Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 27, 2020.

High Exit-Only Turnstile[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 5#High Exit-Only Turnstile

Genius (2017 film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 4#Genius (2017 film)

Danionin Common Name Disambiguation[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is...a kind of weird way to format a page title, even though I can see someone capitalizing every word and/or forgetting the parentheses. Still, I'm kinda tilting towards deleting this (or whatever action is best here), unless a justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 20:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 21:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unlikely search term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible search term inconsistent with our titling conventions in at least two ways. Narky Blert (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... and why is that a reason to delete redirects which often don't conform with weird titling conventions? — J947 [cont] 21:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 20:58, 2 May 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.

Angmar[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 Angmar: Land of the Witch King. signed, Rosguill talk 22:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A place name not mentioned at the target, only in the title of one of the Nazgûl. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 21:37, 27 April 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.

Samux[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 Samukh. signed, Rosguill talk 22:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection is wrong. This article is regarding a city ([2]), and Samukh District is different from Samukh. Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 21:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Redirect was not tagged until now, please do not close before seven days after this comment. -- Tavix (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - I agree that this should go to 'Samukh'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:32, 28 April 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.

Equational[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 disambiguate. signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, couldn't find any instances in the wild not about algebra or logic. Based on the use of the term in Wikipedia, it seems WP:XY applies here. Paradoctor (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Equational class is not about some type equations, it is about an algebraic structure that involves equations. Neither is equational logic. And equational sentence is not about equations in formal languages, at all. Importantly, equation discusses none of the meanings of "equational", it doesn't even mention them. Paradoctor (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify. In linguistics, "equational" is a synonym for equative (which is the broad topic subsuming the equative case). There's at least one other meaning – as the adjective for equation, but I'm sure there'll be more maths-related entries to add. – Uanfala (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was my first impulse, but doesn't this go against WP:PTM? Paradoctor (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Equational is not a PTM for Equative, so you must be referring to the maths uses; but there things aren't as clear cut as they might seem at first (this was discussed at some length in 2016). – Uanfala (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that the search algorithm tries to guess what you are looking for. Which means "equational" gets stemmed to "equation", reducing the number of genuine hits, and swamping them in irrelevant results. "Equational" is specific enough that a dab page is helpful. Delivering better targeted results than search algorithms is the whole reason we maintain dab pages. Paradoctor (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 21:31, 27 April 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.

Questionably useful fims[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects don't seem to get very many pageviews, possibly due to the questionably plausible typo of "film." While it is useful to keep some of these around (like Amaanat (1994 fim), which has had 982 pageviews in the last 20 days alone), I'm not really sure about these eleven, most of which are leftovers from moves to the correct spellings. Regards, SONIC678 19:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - We have clear precedent for getting rid of these types of redirects. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I confirmed that there are no articles using these redirects. I also updated the four articles that linked to Amaanat (1994 fim) to link to Amaanat instead, so the number of page views should go way down in the future. GoingBatty (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all; there's nothing to be gained by deleting these redirects. Easy to skim over one letter, especially when on QWERTY keyboards l is between i and m. K4 and RHARMFUL apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J947 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There was a similar rfd sometime after March 11 where the consensus was delete (and by the way yes I voted delete in that discussion). OcelotCreeper (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: Especially Yevadu as the film was released in 2014, not '12. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Useless clutter. Narky Blert (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, unambiguously created in error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shrink Film and Shrink Wrap. This is a good use of a redirect. The terms are almost interchangeable. Pkgx (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This is merely pollution. BD2412 T 03:46, 30 April 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 United States House of Representatives election in New Jersey[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 speedy delete per G7 performed by Fastily signed, Rosguill talk 19:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, I'm not sure what use this redirect could serve. I would suggest deletion to encourage article creation. signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 27 April 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.

Gen W[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 7#Gen W

Boss Belly[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. Deryck C. 21:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:46, 27 April 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.

Suspect (rapper)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:43, 27 April 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.

Little Alex Horne[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 4#Little Alex Horne

Punjabi script[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 keep. signed, Rosguill talk 22:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi is also written in Shahmukhi not just Gurmukhi Tsla1337 (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read the last time this was brought up on the talk page, and you'll see why that's irrelevant. Shahmukhi is Perso-Arabic script. That is, Punjabi is written in two scripts, Perso-Arabic and its own, called Gurmukhi. "Punjabi script" is necessarily the script for Punjabi, that is, Gurmukhi. Any confusion can be handled with a hat note. — kwami (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree fundamentally with Kwamikagami to keep, but definitely think the Gurmukhi page needs a hatnote to see also Shahmukhi if this redirect is kept. Another alternative I would support would be to repurpose the redirect into a disambiguation page pointing to both the Gurmukhi and Perso-Arabic writing systems for the Punjabi language. VanIsaacWScont 23:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it did have a hat note. I just added one. As for being a dab page, besides it being a violation of TWODABS, it's technically incorrect -- Shahmukhi is not a Punjabi script, but a foreign script applied to Punjabi. "Chinese script", for example, is a rd to Chinese characters, not a dab page pointing to Chinese characters and Pinyin, even though a lot of Chinese is written in Pinyin (military telegrams, for example). — kwami (talk) 04:02, 28 April 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.

Stormy Weather (ilm)[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how plausible this misspelling of "film" is in this context...it got only four pageviews in 2019, and nothing links to it. Regards, SONIC678 14:10, 27 April 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.

COVIDemic[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another silly one. See also Condemic. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Soumyabrata stay at home 🏠 wash your hands 👋 to protect from COVID-19 😷 10:06, 27 April 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.

Gameloft Pune[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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is for a subdivision of a company that is not notable enough even for a redirect. (Talking about the subdivision, not the company) RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Gameloft Pune" is the former name "Ubisoft Pune" (Ubisoft acquired the studio from Gameloft in 2008). Both the present and former name are valid redirects to the very section that contains information about the studio in question. The redirect was already tagged as {{R from former name}} and redirects are cheap. I also fail to see how something could be "not notable enough" to have a redirect leading to its own information. IceWelder [✉] 10:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid redirect to directly relevant paragraph. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As stated above, this seems appropriate enough. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful; deleting this is pointless. — J947 [cont] 22:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Points to a section with relevant information. Narky Blert (talk) 10:21, 28 April 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.

Philip of France (1125-1161)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are WP:RFD#D2 confusing, because the section does not list a Philip with these dates. The one with the en dash is only used at the disambiguation page Philip of France, and the other only in the infobox at Adelaide of Maurienne, piped as "Philip, Bishop of Paris" (he's an archdeacon in the target text). This is all a bit of a wild goose chase, so I think would be better served by a redlink. Therefore Delete unless there's a better target I've not found. 94.21.253.28 (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, jumping through French Wikipedia I see that we have him as fr:Philippe de France (1132-1161) which is IW'd to Philip of France, Archdeacon of Paris. I've updated the articles, but I still reckon the dates here are misleading, in the absence of Philip of France (1132-1160). (As the article states, he died in 1160 but his tombstone incorrectly reads 1161.) 94.21.253.28 (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The history: this redirect was automatically created in 2009 when I moved a page using these dates for disambiguation to Philip of France, Archdeacon of Paris specifically because the dates were just some editor's best guess. In 2015, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip of France, Archdeacon of Paris was closed as merge to Louis VI of France#Marriages and children and hence the redirect was retargeted. Then in 2017, Philip of France, Archdeacon of Paris was recreated. If this is to be a redirect, it should go to that article, but I don't see much point in such a redirect existing because the dates themselves were a Wikipedia creation, not something someone is going to come here and search for. Agricolae (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - As long as the dates are incorrect, then these don't appear appropriate. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:31, 28 April 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.

Auparashtika[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 Fellatio#Tradition as the most plausible target discovered by this discussion. Deryck C. 21:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google tells me this is a word of Indian origin referring to gay oral sex, but it's not mentioned at the target. It is discussed in the Kama Sutra [3] and perhaps could be mentioned in that article and retargeted there, but I don't know enough about the subject matter to know whether or not that's appropriate. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:36, 27 April 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.

Hesitation[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 new article and retarget, hatnotes all around. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pause is a dab page that doens't list any articles that are relevant to the concept of hesitation (Pausa is an unrelated concept for the end of an utterance). There's a vaguely related article at Doubt – it doesn't really cover the same ground but it might be a potential target. I'd rule out a soft redirect to wiktionary as this is an everyday word I wouldn't expect readers to need a dictionary definition for. – Uanfala (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate for now. We could potentially have an article on hesitation as a topic in psychology. BD2412 T 02:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I have created Draft:Hesitation. There appears to be a surprising volume of psychological and philosophical literature on the significance of hesitation. BD2412 T 02:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create page - I've changed my mind. This deserves its own conceptual article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create article per BD2412.
Create Hesitation (disambiguation). I've added a draft at the end of Draft:Hesitation. Narky Blert (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: I think you can just go ahead and create Hesitation (disambiguation) with the material you have provided. It can always be moved pending the outcome of this discussion. I should have the draft ready by the time this closes. BD2412 T 15:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412:  Done Narky Blert (talk) 16:57, 27 April 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.

Rolland Garros French Open[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is a misspelling created by shortterm move. Agathoclea (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - In English this event is called the "French Open." In French it is "Championnats Internationaux de France de Tennis" or "Tournoi de Roland-Garros." There is no possibility of it ever being called "Rolland Garros French Open." Rolland is even misspelled! User @Eumat114: refused deletion on the grounds it was a possible search topic and it was good faith. It was actually neither. No person would ever search the unnatural misspelled topic of "Rolland Garros French Open." And this is the second time this user has moved the page to a misspelled title. It was reverted and speedy deleted the first time on April 16, yet is was moved again 10 days later on April 26. Two different editors did the reverts. The only benefit of leaving it as a misspelled redirect is the editor wouldn't be able to move it there again without an administrator's help. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it may be a misspelling, but a simple internet search shows it not to be an obscure one. As such this is a plausible search term and does not meet the criteria for deletion. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mainly per reasons mention by Fyunck(click). The misspelling "Rolland Garros" is already linked, see no need for this particular addition--Wolbo (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Referring to the event incorrectly as "Rolland-Garros" appears to happen online a lot, the mistake being done by even news sources The Guardian and UPI. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is misspelled that way more than I would have thought. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nothing to be gained by deleting this; it's helpful to the occasional reader. — J947 [cont] 22:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But who is it really going to help? If they misspell it Rolland Garros, there is already a redirect for that. Who is going to type "Rolland Garros French Open" where this new redirect would be useful? Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You still haven't provided a reason for deletion; anyone who does search is up will benefit from the redirect. — J947 [cont] 01:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      This is true, but by using that logic we should also have redirects for "George Washinton the Father of His Country", or "Grate Britain United Kingdom". We can do that just in case someone misspells Washinton and Grate and then adds two titles together, because that's what we're doing here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not saying we should make these redirects, I'm just saying it's useless to delete them. — J947 [cont] 21:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment should Rolland Garros and Roland Garos redirect to Roland Garros which is the disambiguation? Or is the French Open the primary topic for these typos? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think that they should redirect to Roland Garros, since they are a misspelling of that word. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please follow MOS:LISTGAP. — J947 [cont] 21:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I've given this some more thought. While the misspelling "Rolland Garros" is frequently made in reference to this event, the exact formulation of "Rolland Garros French Open" appears to be a different story. As stated above, people are either going to search for the first two words or the for latter two words, not all four bunched together, and thus this redirect doesn't appear to be helpful that much. I'm not too sure, but I lean to believing that deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_27&oldid=1057897931"