This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 15, 2022.
Pharl McQuarrie
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.
Lizzie McGuire (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 no consensus. Jay 💬 17:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Per the target article, this subject is no longer upcoming but rather is canceled. Thus, the disambiguation is inaccurate to a point where it is no longer helpful.
Steel1943 (
talk) 20:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep – still gets views
[1], so it's useful to someone. The views may be coming from incoming external links. The current target is appropriate as it explains that the series, which was at one time said to be upcoming, is now canceled. —
Mx. Granger (
talk·contribs) 08:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 21:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep per Mx Granger.
Thryduulf (
talk) 22:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete This series is not upcoming. "Once upcoming, but now canceled" means it's no longer upcoming. So this redirect is incorrect and misleading to readers. Page views are irrelevant here.
InfiniteNexus (
talk) 04:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
The redirect is not misleading any more than any other {{
R from incorrect name}} or {{
R from misnomer}} is. The target article explicitly explains that there is no upcoming film, so the people using this are being educated that they are incorrect, which is much better than having them incorrectly assuming we just don't have any content. Page views are absolutely relevant to this type of redirect.
Thryduulf (
talk) 08:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: Not upcoming, but it was never realized and
Lizzie McGuire (unrealized TV series) is a far less plausible, even if more accurate search term. I think that this is a useful redirect given that there is a Lizzie McGuire series that came out 20 years ago, so this helps target people to the cancelled reboot.
TartarTorte 12:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep per Mx Granger. If it's being used, and there are no other valid target articles, redirects are cheap enough to keep this one around. I'm unconvinced by "inaccurate" arguments, as useful redirects are frequently inaccurate in some way.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 14:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete, not upcoming. --
Tavix(
talk) 19:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 20:47, 15 September 2022 (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.
Reich Chamber of Culture & Music
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 21:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Has a backlink and probably refers to the
Reich Chamber of Culture (which had a subdivision named
Reich Chamber of Music), but despite this having a backlink, I can't find either of this title and "Reich Chamber of Culture and Music" anywhere online.
1234qwer1234qwer4 20:05, 15 September 2022 (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.
Eurasian bullfinchs
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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (
投稿) 13:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. Redirects from plural are only useful if they're either a correct plural (which this is not), or a widespread mistake (which this is also not).
AddWittyNameHere 16:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - I can't see how adding an "s" is not a plausible mistake to make. Clearly someone searching this would be taken to what they were looking for.
A7V2 (
talk) 00:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak keep: It's an improper plural, but only off by one letter and I don't think it's an incredibly implausible letter to miss. I wouldn't necessarily advocate creating a redirect for every -ches plural to have a -chs misspelled redirect, but this is pretty cheap, unambiguous, and not terribly implausible.
TartarTorte 19:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is a good example of a plausible and harmless misspelling of the sort we shouldn't routinely create but also shouldn't delete if they are created. Where they do exist, creating the proper plural is probably not a bad idea.
Thryduulf (
talk) 23:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 19:07, 15 September 2022 (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.
Dighi is a name of special kind of pond. The page redirect to
Prarthana Fardin Dighi, bangladeshi actress. The two are not same. One is about man and another is water container. --
Noman☆ (
Talk) 15:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. "Dighi" is not the name in English of special kind of pond (or at least not as recorded by Wikt) and the the current target article does say "(popularly known as Dighi)".
Shhhnotsoloud: (
talk) 21:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment the term "dighi" is used in
Bangladeshi English. I have created
wikt:dighi and cited some books and newspapers there showing usage in English.
61.239.39.90 (
talk) 08:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Shhhnotsoloud she may be khown as "Dighi". But the word actually used for a man-made pond in Bangla.--
Noman☆ (
Talk) 14:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Most Google News hits for "Dighi" are not about the actress
[2]. English Wikipedia has almost no coverage of the other topics that appear prominently in Google News (the
neighbourhood of Pune or the port in
Agardanda). Similarly I can't find a
WP:DABMENTION-compliant target for the "pond" meaning. However,
WP:PRIMARYRED may apply here (When a disambiguation page lists only one existing article by that name (all other suggested articles are red-linked), the normal rules for primary topic still apply. The existing article is not automatically the primary topic.) The actress certainly doesn't win on the long-term significance criterion of
WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY: all her awards are from childhood and there is not a great deal of recent coverage about her
[3]61.239.39.90 (
talk) 08:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 19:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Procedural Keep - this should ultimately be a move discussion for
Dighi (disambiguation). If the actress is not the primary topic, then the DAB page should be moved to Dighi. As it stands, the actress is recognized as the primary topic and the redirect is correct.
‡ El cid, el campeadortalk 19:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Procedural Keep: Per El Cid. If the result is to have Dighi go to
Dighi (disambiguation) as there is no PT, then it really should have the two swapped in name which would be a move request.
TartarTorte 19:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Procedural keep per El Cid. There doesn't appear to be a primary topic here. -
Presidentmantalk ·
contribs (
Talkback) 16:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, the type of pond does not have coverage on Wikipedia so that is not a competing usage. This is explicitly not a procedural keep, primary topics can be determined at RFD should there be consensus for it. If the nominator was actually wanting the disambiguation moved, then it should have been kicked to RM, but the discussion is way too mature to be asking for a procedural close after a second relist. --
Tavix(
talk) 18:52, 20 September 2022 (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 delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 21:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete agreed, a redirect for a typo should be removed per
WP:RPURPOSEDobblestein 🎲 🎲 talk 22:21, 15 September 2022 (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.
Shae Vizla
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 21:29, 22 September 2022 (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.
Esiken
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 21:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Most likely falls under G1, patent nonsense, as I can't find anything about this concept in the context of Star Wars, even Wookiepedia, which is saying something.
TNstingray (
talk) 17:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. I can't find that this is the name of any notable concept, Star Wars-related or not.
Talk:Sifo-Dyas#Planet of origin has a post from 2006 saying that there was at that time at least one unreliable source claiming this was the characters' homeworld, and I too can find instances of that same sentence. Given this I don't think it's patent nonsense, but it's definitely not notable.
Thryduulf (
talk) 17:49, 15 September 2022 (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 delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 21:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Too generic of a title to only refer to Star Wars (lowercase "imperial" could refer to many different things). Delete due to ambiguity.
TNstingray (
talk) 17:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, far too vague to be a useful redirect - many different works have many different characters from many different empires.
Thryduulf (
talk) 17:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete as extremely ambiguous. Even if Imperial were capitalized, it could still refer to any empire from the countless media franchises that include them. "Character" even describes real historical figures sometimes, adding an additional can to this barrel of worms.
Glades12 (
talk) 19:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete as too vague to target anywhere. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (
投稿) 04:52, 20 September 2022 (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 delete, disambiguate, and retarget. Despite the variety of bolded !vote statements, editors appear to have come to agreement on how to address the three redirects listed. signed, Rosguilltalk 21:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
DisambiguateYane (with a redirect from
Yané), the character doesn't seem to be mentioned at the target. As Thryduulf mentioned, there are a few Yane articles on Wikipedia, so I had a go at making a disambig page for them (
User:DirkJandeGeer/Articles/Yane). People are more than welcome to edit that page if there are more articles or if it needs improvement. –
DirkJandeGeer щи 15:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate to DirkJandeGeer's draft per above. Link to Star Wars character can be added if content about him is written.
‡ El cid, el campeadortalk 16:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Agree with most of the above suggestions, but deleteYané since I don't see any of the people on the proposed DAB being named with the accent.
* Pppery *it has begun... 18:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm happy for
Yané to get deleted per Pppery –
DirkJandeGeer щи 08:19, 21 September 2022 (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 delete. signed, Rosguilltalk 21:17, 22 September 2022 (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 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.
Should this page be returned to its longstanding target
Xbox Series X and Series S, or kept because the 360 was called Xbox 2 in development? –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 08:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Xbox#Consoles,
Xbox 2 currently redirects there and it might be the best target if "Xbox Two" is ambiguous. –
DirkJandeGeer щи 09:33, 15 September 2022 (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.
MTV Presents: The Next Generation Xbox Revealed
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 per Thryduulf. Makes sense to preserve since we do have some discussion of the program.
‡ El cid, el campeadortalk 13:28, 15 September 2022 (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.
Sa'fora
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 12:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete as not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia that I've found.
Thryduulf (
talk) 09:47, 15 September 2022 (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.
NA-12 (Battagram)
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.
seems to have been a numbering mistake -
MPGuy2824 (
talk) 05:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Former name (recently too) clearly explained in the article. That said, these constituancies have strange names, and
NA-12 is for example a redlink, but I don't know if these should be created as redirects or disambiguation pages since the part in brackets appears to actually be part of the name.
A7V2 (
talk) 07:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Don't know how i missed that it was the former name. -
MPGuy2824 (
talk) 07:03, 15 September 2022 (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.
Mamonino
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. Without prejudice to swapping the article's title per below.
(non-admin closure)CycloneYoristalk! 10:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
not mentioned in target article -
MPGuy2824 (
talk) 05:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Actually, the name of the article must be
Mamonino, because this is the most common name of the settlement. It is not mentioned in the article because the article author is only here to promote his fringe Tatar Latin names, contrary to our policies. They have been warned multiple times about this. Once the nomination is closed, I will move and edit the article.
Ymblanter (
talk) 06:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment It's the Russian name of the village
[4][5]. It seems the creator made redirects for the Russian names of lots of places in Tatarstan (e.g. Bolshiye Kovali or Bolshoy Bitaman) but then didn't mention the Russian names at the target articles, so there's a lot of articles which will need some attention.
61.239.39.90 (
talk) 06:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, I am slowly cleaning up this mess (
example).
Ymblanter (
talk) 07:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep without prejudice to swapping per Ymblanter.
Thryduulf (
talk) 09:49, 15 September 2022 (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.
Fake abortion clinic
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. The term is now documented in the target article.
(non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (
投稿) 13:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Unsourced and non-neutral, perhaps even a calculated attack phrasing. Phrase not found in target article.
Elizium23 (
talk) 03:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, and trout the nom for the assumption of bad faith.
Non-neutrality is not a sufficient reason for deleting a redirect, and redirects do . Yes, the term is not mentioned at the target article, but this is still a somewhat common alt name for CPCs. See coverage in
Vice,
Wonkette, or
The Nation. Others, including the Centre for Countering Hate (
covered in Fortune) tend to just use "fake clinic" and make it clear in contextual prose that they're referring to purported access to abortion as the "fake" part. It is unlikely that readers searching for this term would be seeking out any other articles; if I'm wrong about this, I'm likely to change my !vote to dabify.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 03:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Let's drop "Wonkette" which is a prima facie unreliable source; Vice and The Nation articles appear to be opinion pieces and not suitable
WP:RS.
Elizium23 (
talk) 03:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I'm not proposing anything that requires a reliable source here. The test is just "is this a term people use" and "what are people looking for when they use this term".
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 03:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment The article itself states the following: "While CPCs often look like abortion clinics and are intentionally located near them,[2][27] most are not legally licensed as medical clinics and do not offer medical services."... "CPCs have been criticized for misleading advertising, for the dissemination of inaccurate medical information, for religious proselytism, and for subjecting clients to graphic videos". This term is also widely used in casual phrasing for describing such places, as pointed out in the previous comment by
Firefangledfeathers.--
AirportExpert (
talk) 04:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)AirportExpertreply
Keep - It is well known and sourced in many sources I've seen that CPC's INTENTIONALLY try to appear to be abortion clinics to deceive women into visiting them in order to steer the women out of having an abortion. A "fake abortion clinic" is exactly what they try to be. They have fought against laws which would require them to disclose that they DON'T provide abortions.---Avatar317(talk) 04:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep the removal of this redirect is clearly an attempt to push POV --
Shadybabs (
talk) 10:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep per FFF and Avatar. signed, Rosguilltalk 14:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep: This is a term commonly used to refer to CPCs and refers to them rather unambiguously. Redirects need not be neutral and the guidelines specifically say if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. As shown above by FFF this is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources. Even the use in opinion pieces does not show a lack of establishment of the term. Publishing such a term in a mainstream outlet, even if considered opinion section, gives it widespread enough usage to be kept.
TartarTorte 15:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, mark as non-neutral See the redirect note we've had on
Pro-abortion. It's a term used only on one side of the debate, used with enough frequency to keep it as a redirect, but should be marked as to avoid accusations of POV-pushing (it was over-the-top having it at the top of the article). ~
Pbritti (
talk) 16:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. I have nothing against non-neutral redirects, but they need to be sourced at the target along with discussion about its non-neutrality. This is important to attest usage, to help with
verification, and to explain the term for those confused why they ended up where they did. --
Tavix(
talk) 19:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 03:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. If Crisis pregnancy centers are known as "Fake abortion clinics" then put it in the article (unlikely, see above comments). If it's not in the article, then delete as confusing.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 07:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. I see it as a very unlikely search term. Even if they are considered fake abortion clinics, it's unlikely that anyone would call them that. We don't have redirects for every description of every subject, and I think that this redirect is ultimately just that - a description. Even AGF it's hard to see why this needed to be created. There is a total of 43 pageviews the past three months... if this was a needed redirect, the numbers would be much higher, especially at a time when abortion rights are at the front of everyone's attention.
‡ El cid, el campeadortalk 13:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - Contrary to the above, this is a common way of referring to them/describing them, often through similar language. It's widely used in the press and
the focus of articles like this (perhaps before the term "CPC" became standardized). No strong opinion about tagging it as non-neutral. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 19:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per Tavix. The correct way to go about including this term in Wikipedia is to get consensus among editors of the target article to discuss this term there, write sourced content there, and then create the redirect.
61.239.39.90 (
talk) 20:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment some of the above comments refer to the term as not in use nor in the article. A user has provided relevant reliable sourcing that the term is used with some frequency but almost exclusively among opponents rather than generally (see
this semi-academic commentary negatively discussing CPCs where the authors still put the term in scare quotes). I encourage voters to reflect on this development. ~
Pbritti (
talk) 01:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep - widely used, as well attested. --
Orange Mike |
Talk 02:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. The term "fake abortion clinics" is used neutrally by
Rebecca Eisenberg in her 1994 paper
"Beyond Bray", published in the scholarly journal Yale Journal of Law and Feminism. In fact, Eisenberg uses quotes around "crisis pregnancy centers" to introduce the new term, but never puts such quotes around "fake clinics" or "fake abortion clinics". Her paper emphatically shows they are deceptive and fake.
Binksternet (
talk) 03:10, 21 September 2022 (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.
Breu, Jörg, father and son
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.
✗plicit 14:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Implausible Eubot redirect. The individual components (last name, first name; substituted diacritic; father and son) are valid and possibly useful to someone; the combination, on the other hand, not so much. Pageviews, unsurprisingly, incredibly low: 40 page views in the entirety of the past five years.
AddWittyNameHere 02:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to add the two other variations mentioned above. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 03:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete all. Probably well meaning creation but of essentially no use.
‡ El cid, el campeadortalk 13:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per El cid. ~
Pbritti (
talk) 03:40, 21 September 2022 (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.
Talk:Bridget (Guilty Gear)/Archive 14
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per
WP:CSD#G6.
Thryduulf (
talk) 09:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Archive was created accidentally at the wrong counter value when I set up archiving for
Talk:Bridget (Guilty Gear). The content that was in Archive 14 has now been moved to
Talk:Bridget (Guilty Gear)/Archive 1 and the counter reset on the talk page proper. Need deletion for cleanup and no CSD category was appropriate.
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 03:06, 15 September 2022 (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.