Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 14, 2020.

Re-recorded song[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 25#Re-recorded song

Cynthia Palmer[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 24#Cynthia Palmer

Michael D. Horowitz[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. I'm afraid I don't see the rationale for adding {{R to section}} as suggested by Dmehus, so I'm going to refrain from acting on that. signed, Rosguill talk 20:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lemma as such not a subject of the given target, apart from being mentioned as one of several publishers. (Besides: Notability appears doubtful.) Hildeoc (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Mentioned in the target. Notability is irrelevant for redirects. (See e.g. {{R from song}}, which expressly says that most songs are not notable.) Narky Blert (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I created these redirects (Michael Horowitz & Cynthia Palmer) 15 years ago when Wikipedia was young. If it was up to me there would be a "bot" which would go around changing all the pages with links to these two names and making them link to the Fitz Hugh Ludlow Memorial Library directly instead of using a redirect page. wayland (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but please add R to section or R to anchor Rcat. Thanks. --Doug Mehus T·C 19:01, 19 January 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.

Complete Single Collection[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 25#Complete Single Collection

The Benefactor (Marvel Comics)[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) 18:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided signed, Rosguill talk 18:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete taking a look there was a speculation last June thst Marvel was planning to cast a character in the MCU codenamed the Benefactor and some speculated that character could be Norman Osborne. So in short this is speculation based on speculation.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 00:40, 15 January 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.

AEW Control Center[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) 18:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete maybe it's a special episode, but Isn't mentioned and I don't see people searching for this term. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The show is hosted from the AEW Control Center. It is used in other instances though, so its not exclusive to AEW Dark. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:20, 17 January 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.

Amazon effect[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 Retail apocalypse#Amazon effect. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, or at Amazon (company) for that matter. An internet search suggests that this is a notable topic, but simply pointing readers to Retail is less than helpful. I would suggest deletion per WP:R#DELETE #10. signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Retail apocalypse#Amazon effect with an Rcat to embedded anchor, where it is now mentioned. The entire article is more focused on Amazon.com, and other retailers including Walmart's e-commerce operation, cannibalizing brick-and-mortar retail sales in a dramatic way, leading to a long-term secular decline of the space. It's such a current phenomenon, a plausible topical or search term, and, so, an outright "delete" just didn't seem right. I thank nom Rosguill for bringing this to RfD, though. --Doug Mehus T·C 01:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Doug: good find. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment retargeting seems like the way to go here, thanks Doug. signed, Rosguill talk 17:46, 16 January 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.

Fat Disappointment[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) 20:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term: the connection that this redirect has to the target is that the target's subject was based off of a story titled "My Big Fat Disappointment". I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if a redirect from the title of the original short story (which is far less known than the film, and thus unlikely to be a search term) were warranted, this isn't the title. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others above. This may also cause confusion due to the term's broadness. Glades12 (talk) 08:06, 15 January 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.

StarCraft units[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 20:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects were supposed to be deleted already, as discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zergling, but it was never properly executed. They are gamecruft and are not even mentioned in passing in the target article. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Seems pretty CRUFTy to me. I wonder if WP:CSD#G8 might apply due to the previous AfD nom mentioned? Doug Mehus T·C 19:02, 19 January 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.

Bridge of Stonebows[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 Shire (Middle-earth). signed, Rosguill talk 20:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't appear to have information about this bridge anywhere, so this redirect does not have much usefulness. Hog Farm (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first versions of these redirects tend to have something, which was probably merged at the time it was redirected but might have been removed in subsequent edits. e.g. the initial version 13 July 2004 states: "Bridge of Stonebows is the name of the Brandywine Bridge used while it was still in the keeping of the kingdom of Arthedain." Brandywine Bridge currently redirects to Shire (Middle-earth). You (Hog Farm) are probably aware of this as you did this edit to the original target (Baranduin) to direct it to Shire (Middle-earth). Not to belabour a point, but if those nominating articles and redirects were willing to slow down, then those who are familiar with the topic area might have a chance to keep up. This sort of examination of page histories might result in a more careful clean-up of this topic area. Here, I suggest redirect to Shire (Middle-earth) where I added this (admittedly trivial) information, though much of the content of Shire (Middle-earth) probably needs to go under current standards as being too 'in-universe'. Carcharoth (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: Sounds like a good retarget then. I'm fairly familiar with Tolkien, but it has been a year since I read it, so some of these minor places don't ring a bell. I've been trying to retarget the obvious ones as I go along, and using the search function to find possible targets. The problem comes when the relevant information is buried in the history, so the search function can't turn it up. I'll start looking in the history more frequently, then. Hog Farm (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It might be best to see how the discussions at places like here play out first, as essentially list material is being merged to articles (here, the geography of The Shire is being amalgamated in list form). This is the sort of thing that works well if kept manageable, but can get out of control with large lists. Carcharoth (talk) 16:24, 14 January 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.

Wetwang (Middle-earth)[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 Dead Marshes. signed, Rosguill talk 20:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to be described anywhere, so no good target article. Hog Farm (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dead Marshes which are nearby. That article is notable for Tolkien's mention of its inspiration by the First World War trenches, a really grim vision. Of course that might need to point to Mordor if deletions continue, but I think we are approaching the limit now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dead Marshes, possibly with an Rcat to a related or similar topic, especially if not mentioned in the proposed target. Chiswick Chap's, who appears to know his Middle earth geography very well, rationale is sound and reasonable and would get the user within the same "vicinity," literally and figuratively, of the information they're seeking. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:57, 21 January 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.

Old Ford (Middle-earth)[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 20:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Ford is not described at the target article, and I can't find a potential target where this ford is actually mentioned. Hog Farm (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support whatever Middle earth geography expert Chiswick Chap says. Failing a response, consider this a delete without prejudice to recreation in the future, to a suitable target. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's really not important. It was where the old forest road crossed the Anduin. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:07, 21 January 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.

Roads in Pune[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 26#Roads in Pune

Susan Dolan[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 20:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that there were rules for notability for redirects. Can you refer me to it? Its not a big deal however, but I'm interested to join in the discussion when others arrive. Victuallers (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is neither here nor there for redirects. They're often used to help readers find non-notable topics within articles. This one, however, falls foul of the most fundamental rule for redirects – not mentioned in the target, so that anyone following it will find no useful information. Narky Blert (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Jill Susan Dolan is a possible alternate target; but she does not seem to use her middle name, making Susan Dolan both an unlikely search term, and WP:OR by calling her by a name she doesn't use. Narky Blert (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as per Narky Blert. Notability is not a reason for deletion. Victuallers (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, though Narky Blert's comment is also appropriate. I also just feel we don't need to keep redirects for every single non-notable person mentioned in an article. We delete redirects all the time for non-notable failed political candidates; this is no different. Also, we don't need policy-based reasons for deletion since we notionally have no rules. We can do case-by-case, non-precedent setting deletions based on evidence and cogent arguments. We have that here per all of the above. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:44, 21 January 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.

Draft:Skyranch at Carefree[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, G13. Maybe very technically not, but clearly within purpose. WilyD 08:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should qualify for speedy delete criterion #G13, but couldn't select that option because it's a left over redirect to, presumably, to the Main: namespace. Nevertheless, it may also qualify as an implausible typo for speedy delete. Doug Mehus T·C 02:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Nevermind; I realize what I did, I think I selected in CSD is selected as a redirect. It's still in the Draft: namespace, so was able to tag it with G13. --Doug Mehus T·C 02:54, 14 January 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.

Ostrich egg[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 Egg as food#History. Consensus is unanimous here that retargeting is the most appropriate solution, without prejudice, of course, to retargeting to a more suitable (whether boldly or through another RfD) target, potentially dabing, or, equally important, to creating a separate article on the Ostrich egg. Only one editor preferred retargeting to common ostrich, but Narky Blert's research proved compelling in that Wugapodes was persuaded Egg as food was the better target. I've gone ahead and added the "History" section of Egg as food to the proposed target boldly, with an R to section navigational Rcat. This, of course, can be changed outside of RfD, if preferred. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 17:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is ultimately "with possibilities", as it's tagged, but there's no discussion of eggs at the target article. I was trying to find out if ostrich eggs are eaten by humans. I did find some relevant content at Egg as food. Retargeting there would only be covering one aspect of ostrich eggs, but may be acceptable since Chicken egg, Duck egg, and Goose egg all redirect there (but Quail eggs is its own article). I could live with either deletion or retargeting. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to common ostrich, where the information is (for now). Srnec (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to egg as food. IMO, it's more likely that a reader entering this search term is looking for information about cookery than about the bird's reproductive habits. Definitely {{R with possibilities}} - a Google search for 'ostrich egg cooking' turns up all sorts of stuff, including this RS report that they've been sold for cooking in UK. (Apparently, boiling and scrambling are the recommended methods; frying, not so much.) Narky Blert (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Narky Blert: Both incoming links to the redirect are really about ostrich eggshells as objects. When I created it and tagged it as having possibilities, it was this long tradition of using ostrich eggs as containers and as decorative objects that I had in mind. There is an article on ostrich eggs in the Grove Encyclopedia of Decorative Arts. Of course, a fully developed article would include the actual biology and any culinary uses as well. Srnec (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Narky. Apparently we have two articles about ostriches, and that one has the information readers are looking for. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Mandalorian (Star Wars)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#The Mandalorian (Star Wars)

Urbanology[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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary definitions suggest that this term is more related to sociology, so might Urban sociology be a more appropriate target? ComplexRational (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm certainly open to changing my mind if there's evidence to the contrary, but the OED, in a definition updated in 2011, defines it as "The branch of knowledge that deals with urban areas and urban life." That's just urban studies, and fits with what you'd expect from the etymology. Merriam-Webster defines it as "a study dealing with specialized problems of cities (such as planning, education, sociology, and politics)", so explicitly broader than sociology. Wiktionary's definition is a better fit for urban sociology, but we can't rely too much on that. Finally, if we're in doubt, we should prefer the broader term. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Should we dab this, MJL and BDD, potentially? Sure, it's potentially only two articles on a potential dab page, but it can be expanded, potentially in future. It doesn't seem like there's a strong primary topic for the hatnote approach. Doug Mehus T·C 23:16, 20 January 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.

Software mirror[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 20:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:XY. Beyond the hatnote, the target doesn't mention this term at all. It could go to the DAB at Mirror (computing), since "software" is functioning as a disambiguating phrase here. But none of the entries mentions the term specifically.

It's only used in the article Automatic Storage Management, which is closely aligned with Disk mirroring. On average, it gets about one hit every five days. My gsearch tends to indicate an even split between disk mirroring and screen mirroring, but Screen Mirroring redirects to Projection screen, which doesn't mention software. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:52, 14 January 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.

KIPPERS[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. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 10:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication in the article as to why this term redirects here, and there is similarly no explanation at Boomerang Generation. I suggest delete because of ambiguity with other entries at Kipper (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not retarget to the Kipper (disambiguation) page? —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 00:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support delete. Looking at the history of the KIPPERS article, it sounds like the term is not used much anymore (if ever) and shouldn't redirect to Affordable Housing anyhow.---Avatar317(talk) 04:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought of redirecting to Kipper (disambiguation) - until I found that KIPPER doesn't exist. There seems no point in having the plural but not the singular; and there are no all-caps entries on the DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 12:39, 14 January 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.

Only a Man's World[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. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 10:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The correct song title is Only in a Man's World, and there is already a redirect in place for it. This redirect appears to have been created based on a typo on the target article. It is not an alternate title. Ss112 10:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search for "Only a Man's World" turned up only Field Music ("Only in a Man's World") and James Brown ("It's a Man's Man's Man's World") as notable topics on the first few pages. As nom suggests, it may have been based on a typo in WP; let's get rid of it before it perpetuates itself. Narky Blert (talk) 12:47, 14 January 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.

YAAD[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not mentioned at the target page, making this redirect confusing for readers who don't already know what the term means. Not a very active user (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:34, 14 January 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.

ExtremeFFS[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 20:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ExtremeFFS used to redirect to Flash translation layer#ExtremeFFS. Flash translation layer has now been turned into a redirect to Flash memory controller#Flash Translation Layer (FTL) and Mapping (diff), see Talk:Flash translation layer#Merge for context. No content was merged, and ExtremeFFS is not mentioned at the redirect target at all. Tea2min (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's some discussion from 2014 and 2018 about splitting content off Flash file system into a separate article Flash translation layer at Talk:Flash file system#Separate page for Flash Translation Layer (FTL). Apparently, content describing ExtremeFFS was then moved from Flash file system to Flash translation layer (diff, diff). Tea2min (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, though it's kind of confusing, and because this would be WP:COSTLY to relist for another week. If there's a groundswell of people who feel it should exist, they can re-create it since consensus can change. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:35, 21 January 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_January_14&oldid=937630184"