Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 2

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 2, 2021.

Antiespaña

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#Antiespaña

Hamilton, California (disambiguation)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#Hamilton, California (disambiguation)

Ballyholme Bay

[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 Bangor, County Down#Ballyholme Bay. I'll add a hatnote to SS Ballyholme Bay and a link from there as well. -- Tavix (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

redirects geographic location to a ship named after it Lyndaship (talk) 13:24, 26 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 18:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep that resolves it. Thanks Lyndaship (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, thanks! --BDD (talk) 18:35, 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.

Marriage equality

[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. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion at Talk:Same-sex marriage#Wording of lead, the term "Marriage equality" has been misapplied here as a synonym for Same-sex marriage (the current target), rather than to the legalisation of same-sex marriage, which is the usual meaning. Per this, I propose retargeting to Legal status of same-sex marriage. CMD (talk) 01:59, 26 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 18:48, 2 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.

🪐

[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 Planet. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to Emojipedia, this character is intended to represent any planet; on most systems, it appears as a beige or orange ringed planet resembling Saturn.[1] Should it target Ring system, Planet, or Saturn, or should it be deleted as ambiguous? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "🪐 Ringed Planet Emoji". emojipedia.org. Retrieved 26 January 2021.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 2 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.

Corticeus

[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 18:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

correct is to show the red link. Genus vs family Estopedist1 (talk) 18:26, 2 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.

That was some weird shit

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#That was some weird shit

Steven Brandenburg

[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) 21:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. While I can find sources online connecting Brandenburg to this incident, there does not appear to have been a confession or conviction yet, raising WP:BLPCRIME concerns. Given that editors working on the target article have clearly taken pains to avoid mentioning the suspect's name, it seems possible that deletion may be more appropriate for now to protect privacy. signed, Rosguill talk 17:20, 2 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.

Encanto (upcoming film)

[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 retarget.. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 00:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given there is a page at Encanto (film), this redirect has become redundant. Starzoner (talk) 16:38, 2 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.

Grubbdalen Nature Rerserve

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 15:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

typo Estopedist1 (talk) 16:38, 2 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.

AirTags

[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. The consensus is clear that the article was improperly redirected, following a keep result at an AfD. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 00:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not mentioned at the target; however, this is listed at List of Apple codenames#Accessories. As AirTag does not seem to have a plural, this seems to be the only appropriate target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore per the consensus of the AfD in November. The redirection was done without discussion and for a reason that had been explicitly rejected in the AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Thryduulf, completely inappropriate blank and redirect that was done against consensus at the AfD from 3 months ago. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why was this proposed for deletion? I noted when making the redirect as a possible alternative to deletion. There was no revert on my edit for a week. I would rather seek a redirect instead of having this article go through another AfD. – The Grid (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that the very recent AfD concluded that this should be an article. You should not be changing that without explicit consensus, particularly when your reason for thinking it should not be a standalone article (based on your edit summary) was the same reason it was nominated at AfD and which gathered a consensus against it. Unless the facts on the ground have significantly changed since November then it is unlikely that a discussion would result in consensus for any action other than keeping it as a standalone article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Then my apologies for the redirect. I thought another AfD would seem too quick and I'm seeking to not delete the page. The AirTags will eventually be released but the current information on the article is highly speculation. I can start a discussion on the talk page before any further actions. On another note, I had no idea there was an "AirTag" page. Do we know if Apple got the technology from this entity? They worked on NFC technology from what the article describes. It just seems more of a coincidence here. – The Grid (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Reporting on speculation in reliable sources can be encyclopaedic - I don't know whether it applies in this case, but "it's all speculation therefore we should not have an article" was rejected by the consensus at AfD (and failed to get consensus at the first AfD) so I don't know why you think there will now be consensus that there should not be an article about them? I've not looked to see if there is a connection between AirTag and AirTags, but hatnotes linking the two articles would certainly be appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Discussion from the first AfD was no consensus. It seemed a lot of anticipation was on Apple making an announcement about the item towards the end of 2020. It never happened. The sources present on the article more or less are speculating - with the exceptions to Redmond Pie noting the supplier and Mac Rumors noting the iOS 14 coding. – The Grid (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The first AfD found no consensus for deletion, the second AfD found consensus against deletion. You can start a discussion if you want, but just don't be surprised if consensus is still not with you. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article per Thryduulf. Redirecting an article without discussion should only take place when the topic is evidently non-notable or qualifies for CSD. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 20:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and a trout for my blank-and-redirect without consensus that led to this. – The Grid (talk) 16:55, 3 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.

List of awards and nominations received by Riley Reid

[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 Riley Reid#Awards and nominations. This outcome is a keep and refine outcome. signed, Rosguill talk 18:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlikely search term, no incoming mainspace links. Consensus of a 2020 AfD was to redirect to the parent article, but recent practice is to delete these kinds of lists outright; see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Rocco Siffredi. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relative page views is a poor way of evaluating redirects, if we followed that logic we would end up with no redirects to popular pages and dozens of redirects to obscure ones. What matters is the absolute number of page views, and they make it clear this is a plausible search term - hundreds of people have used this redirect since it was created, this isn't some obscure misspelling with 3 page views a year.
"(How many people begin general topic searches with "List of..."?)" - quite a lot evidently, hence why it's getting hundreds of uses. The standard format for list articles on Wikipedia is "list of ..." so people who've come across other "list of awards and nominations" type articles are using the same search string to find Riley Reid's awards.
What advantage is there in deleting this redirect and forcing readers to use the search function? There's a section of the article discussing her awards and nominations which is a clear and unambiguous target. Forcing readers to use the search function will simply inconvenience them for no benefit whatsoever. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the number of other "List of awards and nominations received by" articles and redirects [1]. It's fairly obvious why someone searching for awards and nominations would follow the same pattern. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no actual evidence that people are searching for this exact term. I think keyword searches are much more likely, since they are faster and lead to the same place anyway. I'm not sure how we'd be "forcing people to use the search function" by deleting the redirect; that seems like a total non-sequitur. As stated, the article where the information resides is still the top result; I see no inconvenience whatever in deleting this evidently largely unused redirect. If anything, deletion will remove a dead-end target for those few users who go to the redirect instead of the parent article by mistake; that's one advantage. The other is that we would discourage future creation of similar list articles that end up being magnets for indiscriminate trivia. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC) (edited 17:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Whatever search terms they are using they are getting to the content using this redirect, and given how likely a search term it is it is very likely that this exact search term is being used by at least a significant proportion of them. Even if redlinks did not encourage article creation (which they do), there are many instances of these articles that do have consensus to exist (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Feist so deletion will not achieve the goal you set out to achieve. Any list can be a magnate for trivia, we manage that by patrolling our articles not by making it harder for readers to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know that it's a likely a search term. The Feist AfD is from ten years ago: the outcome may well have been different today, as in the bundled AfD I linked above. See additional reply below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The pageviews show that people are landing on this redirect, either through keyword searches or typing in an article name which matches thousands of other articles in the encyclopaedia, which in turn takes them exactly to the content they were looking for. 30 pageviews a month is not "largely unused", that's actually a relatively significant amount of traffic. How is the redirect a dead end if it points to a section of a large article with relevant content? If someone tries to turn this into a Listcruft article in the future (Which hasn't happened in the 8 months since it was turned into a redirect) it can be protected to prevent it happening again. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mis-remembered the way redirects function in search results; I thought clicking one sent the reader to the redirect itself rather than the target page, so I've struck the "dead end" statement. Still, this redirect is "largely unused" because there are no incoming links from other articles. Readers will still get to their desired page just as quickly without the redirect, whether they are using Wikipedia's search function or an external search engine. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the ip editor's points, it's important to realise that if the redirect is deleted search results may be 2-3 clicks away from where a reader first lands (it depends on at least how they searched, what device they are using and whether they have the ability to create pages) and that redirects like this help external search engines give their results. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are currently no incoming mainspace links, deletion should have no effect on navigation at all. As for external search results, that's not really Wikipedia's problem. As stated, there's an "Awards" section at the parent article. In my experience, outside search engines have no trouble directing searches to specific sections on Wikipedia where relevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are very likely links from external websites, but even if they aren't the evidence is that people are using this redirect so it wi;; have an effect on navigation. Enabling readers to find the content they are looking for is always Wikipedia's problem, if it wasn't we wouldn't have any redirects at all. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the parent article shows up higher on both internal and external search results, and that's where the information actually resides, I don't see how keeping the redirect will help anyone find the content they're seeking. (Except in the case of hypothetical links from external websites, which once again isn't really our problem. Is there proof that any even exist?) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:47, 2 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.

Babylon (marketplace)

[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 18:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target (and tagged with {{R without mention}} for quite some time already). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:27, 2 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.

Taniya

[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 Taniya Bhatia. signed, Rosguill talk 18:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an alternative (Romaji?) spelling of a character name listed in the target as Tania, but that is nowhere near the primary usage (Searching for タニヤ gives top results about the side street off Si Lom Road, which I just added a mention a moment ago.) It appears to be a fairly common Hindi name, but the only person with an article is Taniya Bhatia. Not sure if it should be a given-name redirect, disambiguation, or just deleted. Paul_012 (talk) 12:18, 2 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.

Spirit realm

[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 Spirit world. Converting the target to a WP:DABCONCEPT is likely appropriate but outside the scope of this close. signed, Rosguill talk 18:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was suprirsed to land on so specific a target for this, the Spirit world disambiguation page would be more inline with my expectations but BD2412 explicitly changed the target away from that so it needs discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having created the redirect over a decade ago, I have no recollection of the purpose for this narrowing. Looking at it today, I would agree with retargeting it to Spirit world, but that title should be a WP:DABCONCEPT rather than a disambiguation page, as it primarily merely collects examples of "worlds" that house "spirits". BD2412 T 15:45, 2 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.

British variant

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 9#British variant

Visual editor

[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 without prejudice to AfD signed, Rosguill talk 17:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the content of this article before it was turned into a redirect to VisualEditor and given the incoming links, I think that Line editor may perhaps be a more appropriate link target. So, redirect to Line editor. If not, remove all incoming links. Tea2min (talk) 11:35, 2 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.

Spirit Kingdom

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 9#Spirit Kingdom

White Society

[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) 21:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are old Rs from move (since 2006) and avoided double redirects of Society of Light. They appear to be obscure translations, and Google searches for the term bring up results primarily about White people (and List of white nationalist organizations for the last). The form with the article The is unusual for this, though, so may be retarget the first and delete the other two. Paul_012 (talk) 11:17, 2 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.

Charly Putoznwschvtzky

[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 17:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. Created as a one-sentence stub with a primary source in 2011 and then redirected instead of being CSDed. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:02, 2 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.

Full screen editor

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 9#Full screen editor

Capi (temporary)

[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) 21:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created in 2003, but multiple WP:MOVEREDIRECTs made the current title implausible; it actually clutters the search suggestions of "Capi (". If anybody thinks this history should be retained, I suggest the redirect be moved back to one of its historical titles. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:53, 2 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.

Capitalization (temporary)

[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 17:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible and unnecessary redirect. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:50, 2 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.

Frederick Kindermann

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 9#Frederick Kindermann

2048 Galaxy Edition (video game)

[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 17:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article and one of very many non-notable spinoff versions of this game. Doesn't seem significant enough to warrant a mention over other variants. Hog Farm Talk 05:56, 2 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.

177147 (video game)

[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 17:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoff version not mentioned in target article; it doesn't appear to be notable and there were dozens and dozens of spinoffs of this game, so naming this one in the target specifically doesn't seem helpful. Hog Farm Talk 05:54, 2 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.

Empire Earth (video game) (temporary)

[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. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 05:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects were left over from temporary round-robin moves, but they don't seem to be very necessary now, plus neither got over ten pageviews since their creation. Additionally, the Manolo Sánchez one is kinda ambiguous as to which one it refers to. Delete both unless a justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 04:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these redirects was designed to be permanent. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:30, 2 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_2&oldid=1007399376"