Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 6[edit]

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

(footballer) (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 keep. Updated targets and R templates on the first two to go to the appropriate disambiguation pages (discovered while resolving). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects need to be deleted because they're practically useless and unecessary disambiguation. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @KingSkyLord: Practically useless has never been a good reason to delete a redirect; see WP:RHARMFUL. What benefit would such a deletion bring? — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 23:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @J947: They are unprintworthy orphans and double redirects which aren't that helpful for people looking to search for the certain person or as a wikilink in a page. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 00:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also adding Kelvin Moore (footballer) (disambiguation) to the nomination. Regards, SONIC678 04:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are redirects that are historical, and therefore should be kept per WP:RHARMFUL. In summary Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 06:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per Rich Farmbrough. These redirects are probably leftovers from WP:INTDABLINK merges, so they have some conceivable historical value. BD2412 T 14:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the first four - There's multiple entries on each of the dab pages that the (footballer) or (English footballer) qualification applies to. No opinion on Kelvin Moore (footballer) (disambiguation). Hog Farm (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. GiantSnowman 07:26, 10 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.

Immediate withdrawal[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) 11:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there are meanings of the phrase "Immediate withdrawal" that have nothing to do with either U.S. troops or Iraq. BD2412 T 22:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, BD2412, are you willing to immediately withdraw this nomination? :) — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 22:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will say this in my most Monty Pythonesque voice possible: No. BD2412 T 14:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. I have an interest-bearing deposit account one of whose advantages is the possibility of immediate withdrawal. Narky Blert (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, DAB or re-target There are, or have been, demands for "immediate withdrawal" of troops of many countries from many places - the term does not seem special in this context. The term could, as referred to above mean Demand deposit. I'm not sure that Coitus interruptus would be a valid dab target. However Cold turkey would be, this term is used in a number of books. It also seems to be of interest in forestry in relation to nails in green timber. Not sure we have an article for that.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 15:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not the primary meaning, ambiguous. I think search results would be more helpful than a dab page in this case, given the large number of possible meanings/uses. buidhe 17:47, 12 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.

(phonetic) transcription[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 01:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would someone search for this with the brackets? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:31, 6 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.

(曾) Chandrawinata[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 01:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable way of searching for Chinese family names. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:25, 6 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.

Pafnuti Chebychev[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think „Pafnuti“ is an English transcription. WP:RLOE. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it may not be official/correct, but it's plausible. It's worth keeping in mind that French and German are prevalent enough in math academia that some (most?) US math departments have proficiency in French or German as a prerequisite for prospective math PhDs (off the top of my head I think Princeton has this requirement). This is particularly true of 19th century scholars like Chebyshev, so I think it's quite plausible that an English-speaking reader might be more familiar with what is technically a German or French spelling standard. signed, Rosguill talk 21:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill: I don't think that foreign language proficiency is a prerequisite for any math PhD program in the US (otherwise there would be very few non-European international students!), but many programs (including Princeton) have it as a graduation requirement usually to be fulfilled in the first year or two. — MarkH21talk 08:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly good alternative transliteration of Cyrillic "ий". Compare Yury as just one example, noting all the other alternatives in the lede of that article. Narky Blert (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete (changing vote). I stand by my comments on "Pafnuti". However, I have not been able to find even a single instance where Cyrillic "ш" has been transliterated as "ch" rather than "sh". (Cyrillic "ч" is "ch".) That part of the transliteration is wrong.
There is a truly remarkable number of redirects to Pafnuty Chebyshev. I make it 40. See Category:Redirects from transliterations. I question how many are necessary. Narky Blert (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: Some examples of Chebychev being used: [1], [2], [3], [4]. According to the article itself, it comes from a combination of the English and French transliterations. That is an awful lot of redirects though. — MarkH21talk 11:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkH21: I'd forgotten about French. Russian ш, English sh, French ch, German sch; and ч, ch, tch, tsch. Some French transliterations have been fossilised into the usual English spelling: Chaliapin, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Nijinsky, Diaghilev.
I agree that some, especially historical, non-English transliterations from Cyrillic are worth keeping. There is no telling where a reader might come across a name. Mixed-language transliterations, however, strike me as a really bad idea. Narky Blert (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, both Rosguill and Narky raise good points. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 22:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Plausible transliteration, so plausible search term. — MarkH21talk 08:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not only plausible, it's used. (e.g Fundamental Number Theory with Applications, Richard A. Mollin, p. 374) All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 15:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment – This was closed as withdrawn by 1234qwer1234qwer4 but that conflates with SK#1 as Narky Blert opts for deletion. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 01:11, 10 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.

Naval mission[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 Military operation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment military mission also redirects there, but the obvious problem with both military and naval is ofcourse, combat missions and the like -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - I prefer that this go to 'Navy'. The fact is that naval missions can involve the forces doing a wide variety of things: humanitarian assistance delivery, analysis of oceanic science in certain areas, support for broader military campaigns, et cetera. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to navy. Some naval missions are diplomatic (cf. gunboat diplomacy or the beginning of the Agadir Crisis), but they're not all, e.g. the Japanese battleship Yamato was sunk during a naval mission to attack US ships, more than three years after Japan and the US began fighting, and a long time after diplomacy ceased to be significant in that setting. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to military operation. Notwithstanding that it doesn't mention different branches of the military (army, navy, air force, whatever), it still gives the reader more specific information than pointing to navy. Incidentally I have also WP:BOLDly retargeted military mission to point to the same target. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to military operation per the above comment and my previous reasoning. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get a firmer consensus on redirect options
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Military mission" refers to a variety of things involving all kinds of armed forces, going beyond the navy to include air forces, space forces, et cetera. It doesn't seem right when the redirect specifically refers to naval activities. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could be tagged with a {{R from subtopic}}. Though the same problem currently exists, as most diplomatic missions are unrelated to naval affairs or even military affairs. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to military operation -- the hatnote to diplomatic mission should handle other cases (This updates my position from earlier, which was a simple "comment") -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 16:02, 11 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.

Pafnuti Livowitsch Tchebitchef[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 keep. (non-admin closure) 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

German transcription. WP:RLOE. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: It wasn't created because I happened to have searched for it in a foreign language. It was created because it was the spelling used by the Royal Society in its list of its Fellows (Foreign Members). -- KTC (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per KTC. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 22:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Transliteration used in the Royal Society list, so plausible search term. — MarkH21talk 08:20, 7 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.

Пафну́тий Льво́вич Чебышёв[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who would type in the Russian name with accent marks? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it's mentioned in the lead of the target with accents, and the redirect also matches against searches that don't include accents. Given that Chebyshev does not have the most typical name, readers are even more likely to have come across an accented version. signed, Rosguill talk 21:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Russian might, or anyone copying the Russian name from any text. — MarkH21talk 08:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, because every Russian keyboard has accent marks and there is so much of ambiguity here that you have to use accent marks to get to the right page. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • my keep rationale is above, but it is worth clarifying that these days accents in Russian are rather rare and are reserved for dictionaries, language-learning tools, and leads on ruWiki. signed, Rosguill talk 17:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It appears to be the same as the proper Russian name in the lead. If it's correct, I so no reason to delete. Hog Farm (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Russians hardly ever use stress marks. For some reason, though, Russian words and texts printed in Western Europe seem to collect them; even if as here the stresses are in the expected places. (The opposite is true in Greek, in which the stress marks always used in Greece get lost outside that country.) Narky Blert (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. — J947 [cont] 21:22, 12 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.

Corona in X[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. The strong consensus to keep here cannot be squared with the strong consensus to delete at the previous RfD. Accordingly, I will list both discussions on WP:DRV to produce a common result. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a strong consensus to delete this type of redirect, per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_30#Corona_in_X signed, Rosguill talk 20:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the U.S. link is picking up about 10 views a day which supports the purpose. Maybe revisit in a few months, but for now these redirects are being utilized. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted, but I'm willing to bet that virtually all of those hits would have ended up going to Coronavirus in the United States if these redirects weren't crowding out searchbox results. signed, Rosguill talk 21:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. If the titles are causing problem in the searchboxes, removing them makes sense. The discussion you linked seems snowy, so if these are causing problems then they should be removed sooner than waiting for a longer time discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Notwithstanding J947's valid argument about incoming links below, there's enough searchbox clutter from these redirects that I'm not even confident that I found all remaining examples of this redirect type because the box may have cut off further results. signed, Rosguill talk 22:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed again after looking at the page stats below and that those now searching for the terms will be tossed into inadequate search pages where the topic will have to be looked for quite a bit down the page. Maybe delete after the next flu season which, in high hopes, may not see the virus return in full force. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Corona in Sweden as there seems to be links that we don't want to break.
    Keep all the others per my comment in the previous discussion. If someone is searching up Corona in England in this day and age what do you think they are referring to? Redirects are all about helping the readers—and hey:the readers are being helped. Searches don't just happen through the search bar, and I'm willing to wager that at least half of these views here are from people who embarked on a search for these exact phrases. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 22:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is ambiguous. It could mean Corona, Corona, Corona, Corona, Corona, Corona, Corona and Corona, Corona, Corona, Corona, Corona, Corona, Corona, Corona, Corona, Corona, Corona, Corona, and Corona. If we do not delete, these should renamed to say coronavirus, I mean people are not so lazy, they can't get themselves to type an extra 5 letters. OcelotCreeper (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @OcelotCreeper: We cannot assume. This is a valid search term and that is the gist of a good redirect. Do you really think that a search of Corona in England today is ambiguous? — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 00:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @OcelotCreeper: — We also have quite clear evidence that they are so lazy, as the redirects are being used. It strikes me as elitist to suggest we only cater to readers who put in the energy to understand where our idiosyncratic redirects go. Carl Fredrik talk 08:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as clearly useful (some get hundreds of hits per day). They're not ambiguous at all as no other meaning of corona is remotely plausible in a search phrase like "Corona in [Country]" – we don't have country-specific articles about the distribution network or pattern of consumption of a given beer brand, and we don't have articles detailing the habitats in a given country for a specific gastropod species. The only potential for ambiguity that I can see is for "Corona in the US" which can be related to the city of Corona, California, but even that's a far shot. – Uanfala (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others, undelete the useful redirects like this. --Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 08:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirects like this also help search engines to index the target page correctly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 01:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong keep To suggest the search term is ambiguous is clearly WP:POINTY. The articles have long cumbersome names and are difficult to find otherwise, I agree with the Undelete suggestions with regard to already deleted redirections. Internal search results are horrible. Carl Fredrik talk 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My personal preference is to create redirects that say coronavirus instead of corona so that in a day after their creation, people can actually see coronavirus in Europe or something listed in the search box. I'll check if they exist and create them if they do not. OcelotCreeper (talk) 13:26, 10 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.

X to tha z[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 01:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a misspelling of X To The Z. A very unlikely one, considering that “the” is the most common word in the English language. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article only says "X to the Z" making this sound like a NEO (Do note there are other things in Xzibit though where tha is used instead, just not this one so if anyone wants to edit the article to say X to tha Z, find something that proves that's how Xzibit would spell it). OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "tha" isn't a misspelling, it's intentional; found when trying to write "street" speech. (along with "da" in replacement for "the") -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish keep; what is to be gained by deleting this redirect? — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 22:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @J947: Clarity of search results. A reader might be confused to see two variants of it. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @1234qwer1234qwer4: A reader may be slightly confused, but I feel like the readers helped by this redirect outweigh that. It's also not necessarily a bad thing—there is more space for the mouseclick and the "quirk" may encourage readers to learn more about Wikipedia. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 20:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems legit. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 15:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep No sense in removing it, it abides by our redirect guidelines. Carl Fredrik talk 08:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – An online search reveals that "Mr. X to the Z" is a phrase strongly linked to Xzibit, e.g. [5], and it can be found as "Mr. X to tha Z" in these lyrics. It seems to be a plausible search phrase. —Quondum 12:35, 10 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.

Untitled Star Trek sequel[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 List of Star Trek films and television series. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vague, this could refer to the Section 31 show, the untitled Pike series, the fourth reboot film, or any other unannounced series. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or unrefine The target is effectively changing over time, but I think this is probably OK. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 15:58, 7 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.

War of the Ninepenny Kings[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 15#War of the Ninepenny Kings

George R. R. Martin/A Song of Ice and Fire[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 01:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropiate usage of subpages in the article namespace. Also a very unlikely search term. Not a very active user (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bundle George R. R. Martin/Westeros into this nomination. Same target, same argument. Narky Blert (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ok can we merge as many of these as we can? You have like 7 redirects that redirect to the same place. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @OcelotCreeper: Good idea, let's do all these at once. I just mentioned the one which happened to crop up in the searchbox when I was looking for George R. R. Martin. Narky Blert (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this redirect, and when more are added, tentatively delete those too. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This redirect is eighteen years old and the result of a pagemove in the project's early history. It's a historical subpage title (comparable to United States/History) and just as important to keep as CamelCase redirects like AustraliA. As long as the target still exists, they must not be deleted, and if you want to change practice on this, you need to go to the Village Pump and propose a policy change. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:07, 3 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 20:28, 6 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.

Planck electric dipole moment[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "dipole" or "moment" at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Neither is actually a term used in the physics literature, and so neither is a plausible search query. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – WP should not be inventing terms that are not in use. —Quondum 22:00, 6 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.

Planck catalytic activity[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of catalytic activity, or catalysts in any context, at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:52, 6 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.

.csproj[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 14#.csproj

Planck radiation exposure[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "exposure" anywhere in the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a unit that scientists actually use. XOR'easter (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – WP should not be inventing terms that are not in use. —Quondum 22:01, 6 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.

Planck specific activity[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "specific activity" at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not an actual unit in which specific activity is measured, so nobody will be looking for a definition of it. XOR'easter (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – WP should not be inventing terms that are not in use. —Quondum 22:01, 6 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.

Wendell Sperber[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that the subject has ever gone by Wendell. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:32, 6 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.

Kenneth Hulme[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 16#Kenneth Hulme

Ethnic marker[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 01:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The word "marker" is nowhere in the target article, making this redirect unclear in why it redirects where it does. Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 6 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.

Jeff Bezanson[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 Procedural close, wrong forum. Bruno H Vieira, this sounds like a request that you should take to WP:DRV, RfD is not the forum for overturning AfD decisions. signed, Rosguill talk 01:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose this article to be re-created and the redirect undone. Jeff Bezanson is the sole co-creator of Julia without a page. He's mentioned elsewhere in the Wiki too, for example 2019 James H. Wilkinson Prize. Besides, in these two years Julia gained much notoriety, even though he is less under the spotlights among the co-creators. He also has an article on French Wikipedia. Bruno H Vieira (talk) 18:16, 6 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.

Media Entertainment Arts WorldWide[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 01:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subject isn't mentioned at target Fram (talk) 15:13, 6 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.

Wikipedia:Injective tensor product[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 by Liz per criterion G7. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Didn't want to create it in the Wikipedia space. Mgkrupa (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per G7, author of the redirect and moved page is the same, and requests deletion. Will tag. Hog Farm (talk) 14:48, 6 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.

Quing Ming[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly a Chinese name, so there's no possibility for this misspelling. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:49, 6 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.

List of college men's soccer coaches with 350 wins[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 13#List of college men's soccer coaches with 350 wins

Lieutenant General George Washington[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 13#Lieutenant General George Washington

Monster zone[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. --BDD (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely search term for the target. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. While it could be argued that this is a likely search term as "Monster zone" is still in the title after the colon, I'd say that Scary show is a larger offender and should be added to this nomination. Cranston academy is the final partial title match, but I don't believe it to be ambiguous. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Monster Zones are also part of the Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game#Zones.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware that the term "Monster zone" would relate to something else. I really don't know how to address this. You can do whatever you want with the redirect, and if you couldn't figure out a way, you can proceed with the deletion. Thanks for notifying me and have a great day. Animawiki29 (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:58, 6 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.

Wlat Harris[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 01:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given how far apart the W and L keys are from each other on a keyboard, this misspelling of "Walt" seems to be questionably plausible. Maybe delete this redirect unless someone can provide a justification. Regards, SONIC678 04:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Walter Harris, which is a disambiguation page. It's fairly plausible to transpose two letters, even if they're far apart on the keyboard, but there's also Walt Harris (cornerback) and Walt Harris (fighter) so retargeting to the disambig page is best. Smartyllama (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This does not appear to me to be a particularly useful transposition to keep. BD2412 T 22:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We can't have redirects from every possible misspelling. Narky Blert (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Typo-based redirects are... well, honestly, I feel like I'm rather inconsistent in terms of my view of them. I confess. At the same time, well, this appears to be rather useless. Deletion looks like the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Hitpoint0213 (talk) 19:26, 8 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.

Geeorge F. Sutherland[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 01:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how plausible this misspelling for "George" is, and also this redirect seems to get few pageviews compared to its target. Regards, SONIC678 04:49, 6 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.

Golden Warriors[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 Golden Warrior. (non-admin closure) buidhe 17:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term has other uses, and besides I've never heard the Golden State Warriors called the "Golden Warriors". I suggest retargeting to Golden Warrior. 119.18.2.230 (talk) 01:52, 6 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.

Doucaine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 13#Doucaine

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_6&oldid=1072177355"