Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 30, 2019.

Camden NJ (1943-1953) station[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target article includes no special mention of 1943–1953, leaving me mystified as to this redirect's purpose. Delete unless a justification can be found. signed, Rosguill talk 21:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Final Fantasy bestiary[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 most. As per BDD's suggestion for keeping the three pages required for attribution, I've moved those pages without redirect to more useful titles, and deleted the rest. –Darkwind (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "(A-Z)" ones, that's improper punctuation, and the one with the capitalised "B". "Final Fantasy bestiary" is fine.  Nixinova  T  C  01:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nixinova:There is nothing that could be called a "bestiary" in the article, however.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete / keep per user Alsee, i.e. delete the fan's excesses, keep the needed attributions. - Nabla (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tavix, what's the solution for this sort of problem again? We move the ones with attribution history to other plausible titles without leaving redirects? --BDD (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: The options are listed at Wikipedia:Merge and delete#What can 'merge and delete' look like?. You can move without redirect to a plausible title, but I'm not sure what that would be here. There's way too much history for the paste history/authorship and delete options so I don't think that works either. I dislike moving to a talk page subpage because it obfuscates the namespaces. Since the merged content is no longer extant anywhere, I think the easiest solution would be to just delete these. -- Tavix (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log day. As a reminder, per WP:RELIST, once consensus can be assessed, this discussion can be closed at any time (even before the 7-day window.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

J.R.R. Tolkien's[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 generally speaking. Good arguments were presented on both sides of the WP:COSTLY issue with neither side attracting a clear consensus for their point of view on the essay, and no other viewpoints were dominant in the discussion. However, since their deletion was endorsed specifically by many commenters, including some who otherwise !voted to keep "others" or "the rest", I find consensus to delete Calvin's, Darwin's, and Newton's. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possessive forms of names. Compare Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 24 § J. R. R. Tolkien's, as well as § Vladimir Putin's, § Apple's, § Music's, § Canada’s, § Chicago's, § Rocket Raccoon's, § Bush Administration's, § Zidane's, § Ronaldo's, etc. An enormous Pandora's Box. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:PANDORA.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to delete Per WP:PANDORA. Oz\InterAct 07:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, harmless. WP:PANDORA is part of an essay that is not backed up by evidence (apart from Neelix). —Kusma (t·c) 13:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unless there are any for which the possessive is likely to be used, such as names of businesses. Peter James (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. These kind of redirects are useful because they help with linking from the possessive form. From the essay itself, WP:PANDORA is only applicable for unuseful redirects, which these clearly aren't. Likewise, I would actively encourage their creation where useful, so this is a "Pandora's Box" worth opening. As an aside, from my experience at RfD, the fact that a certain redirct exists does not encourage the creation of others (WP:OTHERSTUFF and all that), so it's a faulty argument in the first place. -- Tavix (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you have more experience than I do, but my experience would tell me otherwise: (a) Having frequently found redirects created by a given user after that user edited a redirect (or target of a redirect) of a certain type (thus clearly inspiring the creation of more redirects of the same type; I can't give specific examples because the information is of course now deleted, but all of my past experiences are recorded here if you're curious); (b) having read WP:AFC/Rs that cite similar redirects as their rationale (this one for instance, which led to the creation of three redirects); (c) having seen RfDs that closed in "keep" explicitly lead to the creation of more redirects (such as this one, which led to the creation of six new redirects); (d) having seen redirects created by haphazard extrapolation of redirect principles (see recently nominated, which led to the creation of at least 78 redirects); and of course (e) based on the extremely frequent use of precedent on this page to justify the keeping of a redirect, which would suggest that similar thought processes go into redirects' creation. I know that I myself have checked to find similar redirects before creating redirects of an unusual character before. To me, that's a lot of evidence.
But I am curious: Why do you say "these clearly aren't" unuseful? — the Man in Question (in question) 23:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Each case is different, so I'm not going to go point by point and address why it may be a good or bad thing for those specific redirects to exist, but I will say this: if a redirect should be deleted, it should be due to some kind of problem, most of which is delineated at WP:RDELETE. If the only reason you are nominating a redirect is because it has the potential for other similar redirects to be created, that is not a solid foundation for deletion. As for your question: These redirects are useful for linking purposes. I see in your contributions that you went through and systematically removed the links to these redirects, so you should already know how useful each redirect has been. -- Tavix (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix, especially the evidence that these were in use until the nominator systematically unlinked them. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The use of "'s" in these redirects show some sort of ownership or seem like the name of an establishment or company, which is misleading. There has been precedent for deleting redirect such as these in the past, but at the moment, I cannot find one of the more recent examples I have seen that occurred some time in the 2010's. Steel1943 (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. and WP:COSTLY. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only reason given by the nom is "Pandora's box" which is a section of the WP:COSTLY essay that is directly contradictory to WP:OTHERSTUFF and long-standing basic principles of RfD and so does not enjoy consensus (see Wikipedia talk:Redirects are costly#Pandora's box). Your WP:VAGUEWAVE towards other bits of that essay also do not consitute a deletion rationale - why do you think they are costly? What harm will they do that will outweigh the benefits clearly expressed above? Thryduulf (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most, as they're useful for linking, but we should consider WP:PRIMARYTOPIC too. If there are genuine cases of ambiguity with corporations, restaurants, etc., we can deal with them on a case-by-case basis. However, I would be fine deleting Calvin's, Darwin's, and Newton's, since disambiguation pages should not be so linked. --BDD (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except those with legitimate consensus to keep for unrelated reasons. These are unnecessary and not particularly likely to be used in a URL/external link. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the only use of redirects, of course. --BDD (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, not likely search terms in the least. Serves no legitimate purpose. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In response to BDD, while these may be useful for linking the possessive, I do not see why the links cannot be made before the possessive (e.g. Bach's). It's not entirely clear if there is a gain or loss of utility with these redirects, though there does not seem to be anything immediately wrong with keeping. ComplexRational (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:UNDUE and WP:COSTLY. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all We should not have redirects from every variant of words. In these cases, it is not hard to link otherwise, it it not hard to search either. - Nabla (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all- I agree with all the delete voters above. I also point out that Darwin's could just as easily refer to the Australian city as to the biologist. Reyk YO! 09:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - No benefit for searches. In fact, these redirects impede search since they come at the top of all search items beginning with "NAME's ...", thus potentially pushing a valid search item out of the range of ten suggestions. This happens e.g. with Bach's. Also agree with Steel1943, an entry in the possessive form implies ownership or names of companies and establishments. E.g. Caesars Atlantic City#Dining would be – at least technically – a more appropriate target for Nero's than the Roman emperor. – Austronesier (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • These redirects actually don't impede search normally, like other redirects. However, the RFD tag means they're not actually redirects, but classified as articles, so they show up in search. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all My votes leans towards the delete side. I don't see the use of adding 's to every name... These seem like redirects that no one will use. James-the-Charizard (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except most, if not all, had usage from links prior to being nominated. -- Tavix (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. You can just point towards WP:COSTLY (or one of its subsections like WP:PANDORA) as a reason for deletion without at least showing how the redirects will be more detrimental than useful. Possessive forms as redirects do have utility since it aids in linking, especially when they are used with well-known proper nouns. Not everyone can be expected to know that linking like Bach's is possible. Furthermore, almost all of these redirects are from between 15 and 10 years ago with only three created after 2009: "Hitler's" (in 2013) "Nelson Mandela's" (also 2013) and "Donald J. Trump's" (2019). Hardly a glut of these redirects, even if they were unhelpful. These nominations are also a mix of redirects where there is zero ambiguity in what is being referred to (e.g. J.R.R. Tolkien's), and ones that are admittedly more ambiguous. I would recommend individual renominations for the more ambiguous ones so they can be decided on their merits. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most. Deleting Newton's, Darwin's, and Calvin's, whose non-possessive forms are DAB pages, makes sense. The others are possessive forms of their targets, which are fine and useful for linking, similar to our use of plural forms as redirects.—Ketil Trout (<><!) 23:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log day. As a reminder, any uninvolved closer can close this discussion whenever consensus can be assessed prior to 7 days after this relist per WP:RELIST.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Unlikely search terms. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Unless there's a brand or media that uses the apostrophe like Dick's. If you're going to redirect them to general disambiguation pages then you should add {{Look from}} entry for the apostrophe. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:
  • Alfred Hitchcock’s. Notice that a curly apostrophe is used; this will most likely not be typed because most keyboards use the normal, straight apostrophe. Per MOS:' and WP:TSC, this use should be avoided, especially in titles.
  • Calvin's, per WP:XY and very ambiguous. We have disambiguation pages Calvin (surname) and Calvin (given name), even though most uses would likely derive from the surname.
  • Darwin's, also per XY; it could plausibly refer to Charles Darwin, his grandson Charles Galton Darwin, or the city Darwin.
  • Donald J. Trump's. Not very helpful because of the middle initial; Donald Trump's or simply Trump's would be sufficient in most likely cases of linking.
  • Newton's. The primary topic is much clearer here, but the existence of a disambiguation page Newton means that XY is still a possibility in lesser known cases.
  • Nelson Mandela’s, same as others with a curly apostrophe. (edited 19:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC))
  • President Andrew Jackson’s. Doubly unhelpful. First, this is another occurrence of the curly apostrophe, so it is not helpful and against MOS. Otherwise, there is still no doubt about the primary topic, so the extra disambiguator in the redirect is unnecessary. Additionally, the likelihood of this phrase appearing with link—namely that mentions of Jackson in articles are not often preceded by "president"—does not justify having a redirect when the few instances could just read President Andrew Jackson's.
  • The others listed here appear relatively harmless and serve a pretty clear function, so keep those. ComplexRational (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Houston Port Authority[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 Port of Houston. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this should be a redlink. The port authority is a separate topic, and a possible topic for a standalone article. I am working on an article on the Fireboats of Houston - which are operated by the port authority. I would prefer the wikilink to Houston Port Authority remain a redlink, until its own article is started. No, Houston Ship Channel currently says practically nothing about the port authority, and contains a confusing circular link to it. Geo Swan (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Verdis[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. This appears to be the title's first deletion, but I'll be happy to salt if it comes up again. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, I can't find any reliable sources discussing it. The unrecognized nations wiki provides unsourced information, plus a link to a now-defunct website purportedly belonging to the government. I also found a bunch of old reddit posts attesting to a Free Republic of Verdis in Antarctica Given the lack of evidence that Verdis exists, I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and also delete Free Republic of Verdis - not mentioned anywhere, doesn't belong on List of micronations or likely in any other list because it was deemed to fail notability criteria at the AfD. No good target either, considering the info about Antarctica. Daß Wölf 01:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The vrdgov.org website is not defunct and Verdis has enough information for a redirect. Search up Slobodna Republika Verdis and it reaches to RTL, the second largest news site in Croatia that has provided and linked information. There's no reason for these redirects to be removed. This was debated once but stopped by RHaworth for one of them as the redirects are perfectly relevant. There is no necessary need to delete it. It's notable enough for a redirect. There is nothing proving it illegitimate. Verdis is a legitimate and real unrecognized state aiming for international recognition. It has moved multiple locations but settled at Croatia-Serbia border dispute for the sake of finding the correct area. Verdis wasn't properly established until it came across that land and since then, it has received media coverage, funding and made a lot of progress in general. There's no reason for the redirects to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.29.20 (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that RTL is reliable, such coverage is actually an argument that the redirect should be deleted so as not to impede the creation of an article per WP:R#DELETE #10 as the subject is likely notable and there is no relevant information at the current target. signed, Rosguill talk 15:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dab Wolf has been irreverently reverting Liberland and other claims and keeping Liberland on it only when the category is made for all micronations in that area. Not to mention, ton more redirects of micronations in that area exist aswell. Kingdom of Enclava etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.132.68.10 (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the above IP is very likely a sockpuppet of an indeffed user, see this case page where no action was ultimately taken due to a lack of activity at the time, as well as the IP's talk page where a now-blocked user would appear to openly admit that they were also using the IP signed, Rosguill talk 10:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned in target article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt After these micronations were recently deleted there's been a big push to keep them in the encyclopaedia even though they're consistently non-notable. SportingFlyer T·C 23:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

John Bampton (Archdeacon of Lewes)[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 withdrawn here. -- Tavix (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Figure out whether it's Bampton or Brampton. Uziel302 (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think this issue is better addressed on the article Talk page. The article title is "Brampton" but "Bampton" is used throughout. I can't access the references easily to tell if this is a typo or a historical ambiguity. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I largely agree with Shhhnotsoloud, and this is a suitable redirect either way. It can be tagged with {{R from alternative name}} or {{R from incorrect name}} as appropriate. --BDD (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

National Library of North Korea[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 19#National Library of North Korea

Hung Chow[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. --BDD (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joke/implausible redirect. Perhaps it should be retargetted to Hongzhou (a disambiguation page)? gnu57 15:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not the Chinese translation for the term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Advice for editors[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. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Advice for editors" could mean a lot of things (and perhaps even be its own essay), and an essay about civility seems oddly specific. I considered redirecting to Wikipedia:Introduction, but this redirect doesn't say "new editors"; editor could mean a new user or someone who has been here for 10+ years. Perhaps the best option is to delete as having no clear target. –Sonicwave talk 21:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP. Although that may all be true, i.e. re the scope of this redirect's title, how much better a title is "No Angry MAstodons," anyway? see what i mean? Sm8900 (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article indeed has advice for newcomers and editors. However the title of the essay should be redone, to me, it makes little sense. James-the-Charizard (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But either retarget (possibly to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines?) or disambiguate since "advice for editors" is too ambiguous since it could be any type of advice given to other editors. Sakura CarteletTalk 23:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Idea. Should we rephrase the redirect? perhaps it should say "advice for editors re civility"? open to ideas. Sm8900 (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. It's not even linked from any discussion, except for one that deals with the title of another essay that was perceived as confusing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a very general subject directing to only one small area. It would be like redirecting "Food" to "Beans" and rationalizing that it is a good redirect because beans are food. Please don't use Redirects for general subjects to get traffic to your favorite articles. 4.7.25.147 (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Editing policy, an actual policy about editing that contains advice rather than an obscure essay. PC78 (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

C8H14MgO10[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. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redir originally linked to Magnesium L-threonate but its content was deleted and replaced by a redir to Magnesium. Then a bot replaced the C8H14MgO10 → Magnesium L-threonate → Magnesium#Biological double redir to C8H14MgO10 → Magnesium#Biological. I have not found another molecule in enWiki with formula C8H14MgO10 I propose to delete it: it has lost its purpose. Gyimhu (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

C82H50O50[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. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C82H50O50 was created by mistake: formula of Roburin A is C82H50O51. I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula C82H50O50. I propose to delete it. (C82H50O51 is in the list of redirs to create by bot so I didn't create it manually.) Gyimhu (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nomo Sapiens[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete criterion R3; obviously created in error. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result of a page move; Template:Nomo Sapiens was originally created in article space. (The creator appears to have attempted to create a template like Template:Homo Sapiens) 94rain Talk 04:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a misleading cross-namespace redirect to an obscure user template. Geolodus (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No article or a redirect to any notable organization to explain what this term means. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's just silliness without reason or reference; the target should go too. 4.7.25.147 (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mental health of Donald Trump[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 Goldwater rule#Regarding Donald Trump. This may be converted into an article if any editor wants to. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This currently targets Donald Trump#Health and lifestyle, which, per this recent consensus, deliberately omits any content about the mental health of Donald Trump. This situation appears clearly wrong, but I have no opinion on the best alternative. One editor suggested retargeting to Goldwater rule#Regarding Donald Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_30&oldid=1088037249"