Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 21, 2023.

Sir Kibble[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 00:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only mentioned in the image caption. Additionally, the character appears in countless games besides Star Allies, so this would be like redirecting Koopa Troopa to New Super Mario Bros. Wii. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This character has been around since the beginning, according to WiKirby. He is also not mentioned at List of Kirby characters. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:37, 22 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).

Pat Robertson is a global businessman[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 deleted by Bbb23 per criterion R3. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No such media title AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not plausible. It's a statement, not a title or a search term. It appears to be a paraphrase of part of a line from the article itself, which has the text "Robertson is a global businessman with media holdings..." (the line in the article doesn't include "Pat"). I'm not sure why it was created; quotes from Wikipedia articles don't make good redirects. – Scyrme (talk) 00:38, 22 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).

"Mountain"[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article was recently created and the name styled erroneously with quotation marks and swiftly moved to an appropriate title. Article title is too specific to be a suitable redirect to anything other than Mountain, yet is a redundant and unnecessary use quotation of marks.

No articles link to this article title. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unlike "Requiem", this isn't frequented with quotes in the media. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC) updated 00:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: I have a feeling it may be an issue with you !voting twice (even if this one was more detailed)! Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry let me strike that AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unhelpful. Veverve (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so? Previous discussions have resulted in the same result as what I propose, if I recall correctly. J947 † edits 23:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      We wouldn't usually have in-line links to DAB pages anyway, if the proposal to redirect this to a DAB gained traction. Anyone linking on this would be expected to fix the link, no different than if it were a red link. This leaves it's usefulness to be considered as a search term, which is clearly not helpful or useful. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mountain (disambiguation)#Songs per J947. Saying "use Mountain (song) instead" is all well and good but will would-be searchers see this recommendation? Certainly seems a plausible way to search for a song. A7V2 (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:13, 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).

Death of Nintendo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 30#Death of Nintendo

AA Ursae Majoris[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. The delete rationale has been mooted by addition to the list. signed, Rosguill talk 00:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This star is not mentioned in the list. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as creator: SIMBAD and other astronomical databases have information on the star which can added to the list. It is probably worth checking that these stars do not exist in a database or adding information before nominating them. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not concerned about that than if it is completely non-notable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Stars with a variable star designation are often notable enough to be included in constellation lists. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Can be recreated if/when mention is added and that mention is justified. Completely unhelpful in the meantime. A7V2 (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @InterstellarGamer12321: does AA Ursae Majoris meet the notability guidelines given on Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects)? Note that 76 redlinks were removed on 6 November 2020, many named <xx> "Ursae Majoris". Is this one more notable than the others? wbm1058 (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While it is not notable enough for its own article, it is notable enough for inclusion in the constellation list (where over twenty other stars with variable designations are included even though most do not have their own article). Stars do not need to have their own article to be included in constellation lists. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 06:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @InterstellarGamer12321: then please do include basic information about AA Ursae Majoris in the list article targeted by this redirect. If that isn't done promptly, then I or another administrator will delete this redirect. – wbm1058 (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added it to the list. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that the star is mentioned at the target. CycloneYoris talk! 10:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although it is mentioned as AA UMa, but this should not be a problem for those familiar with codes. Jay 💬 14:22, 1 June 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).

Sylhet region[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 29#Sylhet region

FIEE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 29#FIEE

Converting units by using dimensional analysis[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 Conversion of units#Factor-label method. Jay 💬 09:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect targeted dimensional analysis until last year when it was boldly retargeted by Fgnievinski. I can see arguments on both sides, because while "factor label" and "dimensional analysis" are commonly used interchangably, dimensional analysis is barely mentioned at the current target, and we currently have a separate article on the topic, where unit conversion is extensively mentioned. I favor retargeting back to the original target, but would be fine with either outcome, just feel like it merits discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refine target to Conversion of units § Factor-label method. Dimensional analysis is more concerned with conversion of physical quantities than units, regardless of units. The factor-label method seems more likely to be what a reader is looking for, however, I've added a {{further}} link to Dimensional analysis to that section to cover the possibility that someone is looking for that topic. – Scyrme (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:37, 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).

Department of Natural Resources & Environment[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 without prejudice to further sensible moves of the page. signed, Rosguill talk 00:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is overly broad, a Google search came up with identical names including the ampersand for other agencies. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 21:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input on the move suggested by Shhhnotsoloud…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Steel. If the move happens, hatnote to the Michigan page. Jay 💬 14:36, 1 June 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 Monaco ePrix[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 moot. Redirect replaced with article. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per the tenth reason on the list of reasons to delete redirects. Whilst the draft is seriously lacking at this time, a simple Google search shows that this article would satisfy WP:GNG. As the current target for this redirect only lists the results of the race at this time, it is worth deleting this redirect to promote article creation. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SSSB (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replace by Draft:2023 Monaco ePrix. The draft is not horrible. It is just lacking in non-primary sources, but that can be fixed easily if we let MaxLikesStuff (talk · contribs) know about the problem. Pichpich (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for letting me know, will fix soon. MaxLikesStuff (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promote draft when ready. Keep for now. On a side note, it is not clear why MaxLikesStuff removed the AFC submission template at the draft. Jay 💬 10:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDYES/nom, as it's not clear when the draft will be ready. signed, Rosguill talk 01:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and Rosguill, with no prejudice against article creation or moving of the draft when suitable. A7V2 (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to make the swapping-in of the draft easier when it is finished. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:26, 11 June 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).

Urground[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 00:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect came up during the recently concluded RfD discussion for Urgrund. Same arguments apply. Enwiki has no substantive explanation of Urground, and no mention at the current target. Jay 💬 07:17, 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).

Video log[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 Videolog. Jay 💬 10:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating per a suggestion made by Scyrme at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 6#Videolog, to decide whether or not to retarget to the new DAB page at Videolog. CycloneYoris talk! 22:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Put a hatnote at the redirect target for now, just to help readers find the dab page. CycloneYoris, do you have an opinion on if the redirect should be retargeted? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a procedural nomination, since I was the one who closed the previous discussion; and I have no opinion on this redirect just yet. CycloneYoris talk! 20:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same here: don't have an opinion just yet, either. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Vlog is a portmanteau of "video" and "log" and I think it's the expected target when one searched for "video log". I think the hatnote is fine in this case. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it actually a portmaneau of "video" and "blog"? I suppose since the 'b' is omitted, it ends up being equivalent. – Scyrme (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "blog" is, itself, a truncation of "weblog". 192.76.8.86 (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning towards retarget. My search results for "video+log" on Google, Google Scholar, Google Books, and Bing appear to mostly be for video logging not vlog (although some results are for the latter), especially after discounting Wikipedia-related results which are created by the redirect having its current target (including Wikipedia itself and websites quoting/cloning Wikipedia). I'm not convinced that vlog is the primary topic. – Scyrme (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Videolog. Vlog clearly not the primary topic given it is simply incorrect. A7V2 (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Videolog – it's not obvious to me what the primary topic is, but it seems clear that "Video log" and "Videolog" should lead to the same place. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:43, 26 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).

Relation of the Universe to God[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. There was opposition to deletion because of a similarly titled redirect existing. There was no support for the current target, hence retargeted to the suggested Religious cosmology. No prejudice against a bundled renomination. Jay 💬 15:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The strange grammar and capitalisation make this redirect unhelpful. Therefore I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:35, 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).

Our Lord[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 22#Our Lord

Cashion, 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 restore article without prejudice against another discussion at AfD. Considering the page history, other !votes also mention a similar course of action and discuss the subject's notability/WP:NTEMP; sourcing and notability are matters for AfD rather than RfD. Complex/Rational 12:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in article Qwv (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: it appears to be a neighbourhood of Avondale. ([1]) Certainly not notable in itself, but it could be added to a list of neighbourhoods, so there is at least mention at the target. Tag with {{r from subdivision}}. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and ideally restore and expand. There seems to be ample historic coverage of Cashion, which has been among other things a post office, train station, census-designated place, ostrich ranch, and the subject of various annexation disputes. It seems to me that there would have been no real question of notability prior to its annexation. That would indicate per WP:NTEMP that Cashion likely remains pageworthy. Adding a list of neighborhoods or annexed communities to Avondale, Arizona would IMO be a least-bad stopgap measure, but restoration and expansion would be the optimal outcome. -- Visviva (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore unless mention is added. The article was BLARed by Reywas92 with the justification "not so recent any more" which flies in the face of WP:NTEMP, so this probably should be given the proper deletion procedure. If mention is added then happy to keep. A7V2 (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of places in Arizona (C). It can later be redirected to Avondale, provided it is added to Avondale history and supported by the related references. Right now I can't tell when it was annexed, but there are sources indicating it was a town that got annexed. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore even if not legally recognized anymore it appears it was once and it has a stated population so shouldn't be redirected just because it was annexed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore unless mention is added per A7V2. I also think the BLAR was inappropriately done, and should've been reverted immediately. Restoring and possibly sending to AfD seems to be the most logical thing to do here. CycloneYoris talk! 08:55, 28 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).

Freedom Alliance (United Kingdom)[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, so it wouldn't survive MOS:DABMENTION AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Freedom Alliance (UK) would be impacted as well. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To group the related redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The second has 192 incoming links, and the first has 6. If the redirects are deleted, should they remain as redlinks or should they be removed? Jay 💬 13:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Freedom Alliance (UK) was previously host to an article, but it was deleted following an AfD as the lack of independent coverage meant it wasn't sufficiently notable. Red links would encourage the re-creation of an article, but this group doesn't appear to become any more notable since that AfD. – Scyrme (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, can't find a good target here. J947 † edits 02:45, 5 June 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).

G-BXAR[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 07:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the tail number of one BAe 146 aircraft, no longer mentioned in the article. A highly implausible search term with no incoming links to the redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosbif73 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No other registrations redirect to this page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are registration numbers consistent with the tail liveries? If so, British Airways ethnic liveries associates a livery with a type of registration. Although all registration numbers are to be prefixed with "G-", it is probably not done at that article to avoid redundancy. It'll be useful for readers to know that BXAR maps to Delftblue Daybreak. Jay 💬 12:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jay: No, an aircraft registration is independent of a paint job at any one time. See pics here: [2] Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Delete. Jay 💬 10:36, 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).

!=[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 28

Multiple Redirects to SCP Foundation[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 all. While a mention at target is indeed not a hard requirement for a redirect, keep !votes did not explain why this situation differs from general RfD precedent on unmentioned plot elements, and were a numerical minority besides. As always with unmentioned elements, this deletion is without prejudice against recreation if a mention is re-added. Additionally, there was no consensus for or against Jay's late-breaking retarget proposal for Prometheus Labs; thus, I have deleted, but Jay or any other user is welcome to recreate with the proposed target if desired, to be settled at a second RfD if necessary. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Onel5969 TT me 17:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: All of this batch of nominations are fictional elements within the "SCP Foundation" universe. I think they're useful enough but I'm not 100% sure what the normal policy would be on this. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 18:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've merged this batch of nominations under one heading, as they are all related (and had basically the same nomination reason listed). If anyone feels it's necessary, go ahead and revert, but I think this will save us all a lot of work and effort by batching it. Fieari (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - All these things are fictional entities/characters/etc within the SCP Foundation body of works. We don't necessarily need to mention them... but people do search for elements of fictional worlds, in which case we should direct them to the article that describes that fiction. That said, I wouldn't mind a list article to be created for recurring characters/organizations in the SCP universe, similar to list articles with characters from Harry Potter or Star Wars... that way we could have the mention that you'd like. But I don't necessarily think we need said list article to make use of a redirect like this. Fieari (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most - I do think that these redirects would be useful for people searching for these terms, but I'm not sure if "Wondertainment Industries" is going to be a common enough search to warrant a redirect, especially with "Dr. Wondertainment" also being a redirect. However, if "Wondertainment Industries" is a more common term than I realized, then Keep All.
KomradeKalashnikov (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 23:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all I acknowledge the above keep arguments, but am not convinced - being pointed to the target with no indication of how it is related seems more likely to be confusing than useful. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Fictional cruft; something must be mentioned for a redirect to be useful as a navigation tool. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've been thinking about this one and lean towards keep - I am not convinced by either the idea that these are cruft or that they're not useful because they aren't mentioned in the target article. In my opinion, for these to be cruft they would need to actually be articles. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 14:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Not mentioned in the target. This is the standard for RFD. If a term redirects to an article and that article doesn't specifically mention the term, then we delete it. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not being mentioned at the target is not, and has never been, a hard criteria for a redirect to be useful and thus exist. It can certainly factor into an opinion, but it's not policy or part of the style guide by any means. To the contrary, policy is that many useful redirects should exist that must definitely NOT be mentioned at the target (such as for non-NPOV redirects). Fieari (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, other deletion discussions suggest otherwise. Most of them, like this exact discussion, have ended in deletion. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26#Cyborg Wart, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26#Swoop (Mario), and even more in my log. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not backed up by policy, is it. J947 † edits 00:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RFD#D8 seems to be the closest policy based rationale for deletion. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These aren't synonyms. J947 † edits 23:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget Prometheus Labs, Inc. to Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. Delete others as costly and hard to maintain. I went to the target, then went to their official site, gave a search for each of the stories and confirmed that they are indeed SCP stories. As the target says The SCP Wiki contains over 4,200 short stories referred to as "Foundation Tales", and SCP being a community wiki, will keep expanding, we do not want thousands of redirects that will keep us guessing. If the titles are not important enough even for a mention at the target article, why should they be redirects? Create redirects only for the significant ones. A list article per Fieari would be a solution, and that article will be the barometer of which stories are deserving vs which are cruft. Jay 💬 14:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Jay said signed, Rosguill talk 00:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jay and the fact that none of those elements are actually featured in the main article. Redirects are not exempt from being deleted as fancruft. Carpimaps talk to me! 16:59, 13 June 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).

Fauxsurrection[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 00:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A simple google search returned no results from reliable sources. Estar8806 (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - NPOV term exists, provably in use by some people, and is unambiguous in its target. By principle of least surprise, this is an obvious keeper, much as I hate it. Fieari (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It might be good to redirect to a section where it could potentially bring up the word. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. The term has not received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to be worthy of inclusion anywhere in the article. Redirects do not require the level of notability that included information requires, and redirects also do not need to follow NPOV guidelines while articles do. The title of a redirect does not have to be included in the text of the destination to be useful. Fieari (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While it is a non-neutral search term, it's not over the line and it is a possible search term based on the number of search engine results I found. {{R from non-neutral name}} exists for a reason, and this is an appropriate use of it. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag as an {{R from non-neutral name}} per above. Plausible search term, as others have already pointed out. CycloneYoris talk! 08:59, 28 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).

대만[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 07:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:RLOTE. The country's name in Korean is not a useful redirect. BangJan1999 18:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider whether the proposed retarget is helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 00:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Retargetting to the list is a stretch. It's also a Pandora's box; I don't think the Korean name of Taiwan warrants a redirect to that list any more than the Korean name of any other country, or the name of any country in literally any other language represented in that list. Merely mentioning a term in another language doesn't warrant a reason to keep a redirect, and this doesn't really fall under any of the reasons for an "appropriate" redirect listed at WP:RLOTE. – Scyrme (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This also goes for all the other redirects like this currently listed below here on this page. (They should probably have been bundled together to avoid copy-pasting replies.) – Scyrme (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Scyrme, and also per the underlying rationale of RLOTE. A multilingual database of country names is beyond the project's scope and competence. These particular names seem unproblematic in themselves (thanks in part to hangul being largely used for only one language), but any set of names limited to unproblematic ones will necessarily be half-assed, which (as discussed at RLOTE) can only disserve the user in the end. I would say that a "soft redirect" to Wiktionary would actually be better than the proposed retargeting, but having nothing at all seems like the most prudent policy. -- Visviva (talk) 06:54, 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).

태국[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 07:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:RLOTE, redirect of country's name in Korean is not needed. Tails Wx 17:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider whether the proposed retarget is helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 00:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Retargeting doesn't address the underlying concern here. ENWP is not set up to provide a reliable multilingual database of country names. -- Visviva (talk) 06:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Visviva. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:42, 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).

타이[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 07:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:RLOTE. The country's name in Korean is not a useful redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider whether the proposed retarget is helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 00:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Retargeting doesn't address the underlying concern here. ENWP is not set up to provide a reliable multilingual database of country names. -- Visviva (talk) 07:00, 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).

타이완[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 07:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:RLOTE. The country's name in Korean is not a useful redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider whether the proposed retarget is helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 00:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Retargeting doesn't address the underlying concern here. ENWP is not set up to provide a reliable multilingual database of country names. -- Visviva (talk) 07:00, 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).

미합중국[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 07:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:RLOTE. The country's name in Korean is not a useful redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider whether the proposed retarget is helpful. Note also Korean Americans.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 00:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Retargeting doesn't address the underlying concern here. ENWP is not set up to provide a reliable multilingual database of country names. -- Visviva (talk) 07:00, 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).

그레이트브리튼 및 북아일랜드 연합왕국[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 07:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:RLOTE. The country's name in Korean is not a useful redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider whether the proposed retarget is helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 00:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Retargeting doesn't address the underlying concern here. -- Visviva (talk) 07:47, 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).

호주[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 07:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RLOTE. The country's name in Korean is not a useful redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider whether the proposed retarget is helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 00:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Retargeting doesn't address the underlying concern here. -- Visviva (talk) 07:47, 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).

미크로네시아 연방국[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 07:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of WP:RLOTE, not needed as a redirect for the country's name in Korean. Tails Wx 14:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider whether the proposed retarget is helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 00:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Retargeting doesn't address the underlying concern here. -- Visviva (talk) 07:47, 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).

미크로네시아[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 07:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clear violation of WP:RLOTE, the name in Korean is not a useful redirect. The Night Watch (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider whether the proposed retarget is helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 00:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Retargeting doesn't address the underlying concern here. -- Visviva (talk) 07:47, 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).

영국[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 07:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

clear violation of WP:RLOTE greyzxq talk 21:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider whether the proposed retarget is helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 00:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Retargeting doesn't address the underlying concern here. -- Visviva (talk) 07:47, 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).

트란스니스트리아[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 07:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

clear violation of WP:RLOTE greyzxq talk 21:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Estar8806 (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider whether the proposed retarget is helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 00:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Retargeting doesn't address the underlying concern here. -- Visviva (talk) 07:47, 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).

몰타[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 07:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

clear violation of WP:RLOTE greyzxq talk 21:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Estar8806 (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider whether the proposed retarget is helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 00:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Retargeting doesn't address the underlying concern here. ENWP is not set up to provide a reliable multilingual database of country names. -- Visviva (talk) 07:01, 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).

Camilla, Princess Consort[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 13#Camilla, Princess Consort

Zubair Ahmed[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 move without redirect to Talk:Kakrail Mosque/attribution/Zubair_Ahmed for attribution reasons. Consensus that the redirect is no longer suitable; if content is readded to the target page about Ahmed, this can be reverted. I do not see why a new AfD would be necessary, but regardless the content is still there in the page histories for anyone who would like to do something with it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is no longer affiliated with target, incoming links appear to be from unrelated people Tollens (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As far as I know, this cannot be deleted without attribution if a merge took place. Even if the content has since been removed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 00:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not useful as a redirect. Restore and take to AfD to decide if it has to be merged into another article, or deleted, or if the removal from the current target should stick. Jay 💬 11:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • But then if AfD decides to delete it, that is also a copyright infringement. If it's a bad redirect, then as much as I loathe renaming redirects it should be moved without redirect to a helpful search term. J947 † edits 05:57, 15 June 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).

Arrest or arrests of Ulysses S. Grant[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. Editors remain divided over the perennial balance between whether to let lie or delete harmless redirects with minimal utility. signed, Rosguill talk 00:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an unlikely search term for "Arrests of Ulysses S. Grant". Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Liz: This is the result of a page move. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's correct. There is no need to keep the redirect, just to do the normal post-move housekeeping. (Does a bot do that?) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tryptofish: Redirects from pagemoves are kept by default unless they're actively harmful. The issue is that while we can correct any internal links, we don't know if a title has been linked on off-wiki sites, bookmarked by readers, etc. The arrest(s) article has been getting healthy pageviews, so that's a very real concern here even with a title that wasn't in use very long. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that's good for me to learn. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah keep per Tamzin. J947 † edits 05:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it was at the redirect title for only 24 hours. Unless there are other arguments to keep. Jay 💬 09:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By "other", I meant arguments to keep other than the "page move". Jay 💬 10:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Tamzin and WP:CHEAP. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom, nobody is using this as a search term. RE concerns about off-wiki sites, @Jay is correct. Moreover, nothing links to the redirect page in the articles namespace. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin and Mx. Granger. A consistent practice of retaining (non-harmful) page-move redirects is healthier for the project than trying to inquire as to whether each individual one is really necessary. -- Visviva (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Visviva. A7V2 (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tough call. This one is recent, but not harmful. I'm not convinced this is a "good" redirect, but it's certainly doesn't seem like a problematic one, nor a "bad" one (created as a result of a pagemove). I don't see a good reason to delete - if it doesn't get used, it doesn't get used. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless this was an article or media title, this isn't a likely search item and would be better served as "Arrest of", "Arrests of" , "List of arrests of". AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin et al. Harmless and plausible. No need for deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 08:56, 28 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_21&oldid=1161431843"