Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 15, 2019.

La Vita della Regina Elizabetta[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) 03:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not referenced in article. WP:FORRED and more. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:13, 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.

Dyanology[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) 03:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty significant misspelling of what is only a redirect anyway (Dylanology). Could just as easily (more easily, really) be a misspelling of Dianology. — the Man in Question (in question) 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.

Sachimo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 30#Sachimo

Will Smith., Ltd.[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) 03:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stray period. Will Smith, Ltd. does not exist as a redirect, and I have not found evidence to suggest this is even a thing. But regardless, due to punctuation this is not an appropriate redirect. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:08, 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.

Excecution of Marie Antoinette[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) 03:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling of Execution of Marie Antoinette, which itself is only a redirect to Marie Antoinette. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:07, 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.

Britney Spears' forthcoming album[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. Deleted by CambridgeBayWeather per G6. (non-admin closure) — the Man in Question (in question) 20:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball etc. The redirect is protected, and as a consequence I cannot tag it with the RfD template. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have you asked for the redirect to be unprotected? Delete in any case, this redirect serves no purpose unless there actually is a forthcoming album (there doesn't appear to be at the moment), and I'm not a fan of such temporary redirects anyways since they inevitably end up as RfD fodder. PC78 (talk) 06:26, 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.

Lance Armstrong 2[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury per criterion G6. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Lance Armstrong/proposal, where history is preserved. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:03, 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.

T Ros[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) 03:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible search term for the target. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Theodore Roosevelt was not notably known as "T Ros". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:58, 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.

Nick Copper[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) 03:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article (yes, I get the relationship to his name's meaning). Also, too similar to Nick Chopper and Nick Cooper. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:59, 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.

Copernic us' nationality[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) 20:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful redirect. Spacing error, and even without it not the material of redirects. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was a merged article but it can be deleted as the revision that was the source of the merged content was moved to the main article.[1] Peter James (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unlikely search term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:12, 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.

Billou[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) 03:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am missing something with this one. Seems completely inappropriate for its target. Billou not used anywhere else on Wikipedia, so delete. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:57, 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.

Billg[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) 15:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too unspecific, not meaningful. Even Bill G. would be an inappropriate redirect (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 14 § Arnold S.). — the Man in Question (in question) 21:56, 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.

Crash Land[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. I have added a source to the listed artist on the page. No opposition to restoration of the draft. (non-admin closure) Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listed on the artist's section, but its listing remains unsourced, as are multiple other artists listed on this page. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep the article-space redirect as the act does seem to be listed there, even if it's not sourced. Delete the draftspace redirect, WP:XNR and WP:REDLINK. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore Draft:Crash Land since it currently is a {{R with history}}, and thus can be used in the event the topic of the Draft ever becomes notable. (I have no opinion in Crash Land.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the thing to do is to keep the mainspace redirect, but revert the draft one to a proper draft. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:36, 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.

Legend of Mary Magdalene[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) 15:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same sort of thing as below. Has history, but was redirected, not merged. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:35, 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.

The Life of Edgar Allan Poe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 31#The Life of Edgar Allan Poe

Biography of thomas edison[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 31#Biography of thomas edison

Johnny Cash – Biography[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 31#Johnny Cash – Biography

Abraham Lincoln I[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) 21:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Abraham Lincoln had a grandson named Abraham Lincoln who died as a child, which inspired this creative redirect. No one calls Abraham Lincoln "the first" (I did not find a single instance in Google Books), and no one's going to search Abraham Lincoln I if they're trying to simply find Abraham Lincoln. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:18, 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.

The Story of Bach[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) 21:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not an appropriate redirect title. WP:PANDORA. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:15, 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.

Einstien, Albert[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) 21:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misspellings in {{R from sort name}}. Not in accord with the purpose of sort names, since their purpose is for print and these are unprintworthy. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:13, 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.

Jordan,Michael[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 31#Jordan,Michael

T'Rails[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 25#T'Rails

Historic Commercial Vehicle Association[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) 21:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Searching online, there appear to be a few organizations in Australia that could all be conceivably referred to by this name, but there's no clear direct connection to the museum. signed, Rosguill talk 18:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The HCVA split from the Sydney Bus Museum in 2008. They are no longer synonymous. WWGB (talk) 06:09, 27 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.

Fleetline (periodical)[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) 03:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is listed as a citation, but is not otherwise mentioned in the target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:26, 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.

Nitro (game show)[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) 03:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:23, 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.

Sonic2014[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) 03:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target is an episodes list for a show that ran from 2014 to 2017, making the redirect inappropriate. I'd suggest deletion, but if kept Sonic Boom (TV series) is a better target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. That editor created very bizarre redirects lately for Sonic and for Planet of the Apes (Cetpot01). --Gonnym (talk) 21:31, 17 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.

Emile Fourcade[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) 03:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This person is no longer mentioned on the target page, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia: he just slipped out of the top 100 List of French supercentenarians. Consequently, redirects should be removed. (Well, actually, Fourcade is still mentioned on the page of Maurice Floquet, but that statement is uncited.) — JFG talk 18:07, 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.

Star fox wii[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) 18:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Star Fox Zero is technically not a Wii game. And if we're extrapolating that much, the Gamecube games can also be played on Wii. Too confusing to be necessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Star Fox Zero technically started development as a Wii game, but I am unsure if that is enough to make this redirect keepable (thus, I am neutral). Geolodus (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Star Fox as the franchise starter. Searcher is checking whether any Star Fox games are available for Wii. This would be the best place to look. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC) updated 15:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AngusWOOF: Changing your opinion? In 2016, your opinion was to retarget this to Star Fox Zero. (Just wondering since ... you probably forgot about it since that was 3 years ago, and I know we have all slept since then.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my rationale in the 2016 nomination, given that I was the nominator. Steel1943 (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:02, 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.

Dinosaur Planet (Game)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Somewhat because of WP:BOLD and somewhat as a closing decision, I'll be moving this to Dinosaur Planet (video game) but keeping the resulting redirect. It seems helpful to have a redirect for the more proper form, and for the history to be there. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - strange mal-formatted disambiguation. (Game) is not used as a disambiguation for video games. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as an {{R with history}} (the edit history suggests a merge occured though I don't see much evidence of that at Star Fox Adventures). Even without the history, it got nearly 500 hits last year and doesn't appear to be ambiguous with anything else. PC78 (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A majority of the hits came on a single day, suggesting it's not very popular but may have been linked from somewhere. That doesn't prove much about it. As for the history, there wasn't much on it originally besides an unsourced stub. More information is currently in the article than was on the original page.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It got 26 hits in one day, but that's a small fraction of the total for last year. Nearly 2000 hits in the last four years so it seems pretty consistant. PC78 (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even aside from the attribution issue (see WP:MAD), I don't think there's a problem with the title. If a link has been blue for thirteen years, we shouldn't turn it red without good reason, and poorly formatted disambiguation isn't a good reason. Nyttend (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. This is a harmless {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} with useful history; deleting it is largely pointless. Geolodus (talk) 06:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because something can be tagged as an incorrect disambiguation doesn't mean that all incorrect disambiguations should be kept.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to (video game) without redirect Otherwise it implies there was a game created for Dinosaur Planet (TV series) or other items on the disambiguation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm,... why can't your proposed title imply that a video game was created for the TV show or any other? PC78 (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PC78, that's true, perhaps redirecting to the disambiguation would be better, but it shouldn't stay at (Game). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, or rename without leaving a redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:00, 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.

Warpstone (Star Fox)[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. kingboyk (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fancruft that isn't mentioned in the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Warpstone" gets a single mention in the Reception section. PC78 (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That is "Warpstone Master" and not simply "Warpstone". Either way, it's not prominent enough to merit a redirect.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to be a reference to the same character: [2]. PC78 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not mentioned in the gameplay, not like Infinity Stone or Materia (Final Fantasy). It's also a fairly common idea to get a collection of stones or gems to unlock a portal to another area. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:55, 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.

Hans Droysen[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) 15:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since they are not the same person, and the article on Johann's mention of Hans is currently too little. The redirect is thus should be deleted like Johann Gustav Ferdinand Droysen. RekishiEJ (talk) 16:43, 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.

Sorana[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. Clear consensus is to disambiguate; a disambiguation page was already created at the title. (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles at Sorana (Pescia), Sorana bean and Sorana Gurian. I think we need a dab instead of a redirect. valereee (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per nom. It doesn't seem that the tennis player is known by a mononym. PC78 (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Disambiguate per PC78 and {{trout}} the nominator for going to RFD and not boldly making the dab page themselves Iffy★Chat -- 09:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. I have provided a draft (and I trout @Iffy: for implying that the creation of a disambiguation page is speedy, and not doing it themselves!) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment was aimed at the use of RFD (which will take at least a week to resolve) instead of BOLD (which only takes asa long as it takes to make the edit) Iffy★Chat -- 08:27, 19 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.

Ridiculously Photogenic Guy[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) 21:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subsection it was to redirect to has been removed so this redirects to a page that does not mention the title. Furthermore, it seems that this was a temporary internet phenomena wouldn't be sufficient as an article on its own because of WP:NTEMP. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 13:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Enwiki does not have information about this topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:08, 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.

Radiohead scotch mist[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was move without leaving a redirect. I note that the webcast is now mentioned at the target article. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no indication why this redirect targets In Rainbows, although there is a mention of a (non-notable?) webcast at Nude (song)#Music video Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: For the record, Scotch Mist was a webcast Radiohead recorded to promote the album In Rainbows. Hence the redirect.
I have no opinion on whether this should be deleted - I don't really know the rules of redirects - but the nom made me realise that the article really ought to cover Scotch Mist in more detail, so I've added it with a reliable source. It's definitely notable - it was covered by the Observer and Rolling Stone and probably others. Hopefully the reason for the redirect should be clearer now, at least. Popcornduff (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Popcornduff: Thanks! I amend nomination to Move without redirect to Scotch Mist (Radiohead). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. That sounds sensible to me. (And for the record, in case anyone is wondering, it wasn't me who created the first redirect...) Popcornduff (talk) 11:17, 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.

File:Minnale dvd.jpg[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. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a poster. I think G7 also applies here. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the same rationale I posted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 15#File:Kulavadhu-film-poster.jpg ... minus the WP:TROUT-ing: "...The redirect is not causing any harm, considering that name requirements for redirects in the “File:” namespace do not necessary have to be useful search terms, especially if the redirect is a {{R from move}}. In addition, the redirect does not shadow the title of a page on Wikimedia Commons, meaning that it’s not causing any technical issues that need to be resolved by deleting the redirect per {{Db-redircom}}." In addition, this file does not qualify for WP:G7 since the target's creator, Bharathprime, has not edited in almost a decade, meaning they were neither the one who requested the file be moved/renamed (which happened here; the nominator moved/renamed the page), nor tagged anything with {{Db-g7}}. Steel1943 (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel1943. There is a very high bar for deleting redirects in the file: namespace that are not shadowing Commons and have no BLP (or similar) problems. This doesn't come close. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 25 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.

В. В. Kurasov[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 25#В. В. Kurasov

Мarsupipterinae[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 06:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible neologism for an incertae sedis family of this genus. The first letter is also Cyrillic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:13, 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.

Do i sounds gay[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 22#Do i sounds gay

What is this thing called thinking[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) 19:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausibly different than the correct title. As a Google Books search shows, What Is This Thing Called Thinking? is not an alternate version of the correct title. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm not sure I understand how the rotten translation "What Is Called Thinking?" has stuck for a book that ought to be "What Does Thinking Mean?" or somesuch, and so I'm prepared to accept "What is this thing called thinking" as a similar rotten translation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just read the 2nd reference on the page, and I think I get it now, but even so... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this grounds for keeping it? It's an unused (i.e., unreal) name for the book. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a plausible alternative translation of the German title, that actually manages to sound more natural in English than the official translation. signed, Rosguill talk 22:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shhhnotsoloud. signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nominator: I continue to think that as this is neither an actually used name nor a correct translation, it is not justified as a redirect. — the Man in Question (in question) 03:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shhhnotsoloud. This is a very plausible search term for someone who is looking for the target but hasn't quite remembered the title correctly - which is not surprising given the very unnatural phraseology it uses. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 25 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.

Chinese and Japanese names of the United States[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 split decision. Delete "米利堅合衆国" and "美利堅合衆国", no consensus (default to keep) on "美國" and "美国". Deryck C. 23:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

All of the listed titles are indeed ways of writing the name of the United States using Chinese characters. The longstanding precedent at RfD is that such foreign names aren't wanted unless the language has an affinity for the United States, as defined at WP:FORRED. As there have been literally dozens of such deletion discussions in the past, just for this single target, I will spare the reader from linking them all, but in addition to the old discussion for some of these forms you can see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_22#美,Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_4#Mihapjungguk, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 21#Rice Country which all concluded that affinity doesn't exist. Therefore, these should all be deleted. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:36, 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.

Solar (Star Fox series)[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 and no consensus, respectively. --BDD (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary and unlikely redirect with mal-formatted disambiguation. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Idk why only these two were grouped up. However, I'd say Wolfen (Star Fox series) is pretty useful and mentioned in the article. Could always be better properly tagged. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They are grouped because they both have incorrect disambiguations. I believe Wolfen (Star Fox) could be a possible redirect, but these aren't.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ZXCVBNM: Then why delete them? That doesn't make any sense. If they're useful to someone, then WP:CHEAP applies. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You cite WP:CHEAP, I cite WP:COSTLY. Just because they are useful to one person doesn't mean they aren't clutter for everyone else. Ultimately you can make the WP:CHEAP argument about literally every redirect in existence.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, what portion of WP:COSTLY do you feel applies? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm thinking WP:RDAB since it's a disambiguation error. It's not using proper disambiguation syntax since the article is not called that.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Star Fox#Wolfen can be reached by the DAB page Wolfen; a new redirect Wolfen (Star Fox) could be created, if it really seems necessary, but Wolfen (Star Fox series) is not properly disambiguated. The same goes for Solar (Star Fox series), except that there is no mention of Solar in the article, and so a Solar (Star Fox) redirect definitely shouldn't be made unless/until information on Solar is added to the article. — the Man in Question (in question) 03:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's literally splitting hairs. You could easily just move Wolfen (Star Fox series) to Wolfen (Star Fox) if so needed. I see absolutely no reason why we need to rush to delete this. I also question the logic of bundling Solar with Wolfen while every other nomination on this page related to Star Fox is unbundled. The question of whether or not Solar should be kept is irrelevant to whether Wolfen should be kept (which mind you- would suddenly be inaccessible from the search bar if you delete it). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the two being grouped, because ZXCVBNM's reason for deleting the two is the same. "(Star fox series)" is not a proper DAB. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also if I moved one to the other, it would still leave a redirect in both places. This is to delete this redirect, which anyone besides an admin cannot do.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: That's right if you did as much. However, anyone with the Pagemover user right has the ability to move a page without leaving a redirect. In this case, WP:PMRC#9 would apply if the !vote here was to rename. It's been done before. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for letting me know, I applied for it. I honestly didn't know that was a thing.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem! Just so you know, the only time you can rename a redirect without using WP:RfD would be when it qualifies for WP:CSD. Generally (from my limited understandings of the matter), WP:G4 applies for round-robin page moves, and WP:R3 applies for unambiguous unintentional typos except in a few cases. When an RFD closes as rename, WP:G6 applies I believe. Hope that helps somewhat. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Solar should be deleted as there is no reference to "Solar" in the target article. Wolfen, however, seems fine. I would prefer a Wolfen (Star Fox) redirect, but I'll leave that to a page mover to take care of. I have no opinion on Wolfen (Star Fox series), so I will not cast a vote at this time.Utopes (talk) 23:58, 17 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.

P:POK[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) 21:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused (and kind of confusing) WP:PNS. Alternatives include: Portal:PKMN, P:POKEMON, P:POKE (which really should be P:PKMN, but I digress), and Portal:Pokemon. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is it confusing? Is it ambiguous with anything else? Not sure I see a problem. PC78 (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Do we have any standards on how properly to format P:-to-portal redirects? Unless we do, I see no reason to delete this, because it works and (as PC78 notes) it doesn't look confusing. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, because these are technically considered cross-namespace redirects, my personal philosophy is that we should have only one or two unless there is evidence towards their active use as to be conservative about it.
    For the other point, I don't think the phrase POK could mean much else, but it wasn't exactly clear before I clicked it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:PNS, "P:" is a valid shortcut for the Portal namespace, and per WP:RFD#DELETE these are an exception to the "cross-namespace redirect" rule. I don't see any technical issues with this. PC78 (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my above comments. This is an unambiguous and unproblematic shortcut which has existed since 2006. PC78 (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 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.

Lylat system[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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator per WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary, when Lylat isn't even a redirect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lylat wouldn't need to be a redirect because it doesn't mean anything. Lylat system is pretty specific as to be the thing from Star Fox (as mentioned in the article). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 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.

Portal:BEP[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) 16:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No obvious relation to the target; not used on any "production" or talk pages. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Presumably an abbreviation of "Business & Economics Portal"? PC78 (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Portal:Economics redirects there too, so we don't have an WP:XY problem. "Portal:BEP" is a bit redundant (and there's no Portal:BE), but this gets a bit of usage. --BDD (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. Ambiguity (potential or otherwise) isn't normally a problem with shortcuts and there are no other issues with this. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 27 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.

Cultural enrichment[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. The large number of targets proposed in the discussion points towards the disambiguation option proposed at the end being a sensible course of action to take. In the absence of further disagreement, the disambiguation draft is accepted. Deryck C. 23:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with retargeting being even better if someone can think of a good target; I can't.

"Cultural enrichment" sounds like multiculturalism and so on, a human culture being enriched by concepts from another human culture. An enrichment culture, however, is the use of certain growth media to favor the growth of a particular microorganism over others. One name is basically the other turned around, but one talks about human culture and the other's applicable to bacteria. Much better to delete this so someone realises that it needs some work, and even better to retarget this to a good place if that good place already exists. Note that I discovered this in a WP:RDH discussion; see [3]. Nyttend (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • +1. I would have retargeted myself it were easy, but somehow it is not. Strange to see a so long article Cultural appropriation, and nothing on this. I checked culture, culture change, Cultural assimilation... Looks to me that cultural appropriation and cultural enrichment are just the same, and actually a pair of bad name given to neutral trans-cultural diffusion. Both term are only to shame people whatever they do about adopting something from another culture (they do? How dare they, shame on them for the cultural appropriation. They don't? How dare they, shame on them for their rejection of cultural enrichment). Methink those should be stripped to nothing except the political use, and trans-cultural diffusion enriched. I am not very confident this can be done, because identity politics are real, including in wikipedia. Gem fr (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cultural pluralism. It seems to be the best target, unless someone finds an even better one. — Kpalion(talk) 11:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree the current redirect makes no sense. Multiculturalism is another option, but I wouldn't object to the ones listed above. Cultural mosaic is a possibility, but maybe too narrow? It seems we have an awful lot of articles on this topic that aren't very well differentiated. Matt Deres (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Not sure a single link/redirect will do. Or it would need to be some master article about culture diffusion, with all other article dependent as specialized. Maybe we should start a stub, with all these links in "see also", namely: Cultural pluralism cultural appropriation culture change trans-cultural diffusion Multiculturalism Cultural mosaic? The expression as use enough to be more than a redirect. Gem fr (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Arts in education. Other retargets in a similar vein are possible. As used in a number of academic articles on JSTOR (see here), "cultural enrichment" actually seems to refer to the educational objective of exposing children to the arts. Compare for example this quote from an article: "The Cultural Enrichment Project in Dodge County, Georgia, was organized for the purpose of providing quality music and art education to elementary school children in a culturally deprived area and to provide in-service training for classroom teachers in art and music." So this use of culture seems to mean high culture. There does not appear to be a Wikipedia page expressly devoted to Art education, but instead Visual arts education, Music education, and Arts in education. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. This clearly could mean multiple things. I'll draft this right now. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Man in Question, Gem fr, Matt Deres, Kpalion, and Nyttend: Can I get your thoughts on the page as it stands now? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I like it; you're absolutely right - it's an ambiguous term and is probably best served with a DAB. Makes sense to me. Matt Deres (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any sources supporting the multiple meanings? Not that a disambiguation page should be sourced, but I don't want us creating misinformation by suggesting a term means something it doesn't. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Man in Question: If it had the word culture in it, and could be reasonably understood as to "enrich" I added it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I like it, too. At least it is open door. If someone has a meaning in mind, he will find it, while being aware that other people might give it other meaning Gem fr (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Arts in education should be shifted to a regular bullet-point entry. MOS:DAB largely reserves that for PRIMARYTOPICs. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @BDD: I personally felt that it was, but I don't necessarily disagree with moving it to a bullet point. It's now been  Done/. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. My objection was more procedural—if we considered it the primary topic, the base name should've redirected there, with the disambiguation page at a (disambiguation) title. The disambiguation page should make it easier to gauge primary topic in the future, by comparing page views of the disambiguation page and those that it links to. --BDD (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate The draft looks good! --BDD (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 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.

New Brunswick Road to Resources[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 since the previous relist which occurred over two weeks ago. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No obvious justification for this at the target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is now Route 180 between Bathurst and Saint-Quentin used to be called the "Road to Resources" as it was a main logging road.[1] Today, Route 180 it it still colloquially known as such.[2] YourAviationPro (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • We could probably put this to bed pretty easily with a sourced statement about the road's historical nickname. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Opinions on driving between Bathurst and Saint Quentin - Re:Opinions on driving between Bathurst and Saint Quentin #1 - Rob H." Trip Adviser. Retrieved 3 July 2019.
  2. ^ "The Road to Resources". Andrew Lavigne's Website. Retrieved 3 July 2019.
  • Keep per above. Seems legit but consider adding this to the article. PC78 (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:18, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_15&oldid=1138582657"