Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 7, 2021.

Awoman[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 18:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created due to isolated instance in American politics on January 4, 2021, not a likely search term, and not discussed at target page (nor should it per WP:UNDUE). Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 23:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is news, not something of lasting worth, and Wikipedia is not news. Debresser (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Or redirect to a page discussing the issue.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 03:59, 9 January 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.

Born: March 18, 1941[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 18:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by the same logic as the nomination below. (in this case also applies to Wilson Pickett, much more famous). UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Utterly baffled as to why these redirects were ever created... Nohomersryan (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have at least one other person, Wilson Pickett, who was born on the same day. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously inappropriate target. 1941 list of births would be the only possible target, but it's not at all necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not a reasonable redirect. JavaHurricane 01:34, 9 January 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.

Born: Dec 21, 1937[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 18:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

implausible search term (only had 6 hits in 2020), especially because if you already know something as arcane as a birth date, why would you need help getting to the guy's page? Nohomersryan (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above, and because he is not the only one born on that date with an article, see: Jane Fonda. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously inappropriate target. 1937 list of births would be the only possible target, but it's not at all necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unlikely and unreasonable redirect. JavaHurricane 01:35, 9 January 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.

Kobe (basketball player)[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 Kobe (disambiguation) as the option most likely to satisfy a majority of participants. Deletion is, marginally, the numerically most popular option, with participants arguing this is an unnatural disambiguator, that was created relatively recently. The further issue that seems to be significant, both for those arguing for deletion and for retargeting to the dab page, is that this results in unnecessary hatnote clutter on Kobe Bryant to deal with another, relatively minor, basketball player that this incomplete disambiguation requires. There is no argument with the fact that Kobe Bryant is the primary topic for basketball players named Kobe - and the valid argument by the keep voters that this is a plausible search term is also clearly valid: Kobe Bryant is not as mononymous as some other examples, but is clearly referred to as "Kobe" somewhat regularly in the media.
This is a balance of arguments, none of which are actually incorrect. Using the disambiguation page ultimately solves the concern about the hatnote, while also still providing a navigation tool for anyone that does use this search term. ~ mazca talk 18:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is ambiguous and requires a really unnecessary hatnote on Kobe Bryant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Bryant is by far the primary topic for this extremely plausible search term - 20 views in less than a week is a lot. Dislike of a hatnote is not a reason to make it harder for people to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's an incomplete disambiguation with Kobe Paras, which clutters a {{redirect}} hatnote at Kobe Bryant when he wasnt generally mononymous. What's next? Disambiguate Paras with Kobe (basketball player, born 1997)? We don't need fanboys creating obscure partial name redirects that require disambiguation. Bryant is already a hatnote at Kobe and he has an entry at Kobe (disambiguation) too. The WP search box has autocomplete. That's sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ignoring all the irrelevant WP:OTHERSTUFF remarks, the American basketball player is referred to mononymously has "Kobe" - just look at social media archives for the day he died for example so it is a highly plausible search term. Search suggestions are only available for a subset of methods people use to find Wikipedia content and wont help if all you know is that he's an American basketball player (e.g. when I saw the social media postings I had no idea if "Kobe" was his first name, last name or a nickname). Furthermore hatnotes are not "clutter" but an essential navigation aid to help people find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • This one time, I saw "Russell" on social media. I didn't know if it was a first name or last name. But it looked like it was a basketball player. Oh, if only Russell (basketball player) existed. Searches "russell basketball". Oops.—Bagumba (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well done for finding another irrelevant WP:OTHERSTUFF argument to impede consensus forming. If one of those people are the primary topic then it should redirect to their article with a suitable hatnote, if none of them are primary it should redirect to the relevant disambiguation page (tagged with {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}). Either way it would be a good redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnatural disambiguation. If all someone knew was that he is an American basketball player, they would still likely not search on "Kobe (basketball player)" with that exact syntax. At some point you have to let a reader pick from the search results if they are just typing in "keywords". I don't see Kobe basketball player, Kobe American basketball player, American basketball player Kobe, etc. MB 17:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that Wikipedia articles are frequently titled "name (profession)" that is a much more likely search term than any of the other titles you suggest, not that the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument is relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP uses parenthetical disambiguation because multiple articles can't be at the same title. That internal practice might somewhat aid an experienced editor in searching for the article on Kobe Bryant, if they could correctly surmise what the disambiguator might be, and in the unlikely event that they choose not to first try Kobe and follow the hatnote there. Any normal reader searching on "Kobe (basketball player)" is very unlikely. MB 01:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MB: most experienced editors and readers (and all good editors are also readers) are familiar with how Wikipedia titles articles, it's one reason why we have {{R from other disambiguation}}, {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} and {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} redirects, so using a parenthetical in a search term is extremely plausible. As for not trying Kobe first, perhaps, like me, they expect Kobe to be an article on the major Japanese city (which it is) and don't want to visit two unnecessary pages to find the article they are looking for. That leaves the question whether "(basketball player)" is a plausible disambiguator for a person most notable for playing basketball and I genuinely cannot conceive of a reason why it would not be. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. This is indeed a plausible search term, and therefore a useful redirect. I also fail to see any ambiguity here given that Bryant is clearly the primary topic, and most people just refer to him as "Kobe" anyway. CycloneYoris talk! 21:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Kobe (disambiguation) per 67.70.26.89. I can very much see both sides of the coin here. Personally, I definitely think "Kobe Bryant" is the primary topic here, not least since I've heard him referred to simply as "Kobe" more often than I've heard his full name, but I know very little about basketball, so I'm not sure how valid that opinion is. And I do agree that that "cluttery" hatnote it creates is somewhat undesirable (for lack of a better term). I also kind of agree it's not the most natural turn of phrase. I feel like redirecting it to the disambiguation page is the best solution (and compromise). Thegreatluigi (talk) 15:36, 1 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 22:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Kobe (disambiguation). Q. If this is such a plausible and obviously needed search term, then why wasn't it created before 11 December 2020‎? A. Because it's not a plausible and strongly needed search term. I type Kobe in the search box and the second suggestion I see in the drop-down menu is "Kobe Bryant". Why would I keep on typing (basketball... rather than just click on the second suggestion? Because I don't recognize the last name? Give me a break. WP:Incomplete disambiguation says "Usually, a qualified title that is still ambiguous has no primary topic, and therefore should redirect to the disambiguation page (or to a section of it)." P.S. I my experience, usually the editor who feels the need to repeat their "WP:OTHERSTUFF" argument three times in a discussion has the weakest argument. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remember that the internal search box is only one of very many different ways that people use to find Wikipedia content, most of which do not give search suggestions, so the presence of them is not relevant. Usually, a qualified title that is still ambiguous has no primary topic note the "usually" - it is ludicrous to suggest there is no primary topic for basketball players named Kobe (and I'd even argue that "usually" is too strong for reality, there are many qualified titles that have primary topics). As for the OTHERSTUFF argument, the number of times it is brought up is entirely a function of the number of times other people introduce irrelevancies to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Please list some of the many different ways. wbm1058 (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Wbm1058: Direct URL entry, links from Wikipedia pages, links from external pages, searches in the URL bar of browsers, external search engines, phone apps, etc, etc. It's also worth noting that even when the internal search engine is used suggestions are only given when javascript is available and enabled. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Arguing that this redirect is ambiguous is like saying that Maradona is ambiguous because it could be Raul Maradona. signed, Rosguill talk 02:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK then request a move to reverse this August 2005 move from Kobe, Hyogo since the basketball player is primary topic over a city of 1.5 million people. I got stuck looking for Maradona (footballer) and I don't know Raul from whoever the other guy is, sorry. wbm1058 (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The city is the primary topic for Kobe, but not for Kobe (basketball player) - that would be absurd. If you can be excused for not knowing Maradona's full name (and I think you can), surely other people can be excused for not knowing Kobe's full name? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 04:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
        • To be clear, I'm not familiar with anyone named "Maradona" without looking them up. Pele and Ronaldo, I've heard of both of them ;) Aware the latter has disambiguation issues. wbm1058 (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I Google search for "Kobe" Google auto-completes with "Bryant", but I live in the US, not Japan. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please explain how that is relevant to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's fair to argue that the basketball player is primary topic in the US, but we should take a worldwide view when determining primary topics.
        • You just stated above that external search engines are relevant. wbm1058 (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Maradona" is not a disambiguated title like "Kobe (basketball player)". Don't open up Pandora's box for some gnome to start creating any and every "Partial_name (occupation)" redirect e.g. "Boris (politician), "Elon (executive)", "Gates (engineer)", "Kamala (politician)"—Bagumba (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike Kobe, Maradona does not redirect to Maradona, Japan. Moreover, none of those PANDORA examples are people known monomially. If teenage boys everywhere shouted "Elon!" every time they started a car, a mononymic disambiguated term would make sense for Elon Musk too. signed, Rosguill talk 17:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If Kobe is known mononymously, the lead sentence should say, "known mononymously as Kobe," and he should be primary topic for the name based on usage, as he dominates in page views – though a good argument can be made for the status quo based on long-term significance, in which case we disambiguate by including his last name in the title even though he is less commonly known by his full name. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And if Kobe is known mononymously, why does the article text say, "Bryant was born in Philadelphia", "Bryant started playing basketball", "Bryant earned national recognition", etc, rather than "Kobe was born in Philadelphia", "Kobe started playing basketball", "Kobe earned national recognition", etc.? wbm1058 (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, many people are known mononymously among a niche set of fans. This would be like curent red links Paris (socialite) → Paris Hilton, Dallas (baseball) → Dallas Keuchel, Montana (American football) → Joe Montana. They are not generally mononymous like Elvis or Picasso.—Bagumba (talk) 11:08, 12 January 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.

Chigger[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 18:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Target has been changed back and forth from Trombicula to Trombiculidae, both known as Chiggers. Both articles currently have a hatnote that says it is the redirect target. Pointing to Chigger (disambiguation) would solve this if there is no agreement here on a PT. MB 22:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is. Trombicula is the most correct redirect target for the terms, and someone looking for the family can easily get there from here. This is not an ambiguous term, as there is a primary target, to which the other proposed possible target is not unrelated. BD2412 T 23:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with Chigger (disambiguation) and point the other form to it. The dab page can list both -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BD2412. Definitely not an ambiguous term, and since this is mentioned in the opening sentence of the target then confusion is unlikely. CycloneYoris talk! 18:32, 6 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 22:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the insect overall is the clear primary topic, and this is the more specific choice while remaining accurate. Anyone who is looking for the family more generally can very easily get there from this target. ~ mazca talk 18:29, 15 January 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.

Inman Steamship Co., Limited.[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 18:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given that many other variants of this redirect (appropriately) exist, this one, with the trailing full stop, is not useful, and it is certainly WP:COSTLY to make the error of adding full stops to non-abbreviated words. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:28, 7 January 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.

Winter Wonderland (Finland)[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. Participants consider this an unlikely search term without a good target. ~ mazca talk 18:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there are many different winter package tours branded "Winter Wonderland" that are to or include Finland, and there appear to be at least two non-notable resorts in Finland that use this name in some manner. None of these are at all encyclopaedic so I haven't investigated whether they are connected to Lapland specifically. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing some research, I've seen Winter Wonderland used as a tourism slogan for Lapland, and it seems to be promoted by Lapland itself. That said, the tourism section of the current article is nothing more than a table listing the home country of tourists. Delete for now, but with expansion of the tourism section, recreating this in the future might make sense. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not useful with the disambig, unlikely search term, no clear target or justification. --Pudeo (talk) 14:58, 14 January 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.

NXT India[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 16#NXT India

TrapMusicHDTV[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 per WP:CSD#G7 now the creator supports deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. I don't even know why I made this re-direct. Trevortnidesserpedx (talk) 22:47, 7 January 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.

Counting of the electoral votes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 14#Counting of the electoral votes

Bustan Ketab ((publishing)[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. ~ mazca talk 18:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNNATURAL. The article existed under this title for three minutes before being moved to the correctly parenthesised version, Bustan Ketab (publishing) (and later to the title without disambiguation). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I just noticed that this is actually a recreation of the initial redirect, which was speedily deleted by Victuallers in June this year. G1 should probably have not applied there, fair enough. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this was a 9 year old redirect, we should only delete old redirects if they are harmful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Old means before Wikipedia conventions were standardized, such as the consensus to keep old CamelCase redirects. 9 years ago was 2011, which is not old enough. HotdogPi 18:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's only a very small part of what "old" means. "Old" just means that it has been around long enough that there are likely to be external links that would be unnecessarily broken and/or significant use in old revisions or other historical aspects that should not be deleted without a significantly good reason. Depending on the circumstances than can be as little as a few months or many years, for truly implausible redirects that have never seen any use it's unlikely to ever happen. I've not evaluated this specific redirect yet. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
External links are likely if the page actually existed under this name for some time. Given that this page bore this name for three minutes, it is more likely for someone to introduce an error in the link while copying it, for which there are too many (equally "likely") possibilities that don't exist. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no matter how old, errors of this general type (mismatched opening and closing parens.) provide no value. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UnitedStatesian How does deleting it provide value? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Removal of errors from Wikipedia, whether factual or typographical, is of tremendous value. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a commonly accepted practice to have redirects from typos. These are not classified as "errors". All the best: Rich Farmbrough 03:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RDAB. Old but not ancient. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the initial redirect could have been speedily deleted under criterion G6 as a redirect automatically created when fixing a page created at an obviously incorrect title. That does not apply to this recreation which was intentionally created at this title. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 9 January 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.

Alex Evans (Video Game Developer)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 17:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search target with capitalised disambiguator. The same redirect with a lower-case disambiguator already exists. IceWelder [✉] 02:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:53, 7 January 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.

Minimal (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 14#Minimal (Dungeons & Dragons)

Draft:Yuma County Sheriff's Office (Arizona)[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 17:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both originally nominated for speedy deletion by @UnitedStatesian with the reason "rdr should not have been kept after userfication" FASTILY 03:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both: Draft-to-userspace redirects provide no value and so are nearly universally deleted (or their creation suppressed when pages are moved from draftspace to userspace). UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it gives the false impression that they've been promoted to article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how this false impression could be given. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 03:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete: xnamespace redirects that are entirely useless. JavaHurricane 13:57, 8 January 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_January_7&oldid=1003657050"