Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 14, 2021.

Regressive conservatism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 22#Regressive conservatism

Survaiya[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 21:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target; should have been speedied instead of being redirected. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only 2 other mentions in Enwiki are not appropriate targets. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2021 (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:VPW?F[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 Speedily deleted by Amakuru per WP:CSD#G10. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that some people just feel proud that they can show the WMF what they think is their place, but this one is such a bad style. Has been added to the page, reverted, and immediately readded. Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then reverted again. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Childish, useless, and counterproductive on a page that it supposed to make it easier for the enwiki community and the WMF to talk to each other. – Joe (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointy and pointless. Nthep (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Back in tghe day admins used to just delete this sort of thing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought the goal of this page was to help improve community–WMF relations. IMO it's time to retire the "W?F" nickname unless/until the Foundation starts pushing hard on the rename again. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G10. The W?F acronym is intended to disparage (and arguably intimidate and/or harass) the foundation. I almost closed the discussion with this, but as I feel strongly I've decided tagging the redirect is better. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or even G10. This does nothing else but pointlessly continues to worsen the WMF-community relations, which is the opposite of the goal of WPWMF. Majavah (talk!) 07:02, 15 February 2021 (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.

Yourweek[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 Restore article and retarget accordingly, send article to AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 17:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia that I can find. It wouldn't surprise me if "Your Week" was the title of some media somewhere (it sounds like the title of a week in review Sunday morning TV programme) but if it is we don't have an article about it either so it can't be a useful search term for that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2021 (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.

Trended[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 Trend. signed, Rosguill talk 21:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not exclusively related to Twitter. Better retarget to Trend as ambiguous. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete actually, users and readers are unlikely to search this subject in a verb 2 or 3 form. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. enjoyer|talk 04:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous and confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Trend. 735 views shows that readers are not unlikely to search this subject in a verb 2 or 3 form, and NOTDICT only applies to articles. A redirect being ambiguous and confusing is a reason to target a dab page, which should be considered before deletion. An ambiguous term redirected to a dab page is in fact a standard rcat. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per J947. The evidence is that people are searching on this term, and so we should be as helpful as we can be. In this instance, as the term is ambiguous, we should take them to a disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2021 (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.

Q'orl[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 21:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non notble race from Warhammer 40,000 that isn't mentioned at the target article or anywhere else in the encyclopedia. The list this was targeting was converted into a redirect a year and a half ago due to having no sourcing at all and being redundant to the articles on the specific notable races 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2021 (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.

Bokk-burning[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 for deletion, although this redirect was likely harmless enough to not have been worth the effort of listing and discussing here. signed, Rosguill talk 21:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this has received only 52 pageviews in the last 5.5 years, it's safe to say that this is as implausible as it seems to me. Attempts to find usages of this indicated to me that this isn't an error that gets made often. Hog Farm Talk 18:58, 14 February 2021 (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.

Twitterati[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 22#Twitterati

The imperium[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 Imperium (disambiguation). signed, Rosguill talk 21:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does "The Imperium" on it's own unambiguously refer to the warhammer 40,000 universe? Searching for this term turns up a lot of different results - on the first page of my search 6/10 results are related to 40k but the second and third pages have a complete mix of results. I would propose retargeting to Imperium (disambiguation). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2021 (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.

Datr cookie[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 21:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These should go to the same target, but neither of them mentions the term itself. I also could not find a mention anywhere else. The redirects get very little page views, so it might be better to tell the reader we don't have any specific information on this. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment iirc we normally delete redirects with quotation marks fairly routinely. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1 because Enwiki has no information about the topic or what it might be. Delete 2 as malformed with quotation marks. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2021 (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.

Weapons and Equipment of the Enemies of the Imperium (warhammer 40,000)[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 21:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikley search terms, these redirects receive very few page views. There's no real discussion of "Weapons and Equipment of the Enemies of the Imperium" at the target article, and there's no good single place for this to target since the relevant content is split across about half a dozen subpages for the various factions. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2021 (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.

AutoDraw[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 21:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No such term at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This was previously mentioned at the target, but it (along with a load of other information) was removed with this edit by Samuel Wiki in April 2019. Although the edit summary indicated that it was moved to Talk:List of Google Products I can find no evidence it ever was, rather it was moved to User:Samuel Wiki/Google. AutoDraw has never been mentioned at Talk:Google according to the archive search on that page. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The above comment is accurate. At present, there is no information about AutoDraw anywhere on Wikipedia so this redirect can be deleted. It can be recreated if any information gets added. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2021 (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.

Garret Miller[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. Several participants indicated flexibility, and while we usually prefer alternatives to deletion, a majority favored deletion on the very solid grounds of not conflating someone charged with a crime and an unrelated person. The situation may well have been different if this had been a longstanding redirect to the rower only recently changed to refer to the rioter. I recommend giving this some time, for the rioter to either fade from recent memory or to meet notability standards in his own right. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Apparently, a person by this name has been charged for participating in the Jan 6 Capitol riot and making death threats against AOC, but without a duly sourced mention at either article, this redirect shouldn't exist. signed, Rosguill talk 17:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Garrett Miller as an {{R from misspelling}}, delete if that doesn't work. We don't need a redirect to somewhere where mention of this person doesn't exist. Regards, SONIC678 18:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not sure the redirect is appropriate when there is a person of this exact name who is somewhat close to notability. If someone was searching for the riot participant, we wouldn't want to direct them to an unrelated person, and also it probably makes sense to keep this a WP:REDLINK in case there becomes a more appropriate redirect target relating to that individual. BlackholeWA (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget - Keep, because this person threatened AOC. If this cannot be kept, it should be redirected to Garrett Miller, as the number of "R"s would most definitely be a potential misspelling. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, given the absence of coverage; I could also live with a retarget to the Capitol riots article, or to the alternative spelling. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as evidently ambiguous and confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2021 (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.

Inquisitor (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 23#Inquisitor (Warhammer 40,000)

Category:Chancellors of of Macquarie University[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 21:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite implausible typo; categories are usually moved without leaving a redirect. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:46, 14 February 2021 (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.

Wargear[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) 20:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of wargear is not unique to the warhammer 40,000 universe and is not discussed at the target article. A google search shows a wide range of uses for the word - video games, card games, manufacturers of medeval weapons and armor, military equipment from ww2, an exhibit of viking artifacts etc. Maybe something like Military technology or Lists of military equipment would be a better target? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the usage is both very broad and largely informal, so any single potential target seems unsatisfactory. signed, Rosguill talk 21:10, 22 February 2021 (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.

Template:R rcat[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 21:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current redirect does not make sense to me. I suggest it be retargeted to {{R to redirect template}}, where {{R to rcat}} points, too. Note that the only transclusion of this redirect seems to have been at Template:R project page (see Special:Diff/943088386), where I replaced it by the proposed target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:17, 14 February 2021 (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.

RC3[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target does not explicitly mention any release candidate with a number 3, but this might also refer to the "remote Chaos Experience" of the Chaos Communication Congress. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate, in addition to release candidates and the remote chaos experience there are several other uses. I've drafted a disambiguation page below the redirect (could do with cleanup though) with the uses I am certain of but there may be more (e.g. there is something related to Brazilian motorsport, possibly a team, but I'm unsure if it belongs on the dab page). Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate In my 30 years in the software industry I have never head of the term RC3. Release candidate is usually shorted to RC, but versioned candidates have a space, so it would be "RC 3". Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2021 (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.

Fuck her right in the pussy[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 Restore article and retarget accordingly. No prejudice to AfD, although the discussion suggests that several editors would be opposed to deletion at AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 17:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Since 809946854, Fuck her right in the pussy is not mentioned in the target article any more, so this redirect can be deleted. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because we have nowhere to send readers seeking any information about this topic. The AfD concluded this topic should not have its own article, while the mention at the current target was removed three years ago and hasn't been contested (rightly so, since the target only lists videos with their own articles). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could maybe add a mention at List of Internet phenomena and Retarget there. -Vote changed to Restore article content with new sourcing per below.- This was a fairly big deal back in the day and I think should be mentioned somewhere, and we shouldn't let technical criteria for a particular list page take it out of the encyclopedia. BlackholeWA (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - Retarget to List of Internet phenomena. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Internet phenomena.86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page has been deleted four times already. Internet memes come and go and I don't think a 2014 meme is particularly notable or newsworthy any longer in 2021. Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not temporary. If it was notable in 2014 it is still notable in 2021. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A redirect to a page containing no information about the redirect text is of no use to the reader. -- Hux (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has gotten a bunch of news coverage from reliable sources sine the last AFD in November 2014, and that's probably enough to a mention a mention somewhere. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore article content. I think my link shows that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources for the content to be restored at the original page., or moved to the internet phenomena page, since the trend it inspired isn't necessarily because of the virality of the original video. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Adjusted !vote given more thorough source analysis by Ivanvector below. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support a restore. BlackholeWA (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. I reviewed the DYK for the article back in 2015 and I was impressed with the sourcing at the time. The subject is definitely notable and I maintain that the AfD got it wrong. -- Tavix (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've added FHRITP to this discussion as it doesn't make sense for one to be deleted and not the other or for them to lead to different content if not deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - I agree with Tavix that the AfD (the second one, at least) was closed incorrectly; there was demonstrably not clear consensus to delete. On the issue of notability: there have been numerous widely-covered criminal incidents involving someone shouting the phrase at women, including the 2014 suspension of Jameis Winston ([2], [3]), the 2015 firing of a Canadian public service worker ([4], [5]) and extensive coverage of his eventual rehiring ([6], [7]), and here are a series of news hits about ongoing incidents and other coverage from May 2020, July 2020, October 2020, and two days ago. The French articles both don't discuss specific incidents but address the broader issue of the phrase being used as harassment, and one discusses significant art projects addressing the trend. There's easily enough for a full article. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of how much news coverage this is apparently still receiving, I'm changing to restore as well (and retarget FHRITP, of course). When I nominated it, this redirect just looked like a leftover from a long-dead, non-notable meme, but a phenomenon that has spurred controversy multiple times over the course of a few years definitely feels like it deserves mention in Wikipedia. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 10:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous RfD closing admin here, thanks User:Thryduulf for the notification. I haven't been following this debate since I closed its precursor five years ago, and from my cursory reading of this discussion, circumstances have almost certainly changed, so there is no need to treat my closure from five years ago as a binding precedent. Deryck C. 10:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Per comments. --StaleGuy22 (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or restore. With no coverage of the topic on the project now, keep and retarget are non-starters (ok, one use at Jameis Winston, but I don't see any reasonable case for retargeting there). I'm comfortable saying delete because I think all the sources being cited are us chasing so many shiny objects. The subject of those articles is much less this phrase as opposed to events in which someone says it. And the phrase is outrageous enough in public life that we can expect some sort of reporting any time a public figure uses it. I realize these arguments may seem better fitted to an AfD, hence being ok with restoring. But having the content removed for 3+ years is also a way of the community deciding. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try for a firmer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think restore is getting at least a loose consensus since the new sources were reported, if there are no further arguments on the matter BlackholeWA (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per prior. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore is the obvious answer here (and I'm even one who leans deletionist when it comes to meme claptrap, since WP is not Urban Dictionary or Know Your Meme).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone link me to where it says RfD is an acceptable replacement for DRV? Delete as the target no longer mentions the subject. If the AfD was closed incorrectly, DRV is that way. If someone thinks circumstances have changed and it's now notable, permission for recreation doesn't require RfD either. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh. Consensus can form anywhere, really, and sometimes discussions about page futures can come from venues like RfD, I think. I don't think we have to subject this to rediscussion on a technicality; WP:NOTBURO and all that. Also, seeing as it was not clear that RESTORE would be an option when this discussion started, I don't think it's wrong to allow this discussion to formally conclude before recreating either. BlackholeWA (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I certainly might be wrong about RfD -- I'm not around these parts much. Frankly I don't remember why this meme redirect is even on my watchlist! But while I didn't participate in these AfDs, I do participate in a lot of AfDs and find it unsettling that the time I spend researching for an AfD could just be undone in a corner of the project that isn't actually supposed to be undoing AfDs (except insofar as the redirect is concerned, of course).
        Meh. In this case, it's been long enough that it's kind of pointless to make a stink. Whoever wanted to recreate the article with new sources could've just done that, after all. Then, if anything, we'd just head back to AfD and the case would be made there.
        It is worth noting, however, that the sources linked above which just show usage, at times without any connection to the meme apart from the collection of words, don't actually add anything (NOTDICT and whatnot).
        Given that this is entirely a meme about videobombing, it seems to me that that best location for it, and thus better target for the redirect would be a new section of the videobombing article (sans 100 sources that just say "X person said this"). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the article. Also retarget FHRITP to the article. The article is well sourced and explains its subject in a clear and neutral manner.--Auric talk 12:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the article. As creator of the original article, I do believe that a redirect without sufficient context is not exactly useful, and given that this discussion has turned into a de facto DRV, the fact there were incidents and media coverage relating to this meme does give it notability. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some would like the article restored, but challenging the outcome of an AfD requires deletion review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aasim (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aasim, then why are we relisting it here? This discussion has a clear consensus and shouldn't be relisted to change that for technical reasons. And why must we subject the article to another formal process when opinions have already been heard out here? BlackholeWA (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, relisting was exactly the wrong thing to do here. If it needs a deletion review the discussion here needs to be closed and a deletion review opened. If it doesn't need a deletion review (and imo one would be pointless bureaucracy given the extensive discussion already held here) then the clear consensus here is sufficient to restore the article and so the discussion doesn't need relisting again. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Awesome Aasim: Your relist makes no sense in this context. For one, you are flat out incorrect that restoring requires a DRV. Should a consensus develop to restore the article (which I believe one exists), then it would be a waste of time to require yet another discussion to affirm the consensus that has developed. Second, because such a consensus exists, the discussion simply needs to be closed as such, not delayed due to a pointless relisting. -- Tavix (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2021 (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.

User:Anupamdutta73/sandbox[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. No need to nominate your own sandbox at redirects for discussion. If you would like it deleted, simply use {{db-u1}}. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have already uploaded the list Anupam Dutta (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This is a redirect from a sandbox. Allow the user to do whatever they want to do with their sandbox. Advise the user that they don't need to use RFD to edit their own sandbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:Anupamdutta73 - You don't need to tag your sandbox to delete a redirect. Just edit the sandbox. It's your sandbox. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2021 (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.

Restarting[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 Restart. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous as restarting can also mean restarting programs or restarting your machine. Aasim (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2021 (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.

Listy of films about 9/11[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 21:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that "listy" is an adjective, this doesn't seem like a plausible typo. It's an R from move, but the redirect was only at this title for 2 minutes, so that's not an issue. The recent spike in pageviews appears to be from Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_9#Listy, where this is linked, not from users actually using this. Implausible. Hog Farm Talk 04:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Implausible typo. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Eureka Lott 03:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. Lennart97 (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though as per my comments at the aforementioned RfD discussion, I think "listy" should also be deleted from Wiktionary as the sourcing for it being used as an adjective is weak (and not accepted by any other dictionary afaik). This is silly. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2021 (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 Young Driver Test[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 21:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ambiguous redirect: there were two young driver tests in 2019, one in Spain and one in Bahrain. This redirect was formerly a duplicate of 2019 Catalunya Young Driver Test. It is a highly unlikely search term and there is no need for a disambiguation page when hatnotes will suffice (in the unlikely scenario the tests are considered notable enough to keep). Nothing links to this redirect and the title was only created today (14 February) so there has been no meaningful traffic so far. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close without prejudice. Both potential targets are at AfD currently, if they are both deleted then this will be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G8. If only one of them is deleted then this should redirect to that one as a plausible search term, similarly if the content of both is merged to the same location then the redirect should point there. If both are kept or they are merged to different places then this should be a disambiguation page between them as neither is primary. It's pointless discussing the redirect until we know the outcome of the AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - AfD resulted in delete for both possible targets (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Abu Dhabi Young Driver Test), this should just be deleted now. A7V2 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2021 (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.

Tom and Jerry: War of the Whiskers (page)[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 21:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weird disambiguator, Tom and Jerry in War of the Whiskers is not a page. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete yeah, this is from a move but it's not a disambiguation that could make sense. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G6. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per K4, the article was at this title for over a week and while that isn't much, it's enough for the redirect to get views. Given that this redirect will barely ever get searched up, it isn't causing any confusion for readers. What will cause confusion to readers is (if this redirect is deleted) them finding their way through an old link to a landing page that provides no clue to them about why they were sent there. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trash of no use. Any reasonable reader who lands here by mistake should be able to figure things out. BD2412 T 15:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all readers are computer-literate enough to figure it out, so the redirect is not of no use. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2021 (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.

Denise lee[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 Denise Lee. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A {{R from miscapitalisation}} clash exists for Denise Lee (New Zealand politician) and Murder of Denise Amber Lee (US murder victim). If the politician is deemed the primary topic, this redirect should be retargeted to her biography. Muzilon (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2021 (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.

Tunome[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 21:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The mentions of this were removed by Kvng in a "major cleanup". Delete or restore the content. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm not able to find any WP:RELIABLE coverage of this apparently short-lived service so restore is probably not a good idea. ~Kvng (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2021 (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.

Games.com[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 21:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, an insource search does not seem to return more than usage in references and a few passing mentions. Delete unless an appropriate target can be found. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:11, 14 February 2021 (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/2021_February_14&oldid=1008537083"