. It's clearly what readers would be looking for, with one of those very common variant transliterations from languages of the Subcontinent.
Narky Blert (
talk) 10:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Either delete or retarget to
SARS-CoV-2. I've heard of it being referred to as the "CCP virus", but not the "CCP coronavirus". —
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 ) 20:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Corona baby
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, Rosguilltalk 20:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Soumya-8974, please provide the actual wikilinks to previous discussions when you think they are adequate substitutes to explaining yourself fully here.
Geo Swan (
talk) 15:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, we cannot find any evidence that the redirects are really used on reliable sources. --
Soumya-8974talkcontribssubpages 08:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all per nom and previous rationales. Regards,
SONIC678 18:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and previous discussions --
DannyS712 (
talk) 06:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Occhio
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, Rosguilltalk 20:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Occhio is Italian for
eye. I don't see any connection between an occhio, or eye, to a violin or guitar. --
im temtem •
hOI!! •
fsfdfg • alt account of
pandakekok9 09:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete (as creator). I made this page to take it off
Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics/33. This is a real meaning of the word found in reference works, as you can see in the entry at the
Harvard Dictionary of Music. It must have appeared as a headword in at least one such work to be on the list. Ordinarily such music terminology is useful to have in other languages, because musical directions may appear in scores in several European languages. In this case, though, the usage seems rare enough that it's not even mentioned on Italian wiki pages Narky Blert cites. I'm pretty inclusionist but I don't see why it would need to be here.
Rigadoun (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Leo Niehorster
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 deleted by Czar. It looks like the draft was taken to
AfD, which closed as delete earlier today. --
BDD (
talk) 18:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Not mentioned in target, may be notable as there is a dewiki page
de:Leo Niehorster. buidhe 04:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I created a draft article of him using Google Translate. I also added him to the list just in case the article won't be accepted.
im temtem •
hOI!! •
fsfdfg • alt account of
pandakekok9 05:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, This Leo Niehorster doesn't appear to be notable, and thus shouldn't be included at the target article. While doing a search for sources, I found some coverage of a different Leo Niehorster
[1], who is an art critic rather than a military historian. signed, Rosguilltalk 20:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Great Collapse (2020)
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) 18:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Implausible search term. I haven't seen any major news source using this term to refer to the
coronavirus recession. The redirect also only had 7 pageviews from 12 May 2020.
im temtem •
hOI!! •
fsfdfg • alt account of
pandakekok9 04:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I'm a bit more neutral on the redirect identified by Captain Galaxy because the year disambiguator removes a lot of ambiguity, but that one is not a great redirect either. signed, Rosguilltalk 20:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Tropical Strom Yolanda (1992)
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. Unlikely typos for relatively obscure storms. ~
mazcatalk 12:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Several tropical storm related redirects with an improbable typo. Correctly spelled counterparts already exist for each one of these.
CycloneYoristalk! 01:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Pageview statistics from toolforge in the last 90 days show less than 30 total pageviews. Only
Tropical Strom Rachel (1990) got a pageview on this month. --
im temtem •
hOI!! •
fsfdfg • alt account of
pandakekok9 03:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I didn't even see the typos until it was pointed out.
Captain Galaxy (
talk) 18:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.