Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 22, 2019.

Casinoeuro[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 2#Casinoeuro

State institution[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 4#State institution

"How to" redirects[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 except for How to tell bees from wasps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and How to make a Mayday call (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of these violate WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTGOOGLE. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. JimRenge (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep bees and wasps. This is the original title of the target article (see edit summary), which began almost sixteen years ago. The rationale is completely off-base; NOTGOOGLE talks about how we shouldn't provide links to anything and everything (which these redirects don't), and NOTHOWTO talks about how articles shouldn't be written in the style of an owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. Both are talking about content, not titles. The other titles in this batch are more recent, so implausibility is a good enough reason to delete them. Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A bees and wasps, bees vs. wasps redirect can be created to help the comparison. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind explaining how creating that title would prevent the problem of creating linkrot? Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, except the bees and wasps one, as pointed out by Nyttend. Avoiding linkrot is a technical measure, and such redirects have a clear useful function: the redirect should have exactly the former article title. The last thing to do is go around creating 100s of variants on "bees or wasps", "is it a bee or a wasp"; a web search will find the relevant article from more or less anything including both "bee(s)" and "wasp(s)". Imaginatorium (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Nyttend said, but also keep How to make a Mayday call for similar age-related reasons. See also 2015 "No consensus" decision. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:02, 1 March 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:LOMP[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) 00:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused cross-namespace redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:04, 22 February 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.

SaveasPDFandXPS[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. NJA (t/c) 09:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in its targerted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:00, 22 February 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.

Glasshole[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, although I'll leave it to the participants of this discussion to add it to the article. -- Tavix (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Glasshole" doesn't appear in the target page, so I think this could be retargetted to it's Wiktionary entry, which contains more information about the term. 46.132.189.118 (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly refine to Google_Glass#Privacy_concerns. This strikes me as a case where an article should be expanded, rather than a redirect deleted. There are certainly no shortage of sources using the term. Novusuna talk 08:08, 22 February 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.

0.9999999999999999999999999999999[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. We've gone through a ton of these, each has been relisted, some many times, and some are still ongoing. After nearly three weeks I don't see a consensus and I don't see us getting there or find value in another relist. This is slightly cognizant of 0.99_=_1 and 0.9_equals_1, but I think this one is slightly more weighted toward the keep side of things. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible and unlikely to be searched and used. No one will add thirty-one "9"s to search for 0.999..., now let's set the limit to 30 "9"s. It could be changed later B dash (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are a countable infinity of such pointless entries... Imaginatorium (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are redirects with the numbers of nines ranging from 31 all the way down to four, and it looks like we're going to debate them each. Wouldn't it be better to go for a single discussion to decide on a a cut-off point rather than have individual RfD nominations? – Uanfala (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the redirect is harmless and goes to a target that makes sense. On the other hand, having several discussions to establish where an arbitrary cut-off would be is not harmless due to the time sink this causes. -- Tavix (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The ellipses should kick in at some point for searches. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. The redirect leads to what is obviously the intended target for anyone using this, while the other redirects with elipses are only relevant for those using the internal search engine with javascript available and enabled or the mobile app; these are only a subset of the ways people use to find Wikipedia content. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hard to use if you do like I and type the URL in the address bar, but quite reasonable at Special:Search with autofill. You can go to Special:Search, type 0 and . and then hold down the 9 key for a couple of seconds; it's not unlikely that this would be one of the autofill options. It's not getting in the way of anything else, and who's going to search for this if they're not looking for 0.999...? Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete consistent with the delete outcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 7#0.99999999999999999999999999999999. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A redirect containing a long string of 9s capture various possible search terms. feminist (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:24, 22 February 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.

Module:Rail[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. Not many bolded !votes despite discussion by many parties, which made it a bit harder to parse what is going on than usual, but I see enough opposition to this proposal. No prejudice against renomination should a local consensus develop on what do with the relevant module(s). -- Tavix (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination on behalf of Cards84664, see User talk:Pppery#Tfd. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I'm not conviced by the "this needs to be deleted to stop disruptive editing" rationale presented on my talk page, however Module:Adjacent stations is not the only train-related Lua module, so this title is ambiguous. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong venue. Ultimately this is a Module and should be handled at TfD. The behavior by the creator has been strange; he seems to want to rename Module:Adjacent stations to Module:Rail, but is also developing Module:Rail separately. This has led to considerable confusion at Template talk:Adjacent stations and elsewhere. Mackensen (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    But this module is functionally acting as a redirect in its current incarnation. If template redirects go to RfD, then why shouldn't module pseudo-redirects like this one?. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't think template redirects went to RfD, to be honest, and I've always sent them to TfD (no one seemed to mind). If that's the practice then yes, this should probably be here, but it's only a redirect because Cards84664 made it one, I'm not sure that was right per my original comment. To the extent that Module:Rail is disruptive, it's because it was a fully-functioning (if buggy) fork which some mainspace templates were using. As a redirect it's harmless, though we wouldn't want anything talking to it. Mackensen (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you also add Module:Rail/Amtrak, Module:Rail/sandbox, and Module:Rail/doc to the deletion request? Cards84664 (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cards84664: Won't G8 cover the subpages if this is deleted? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said before, I'm still learning. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Cards84664 (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Redirects all come here, regardless of namespace; all namespaces are covered by other XFD forums, so if redirects in one namespace went to that namespace's main discussion area, we might equally send all redirects to their own places, and thus we'd end up without a purpose for RFD :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should use G1 speedy delete due to only one template use it (The module's template itself). -- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) 05:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @VulpesVulpes825: G1 is the speedy deletion criterion for patent nonsense, which this clearly isn't. Are you sure you don't mean some other criterion?. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pppery: I clearly misread the guideline for some reason, but my statement will still hold. I do think it is best that all change be done in Module:Adjacent Stations for keeping Infobox station untouch and preserve edit history. -- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) 05:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am currently neutral for change from Adjacent Stations to Rail. -- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) 06:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @VulpesVulpes825: To be clear, if refactoring is to be done without a name change, all functions need to work and go live simultaneously, which is harder to do. Ythlev (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the module is being discussed at Template talk:Adjacent stations#Requested move 10 February 2019. Ythlev (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:23, 22 February 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.

List of male rappers[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 List of male rappers and delete List of Male Rappers and List Of Male Rappers, moving the history per Amory. -- Tavix (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List redirects to category space are strongly discouraged. Even if these 3 redirects had their formatting errors corrected (capitalisation and lack of leading colon before "Category"), they would target a category that is not a comprehensive list of male rappers. I suggest delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/retarget to Category:Male rappers as there is no scope for such a broad list and so we should redirect searchers to the category that gives them information that they are looking for rather than being petty about terminology. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List of male rappers, delete the other two. After reading the previous RfD and checking that there is List of female rappers (but no alternatively capitalized redirects), I have come to the same conclusion as Angus. We should keep one correctly formatted redirect so that readers who type this title into the search box will go straight to the category. Internal links to the incorrectly formatted titles should be discouraged so we should delete those; the search box automatically looks for alternative capitalization. Deryck C. 15:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List of male rappers, delete others. The first is a plausible search term, regardless of whether or not the category is comprehensive. The encyclopedia is never complete, after all. The other two capitalizations are unnecessary and could confuse searches. Novusuna talk 20:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think keeping the first and deleting the second and third is reasonable, except that List of Male Rappers has over 100 revisions. Now, that only constituted two months as a list article before being redirected, but if we're going to keep only one title, mightn't we keep the one with some history? That is, if only the first title is to be kept, I'd recommend moving this to that title without leaving a redirect, so that the history is retained there. Probably over-complicated, but I'm not sure what the downside is. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The simpler course of action is just to keep all of them as they are equally useful redirects, just {{R from other capitalisation}} ones. Not every method used to find Wikipedia content is case insensitive. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, yes, but given the writing on the wall above I wanted to make the case to at least save what history there is/was. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, if the closing admin is going to just go with the simple majority of bold votes then the one with history is better kept, but hopefully they will read the actual rationales and realise that there is actually no policy based reason to delete alternatively capitalised redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 2 March 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.

Natural elements[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 Natural element to Natural elements, which is now the title of the disambiguation. -- Tavix (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natural abundance is not discussed in detail in the target article. This could also plausibly redirect to natural abundance or chemical element or a relevant subsection. Is there a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this term, or should it be deleted per WP:XY? ComplexRational (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and retarget to disambiguation page, per Shhhnotsoloud. Novusuna talk 20:51, 22 February 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.

Find sperm donor[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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pseudo-search-string redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm technically the "creator" of the Lilian Swann Saarinen one, but only by virtue of moving somebody else's creation to its correct title after they created it at this illogical form. We used to have a rule in place that redirects resulting from page moves always had to be retained for GFDL attribution reasons except very occasionally in the case of a page title that represented an extreme policy violation (such as being disparaging to the subject) — but that's since been deprecated, and we can now delete page-move redirects if they aren't useful. Which that one isn't, so there's no need to hold onto it anymore.
    As for the sperm donor one, that's a direct original creation by somebody else, but it's still not one I can see an obvious case for — it just seems to me like a case of "not what a person who was searching for that term would expect to find", because I would imagine a person typing that into the search bar was looking for a detailed how-to guide rather than a cursory two-sentence summary of the fact that the concept exists. Though, of course, Wikipedia has a WP:NOTHOWTO rule, so that's not grounds for expanding the section to justify the redirect either. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find delete per nom. Bearcat's one can be speedied if impatient. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep #1, no reason to delete. Delete #2 per above reasoning. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "find sperm donor" as a plausible search term. Delete "Find Lilian Swann Saarinen" - she does not appear to have been notably missing at any point, nor does her article suggest there was any project, campaign or similar with this or a similar name. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete #1: I'm not convinced by Thryduulf's argument that "find sperm donor" is a plausible search term because it undermines the search function. If I were to search for "find sperm donor" in the top search bar, I wouldn't expect to be force redirected to the concept of donor tracking. Maybe I'm searching for notable people who found their biological parents from sperm donation tracking. Either way, it's an ambiguous title, and searchers should be given the benefit of the doubt for ambiguous titles. 'Weak' delete because I'm flip-flopping a bit between this argument and Thryduulf's argument, and the number of pageviews is low anyway. Delete #2 per nom and Thryduulf. 2601:483:4C80:241D:35D8:3D8E:CCFE:1AE1 (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 06:28, 22 February 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.

House (architecture)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} (and I'll rcat it thus) but to me it lays false scent: by having the title "House (architecture)" we're implying that is something different from a mere house. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but we don't have House (structure) or Hitler (painter). (We do actually have Hitlers architect -> Albert Speer but that's a different story: We don't have Albert Speer (architect).) Perhaps I am being overly pedantic, but I'm taking the view that if we disambiguate: if we make a distinction for whatever reason, it is leading readers at least some way up the garden path to find that a House (architecture) is just a house. 178.164.162.144 (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's entirely plausible that House could be a disambiguation page (or could become one in the future) and so redirects like this should be kept to allow for people who don't know it isn't a dab currently and/or want to future proof links in case it becomes one. I'll create House (structure) and House (building) for the same reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs for (structure) and (building) are fine. It's just that (architecture) implies a type of architecture, and there isn't one called House like there is with House music. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:26, 22 February 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.

Jean-Claude Houdret[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 refine to Karl Lagerfeld#Weight loss. Consensus does not exist to restore the article nor to delete, but it has been suggested to point to the section where he is mentioned, which makes sense to me. -- Tavix (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Why does an article about a French medical professional redirect to the article about a German fashion designer? Openlydialectic (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The page was created originally as a stub article on the French medical professional by an IP user, but was later turned into a redirect to the German fashion designer with this edit. I'm not sure why, since neither of the contributors leaved edit summaries of any sort. --Geolodus (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article without prejudice to prod or AfD if anyone desires, but there has been no discussion I've found about that article content so deleting it via RfD would be inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain as redirect to Karl Lagerfeld#Weight loss where Jean-Claude Houdret is mentioned by name. No need to restore the "article" which was merely an unsourced sentence and was redirected waaaay back in 2005. PC78 (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't restore. The original content could properly be deleted under {{db-bio}}, so deletion or retargeting are apparently the only good options. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The target article mentions the redirect's topic. Note that I don't think the original content meets A7, because "devised a diet which made Karl Lagerfeld loose 36 kg." is a reasonable WP:CCS. feminist (talk) 06:18, 2 March 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.

Quiet Bill[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 Courier (comics). — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No information at target (info was previously deleted due to lack of notability [1]); no suitable target as far as I can tell. Should be deleted. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 01:38, 22 February 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.

David Campbell (comics)[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) 00:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No information at the target page, there does not appear to be a suitable target. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 01:24, 22 February 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.

Ch'vayre[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 Stryfe. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No information at target article (was previously deleted [2]). Namenamenamenamename (talk) 01:13, 22 February 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.

Captain Fate[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 Captain Britain and MI13. -- Tavix (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No information at target page (content was previously deleted [3]), and there does not appear to be a suitable target. Links to this page are namedrops and could easily be deleted. This redirect should be deleted. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PC78, that is something the nominator has been doing for months; removing merged entries from the list articles, then deleting the redirects saying there is no information in the target page and no better article to retarget to. BOZ (talk) 19:36, 1 March 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.

Misplaced or missing brackets[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) 00:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Stray or missing brackets make these highly unlikely search terms and of no real value. PC78 (talk) 00:29, 22 February 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_February_22&oldid=886120984"