Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 January 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 30, 2018.

Legend of zelda axis of shadows[edit]

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This {{R from move}} was created when the content of the awry or was moved to The Legend of Zelda: Axis of Shadows ... which was deleted in 2008. This subject is not mentioned in the target article. (In my opinion, this redirect could qualify for WP:G8 deletion if it was tagged 10 years ago, but it currently targets an existing page.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Original target got A1'd, which is moderately unusual in my experience (A1 is a very low bar). Perhaps it was about a non-notable work of fan fiction or something like that. Regardless, we don't need it. --NYKevin 19:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Robert A. Nulman[edit]

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. Killiondude (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD decision for the article at this name was deletd, not redirect. Furthermore, this redirects to a target page that makes no mention whatsoever of the name. Calton | Talk 15:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • That was covered at the AFD and rejected: the decision was "delete", not "redirect". In addition, the target article's minor, puffery-laced mention was added by Unscintillating, the creator of this redirect. --Calton | Talk 02:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- The result of the AfD was delete, not redirect. No one should be overriding the AfD result as soon as it is closed.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I remember discussing my discontent with the closer about this. Seems like an effort by Unscintillating to "win" the AFD but consensus was not to redirect.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I saw the content removed by Calton at the article for Clinton, New Jersey, which appears to be in clear violation of WP:PRESERVE. I had never seen the AfD in question, but a review of this source from The New York Times -- combined with all of the state and federal sources provided -- makes it clear that the radon issue in Clinton is properly encyclopedic and that a redirect from Nulman to this article is appropriate as a plausible term that might be searched for by readers. If anyone here believes that WP:SALT applies here, the mechanisms for dealing with the purported problem are cited there. Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redirection was specifically raised during the AfD, and the outcome was delete. Adding a one-sentence mention of this guy to the article is not enough to overturn that outcome. It is also particularly problematic that this redirect was created by the sole editor who advocated for redirection during the AfD. It gives the appearance of ignoring community consensus. If they think the AfD was closed wrongly, they should take it to deletion review, not quietly undermine the discussion's outcome. --NYKevin 02:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, relevant encyclopedic material is mentioned and sourced at target, which would justify a redirect. Looking at the AFD, none of the delete !voters explicitly mentioned that they were opposed to redirecting, so it was entirely open to anyone to redirect it to a related article with coverage of the subject. The idea of redirecting was only mentioned at the end of the discussion and no one bothered to respond, so to say that the outcome of the AFD was "delete and prohibit recreation as a redirect" is simply wrong. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

EDMXXL[edit]

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of this at the target, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. It looks to be a trivial project, with 54 results in my Google search for "EDMXXL" -- Tavix (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spotify is not a reliable source. Do you have any evidence that it was released by Martin Garrix? It looks like an unofficial, fan-made project. That would make it pretty obvious that it should not be included in his discography, making a redirect tenuous at best. -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it was made from Toco and it's a various artists compilation. But it's not listed in Garrix's website music section [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Allen Turpin[edit]

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that any of the suspects or victims of the Turpin case are known as "Anna Turpin" nor "Allen Turpin". -- Tavix (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP, as these are the middle names of the suspects. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to need a source—citing a vague essay over and over again has not worked out for you thus far. Unless you provide evidence that these subjects have gone by those names, there is no reason for someone to use some obscure name as search terms for the subjects. -- Tavix (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - The individuals seem to be never known by the [Middle Name] [Last Name] combination. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you provide evidence this is a plausible way to refer to the subject, the claim that it is a "a novel or very obscure synonym" per WP:R#D8 will stand, and the redirects will be deleted. Remember, cheap is a cheap argument. Sources are not. -- Tavix (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are some sources [2][3]. I believ that's an exhaustive list, at least in English. But I don't think it seals the deal here that two out of the hundreds of reporters who wrote stories about this accidentally left off the guy's first name, given the WP:BLP harm potential for confusion with people actually named Allen Turpin. The search engine does its job here without this needing to be a bluelink. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete per nom. This would be sufficient in any case, but here especially, we should exercise caution. There are surely people named Allen or Anna Turpin, whose names we should not carelessly associate with a heinous crime (cf. WP:BLP). --BDD (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and as above. Middle + Last name should not be used unless it's the common name of the person. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Nintendo DS lite accessories[edit]

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 Nintendo DS accessories List of Nintendo DS accessories. Weakly useful, but useful nonetheless. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not contain a list of accessories, only a couple sentences about them. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. A list of accessories shouldn't really ever be part of the article anyways, so its not like this should change either. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOTCATALOG of accessories. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Striking vote. Below retarget is more useful as it describes terms associated with the DS, so DS Lite can go there too. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Nintendo DS accessories as it also lists accessories for the Nintendo DS Lite. Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it lists accessories. There is no specific list of DS Lite accessories vs the other model.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's not a specific list, but information about any accessories that a reader may be attempting to locate by searching the redirect seem to be present at the existing standard DS list. Steel1943 (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Shithole[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 7#Shithole

Bruce McArthur[edit]

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. Per WP:REDLINK rationale below ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent anonymous editor blanked the page; seems that there is more recently a an alleged serial killer with this name. This is also the name of the inventor of one version of a muzzle brake, but he is not mentioned on the muzzle break article.

As this redirect may cause confusion, I suggest we delete it. paul2520 (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: That is, keep it either as a page about the Bruce McArthur case in Toronto, or a disambiguation page pointing to such a page and to Muzzle brake. By the way: Take care! Bruce McArthur has not been convicted; so make that an alleged serial killer. Kelisi (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with your points & nice catch, Kelisi. I've updated the wording. = paul2520 (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't seem like the Bruce McArthur who invented the muzzle brake should have a redirect page. Before the Toronto incident, the redirect page had basically 0 views per day. Delete the redirect. The Toronto Bruce McArthur is probably not ready for his own article...yet.Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Federal President of Switzerland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 6# Federal President of Switzerland

Boom Boom (video games)[edit]

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. Killiondude (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The target is not a video game. Steel1943 (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Disambiguators don't always take the form of a "Foo is bar" statement. Just ask David Robinson (basketball), for example. Is this the only topic called "Boom Boom" associated with video games? I don't see another use at Boom Boom. Actually, I don't even see this one right now. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Koopa Troop[edit]

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 Koopa Troopa. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this redirect is not mentioned at the target. The subject of this redirect, if I recall, is a group of 4 or 5 named Koopa Troopa characters in Paper Mario. However, this may be a plausible misspelling of Koopa Troopa, but I'm unsure if that should be done since "Koopa Troop" is its own separate subject in the Mario video game franchise. Steel1943 (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Koopa Troopa as likely typo. While there are some parts that mean a Koopa Troop as an alliance between the Koopas and Bowser, those aren't really described anywhere, then it could use a "redirects here" and a hatnote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC) updated 21:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget per AngusWOOF, but I suspect something else should change here. To my surprise, Koopa also redirects to Koopa Troopa. I did think "Koopa Troop" was an informal name for any group of Koopas. Along with some similar redirects and an awkward lede, it looks like the Koopa Troopa article is trying to be about both Koopas in general and the Troopas. Whether a standalone Koopa article or a discussion at the current target section is more appropriate, I don't know. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Multi Screen[edit]

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 Multi-screen. Much obliged to Rich Farmbrough's timely creation. I'll add that this was brought up years ago on the talk page. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, far too vague to redirect to this article. Could be confused with multitouch, splitscreen, or any device with multiple screens. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-screen was created on 23 January 2018. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Category:Fictional rogue planets[edit]

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 Send to CfD. When discussing category trees etc, better to discuss in CfD where people care and know about it (even if it is currently a redirect). Courtesy ping @LaundryPizza03: (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I originally created this category because the convention in this category tree is to have fictional elements in a separate category from works (for example, Category:Deserts in fiction and Category:Fictional deserts), and some entries specifically discuss fictional elements rather than works. However, @Usernamekiran flagged it for speedy deletion as a duplicate category (which is not a valid speedy deletion criterion), then @Tavix redirected it. I still feel it needs to be a separate category per convention, so to minimize the risk of an edit war, I brought it here. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the ping LaundryPizza03. But I am still not sure what is the difference here. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with Usernamekiran that I'm not sure I understand what the difference is. "Fictional rogue planets" and "Rogue planets in fiction" says the same thing to me. From analyzing the desert example, I can't figure out what the difference is because both categories are populated primarily by works. However, I appreciate there are other categories along the same line, a fact I did not know when I carried out the merge. If I had known there were others, I probably would have just declined with the recommendation to send to CfD for a merge proposal of such categories. Unless it can be made absolutely clear what the difference is, I would probably support such a proposal. -- Tavix (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If we look at Category:Deserts in fiction, we can see that it is very nearly a container category (in fact, someone should probably turn it into one). It contains Category:Fictional deserts but also contains Category:Films set in deserts, Category:Desert planets in fiction, and so on. Since the same cannot be said of Category:Rogue planets in fiction, which currently only contains pages, this subcategory is not (yet) needed. --NYKevin 17:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send it to CfD Probably could've done this to begin with. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bias towards the north and against south[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 7#Bias towards the north and against south

2019 FIFA Club World Cup[edit]

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. Looks like this was created in good faith — according to the target, in 2016 they wanted a 2019 cup, but a month or two after this was created, they changed plans to 2021... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No source and evidence for this competition. Not sure what the meaning of the redirect is. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Final Fantasy Movie[edit]

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 Final Fantasy (film), delete the others. I've created the hatnote. No comment as to whether Final fantasy movie should likewise be created. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overly vague, given that there are now several Final Fantasy based movies like Advent Children or Kingsglaive. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support 59.149.124.29's suggestion of leaving a hatnote to the media link. I think (Movie) and (movie) can be removed as those disambiguators are not helpful. I would retain Final Fantasy Movie as many films in Japan that are adaptations go "franchise movie" or "franchise the movie". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff)
Right, then let's keep Final Fantasy (film); one is enough. — JFG talk 23:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Final Fantasy (film) and hatnote to List of Final Fantasy media#Film and television to handle any residual confusion. Neutral on others due to odd capitalisation. There exists only one film with the exact title Final Fantasy (disregarding subtitles). The other works by the exact name Final Fantasy are not films, while all the others are called Final Fantasy VII or Final Fantasy XV or whatever. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IP. --BDD (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Final fantasy the spiriths within[edit]

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The typos in this redirect are implausible. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clouds 6 piece sword[edit]

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I agree, this is implausible. You can quickly find that said sword is from this game via your favorite search engine. = paul2520 (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is mention of six swords that interlock in Cloud (Final Fantasy) but it isn't given a name. This isn't Buster Sword which is his most common sword. And if someone is looking for Cloud's weapons they'd just search for cloud final fantasy and get to the character article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rogue Tomato[edit]

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. Good name for an Attack of the Killer Tomatoes prequel... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target; gamecrufty redirect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. = paul2520 (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable "Mark" (bounty?) monster not discussed in the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Clayton Hotel in Cork City[edit]

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per a previous ANI note by another editor there was something of a spate of (apparently) semi-promotional edits and moves some time ago. The ultimate result of which (following some discussion and cleanup) were at least two redirects: Clayton Hotel in Cork City and Clayton hotel cork city. Both of these, to my read, meet RFD criteria #4 (promo). And perhaps even #8 (unlikely/obscure synonym). And should perhaps be removed as such.Guliolopez (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both - Even if it's apparently a rather nice hotel, it's not the place of Wikipedia to list locations of run of the mill commercial establishments. I'm not sure if this is truly "promotional" per se, but I don't see these as being that useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:MILL and we do not need redirects for what is essentially a business article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the cork city article material was merged into the hotel group article as one sentence but the hotel group article is tagged for notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_30&oldid=1037876551"