Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 20, 2020.

WP:OPED[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 Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to same place as WP:OP-ED: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions (formerly WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Boneyard/Newsroom/Submissions, before some Signpost overhauling). We should not have near-identical spelling/punctuation variants of shortcuts going to two completely different places. And this MoS section already has MOS:OPED, MOS:OP-ED, MOS:EDITORIAL, and other shortcuts. We're slowly moving to replacing all the WP:FOO shortcuts that are "advertised" at MoS pages with MOS:FOO ones, and the entire reason the "MOS:" shortcut pseudo-namespace was created was because "WP:" ones that are mnemonic (rather than random-looking gibberish) are a finite resource.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:48, 20 November 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.

Talk:Die Hard/Archive 2[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 00:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can Archive 1 and Archive 2 be the same page? There is no second archive. HotdogPi 23:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This was caused by a typo move which would have been better done as a move-without-redirect (by someone with the ability to do it). This one could have been speedily deleted as non-controversial maintenance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until a second archive is created (the time will eventually come) and remove any links on the talk page and archive. We don't want to mislead readers into thinking there's such an archive right now. Regards, SONIC678 01:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until a second archive is created. The presence of a redirect may mess up the archiving process.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:07, 21 November 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.

Publius Cornelius Cethegus (senator)[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 / retarget. There's universal agreement that the redirect to the current target is not useful. Beyond that, there's some disagreement over the utility of this title redirecting anywhere, but also a reasonable argument that Cornelia_gens#Cornelii_Cethegi is more useful than the search results, at least, so this feels like an excellent example of no consensus retarget. There are also legitimate arguments that (a) the existing target's title is inappropriate, and (b) that there are enough people specifically named exactly this to warrant a specific disambiguation page for them. Both of those arguments are out of the direct scope of this discussion, but either or both seem reasonable. If a proper disambiguation page is created at Publius Cornelius Cethegus or similar, a further retarget of this title there would be legitimate. ~ mazca talk 11:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect. "Senator" is a singularly poor disambiguator for ancient Romans, since senators of the same family would often have identical names. In this particular case, Publius Cornelius Cethegus (consul 181 BC) was also a senator. It's not even clear by the article text if the public enemy was indeed a senator: for that he would've had to hold some state office, which is nowhere specified. Avis11 (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, "Public enemy" is rather vague for this period, when half of the political class was proscribed at some point. Michael Crawford calls him a "political boss", which also fits the description made by Ronald Syme "a master of intrigue and corruption". I would therefore prefer Publius Cornelius Cethegus (political boss 70s BC), although it is rather long. T8612 (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but this is about deleting the disambiguation 'senator'; this is not a move request. You must agree that 'senator' is even more vague and inappropriate: there was a consul (and thus also a senator) in 181 BC called P. Cethegus, but no other one of that name that I know of was declared a 'public enemy'. If you really dislike the current title you could broach the subject in the pertinent talk page. Avis11 (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    EDIT: note that 'public enemy' refers to his status as hostis publicus when he, Marius and some 10 other people were declared outlaws by Sulla in 88 BC – hardly 'half of the political class'. Yes, many were later 'proscribed', but I'm not sure if a hostis is legally the same as a proscript. Avis11 (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had already considered renaming the article because "senator" is pretty useless, but this Cethegus is a difficult case. I agree removing it. The hostis publicus thing is a technicality, the result was the same for dozens of noblemen at the time. T8612 (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Both Publius Cornelius Cethegus (consul 181 BC) (certainly) and Publius Cornelius Cethegus (public enemy) (probably) were senators. A redirect to Cornelia gens#Cornel Cethegi, where both are mentioned, would be possible - but also utterly useless, leaving readers up in the air as to which is one might be meant in any given article. Narky Blert (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Publius Cornelius Cethegus already redirects to said target. Publius Cornelius Cethegus (senator) is just a useless spare redirect which can be done away with. Avis11 (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Useless spare" is not a reason to delete a redirect. Compare e.g. Parvathi (Actress), which I cleaned up earlier today, and which duplicates Parvathi (actress). Narky Blert (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is. I've seen several redirects eliminated with this rationale. Your example is just a capital letter, and thus a plausible search term. Cethegus (senator) is unlikely to be searched over Cethegus, so it can be done away with. Avis11 (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Publius Cornelius Cethegus does indeed point, ambiguously, to Cornelia gens#Cornel Cethegi. All the more reason to turn it into a DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless—most Roman politicians we know of were senators at some point, including other Cornelii Cethegi. I don't see anybody searching under this title—any hits are due either to people remembering the old title (rather obscure figure, so there should be relatively few incoming links), or because it pops up in the search window when you get to "Cethegus". But I also agree that the current title—the current redirect target—is not a good choice. "Public enemy" assumes a certain point of view, and the fact that someone was proscribed by either Marius or Sulla doesn't mean that the rest of the Roman people saw him as a criminal; his description suggests otherwise, and "public enemy" makes him sound like Al Capone or John Dillinger—it's a phrase loaded with 20th century baggage. I'd suggest one of these alternatives: "partisan of Marius", "proscribed by Sulla", "populist leader", "political boss" (admittedly also a bit anachronistic, but less so than "public enemy", and has the advantage of being used by a notable scholar when discussing him). Since we don't have an annual magistracy, forget the year—any disambiguator is already going to be a lengthy one. P Aculeius (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that "public enemy" isn't a great disambiguator and that article should probably be moved to another title, but "senator" isn't a good disambiguator here because multiple people of that name were senators. Publius Cornelius Cethegus already points to a list of people with this name which can be used to disambiguate it so this redirect doesn't serve any purpose. Hut 8.5 20:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cornelia gens#Cornelii Cethegi where Publius Cornelius Cethegus targets, which would resolve the ambiguity. This is an {{R from move}} after being the article title for a decade, so I see motivation to prevent potential link rot. -- Tavix (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: i already fixed all links. See the answer immediately above yours on the disambiguation concern: an extra '(senator)' adds nothing of value so it can be safely deleted. Avis11 (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only links that can be fixed are internal, current links. External links and links in the edit history cannot. This would also be an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}, of which there are thousands harmlessly existing without issue. -- Tavix (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the one who voted oppose above actually supports deletion. Avis11 (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cornelia gens#Cornelii Cethegi. Ancient Roman anthroponymy is pretty inherently confusing to modern readers. Is this going to magically answer all their questions? Of course not, but it's more helpful than just leaving it to search results. We need disambiguation here, and this is the way to do it. --BDD (talk) 19:32, 30 November 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.

Racial Achievement Gap[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 Educational inequality. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article for Racial achievement gap in the United States. This redirect instead points to Achievement gaps in the United States, which is confusing. It also doesn't follow proper capitalization conventions, and adds another (unnecessary) entry to search results which is confusing. Stonkaments (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf (and because a generic topic name should not go to a country-specific article). That does seem to be the proper target, and this is a plausible search string. Various subsets of people have a strong tendency to capitalize Stuff They Think Is Important, or That Which Sounds Like a Doctrine or Principle, or Anything They Mistake for a Proper Name Like a Report Title, or All Terms That Pertain to Minority Groups and Other Sociological Categories, or .... It's a bad habit they pick up from advertising, business correspondence, headlinese, bureaucratese, legalese, etc. (Seriously, the no. 1 kind of style dispute at WP:RM is over-capitalization stuff, probably by an order of magnitude. Millions of people just do not really understand how capital letters work in proper writing.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:36, 21 November 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.

2:22 redirects[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 2015 and 2016, delete 2014. signed, Rosguill talk 00:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 2016 film named "2:22". Also, there's no mention of 2016 being the original release in that target. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I found this film title hard to search for, and there's no section about when it was filmed, but the references show the cast was announced in January 2015, which makes a 2016 release from that point plausible. For what it's worth, the revision when the title was moved calls it a 2016 release with no reference. There are no other films that could possibly be confused with this redirect because 2:22 (2008 film) is too far off. Noting that it's an {{R from move}}, that all adds up to be a redirect that is plausibly helpful to keep, with a slight chance of harm if deleted. I'm also curious why this redirect is the one nominated to be deleted, and not 2:22 (2014 film) or 2:22 (2015 film)—which may fall in the "too far off to be plausible" category. -- Tavix (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I'm gonna add the 2014 and 2015 ones here. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the 2016 and 2015 ones, per the "plausible release date" argument above, and because it was announced in early 2015, which also made 2015 an entirely reasonable guess. Delete 2014 since there doesn't seem to be any published-announcements or other rationale for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:40, 21 November 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.

Liberal constitutionalism[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) 19:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a separate concept, hardly related to libertarianism.[1][2][3] Should either be deleted to encourage article creation or perhaps (second choice) redirected to constitutionalism. (t · c) buidhe 10:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral It really needs it's own article, even if just a stub. From the looks of it it relates to classical liberalism, and the US meaning (different from the European meaning) of "libertarianism" is somewhat classical liberalism. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current redirect really can't stand as the libertarianism article never mentions "liberal constitutionalism" or even "constitutionalism". (And although some libertarians support liberal constitutionalism, others are not constitutionalists at all. Nor would all supporters of liberal constitutionalism be accurately characterized as libertarians) (t · c) buidhe 16:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Libertarianism not only covers an immense diversity of philosophies and systems, it covers fundamentally different common meanings of the term. probably a broad enought tent for a redirect target if there's not a better idea. I'd be willing to convert it into a very weak starter article though. If that is desired, please ping me. North8000 (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along the lines of North8000's comments if not their vote. The current target is not appropriate, and a proper target doesn't really exist at the moment. signed, Rosguill talk 22:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most uses I'm seeing aren't about a single ideology, but constitutionalism that is liberal—for whatever meaning of each word. The exception is Constitutional liberalism, which has a single sentence contrasting liberal constitutionalism and constitutional liberalism. It does have a source. I don't know if that's more of a retarget or WP:REDLINK deletion case. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A bad redirect. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per pretty much all of the above. It is possible we should eventually have something at this page title (either an article, or disambiguation to multiple articles that mention the term and use it differently), but a redir to libertarianism doesn't appear to be that "something".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:42, 21 November 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.

Egypt info[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 00:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was an article in 2007, however, it is an unlikely search term. Someone looking for information on Egypt would most likely simply search for "Egypt", and wouldn't put an "info" after it. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:COSTLY as a WP:PANDORA type redirect.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:PANDORA is nonsense, and so I explicitly oppose that rationale, but the nominator is correct that this is not a useful redirect. This was an article, and we should normally revert to the article rather then delete at AfD however as an article this would be subject to speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A10 so it falls into the limited exceptions where that is acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – WP:PANDORA isn't nonsense, because what comes next? Ladakh info, NASA info, Earth info? --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 18:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects are judged on their own merit. The (lack of) existence of a redirect implies nothing about the desirability or otherwise of any other redirect. WP:PANDORA is thus directly contrary to this consensus, which has existed for well over a decade, and does not even represent any actual consensus in practice. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 21 November 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.

Faustus Cornelius Sulla (senator)[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 00:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. All people with this name were senators, so the first one is useless (all links have already been fixed). The second is linked nowhere, and no source lists his name like that, so it can be deleted too. Avis11 (talk) 21:01, 20 November 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.

Omar Fateh[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) 19:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a case of WP:R#DELETE #10. Not mentioned at the target, but Fateh appears to have won his election and would thus qualify for WP:NPOL. signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 20 November 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.

Daddy Round-Round[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 00:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a joke that appears in one episode. Since it's not explained, this doesn't seem helpful. Hog Farm Bacon 19:04, 20 November 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.

Ralph Kanickee[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 00:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Kanickee" is apparently the maiden name of the character's mother in-universe. Doesn't seem like a likely error. Hog Farm Bacon 18:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless there is evidence that this character is know for using his mother’s maiden name there is no need for this redirect.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 03:26, 22 November 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.

Barry Hussein Obama[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 00:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely; this is a nickname combined with his middle name. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there have been 101 user page views of this redirect between January 2016 and October 2020; in the same time there were 499 page views by Spider programs, and 2 automated page views. Online bookshops such as Amazon and Blackwells sell a book called "Barry Soetoro (A.K.A. Barack Hussein Obama) The Puppet and His Puppeteers" by Servando Gonzalez, pub Ediciones El Gato Tuerto (2016)-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Barry is sometimes a nickname for "Barack" and "Hussein" is Barack Obama's middle name. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ​I know, it just seems weird that someone would type his nickname and then include his middle name. TheAwesomeHwyh 21:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as correct, harmless and used. It might seem weird, but that is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 21 November 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.

Pokemon diamond cheats[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 00:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article has no text on cheating in Pokémon Diamond, so this is useless to readers. This was an article in 2008. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:16, 20 November 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.

Pokemonz[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 00:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems highly unlikely that someone would put a "z" at the end of this. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Diriector_Doc├─────┤TalkContribs 19:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible typo/misnomer. (Not a speedy though, because this redirect wasn't recently created.) -- Manifestation (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. lol wut? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There were apparently rumours in 2015-2016 that the follow-up to Pokemon X and Y would be called Pokemon Z, but this redirect (created 2007) predates X and Y (announced January 2013) so that can't be the reason. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should also add Pokemanz which was created by the same person. Also somewhat unrelated, regarding the Pokemon Z rumours I noticed that Pokemon Z, and Pokemon z redirect to Pokémon X and Y. I believe they should be deleted as well since that article doesn’t mention the term Pokemon Z.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pokemanz add to this nomination. I'll nominate the other two separately. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Pokemon Z was nominated previously - Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 13#Pokemon Z which resulted in no consensus largely due to the large number of page views, which it (and more especially Pokemon z) are still getting. Pokémon Z was speedily deleted as vandalism so is not a useful precedent. Nominate them if you wish, but as the situation has not changed since the last discussion, I'm not going to do so myself. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 22 November 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.

Timeline Zelda[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 00:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was an article in 2006. But, that article no longer exists and this redirect is a highly unlikely search term. Proposing deletion. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:06, 20 November 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.

Jumperman[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 00:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unlikely redirect that I think points to the wrong target. I believe this is meant to be a typo of "Jumpman", Mario's original name, but I don't see anyone making that typo. In addition, this is ambiguous, and Jumpman is a disambiguation page. This should be deleted, or just retargeted to Jumpman. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Whether this redirect is useful comes down to pageviews. And it has hardly any. Delete as unlikely redirect.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unlikely typo. Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 21 November 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.

UN/[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 00:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely typo. Redirect is tagged with Template:R from alternate spelling, however, this does not seem to be an alternate spelling of the UN. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:29, 20 November 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.

Underground Grandma[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 00:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't appear to have content anywhere the explains this. Hog Farm Bacon 16:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This was once a redirect to the page Wiggum family (which is now a redirect and during its time as an article didn't mention this "Underground Grandma" Ralph says he will live with in "'Scuse Me While I Miss the Sky"), but this character doesn't really seem relevant outside of this mention. Regards, SONIC678 21:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteseems to be a one-off joke.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 03:35, 22 November 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.

Pro-Soviet[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Pro-Soviet

MOS:DISABILITY[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 00:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect creates the impression that its target is part of the MOS, while it is actually a Wikiproject guide. It does not have the same level of authority as the MOS. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see it is currently only linked from a few quite old discussions, so I think it's best to delete it fairly soon before it acquires any fresh links. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There are a variety of other "pseudo-MoS" shortcuts that should also be hunted down and eliminated. Additional rationale: While "WP:MOSFOO" variants are arguably harmless, "MOS:FOO" pseudo-namespace ones live in mainspace and should not exist unless legitimate. PS: The target page should also be moved to "Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability/Style advice" to avoid confusion that it is a guideline or part of MoS. Every WP:PROJPAGE essay with a name like this that I can recall has been moved without incident to a "... advice" page name when this has been proposed, so I will take this to RM now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: That RM is now open at WT:WikiProject Disability/Style guide.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:20, 21 November 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.

Lopado pterygon[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) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was an undiscussed change of name. Devokewater (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: Devokewater, what do you mean? WP:RFD is not WP:RM. If you don't agree with the crazy-long name of the target article that should be addressed with {{subst:Rm}} at the article's talk page. It seems unlikely that this abbreviated redirect (if it should exist, i.e. is an attested shortening someone might use as a search term) shouldn't be redirecting to this article, whether it should have that long name at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi SMcCandlish I have removed the confusing sentence. The originally longed named article was up for deletion, it was decided to keep the article. Subsequently a new editor renamed it to Lopado pterygon without discussing it first, a senior editor reverted this, hence the deletion request. --Devokewater (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. I would say keep if it's a source-attestabed short form (even in non-stellar sources), as that would make it a very likely search term (this seems like the kind of thing people would naturally want, badly, to shorten). If there's no evidence at all of real-world use of this exact string, though, delete it as arbitrary and an unlikely search term.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible abbreviated redirect, completely helpful for readers who intend to search for this article without the need for typing the whole string. Not entirely sure what the nominator seems to be proposing here. CycloneYoris talk! 09:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swap the redirect name and the article name to avoid gibberish titles. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some quick searching appears to indicate that the target is sometimes shortened to Lopado...pterygon, and if that's a reasonable redirect, then the nominated term is a reasonable search term and a viable {{r from modification}}. Keep. - Eureka Lott 22:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' - we can not make out own names. it seems from a Google search that a few people weite it with three dots (lopado...pterygon) between the two parts. Christian75 (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as others have noted, "Lopado...pterygon" is used as a common abbreviation, but I can't imagine why "Lopado pterygon" wouldn't then be a plausible search term. Of course if someone wants to change the name of the article itself this isn't the place. A7V2 (talk) 07:48, 24 November 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[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. Consensus to move AEW (disambiguation) over the current redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 23:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at page statistics, appears to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Originalchampion (talk • contribs) 07:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. It's not clear what the nominator is proposing. Acronym appears at target article, so the redirect is completely plausible. Seems to be an erroneous nomination. CycloneYoris talk! 10:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think they want to change the redirect to All Elite Wrestling. The current page actually points to Airborne early warning and control, but the nomination template is erroneous. BlackholeWA (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This very same proposal was brought to RfD last year, and it received some very strong opposition. – Uanfala (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the pageviews for the redirect, they had been relatively low for most of the past, but then they shot up at the start of 2019 and since then have consistently been about 10x bigger than in the previous period. This change in usage appears to have occurred at about the same time that the proposed new target article was created. – Uanfala (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move AEW (disambiguation) to AEW. "Airborne early warning" is still historically more significant, so the wrestling promotion can't be the primary topic yet. BilCat (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Airborne early warning is the primary topic.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move AEW (disambiguation) to AEW. "Airborne early warning and control" is neither a common enough phrase to make for a good PRIMARYTOPIC argument, nor is it an expansion of "AEW", but a broader topic that encompasses "airborne early warning" as a subtopic. And there are lots of other notable meanings of "AEW". But I oppose retargeting this to the wrestling topic; it may be temporarily popular as a pop-culture thing, but that is unlikely to turn into lasting encyclopedic significance that exceeds all the other topics (especially airborne early warning). Various wrestling-related stuff comes and goes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move AEW (disambiguation) to AEW (i.e. make the disambiguation primary) per SMcCandlish. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move AEW (disambiguation) to AEW no primary topic. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:49, 22 November 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.

Second SARS outbreak[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 23:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how plausible this redirect is. I feel like nobody would expect to find the pandemic by searching this name. We don't have the redirect "First SARS outbreak". All I know is that the COVID-19 pandemic is the SARS outbreak of 2019–2020. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned in target or supported in reliable sources. 16:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnitedStatesian (talk • contribs)
  • Soumya-8974, please give me evidence to show how the COVID-19 pandemic is also known as the "Second SARS outbreak". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:41, 22 November 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 Thibet[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 Little Tibet. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 17:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous with Baltistan. Retarget to Little Tibet (disambiguation). Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support retarget as original redirect creator, this 18th century English spelling can refer to both locations in South Asia. --benlisquareT•C•E 11:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retarget to Little Tibet (disambiguation) - "Little Tibet" was the name used for the regions to the north of (and other than) Ladakh. Ladakh itself was called the "Great Tibet". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support what? Do you mean "keep", "delete", or something else? Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:08, 20 November 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.

Jammu and Kashmīr[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 Jammu and Kashmir. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 17:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous with the current union territory. Retarget to Jammu and Kashmir (disambiguation). Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
It will be "history" only after all the legal challenges are resolved, the martial rule is lifted and elections are held. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 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.

2019 Chicago Fire killings[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) CycloneYoris talk! 17:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article, previously an orphan, has just been moved to 2019 Chicago juvenile arson. The current capitalization suggests it could do with "Chicago Fire": an MLS team, a TV series, or the Chicago fire department, neither of which it does directly. Unlikely search term with very poor capitalization. Raymie (t • c) 07:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sam1370 (talk · contribs) 16:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per {{R from move}}. The article was at this title until less than 12 hours ago so in addition to being required for attribution purposes it is a very plausible search term and target for incoming external links. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an R from move, as the page was at this title for over a year. Hog Farm Bacon 19:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, and because unless there were killings relating to the fire department, to the TV show cast or crew, or Major League Soccer squads or events, there's not a legitimate reader-confusion issue here. If there was a killing in one of those topical contexts, then {{Redirect}} exists for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:08, 21 November 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_November_20&oldid=1166787912"