Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 17, 2023.

Martin Marks[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 the first to Martin A. Marks, delete the other two. ✗plicit 07:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article since 2009 and redirected because of this 2015 dleetion discussion. These should be deleted because they're confusing, especially the first one, which had a couple of bad links. This nomination was inspired by this edit to the list of dentists by Spintendo. Graham87 16:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the one retarget alternative?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Doctor Moro[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 25#Doctor Moro

Vincent of Kielcz[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) J947 † edits 03:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The correct name of the village is Kielcza (pl:Kielcza), not Kielcz. I already moved page Vincent of Kielcz to Vincent of Kielcza. The old redirect is no longer needed because no article links to it anymore, so in my opinion it should be deleted. I have already submitted this page for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent of Kielcz) and I am also adding it here, as suggested by user IP address user. Psc edits (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a harmless {{R from move}} and a plausible misnomer. I went ahead and closed the aforementioned AfD (as the page is no longer an article) and renominated it here. CycloneYoris talk! 10:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is an dispute over birthplace of Vincent; some historians believe that he came from Kielce in the Holy Cross Voivodeship, while others that he came from Kielcza near Strzelce Opolskie in the Opole Voivodeship. Village named Kielcz (or more precisely Kiełcz with diacritic) does not appear at all. Psc edits (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - the above delete !vote was left by the nominator who already expressed a desire to delete in the nomination statement. A7V2 (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per CycloneYoris and WP:RFD#K4. The article was at this title for many years. No harm comes from keeping. A7V2 (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CycloneYoris, and because it's a plausible typo in English. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

British cultural Marxism[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 Marxist cultural analysis. Jay 💬 21:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally created to point to a specific organization Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies that studies cultural (lower-case) Marxism. However the same phrase is used as a pejorative non-neutral phrase for Cultural (upper case) Marxism conspiracy theory. It can also be redirected to Marxism in the United Kingdom. On the talk page for the redirect, it was suggested it be redirected to Cultural studies#British cultural studies. There is also sensitivity whether a capitalized version should be created. so should this be a disambiguation, a primary redirect with hatnote, or primary redirect to the cultural studies without hatnote, set index, or screw it and delete it all? Cultural studies section currently does not specifically address Marxism or cultural (lower-case) Marxism. There is also no British Cultural Marxism redirect, as a search by that term wlll redirect to the lower-case version. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:British cultural Marxism for discussion prior to this RFD. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the phrase cultural Marxism currently points to the conspiracy theory page, with a hatnote to the cultural studies. Whether that link is appropriate or not would warrant a separate RFD. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not support the idea there is any meaning or difference based on the capitalization of the c in cultural. Sennalen (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not drag that argument here. You've exhausted it on the conspiracy theory page, dragging it here is disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cultural studies#British cultural studies. Three people now (including me) have said to redirect to this target. I consider 'British cultural Marxism' to be either a subset, a predecessor, or a synonym (depending on who is writing) for British cultural studies. 'British cultural Marxism' is relatively common (ignore the jokey title) in mainstream scholarship. The term 'British cultural Marxism' is absolutely never to my knowledge used as a pejorative non-neutral phrase. The capitalization distinction is a figment of some editors' imaginations and unsupported by any source I am aware of. The current redirect target is a sick joke. (disclaimer: I am the unfortunate creator of the original redirect page)  Tewdar  07:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#British_cultural_Marxism, where AngusW🐶🐶F said to discuss this...  Tewdar  08:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tewdar, no, we are discussing the term "British cultural Marxism" HERE AT THE RFD not the talk page. the link was there to give other editors more background. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the link I gave was also supposed to be for more background. Perhaps I should have said "...where previous discussion also took place". Hope that clarifies matters, and sorry for any confusion. I did not intend to encourage any further discussion at the conspiracy theory talk page, nor has there been any, apart from the link I gave to this discussion here. I'm not deaf, by the way, no need for ALLCAPS. Don't bother pinging me again, either, or giving me any updates on the status of the redirect. Oll an gwella.  Tewdar  17:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the redirect seems to have been created as part of a content dispute over the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article (to make some fairly obscure point). This is not a plausible search term, and no helpful unique redirect is possible. Newimpartial (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Horrendous ABF response that typifies all conversations in this topic area with this editor. The idea that this was created to make some fairly obscure point, as part of a content dispute that as far as I am aware does not exist, is ludicrous. Why the fuck would I create a redirect as part of a content dispute? Feel free to voice your opinion on the redirect, but kindly keep your deranged suspicions about my motivations to yourself, and stay the fuck away from my talk page, permanently this time.  Tewdar  12:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I was mistaken - I thought the redirect was created in relation to this content dispute, in which the term in question was discussed. But if I am wrong about that, you have my apologies; you certainly don't need to voice your own suspicions about my supposed derangement, at least not in public. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I said your suspicions are deranged, not you. I'd forgotten all about that 8 word sentence in response to your incorrect comment which received no reply from you and was made six days ago and wasn't part of any content dispute anyway as everyone seemed to be agreed about the content. You can fuck your apology, because I've had quite enough of your shitty personalized comments which are genuinely quite upsetting for me to read.  Tewdar  13:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this one? Is this part of a content dispute too? Go ahead, I'm sure you (and only you) could conjure up some nefarious motive for that one too.  Tewdar  13:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is very close to a personal attack, or at least baiting a response. That's not cool. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...seems to have been created as part of a content dispute over the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article (to make some fairly obscure point) - how about that? Would you call that a personal attack? How come you have nothing to say about that one or any of the other personal attacks on me over the last 18 months in this topic area? "Conjuring up some nefarious motive" is precisely what Newimpartial's comment was. If you believe this was a personal attack, feel free to report it to the relevant authorities.  Tewdar  15:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This does not appear to be a common search term, nor does there seem to be a solid target for the redirect. I don't believe it was created out of any prior dispute, but a genuine attempt to be helpful, yet I fail to see its utility at this time. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Appears to be very similar to the frequency of the Praxis School according to Ngram Viewer...  Tewdar  20:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or maybe retarget). It is clear that this phrase does not refer to the conspiracy theory so redirecting to that is confusing and unhelpful to our readers. I am not convinced that having a redirect anywhere is necessary but if a plausible and relevant target exists then I have no objection to it being retargeted at that. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Did some thinking and reading of the above concerns, and I now believe redirecting to Marxist cultural analysis would create the greatest number of distinct pathways to the content the user intends to view (which to us, is ambiguous). So I've changed the Birmingham School links in Marxist cultural analysis so they all go to Cultural studies#British cultural studies and there's also ample links on the Marxist cultural analysis page to access the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory page (if that's the users intent). This seems like a reasonable compromise between assuming the user means an academic version of "British cultural Studies" and assuming the user means "the British parts of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" - with this proposal allowing them to re-choose their intended pathway (which ever it may be) within 1 click. 59.102.7.77 (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds fine, support as my second choice, followed by any other sensible target, followed by deletion, with the current redirect to the conspiracy theory at the very bottom.  Tewdar  07:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Marxist cultural analysis sounds like a good redirect, would favor that over Cultural studies. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Marxist cultural analysis per the IP editor. Tewdar points out that there is a body of academic literature on this subject so disagree that it is not a useful redirect. As to where to send it, the IP's argument appears to be the best compromise. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. The suggestion that 'British cultural Marxism', an influential tradition within British Marxism, is 'not a common search term' is not borne out by even a cursory search. There are academic books written entirely on the topic of British cultural Marxism. The topic probably meets GNG for a standalone article, let alone a mere redirect.  Tewdar  08:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would like to write it... ;) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see above, there are a few other problems with creating such an article beyond my desire or ability to write it. 😭  Tewdar  09:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

الإمبراطورية الجرمنتية[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. ✗plicit 01:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ar.wiki article on Garamantes is ar:جرمنتيون so whatever this is, it's not the proper target. I know 0 Arabic but for some reason, Google Translate says that "الإمبراطورية الجرمنتية" is "Germanic Empire". Pichpich (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created that redirect – the page was nominated for deletion as WP:A2, and I judged it preferable to redirect it to the appropriate target. I do (well, did, really – now very rusty) speak Arabic; I still read it without difficulty. الإمبراطورية الجرمنتية transliterates to (roughly) al-'imbirātūriyyat al-jirmantiyya, meaning the Garamantian Empire. That's a redirect to Garamantes. If you go to that page and look at the language links, the first on the list is العربية, Arabic; follow that link and you will arrive at ar:جرمنتيون, the Arabic-language page on the Garamantes. I think the redirect is to the proper target, but if I fucked up, please let me know. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I don't know if the redirect should be kept or not, but Google mistranslates here. If Germanic is an adjective of German, what's the relationship? The correct translation is the Garamantian Empire. --Karim talk to me :)..! 09:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The redirect appears to be correct from the above discussion. The question is whether it is a plausible redirect for a search on English Wikipedia. Why would someone be using the Arabic search word in Arabic script on an English language site? As it is not even a common Arabic term, I think it fails as a plausible redirect. The corollary of deciding to keep it would be that we need all kinds of other such redirects. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: looking at WP:RLANG, I'm unsure about where this would fall. It isn't exactly a Original or official names of people, places, institutions, publications or products but I'm not entirely sure it counts under Common words or concepts. I lean towards deletion; we certainly don't need redirects to every proper noun in every language. Then again, Redirects are cheap, and this one isn't actively misleading or unconstructive.Edward-Woodrow (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Married name redirects with 0 hits[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. ✗plicit 01:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of these redirects have no google hits results, or no ghits result that refer to them under these names, once put into "quotation marks" (some still are common enough names to take up pages of search results, so I guess there could be some buried deep, but the point stays the same). They're either redirects from a married name or a hyphenated married name, often times not used by the target, and even with a couple of these the marriage is over and there are still 0 google search results for it. Sometimes, these search results pull up completely unrelated people, though usually they are nowhere within the ballpark of notability, but that still could raise a little confusion. I think these should all be deleted – they're all name changes that have no evidence of having ever happened. I didn't even finish sweeping through all the redirects this person has created, but I may have convinced them not to make any further redirects in this format unless google search results pop up, which is a good step. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 15#Avril Lavigne-Kroeger. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unlikely search arguments, based on Skarmory's investigation; all based on the unwarranted and increasingly outdated supposition that a woman necessarily takes her husband's name upon marriage. There are some cases where this is warranted (e.g., Courteney Cox-Arquette, where Cox for some time professionally used her then-husband's surname hyphenated with her own), but these are not such cases. TJRC (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep as {{R from married name}}. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except there's no indication that any of these is, in fact, a "married name"; or an actual name of the target subject at all. They are what one editor believes would be a married name if the person in question followed the convention of a married woman adopting her husband's surname.
The existence of the template {{R from married name}} in no way suggests that it should be applied in cases where there is no evidence that the redirect is actually a married name. TJRC (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The hyphenated names I certainly am not opposed to deletion. But others should be kept. I feel this is a WP:TRAINWRECK, but that's just my opinion. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're not really addressing the point, though, which is that the fact that we have a template for identifying married-name redirects is in no way supportive of keeping redirects that are not married names. TJRC (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add Ashley Tisdale-French to this list as it was also created by the same editor who did the other ones. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at it and thought it had google hits for her, but they're actually for another person. I didn't finish going through all the redirects when I made this nom (I wanted to keep it manageable and to only uncontroversial deletions, and the editor has over 1,000 redirects created, so it'll take a while...), so I'll probably make another deletion discussion soon with several others, including that one.
    I think I'll wait until I've gone through all the rest of the married name ones, nominate the ones that have no hits, then look at any other potentially ambiguous redirects (they're mostly R from birth name ones with a middle initial, which is... fine, I guess, it's not worth the effort of rounding up all of those and deleting them even if they get 0 google hits when they're certainly valid names). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, would the recent ones fall under any CSD criteria? I'm compiling the list, and I'd like to not have to take a ton to RFD – R3 seems like a bit of a stretch, I don't think these are "implausible misnomers", so I guess it's all RFD.
    Also, yikes, I don't think I'm going about this the right way. Currently I'm searching for any titles with a hyphen in their name, and I'm sure I've missed some unhyphenated married names by now. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We can wait on nomming the others unless there's confirmed abuse of the process. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also don't want to cause a WP:TRAINWRECK. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of these have any notable run in mainstream media like with Courteney Cox-Arquette (actual credits) or Grey DeLisle-Griffin (actual credits). AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Ham Sandwich[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 Ham sandwich (disambiguation). Early close per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really the primary topic? If so, the target should be moved here to better fit with Wikipedia's disambiguation rules. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

2023 African Wrestilng Championships[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. ✗plicit 01:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typo corrected after page creation, but not corrected recently enough to qualify for R3 speedy deletion. Delete, not a plausible error. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a continental tournament. It will be finalized in a day or two
Pehlivanmeydani (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pehlivanmeydani: this discussion is about the redirect, with "Wrestilng" misspelled. The article is not up for deletion, only the redirect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Template:R to work[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 25#Template:R to work

Irritable[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 Irritability. ✗plicit 01:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this word can refer to body irritation, but it's more often used for the emotion than the bodily condition from what I've seen. I suggest either retargetting to Irritability or disambiguating. Colgatepony234 (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Primary prevention of child sexual abuse[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. ✗plicit 13:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term redirected from article created by indeffed pro-pedophilia user Dronebogus (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I tend to agree that this is not a suitable redirect. Normally I would advocate restoring the article (and send it to AfD), which was redirected by XOR'easter, given that RfD is not the venue to discuss deletion of article content. But given the circumstances and the only other major contributor (Googleguy007) seemingly just removed problematic content, probably it should be deleted without being restored, whether by WP:CSD or by WP:IAR. A7V2 (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is not clear there a "Primary prevention" term in the context of this subject. That would imply there are secondary preventions. Would be okay with creating redirects for Prevention of child sexual abuse or Child sexual abuse prevention AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since Prevention of child sexual abuse is red. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a plausible search term. Not a phrase that appears in the target article. Not even clear what it is meant to mean. This redirect helps nobody. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Sky High 2[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Jay 💬 21:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this redirect, because a sequel to the 2005 film Sky High is not possible. 45.72.218.192 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like there was a planned sequel, though the article's discussion of it was removed in 2021. People searching for "Sky High 2" might conceivably also be looking for information on Season 2 of Sky High (TV series), or Sky High (2020 film)#Sequel. I would be inclined to delete as ambiguous. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The removal of that content was not clearly explained, and while the section was outdated there does not seem to have been a policy-based reason to remove the content entirely. However, ambiguity is a potential reason to delete this redirect. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural, not tagged for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a case for disambiguation. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 08:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate per angus Dronebogus (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Cooper (video game character)[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. ✗plicit 04:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be deleted. The Cooper in Dino Crisis is a minor character. There are probably many other "Coopers" in other video games that are just as notable (read: not at all) so better to just delete. There is Sly Cooper, but he is never referred to as simply "Cooper". TarkusABtalk/contrib 04:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I immediately thought Sly Cooper. Weird redirect to obscure character most likely as a notability quick fix. Dronebogus (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Tamburo charleston[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 24#Tamburo charleston

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_17&oldid=1157930201"