Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 4

May 4

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 4, 2022.

Software Update

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 13#Software Update

Strings (2014 film)

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 20:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strings (2014 film) → Bravetown (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Essentially failed WP:CRYSTAL. The target film was released in 2015, not 2014. The properly dated title, Strings (2015 film), is a redirect towards the same page as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. This does seem to be getting some kind of incoming traffic from somewhere (10-20 views a month) and the article spent 2 years at this title. Based on continuing usage I think we should keep this for now. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP #4: "Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason." —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:00, 5 May 2022 (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.

IND West End Line

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. ✗plicit 03:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IND West End Line → BMT West End Line (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
IND Sea Beach Line → BMT Sea Beach Line (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
IND Franklin Avenue Line → BMT Franklin Avenue Line (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
IND Fourth Avenue Line → BMT Fourth Avenue Line (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
IND Brighton Line → BMT Brighton Line (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
IND Myrtle Avenue Line → BMT Myrtle Avenue Line (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
IND Jamaica Line → BMT Jamaica Line (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
IND Canarsie Line → BMT Canarsie Line (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
IND Nassau Street Line → BMT Nassau Street Line (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
IND Broadway Line → BMT Broadway Line (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
IND Astoria Line → BMT Astoria Line (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Per WP:RFD#DELETE criterion #2: "The redirect might cause confusion" and criterion #8: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful." This redirect is extremely misleading, as the Independent Subway System never operated any of these eleven lines. Epicgenius (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as misleading. Cards84664 21:44, 10 May 2022 (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.

Relative algebraic closure

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 Algebraic extension#Relative algebraic closures per D.Lazard (non-admin closure) 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 07:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relative algebraic closure → Algebraically closed field (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at target. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 19:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or and retarget to algebraic extension ~~until a gap in Wikipedia coverage will be filled~~. In fact, the concept is notable and almost self explanatory, but not defined in WP: the relative algebraic closure of a field $K$ in a extension field $L$ is the largest algebraic extension of $K$ that is contained in $L$ . For example, the algebraic closure of $\mathbb {Q}$ in $\mathbb {R}$ it the field of all real algebraic numbers. D.Lazard (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When I created the redirect, the term was defined in the Algebraically closed field article. But it was removed from that article a few weeks later, in this edit. The redirect currently serves no purpose, but the term ought to be defined somewhere in Wikipedia, and I don't think it merits its own article, so a redirect will be needed eventually. --Zundark (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-added the definition to Algebraic extension. (The original remover User:JCSantos wrote that that stuff "should be put at the articla [sic] about algebraic closures", but relative algebraic closures are not (usually) algebraic closures per se, so I think that they are better off being covered at Algebraic extension.) Retarget to Algebraic extension now that the content we want for this redirect is there. Duckmather (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have updated my !non-vote for taking Duckmather's edits into account. If 1234qwer1234qwer4 agrees, we could speedy close this discussion per as WP:SNOWBALL. D.Lazard (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, seems fine to me. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 07:52, 6 May 2022 (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.

Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics –– Men's marathon

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 03:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics –– Men's marathon → Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics -- Men's marathon → Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This first redirect is the only title on Wikipedia which uses two consecutive en dashes. It seems as though it was created in error back when it was created. So, probably best to delete this due to being implausible and WP:COSTLY. (The second redirect is nominated since a bot created it based on the first redirect for typing ease.( Steel1943 (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2022 (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.

ECA---Electrical Circuit Analysis

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. ✗plicit 03:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ECA---Electrical Circuit Analysis → Network analysis (electrical circuits) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Though the acronym apparently represents the remainder of the title, the triple dash makes this redirect an implausible and WP:COSTLY redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, highly unlikely search term. The redirect Electrical circuit analysis already exists and the acronym can be added to the ECA disambiguation page if necessary. However, the acronym is not mentioned on the target page, as an electrical engineer I don't recall ever having come across it, and a quick search of gbooks didn't turn up any usages. SpinningSpark 13:08, 5 May 2022 (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.

2010– in anthropology

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. ✗plicit 03:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2010– in anthropology → 2010s in anthropology (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
2010- in anthropology → 2010s in anthropology (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Due to the open ended time frame, the redirects assumes the target list includes information from 2010–present, which is not the case; the scope of the target article is limited to the 2010s. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. Pichpich (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all nom. Veverve (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2022 (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.

Friday Night Lights- (Album)

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Night Lights- (Album) → Friday Night Lights#Music (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No title on the target page ends with a dash ("Nights-"), making this redirect unlikely and potentially unhelpful/misleading. A WP:COSTLY situation. Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2022 (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.

KASU- The Bear

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. ✗plicit 03:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KASU- The Bear → Athens State University (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a former article that was WP:BLARed in 2014 and the radio station does exist, but the article most likely wouldn't survive a WP:AFD discussion if restored. - Eureka Lott 00:42, 7 May 2022 (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.

Dead-end- corridor

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. ✗plicit 03:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dead-end- corridor → Hall (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target article, no evidence the redirect's term and the targetNs term are synonymous, and the redirect is unlikely as a search term in general due to the odd use of dashes and a space after a dash. Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2022 (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.

Yevrey

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 12#Yevrey

ProSystem (Emulator)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:37, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ProSystem (Emulator) → Atari 7800#Game development (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 22 § Emulators – delete

The emulator isn't mentioned in the target article with the exception of an external link, which I don't think is sufficient for this redirect to be useful, or in any other article. Discussion at the talk page hasn't resulted in any apparent enthusiasm to add a mention. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2022 (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.

North Sindhi

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. ✗plicit 03:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North Sindhi → Saraiki language (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned as an alternative name at the target, no relevant results on Google Scholar or an internet search, delete unless evidence of usage can be provided. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is appropriate to the name of respective area. This language is spoken in the northern part of Sindh and the name of this language means "related to the north".

The etymology for the Name of this language is present in this page which is related to this redirect.

The objector should give reason so that I can get guidance. Compa 900 (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The phrase "North Sindhi" would refer to northern dialects of the Sindhi language, not to the varieties of other languages that are also spoken in the north of Sindh. – Uanfala (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uanfala unless a citation showing this is a genuine synonym is offered. SpinningSpark 12:16, 11 May 2022 (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.

Euclidean norm

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 14#Euclidean norm

APRIL2023

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 deleted by Paulmcdonald per criteria G7 and R3. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

APRIL2023 → Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2023 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

R3 Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 14:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per R3, as the page creator. The article is indeed not in the WP namespace. lol1VNIO^{[not Lol1VNIO]} (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 14:49, 4 May 2022 (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.

Funny Garbage

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 12#Funny Garbage

Hawaii World War II Army Airfields

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 United States Army Air Forces in the Central Pacific Area. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii World War II Army Airfields → Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in Hawaii (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Is United States Army Air Forces in the Central Pacific Area a better target than this cross-namespace redirect? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 14:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of airports in Hawaii may be a better target. United States Army Air Forces in the Central Pacific Area covers a broader scope than Hawaii and its focus is fighter squadrons, bombardment squadrons, etc., not airfields per se. Airfields are simply listed as the home base of the squadrons, and there's no place there for listing an airfield which didn't house a squadron. List of airports in Hawaii needs to be expanded to include all of these airfields. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the missing airfields so that every member of Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in Hawaii is now listed on List of airports in Hawaii. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to United States Army Air Forces in the Central Pacific Area with a specific anchor to the Hawaii section. Retargetting to List of airports in Hawaii is not helpful. Airfields and airports are not the same thing and the target has next to no information on the search term. SpinningSpark 16:11, 7 May 2022 (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.

l England

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 14#l England

Live entertainment

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! 10:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Live entertainment → Artisan Entertainment (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Live entertainment" can also refer to Concert. AKK700 22:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: hopelessly ambiguous (it can refer to numerous things, including any performing arts performed live, football, or public poetry reading). Veverve (talk) 23:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a {{R from other capitalization}} for "LIVE Entertainment", an alternative name for the target page. Unless the redirect is replaced with a disambiguation page, this title is serving its most useful purpose. Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate or retarget to some appropriate page such as Performance or Live performance (the latter is currently at AfD). Artisan Entertainment is clearly not the primary topic for the phrase "Live entertainment", so the redirect should not be kept as is, and deletion doesn't help for the reason User:Steel1943 has pointed out. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete misleading -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ambiguous. The closest possible target would seem to be Live performance, but as stated above that still does not encompass all possible meanings. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguate per BD2412. I don't think the links in the draft dab capture every possible meaning (a search link should be added to see also), but it is superior to deletion because otherwise users searching the term will be brought to the target of LIVE Entertainment and most will likely be WP:R#ASTONISHed. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate, as there are a clear multiplicity of possible meanings with corresponding articles. BD2412 T 03:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have drafted a disambiguation page under the current redirect. @Steel1943, Mdewman6, and Veverve: BD2412 T 03:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Outline of entertainment#Live entertainment and hatnote for the company. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem I see there is that it only addresses one of two plausible generic meanings of "live entertainment". That link points to entertainment to which one goes in person, like a play or a concert or an airshow. However, live entertainment can also refer to things that are broadcast live over radio or TV or the like. BD2412 T 15:33, 5 May 2022 (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.

Apostolic Catholic Church

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 Catholic Apostolic Church (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolic Catholic Church → Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Maybe the redirect should be retargeted to Catholic Apostolic Church (disambiguation), as 'Apostolic Catholic Church' and 'Catholic Apostolic Church' are very prone to get confused. Veverve (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to DAB per nom. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 14:45, 4 May 2022 (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.

Ancient Catholic Church of the Netherlands

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Catholic Church of the Netherlands → Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The Ancient Catholic Church of the Netherlands → Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I found no source claiming this expression is ever used to designate this group or Old Catholicism. Britannica does not say anything; Google scholar uses refer to catholic (term) with no reference to Old Catholics, and "Ancient Catholic Church of the Netherlands" gives one result which is a self-published (iUniverse) book that does not help in knowing whether it is the same entity or another group called 'Ancient Catholic Church of the Netherlands'. It was previously stated that "Ancient Catholic Church" was one of the names of this group; I have removed this information since it was nowhere to be found.
The best explanation I can find is that it is an erroneous translation of the expression 'Oud-Katholieke' ('Old Catholic').
The expression itself is very ambiguous.
Therefore, I think those should be deleted.
Note : the separation between this RfD and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 17#Ancient Catholic Church is on purpose. Veverve (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CHEAP. I think that unlike the ones below [ see RfD ] that are just the Ancient catholic church in general, when you add the of the Netherlands qualifier, the WP:SURPRISE element goes away. It is to some extent implausible, but it's not seeming to cause any issues here. I will say, the self published source gives me some pause just because it is unclear as to what that is referring and if that is referring to a different church that someone other than the author uses to mean a different church, then this probably should be deleted, but seeing no evidence of that I still think these should be kept. Just as a note, thank you Veverve for splitting these nominations up. I really appreciate it. TartarTorte 18:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TartarTorte: thanks. As for your argument: redirects are cheap, but must have a logical reason to exist. 'Ancient Catholic Church of the Netherlands' is never used to refer to the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands. Veverve (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - it is incorrect as a title and seems like an unlikely search term (possibly originating by mistranslating to the French cognate ancien?), but it also seems relatively harmless. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Old Catholic church is the more generally recognised term, and has a stronger apostolic succession. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2022 (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.

Custard pear

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. ✗plicit 14:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Custard pear → Sugar-apple (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There doesn't seem to be evidence that the target article's subject is referred to in any capacity as a "custard pear". There is evidence that this fruit and similar fruits are called "Custard apple", but not "pear". Steel1943 (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence can be provided. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a mistake. SpinningSpark 11:50, 11 May 2022 (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.

Foreign matter in refined sugar

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. ✗plicit 14:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign matter in refined sugar → Sugar (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There doesn't seem to be adequate information in the target article to warrant this redirect. Readers being directed to this redirect's target will not find what they are looking for. Also, this redirect was an article for less than a day in 2010 before being WP:BLAR-ed. In addition, the redirect Refined sugar targets White sugar, and the subject of the nominated redirect doesn't seem to be present there either. Steel1943 (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very specific and not useful. BD2412 T 03:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to encourage article creation. I think it's quite plausible that consumers + scientists would be interested in the impurities/toxins/bacteria/etc. contained in commercially sold refined sugar (e.g. this 2005 paper finds that refined sugar from the EU or from Serbia has tiny amounts of trace metals). (The old article reads like a poorly written scientific abstract, complete with a corresponding author! - so very much not suitable for restoration.) Duckmather (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2022 (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:Absatz

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 11#Template:Absatz

May 4

Software Update

Strings (2014 film)

Stirrer (cooking)

Poor housing

Dab hand

Flowering herbs

IND West End Line

Relative algebraic closure

Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics –– Men's marathon

ECA---Electrical Circuit Analysis

2010– in anthropology

Friday Night Lights- (Album)

KASU- The Bear

Dead-end- corridor

Yevrey

ProSystem (Emulator)

North Sindhi

Euclidean norm

APRIL2023

Funny Garbage

Hawaii World War II Army Airfields

l England

Live entertainment

Apostolic Catholic Church

Ancient Catholic Church of the Netherlands

Custard pear

Foreign matter in refined sugar

Template:Absatz