Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 10

July 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 10, 2019.

Shane Taylor (wrestler)[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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Taylor (wrestler) → ROH World Television Championship#Reigns (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Poor redirect target as you will not find out much information about the subject on the page. I think this would fit best as a WP:REDLINK, until someone writes the article. StaticVapor message me! 22:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or write an article. The information about them there (prose and in the table) is sufficient to sustain a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although this is typical fan site content, and not very well sourced, the target is sourced and not contested. A likely article on the subject would likely be a pseudo biography and poorly sourced so why I refrained from agreeing with "or write an article". Otr500 (talk) 04:32, 18 July 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.

Sikong (office)[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. Withdrawing nomination per arguments. (non-admin closure) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sikong (office) → Ministry of Works (imperial China) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I can't figure out what the purpose of this redirect is from reading the target article. According to Wiktionary and Google Translate, transliterations of the Chinese name for the target are Gōng bù, which is pretty far from Sikong as far as I can tell. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sikong (司空) is the Minister of Works, the head of the ministry. _dk (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per _dk, though it will be helpful if the term is explained at the target. – Uanfala (talk) 15:50, 21 July 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.

Fourth Empire[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 19#Fourth Empire

Billll Clinton[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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Billll Clinton → Bill Clinton (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Four L's, not a useful typo. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could see Billl Clinton as a maybe (though I still have doubts) but 2 extra Ls is simply too unlikely.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as implausible misspelling --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:18, 12 July 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.

The Five Strategies[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Five Strategies → Panchatantra (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Seems to be a mistranslation based on the target article content, an internet search didn't return anything indicating that this is an alternative name in use. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, I encountered this name while reading a print source, and it took me a more than a few Google searches to figure out this was what the term refers to. I'll try to find it again, but please give me a few days. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- My source turns out to be a preprint not for general circulatin, so I unfortunately can't cite it. The Man in Question has already given a few sources, and Google searching '"the five strategies" india' gives, as first result, "Panchatantra - The Five Strategies" Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Here are some instances: a book called Panchatantra - Five Strategies: Collection of Animal Fables Compiled Before AD 500; as well as [1], [2], [3], [4]. — the Man in Question (in question) 06:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, but consider doing something about the related redirect Five Strategies: the phrase crops up in numerous contexts, and for at least one it appears like a plausible search term. – Uanfala (talk) 15:48, 21 July 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.

Al Ahly SC kit history[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 Al Ahly SC#Kits and crest. Re-targeting to Al Ahly SC#Kits and crest per the results below. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ahly SC kit history → Al Ahly SC (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect should be deleted, since redirecting "Al Ahly SC kit history" to Al Ahly SC makes no sense NightBag10 (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and refine to Al Ahly SC#Kits and crest, where there is discussion of the club's kit history. Note also that this has history as an article, and was redirected following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFC Ajax kit history. (That AfD only directly concerned the corresponding article for Ajax, though I think applying it as precedent was fair.) --BDD (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BDD. Giant Snowman 07:55, 11 July 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.

Fokkusu[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) 15:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fokkusu → Fox McCloud (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete for the same reason as "Kuraudo" for Cloud Strife earlier, it's far too vague since it can refer to anything called "Fox". _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete implausible that someone would type this on the English Wikipia. Also since none of the entires on the Fox dab page use the Fokkusu spieling I would also oppose retargeting to the Fox dab page (something similar was suggested at the Kuraudo discussion).--64.229.166.98 (talk) 02:33, 11 July 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.

Thai peoples[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 19#Thai peoples

Klin-ton[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) 22:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Klin-ton → Bill Clinton (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Possibly meant as a tl:respell (in which case see #aɪˈtælɪk), but whatever the case not a meaningful redirect. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This redirect shouldn't exist unless he is related to Jor-el._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can’t see anyone assuming that is the spelling of his surname.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 02:35, 11 July 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.

Biohazard 1[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 18#Biohazard 1

List of Arklay Research Facility locations[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) 15:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arklay Research Facility locations → Resident Evil (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete - No such list exists in the article, fancruft. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would delete Arklay Research Facility as well; it has no coverage besides two passing mentions in different character biographies, not enough substance to justify a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm and Xezbeth: See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 13#Arklay Research Facility. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:51, 13 July 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.

Raccoon Forest[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 19#Raccoon Forest

Pen and ink[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 24#Pen and ink

Ηiera Hodos[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) 22:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ηiera Hodos → Sacred Way (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The initial Η in Hiera above is in fact the Greek letter eta, not the Latin letter H. In Greek, the spelling of the name is Ἱερὰ Ὁδός—which does not, as you can see, begin with an eta! So even if an argument could be made to keep the Η because it is original to the Greek (which I still don't think would be a good argument), it cannot in this instance because the Η is entirely unoriginal. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Tons of scholarly works use exactly this Romanization. Are you saying this is an invisible typographic one, like below? You have to spell this out. If so redo with the proper letters (not currently set up), but we need the redirect. Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator's statement seems clear to me, asserting that this is indeed an "invisible typographic" matter. --BDD (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am not contesting that Hiera Hodos is a correct transliteration—it is! I am saying that (unquestionably) Ηiera Hodos, where the "Η" in Ηiera is not the Latin letter H (aitch = /h/), but the Greek letter Η (eta = /eː/), is not the correct transliteration. I'm sorry, I thought I had spelled it out in my nom; I'm not sure how to say it more clearly than I did. I have created the correct redirect. — the Man in Question (in question) 05:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a long-standing consensus against this type of redirect, no matter the nature of the subject. Hiera Hodos beginning with Latin H already exists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only set up by MiQ on 3 July, after I raised the matter! Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for raising it, by the way. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page was never properly tagged for RfD. Fixing now. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I missed it! Thank you for notifying the creator as well. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is clearly trending towards deletion, but I'm relisting this for the purely procedural reason that neither the redirect nor the creator has been tagged until today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator per #Маrchа dоs Реsсаdоrеs, #Аugust 2, etc. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete consistent with other similar RfDs. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:20, 13 July 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.

Singles match[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, by moving the disambiguation page over this title. Thanks to those who worked on the page. --BDD (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Singles match → Professional wrestling match types#Singles match (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I was ASTONISHED to find that this doesn't point to Types of tennis match#Standard types of match. I don't think there can be a primary topic between these two uses, and would disambiguate this title. Note that the concept also exists, though less commonly within Wikipedia, in golf. bd2412 T 21:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have also added the RfD tag to the capitalized Singles Match, same target. It should probably have the same outcome. bd2412 T 21:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: - is it that common in tennis? From what I've heard of tennis, it's more of just "singles", just "doubles", "singles action", less of "singles match". Am I wrong? It's very common for "singles match" in pro-wrestling though. starship .paint (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Google Books search for "singles match", tennis gets over 4,000 hits; the same search for "singles match" wrestling gets about 1,000, and "singles match" golf gets about 2,000. bd2412 T 16:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Starship.paint I almost never heard a tennis match referred to as a "Singles match", typically its just Singles and or Doubles. I do not see totals in those Google Books links but I am curious how many hits there would be for just ""Singles" tennis" because if there are 4,000 that use "Singles match" and 150,000 that use "Singles", thats a pretty small percentage, and it shows that its not a commonly refereed to term. In professional wrestling terms its always a "Singles match". - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 12:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Galatz, even if it's a small percentage, the overall coverage is still higher. So I don't think we have much of a leg to stand on to claim dominance over this term. starship .paint (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate - per the evidence provided by BD2412. starship .paint (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate - I created Singles match (disambiguation) as I felt based on this conversation it was important to have no matter what the outcome of this discussion was. I added professional wrestling and tennis to the page. Based on the comments above I wanted to add Golf but I was not sure what the correct target should be. I also thought dating could be a likely inclusion but again not exactly sure what. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It should probably be discussed in the article, Match play. The concept itself is mentioned in Lexus Cup, Presidents Cup, Ryder Cup, and various articles on individual events by year (e.g., 1987 PGA Championship, 1959 Ryder Cup, 1981 Walker Cup) and various specific golfers (e.g., Chick Harbert, Brian Barnes (golfer), Norman Wood (golfer)). bd2412 T 14:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BD2412: you have more than filled up my entire watchlist, so over 500 pages so far. I really hope you are using a bot. Thanks for doing the clean up. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 23:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is done. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're trending towards disambiguation, but there is a lot of discussion by only three participants, so I want to invite further participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move the newly created dab page to Singles match. PC78 (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move per above, with thanks to Galatz. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:22, 13 July 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.

Flarrow[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. Typically when there's no consensus between delete and retarget, I default to retarget, recognizing that no one wants the status quo. There's just so little to go by here, though—a passing mention of "Flarrow" at the current target, a passing mention of "Flarrowverse" at Arrowverse, both quoting external sources. At any rate, consider this a very "soft" decision with no prejudice against WP:BOLD action or a new discussion in a while. --BDD (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flarrow → Flash vs. Arrow (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Seems to maybe be a name used by some fans for the crossover Flash vs. Arrow, but I've never heard of that nor do google searches confirm that. Some are just fanfic general "Flash and Arrow", some are reviews about the second crossover Heroes Join Forces. Not a very helpful redirect. Gonnym (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Arrowverse (which includes The Flash). Many instances found online, including: [5] (which also refers to the "Flarrow-verse"), [6] (which says "The Flash/Arrow crossover, heavily hyped for weeks and christened #Flarrow on Twitter", demonstrating this is very much a real thing), [7], [8], [9], and numerous YouTube videos.. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:54, 10 July 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.

Scar Tissue (Camila Cabello song)[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 Camila (album) where the scrapped song is covered. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scar Tissue (Camila Cabello song) → Camila Cabello (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This song was scrapped.- N Ø 07:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget back to Camila (album), where it is mentioned. The mis-redirection is due to the AvicBot edit from June 2017, which was a result of controversial redirection that was reverted. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be mentioned on that article though. This song has never been released and thus is not a likely search term. We don’t keep redirects from rumoured songs that were never officially released. This is a scrapped demo.—N Ø 19:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Camila (album) per Paul 012. It is mentioned twice there, both in prose, as Cabello said it was to be included on the album (even though it wasn't), and in the set list, as Cabello performed it on a promotional tour. Ss112 21:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per above. Makes no difference that the song was scrapped. PC78 (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Am I reading this right? How does a song actually being released, or just being a rumor, make no difference? A song that has not been released is not a likely search term. What are you guys on?—N Ø 16:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's covered in the article, is a plausible search term and doesn't refer to anything else. Where do you see a problem exactly? PC78 (talk) 20:04, 12 July 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.

Spencer mansion[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 Spencer House, London. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer mansion → Resident Evil (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Overly vague. Can be confused with real life mansions that may have been owned by people named Spencer. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Spencer House, London, which is the only building listed at Spencer House that's identified as a mansion. - Eureka Lott 13:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Eureka Lott. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 15 July 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.

Stars members[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) 14:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stars members → Resident Evil (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Overly vague, not clear it refers to the organization "STARS" and not just stars (the science term). _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as there is no List of Stars members. Otherwise redirect to Star (disambiguation) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Star (disambiguation)#Groups as we have articles about Australian, British and Canadian bands called "Stars" and a Japanese band called "The Stars", all of which has members. Nothing else on the disambiguation page called "Stars" (plural) plausibly has members. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That just opens a WP:PANDORA situation since we can also have Rolling Stones members, Journey members, Aerosmith members, and others._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- And all those would be perfectly good and useful redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Thryduulf that the redirects Zxcvbnm mentions would be perfectly good and useful redirects, but this one would not be due to its vagueness. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:40, 18 July 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.

See Resident Evil game exclusives[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) 22:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Resident Evil game exclusives → Resident Evil (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unlikely redirect, it's unclear what it even means. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as leftovers from renaming years ago. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:47, 10 July 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.

Resident evil movies, games, and books[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 19#Resident evil movies, games, and books

Gimhwa County[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 Procedural close. RFD must be initiated from the article not directly in the RFD log. Also it needs to be clarified whether editor wants a disambiguation or a renaming? (non-admin closure) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gimhwa County → Kimhwa County (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Gimhwa County is a divided county between South Korea and North korea. South Korean government established Gimhwa County During 1954-1961. Sugyoin (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The South Korean Gimhwa-eup doesn't have its own article, rather it redirects to Cheorwon County and is mentioned only in one sentence, so the North Korean one is the primary topic. Hatnotes already exist for the South Korean one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This RFD wasn't placed properly, so I am boldly canceling. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:24, 10 July 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.

Cheolwon County[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 Procedural close. RFD needs to be initiated from the article not directly on this log. (non-admin closure) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheolwon County → Cheorwon County (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Cheolwon County is a divided county between South Korea and North Korea. So We need neutral Article about Two Cheolwon Counties. Sugyoin (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it stands Cheorwon County is the primary topic for the South Korean County, and Chorwon County is the primary topic for the North Korean County. Both have hatnotes to the other. Cheolwon County leans closer to the South Korean spelling since it has the e. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This RFD wasn't placed properly. I'm boldly cancelling. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:23, 10 July 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.

ΚAOD B.C.[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) 04:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ΚAOD B.C. → K.A.O.D. B.C. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

ΚAOD BC → K.A.O.D. B.C. (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It's odd to begin an acronym with a Greek letter (kappa in this case) and have all the other letters Latin. Why am I finding these redirects mainly at Greece-related topics? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as mixed Greek and Latin, like the keyboard decided to switch countries mid-entry. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like this fever is catching. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's because this is what the club uses as its official name in English. So to delete it would be to delete the club's actual name --->KAOD BASKETBALL CLUB Bluesangrel (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Twitter account you link exclusively uses "KAOD" where the initial letter is the Latin Kay. This redirect uses the Greek letter Kappa, the redirect KAOD B.C. (with a Latin initial letter) already exists. The website linked in the article and twitter is no longer live, but the version on archive.org seems to be almost entirely in Greek. They use the Greek acronym ΚΑΟΔ, except in URIs where they use the entirely Latin kaod. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 16 July 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.

Εpsilon[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Εpsilon → Epsilon (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect needlessly begins with a capital Greek epsilon while all the other letters are Latin. There is nothing on the list called "εpsilon". –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is the redirect for "εpsilon" in search, which is a stylization on some albums, such as Epsilon (Blood Stain Child album) and Epsilon (Dreamtale album), in the disambiguation page. I haven't checked the films, books and other organizations, but I suspect similar stylization. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per AngusWOOF. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AngusWOOF, very, very few mixed script redirects are useful but this is one of the rare exceptions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 15 July 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.

Η-pseudolinearity[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) 22:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Η-pseudolinearity → Pseudoconvex function (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Eta-pseudolinearity" (as well as "eta" and "η") is not mentioned at the target. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "η-pseudolinearity" is a very well used term in mathematics, and there are lots of google scholar hits that include both this term and "pseudoconvex", and it's worth noting that pseudolinearity also redirects to the same target, but whether there should be one, two or three articles here is massively beyond my understanding. I'll alert the maths wikiproject. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Effectively the same notion, but η-pseudolinearity seems to just be pseudolinearity with respect to some function η (based on a quick Google search). Classical pseudolinearity is η-pseudolinearity in the case η(x, y) = y - x. Seems to be common enough in optimization to warrant a redirect and a mention in the target article itself. Redirect should be kept regardless of a mention in the target article right now though. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had added both h-pseudolinearity and eta-pseudolinearity with references to the article, so the problem is addressed. I suggest redirecting to the section Pseudoconvex_function#Related_notions where the terms are mentioned. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:12, 15 July 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.

Kuasa McCabe[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. No additional comments after the 7-day period after the relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kuasa McCabe → Vixen (web series) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No such character called "Kuasa McCabe". Mari was adopted and her adoptive father's name was Chuck McCabe, but Kuasa wasn't. Kuasa already exists for that character. Gonnym (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag {{R from incorrect name}}. Seems like a plausible error, and not ambiguous. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: originally closed by CptViraj as "keep", I have explained in detail at User talk:CptViraj why the closure was a WP:BADNAC and have relisted it for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:34, 10 July 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.

C3H4ClO2[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) 22:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C3H4ClO2 → 2-Chloropropionic acid (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

C3H4ClO2 was created by mistake: formula of 2-Chloropropionic acid is …H5… not …H4…. There is no molecule in enWiki (more exactly: in my list of 15295 formulas extracted from chemical infoboxes of enWiki) with formula C₃H₄ClO₂. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop nominating redirects for deletion without tagging the redirect or using {{subst:rfd2}}, as the intructions tell you to do. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. C₃H₄ClO₂ is the molecular formula for 2-Chloropropionate which is now mentioned at 2-Chloropropionic acid. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Edgar181 -the conjugate base has 4 H molecules. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 10 July 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.