Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 13, 2023.

JVC GZ-HD7[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. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned anywhere in the target. Someone suggested in the previous nomination that this redirect should be set to the company's page (instead of deleting it outright) because there are "some coverage of the product in Google News archives from 2007, but it doesn't appear to be substantial or from WP:RS", and apparently it was accepted as the result. NotCory (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Taichi[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 Taichi (name) over the redirect. I find clear consensus for this, and will add appropriate hatnotes. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Right now, "Taichi" is a redirect to tai chi. However, "Taichi", it is a very common Japanese name (see Taichi (name)). We should prioritize a correct spelling over a common misspelling. Instead of a redirect, "Taichi" should be the disambiguation page now found at "Taichi (name)", with a hatnote explaining where to find the page on tai chi. SilverStar54 (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom with a hatnote back to Tai chi. --Lenticel (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom with a hatnote back to Tai chi. Jōkepedia (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: i.e. move Taichi (name) to Taichi and put a hatnote there. (As a point of detail, Taichi (name) is not a disambiguation page, it's a name SIA). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, retarget to Taiji (disambiguation), which is the destination of Tai Chi (disambiguation). It is more likely to be the martial arts subject instead of the Japanese given name. It is not a misspelling of "tai chi", it is an alternative romanization, just as "taiji" is an alternative romanization for the martial art. Remove the single surname from the name article, and move it to the disambiguation page, making the Japanese name page only about the male given name, giving it proper focus to match what the infobox says. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, the one problem with that is that the Japanese name cannot be romanized as Taiji under any system, so it doesn't really belong on a Taiji (disambiguation) page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we flip the pagename to Taichi instead of Taiji? I will note that several other disambiguation page combines similar spellings like variant surname spellings or variant given name spellings into one dab page, which would suggest that combining Taiji and Taichi isn't a big problem. Or we could duplicate those Taiji entries that also romanize as Taichi/Tai-Chi into a new disambiguation page at TaichTaichi -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC) -- upd corrected typo 65.92.247.90 (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]
    There are also Japanese names at Taiji, which are not variant spellings of the ones at Taichi but rather totally unrelated characters. Though I guess there is precedent for merging entries even when doing so is technically incorrect, e.g. William Smith, where some of the people on there have Will or Bill as their real name. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly oppose merging the Taichi (name) and Taiji pages. The pages should absolutely include links to each other in the "see also" section, but combining different romanizations would go against well-established precedence for dab pages.
    You're incorrect about "taichi" being an alternative romanization. It's a misspelling of the common name "tai chi", which itself is a misspelled/shortened version of "t'ai chi ch'uan", the Wade-Giles romanization of the word. No system of romanizing Chinese turns 太極拳 or 太極 into "taichi". SilverStar54 (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Move Taichi (name) to base name or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to base name. To help anyone not looking for the name get to the right place, I suggest we have the hatnote say:
This article is about the Japanese name "Taichi". For for the martial art, see tai chi. For other uses of "tai chi", see taiji. SilverStar54 (talk) 06:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listed the previous RfD from 2012. Jay 💬 07:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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-one knows what it's like[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 21#No-one knows what it's like

Interstate 63[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 20#Interstate 63

Sol Pendavis Williams[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 20#Sol Pendavis Williams

You didn't have to stoop so low[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. Fuzheado | Talk 16:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This lyric appears part-way in the chorus of the song, and it might not be a likely search term. Another lyric from the chorus, 'But you didn't have to cut me off' was deleted in 2022. Xeroctic (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, no reason to have this line as a redirect on Wikipedia, search engine results tell enough. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Midfielder(association football)[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. Fuzheado | Talk 16:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct disambiguator, Midfielder (association football), is a redirect that targets the same target as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Silkmoth redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 2#Silkmoth redirects

Rademacher function[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 Rademacher system. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rademacher system should be the more precise target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. Current target barely mentions Yoblyblob (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. The redirect was appropriate back in 2008. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

285 (Number)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 21#285 (Number)

287 (Number)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 21#287 (Number)

Deathberry[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. Jay 💬 16:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This redirect is a MOS:FICTIONAL common name for Yew from the books/game Warrior Cats. There does not seem to be a good alternative target as the other common uses of "deathberry" also relate to fiction. No results on Wikipedia library search. Edit to add: A search of books on archive.org returns results for "Deathberry" from the previously mentioned Warrior Cats series by Erin Hunter and a character from the Bleach (manga). There are no uses in any books of botany, popular or scientific, only 60 results in total, all in fiction or documents about the books. This is a purely in-universe common name for European Yew. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a perfectly valid alternative name for the plant and "deathberry" is a real English word that refers to yew. Sunstar VIII (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunstar VIII Do you have a source for that fact that is not from the book series or related media? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the etymology of a word doesn't matter. Sunstar VIII (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunstar VIII: We aren't fandom.warriorcats.com; it is a reasonable request to see references supporting your bold claim that it is a "real English word that refers to yew". Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the common name had crossed over to actual common usage outside fanfic and roleplay, then it should be mentioned. There are many obscure common names mentioned in plant articles like at Pedicularis groenlandica#Names. I don't know how often anyone uses "elephant-head lousewort" from my example, but I found it in a source about the species. If at some point a book or source about plants (Wikipedia:Reliable sources) says that "deathberry" is a common name that's good to go in. Names do crossover from popular culture to common usage, but not yet in this case. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I see no evidence that this is used outside of that series, and given it is ambiguous, it should definitely be deleted. We aren't Warrior Cats Fandom. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could create an anchor at List of Bleach volumes, where The Deathberry Returns (lol) is mentioned. It strikes me as a bit silly, though, and I think I'd prefer deletion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoSquirrel69 I did think about suggesting that as an alternative, but it struck me as not being useful for Bleach fans. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Evolution river nile sudan[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 14:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. String of random words individually related to the target. The lack of coherency is not helpful to the user. Appears to originally be a 2007 article that should have been deleted. TNstingray (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete incoherent redirect. Yoblyblob (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Confirmed that the redirect is not in use and I agree that this does not seem useful. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a string of random words, rather it is a very plausible search string for a search engine. However that does not make it a good title for a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete: Nonsensical. Clyde [trout needed] 19:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Closed Lines[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 💬 16:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague to be pointing to a list from one specific city and I can't see a broad topic / dab page that would be a better target so I am proposing deletion. Jenks24 (talk) 09:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could this point to Abandoned railway instead? Steelkamp (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good suggestion, I'm not opposed to that. Jenks24 (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've added Closed lines to this discussion. Although that target is geographically broader it is still too narrow and not specific to closed lines. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't keep. "Closed line" seems to have at least one definition in mathematics, Line segment is relevant but whether it covers all the meaning(s) I don't know. I'm currently unsure whether I prefer deletion, retargetting with a hatnote or disambiguation, but the current targets are definitely wrong. 11:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Along with potential mathematical meanings, Line (comics), Shipping lines and Airlines are all lines that might conceivably be closed; it doesn't seem at all given that someone searching for closed lines specifically means railway lines. There's also the military Line (formation) (and the related Close order formation. Possibly a disambiguation page would be valuable here; though I wonder whether it's best to just delete this as hopelessly vague. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Contour lines can also be open or closed, that wouldn't be a good redirect target and I'm not sure that it would be a good entry on a dab page but it's another thing to consider. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget "Closed lines" to Abandoned railway or as a disambiguation page for that plus Line (formation) and Close order formation. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate using the draft I wrote (thanks @Caeciliusinhorto-public:, @Thryduulf: and @MtBotany: for the suggestions!). Duckmather (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Wikipedia:DISCOGS[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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Discogs. Complex/Rational 13:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do editors think of a retarget to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Discogs? The WikiProject doesn't seem to be super active, if its talk page is to be believed, and it would be useful to have a more concise WP: shortcut. Speaking from experience, I've seen multiple instances of AfC reviewers accidentally using the wrong shortcut when someone inevitably submits a poorly-sourced album draft. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 09:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
1. Yeah, the WikiProject isn't usually all that active. I've had it on my watchlist for a while now and it comes up occasionally, but most questions are better redirected to WikiProject Albums since that gets way more eyes anyway.
2. There is WP:RSDISCOGS already which does the same job being proposed here. Having both wouldn't be a bad idea, but it has already been covered.
3. I also acknowledge that I have made the same mistake of going to DISCOGS when I wanted RSDISCOGS in the past.
Whether it should change or not, I dunno. Just wanted to share some extra perspective. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification on the WP:RSDISCOGS shortcut — that's what I meant when I said "a more concise WP: shortcut", but forgot to elaborate on which shortcut I was referring to. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Current head of state of Netherlands[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 20#Current head of state of Netherlands

Strangers (upcoming film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 04:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:UFILM. Target subject released 3 months ago, and redirect has virtually no page views and no links in mainspace. Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. This is a premature nomination, as while the page views have slowed they have not conclusively ended - they might have done but it's too soon to tell whether the views on 2 and 3 November are the final blip or part of a continuing trend of views. Thryduulf (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Released 3 months ago" ≠ "premature nomination" per WP:UFILM. Do you have a different guideline or essay to support your stance? Steel1943 (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have explained repeatedly and at length why a rigid interpretation of UFILM is directly contrary to the purpose of redirects (see WP:R#KEEP points 3, 4 and 5. Tavix has failed to acknowledge this (possibly due to a lack of understanding) on any previous occasion so I felt it unnecessary to go into detail on this occasion. However, this will not stop me from objecting to the deletion of redirects of this nature that are nominated for deletion before their page views have tapered off. You will note that I recommend deletion of those redirects that have ceased being useful, regardless of when that happened. Thryduulf (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to mention me, please make sure you ping. Also, please bear in mind WP:AGF. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UFILM, this was released more than 30 days ago. -- Tavix (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; released in August, not called "Strangers" (maybe it was in preproduction). Confusing and unnecessary redirect to have in November. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UFILM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

System Shock (upcoming video game)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 04:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the spirit of WP:UFILM. Target subject released over half a year ago, and redirect has no incoming links from the mainspace and has virtually no page views. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Steel1943: Should we apply the same logic to redirects like "System Shock (2022 video game)"? The article was moved around a lot when estimated release dates changed, and they are now equally misleading. We have such redirects for 2017, 2018, 2020, 2021, and 2022. IceWelder [✉] 00:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@IceWelder: That would be a different argument since System Shock (2022 video game) is potentially failed WP:CRYSTAL rather than being a redirect that was proven to be accurate at one point and then changed later. (I mean that System Shock (2022 video game) was never accurate since the subject was never released in 2022, but the target subject was always "upcoming" until it was released.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The year redirects should definitely not be bundled with this one. The general consensus regarding such redirects for films is that they are usually kept if there was significant publicity around a particular date or other reason why someone is likely to look for it under that date because there is a high likelihood of contemporary sources referring to it as such; where there is no or low likelihood of that happening the redirects are usually deleted. I have not investigated which applies in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree with this, considering ... there have been discussions in the past regarding "did not release this year disambiguator" redirects; in such cases, some of the discussions have resulted in "keep" due to there being enough references to viably believe readers would be searching for the subject attached to certain erroneous years. Steel1943 (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This redirect is still consistently getting page views so deletion at this point would be harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading due to no longer being upcoming. -- Tavix (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This game was released in May, so maintaining it in November would be confusing to readers who expect the game to be upcoming based on the title. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the ~20 people who went through this redirect in the past 3 months will be well served by search. Use of the link has definitely tapered off. ― Synpath 18:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Lust (upcoming film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Restore and send to AfD.. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a subject which may never be able to establish notability. Either way, the redirect is a {{R with history}} and targets what was apparently the only linked biographical subject in the edit history ... a sound designer. (I would have expected it to be an actor, director, or producer ... this option seems rather farfetched.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article and send to AfD, which is what we should be doing for pretty much every contested BLAR that is not speedy deletable (which this is not) and I'm not seeing any reason why this should be an exception. Note that this was created at Lust (2018 film) before being moved to this title. I don't think discussing that redirect before the AfD concludes will be worth our time. Thryduulf (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment. For what it's worth, I am "weak restore article and send to WP:AFD" per Thryduulf's comment. Steel1943 (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why can't we just treat belatedly-contested BLARs of this sort as if the were PRODs, and delete the redirect while allowing the article to be WP:REFUNDed in the event anyone wants to work on it? * Pppery * it has begun... 04:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and send to AfD. If it survives, I would then support the deletion of the "upcoming film" redirect that is created by means of page-movement to a correct location. But in the meantime, the pipeline of BLARing and RfDing (under the context that its located at an inappropriate name) seems to be a skirting of due process. Deletion would result in an article that existed in revision history being deleted without going through AfD, which seems to be the big sticking point for this topic. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse the move. Move without redirect to Lust (2018 film). Jay 💬 06:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD. I concur with the nominator here; the redirect has very little reason to exist, and would probably be deleted if not for its history, which should be discussed at AfD. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Volufiline[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 20#Volufiline

When the president does it, its not illegal[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 20#When the president does it, its not illegal

Aata Houn Jau Dya[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 20#Aata Houn Jau Dya

Universal steering wheel control interface[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 04:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect leads to a random company, with questionable notability. Little value in itself. ZimZalaBim talk 02:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article is potentially being deleted, and section does not currently exist. Yoblyblob (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

MIST (economic term)[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 04:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No mention at current target MINT (economics).
  • No mention at original target MIKT which was moved to MIKTA.
    • The redirect at MIKT left behind after the move has been messed up by User:Xqbot here [1]. I've just reverted that, so it redirects correctly to the moved article MIKTA.
  • See also: discussion at Talk:MINT (economics)
  • MIKTA appears a better target than MINT (economics).
  • A quick search found sources for the term "Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Turkey" [2] Widefox; talk 00:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be redirect from possible misspelling(?), however uses unusual parenthesis “economic term”, which is not likely to be used on Wikipedia. Yoblyblob (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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_November_13&oldid=1187987631"