Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 9, 2019.

Animal Crossing: Animal Craziness![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 speedily deleted as a hoax (WP:CSD#G3) by Anthony Appleyard. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a fan game, possibly a hoax. Not discussed anywhere on Wikipedia. Reach Out to the Truth 22:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is this eligible for G3 hoax? I can't seem to find anything via a Google search. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 22:45, 9 May 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.

Karuṇā (self-compassion)[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) 01:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect usage of a disambiguator, "self-compassion" is a translation of Karuna. signed, Rosguill talk 22:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, without the diacritics it would be fine as there are other uses of "Karuna", but I don't think this is necessary. PC78 (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a redirect Karuna (Buddhism) would make more sense.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:04, 10 May 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.

NB (programming language)[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 B (programming language). — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, and I can't find any coverage about this phrase online. signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 9 May 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.

Nordic house[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 Nordic House. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. signed, Rosguill talk 21:07, 9 May 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.

West Side Story (2019 film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Movie is not slated to be released in 2019. I am the original author of the redirect, however G7 does not apply as someone else changed the target. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 20:19, 9 May 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.

Les Sables-d'Olonne (Q211923)[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) 01:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from Wikidata entry number, unlikely search term. signed, Rosguill talk 20:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The author made one other redirect, which I've added. -- Tavix (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not likely search terms. PC78 (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unlikely search terms on the English Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 10 May 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.

Template:IPL[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 20#Template:IPL

UBL.com[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) 01:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While the target appears to have at one point hosted a site titled ubl.com, the current ubl.com does not appear to have any connection to the target. signed, Rosguill talk 18:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Recently-created and the external link to ubl.com at artistdirect should also likely be removed. - PaulT+/C 10:50, 16 May 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.

Halstead Residents 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is from a specific example of a Residents Association to an article on the topic of residents associations in general, which I don't think is terribly useful. signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 9 May 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.

Yeh junoon[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) 01:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not very useful redirects, none of these redirects are mentioned in the article CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 18:04, 9 May 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.

Wayward Tide[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't give any information about the redirect. CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Wayward Tide is a the title of a game Chucklefish is currently developing and the title has been mentioned in at least 1 source. SSSB (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If you had actually checked where the redirect went, you would see its a game the company is making... ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:47, 10 May 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.

History of gender feminism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#History of gender feminism

Town and Country Planning Regulations (London) (Indemnity) Act 1970[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) 01:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Act of Indemnity is a disambiguation page. We have no article about this specific 1970 statute. If a reader goes to the trouble of typing that lengthy title into the search box, I think it is safe to assume that they are trying to find information about that specific Act, not about different acts of indemnity. R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I can't see that we have any content on this anywhere other than in lists of titles, so there isn't a good redirect target. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and add a WP:REDLINK to the disambiguation page for the term at Act of Indemnity. The term is already listed there (as well as a bunch of other similar acts) but the 1970 act is the only one that redirects. Sidenote - I don't recall ever seeing other disambiguation pages with references. I'd have to double-check the DAB guidelines, but that seems odd to me. - PaulT+/C 16:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redlink as nominated. DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 9 May 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.

Ananya Panday[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 Merged discussion with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 6#Ananya Pandey. Unnecessary to have forked discussions for such similar redirects. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Ananya Panday" is the name of an Indian actress who is make her debut with the film Student of the Year 2. She is the daughter of well-known actor Chunky Pandey. This entry was also discussed in December 2018. My point is that this is May 2019 now and what looked like irrelavant back then is now relevant as the movie is a large budget one and going to release tommorrow.

I am not asking to create a new article named "Ananya Panday". But atleast the current redirect should be removed as it doesn't make any sense. How can a movie name be as equivalent to an actress name? They are two different entities. Let the redirect be removed and whether a new article in her name is created soon or not should be left to the editors.  -Yoonadue (talk) 14:19, 9 May 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 Simpsons/Todd Flanders[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 20#The Simpsons/Todd Flanders

The Dark Aeons[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) 01:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A trivial video game element that is not mentioned in any article. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I've added Dark aeons to this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is a book called "Dark Aeons" by Z. M. Wilmot, but as neither book nor author is mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia that provides no target. I did consider whether it was used as a synonym for the Dark Ages (in any of its meanings) but I can't find any evidence of that so it wouldn't be a useful redirect there either (and would likely confuse someone looking for the Final Fantasy meaning or the book). Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 9 May 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.

Ben Johnson (poker player)[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) 01:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target is a dab, and no one listed there is notable for playing poker. Certes (talk) 12:00, 9 May 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 Norwegian Civilian Marksmanship 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) 15:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reliable sources, and searches have included specific site:.no searches, that have translated Det frivillige Skyttervesen to "Norwegian Civilian Marksmanship Association". Sam Sailor 07:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name "National Rifle Association of Norway" is used on this old web page of the organization itself. [1] It is also the name used in English publications by the Norwegian Government itself, which both founded and continues to fund the organization.[2][3] It is also the English name used within the World Forum on Shooting Activities.[4] Sauer202 (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sauer202, I see you're the one who requested a move from the redirect to the current title. This is a discussion about whether or not to delete the "Civilian Marksmanship Association" redirect. I could only view three of the four sources you cited, but none used this name. If you meant your comment as further evidence that the proper English name is the "National Rifle Association" one, I don't think that's necessary. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agree. I've never heard the name Norwegian Civilian Marksmanship Association being used, so that redirect is faulty and should probably be deleted.Sauer202 (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ In english - Det frivillige Skyttervesen (The National Rifle Association of Norway)
  2. ^ Norwegian Government Documents, Handbooks and brochures – Norwegian Defence 2004 – Chapter 14
  3. ^ Norwegian Defence 2008 by The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Defence, page 31
  4. ^ NRAN – National Rifle Association of Norway, member of the World Forum on Shooting Activities (WFSA)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 08:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no opinions on what to do with the redirect, but "Det frivillige Skyttervesen" does indeed not mean this. Geolodus (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:42, 9 May 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.

Interior solution[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) B dash (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Interior solution" has two meanings. Current redirect reflects specific example of one meaning. Current redirect target is not a primary meaning. --Sugyoin (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First meaning is a "interior part of the solution". Current redirect is a specific example of this meaning. There are other usages of this meaning.(Local Effects in the Analysis of Structures, Ocean Hydrodynamics of the Japan and East China Seas). Second meaning is an antonym of corner solution. Second meaning is important in economics. --Sugyoin (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I support Disambiguation. It's hard to determine primary topic. (Wikipedia:Disambiguation#No primary topic)--Sugyoin (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make dab page, or otherwise disambiguate, but note that the putative second entry Interior solution (optimization) is up for deletion at AfD. However, even if deleted, the entry could still point to Mathematical optimization which explains this meaning (and does a much better job than the article up for deletion). I'm not entirely convinced that the first putative entry (stellar modelling) is not just a plain English usage of the term, but it is bolded in the target article (ever since creation in 2005) and is used by multiple RS on the subject so I'm AGFing that one. SpinningSpark 14:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect. As the current redirect would be the primary topic (being a standalone article). Then hatnote the primary. Onel5969 TT me 23:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current redirect is not a redirect to a standalone article on the topic of interior solution so that is a false argument. Both Fluid solution and Mathematical optimization are articles that have some discussion of interior solution (with two different meanings) but neither is solely, or even mostly, about interior solution. The mathematical article is possibly the subject of more general interest, but I'm not seeing a strong argument for primary topic for either of them. SpinningSpark 13:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 08:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have never understood why people relist discussions multiple times that have clearly run their course. Rubbish computer, per WP:RELIST: Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time should write a short explanation either within the {{relist}} template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the debate sufficient. Could you please explain why you felt it necessary to relist this again? -- Tavix (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tavix, it's because no consensus has been reached and I felt it better to relist, I have no objections to the discussion being closed if you feel this is better. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 14:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I reopened this per User_talk:Rubbish_computer#Interior_solution, I don't want any further involvement in this discussion. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the only topic presented that actually mentions "interior solution". -- Tavix (talk) 14:10, 17 May 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.

USA-99[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) B dash (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for deleting - If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Furthermore, the target could just as easily be U.S. Route 99 (abbreviated US 99). DannyS712 (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • If USA-99 really is a plausible way of expressing U.S. Route 99 then I would suggest converting this into a disambig. Otherwise, delete per nom. Reyk YO! 09:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reyk, USA-99 is about a USAF military satellite, about which the US government releases very little information. It has nothing to do with the US highway U.S. Route 99. Unless you want to comment on the redirect to the space satellite, perhaps would be best if you strikeout your comment, since your comment applies to the US highway and is not at all about this particular redirect or the discussion of whether it should stay or be deleted. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't be striking anything. Reyk YO! 07:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an occasion where searching is made very difficult by Google treating "USA-99" and "USA 99" as the same thing (even with "verbatim" selected), but when excluding basketball scores it seems that the satellite is the only significant usage with a hyphen. I'll create USA 99 as a redirect to 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup and the two can be linked with hatnotes when the satellite has an article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see below Thryduulf on why the satellite will likely never have an article. Too little information released by the US government about this military secret satellite. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This redirect is about one particular satellite launched to space in 1994 by the United States Air Force. It is a classified military satellite, so usually all that is known is the launch date, the launch vehicle it was launched on, and a UN-designated satellite ID; so there is usually not going to be sufficient knowledge in public sources to make it worthy of a full article. All WP:Wikiproject Spaceflight satellites are named by their official designation from the launching entity.
So USA-nnn is, actually, the official designator given to this type of dark satellite, as clearly shown in List of USA satellites. Most of which do not have articles with much more info. In the case of USA-99, there is more info because it was one of only five Milstar class satellites. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia of all human knowledge, and the USA-99 redirect clearly adds to the accessibility of that knowledge to humans by making USA-99 searchable. N2e (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What we have here is differing opinions about whether there is sufficient content available to sustain an article about the satellite. If there is then the redirect should be deleted per the nominator as the current target doesn't give much information. However if there isn't much more information than what is already there the redirect is the best we can do (and hatnotes can be added to the existing targets of USA 99 and USA-99). This is not a question that RfD is well placed to decide though, as it requires subject specific knowledge that most commenters will not have. The best way forward may be to leave the redirect as is until there is a consensus at somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight? Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Thryduulf. I have added a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight for other editors to consider the RfD and discuss with those who have weighed in to this point. N2e (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't more information (at least until it's declassified at some point in the future). I think redirect is the best we can do Spacepine (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per N2e. I looked at my usual sources for satellites and not much is available except for launch information and orbital parameters. The NSSDCA master catalogue has the most information, but it is mostly general features of Milstar satellites not unique, notable features of USA-99.--Cincotta1 (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this phrase is most applicable to the USA classification of satellites, and there's virtually no chance of it being developed into a proper article in any meaningful way. I don't see a good argument for deleting, and don't see a reason to think "USA-99" would be interpreted by many as referring to the U.S. route. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:27, 10 May 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.

Away team (Star Trek term)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. It certainly doesn't seem like people are jazzed about this redirect in general, but the recent AfD has complicated things. I expect to see this at RfD again, especially if the target article doesn't change much—just give it some time. --BDD (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term and target has no discussion of Star Trek. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Away team (Star Trek term) closed as redirect, but only to allow further discussion of a merge, not because that was the consensus or policy-based rationales for it were advanced SpinningSpark 15:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. The AfD was closed only half an hour before this nomination, so this really feels like an attempt to challenge that closure, the last sentence of which reads "If no consensus appears to merge content from history the redirect may in time be deleted." (my italics). If there does turn out to consensus for a merge then the history behind the redirect will be required to facilitate the merge, and then to maintain attribution. If consensus is against a merge, or after a reasonable period of time there is no consensus or discussion has not begun, then the redirect can be brought here for discussion. That reasonable period of time will depend on the participation and activity level of the discussion, but will be at least 1-2 weeks, possibly significantly longer. Thryduulf (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy ping to Sandstein who closed the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf is correct procedurally – the place to contest the AfD closure would be WP:DRV – but on the merits I can't bring myself to care enough about this content to follow this matter any further. You guys do what you want with it. Sandstein 20:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the target has nothing to do with Star Trek. -- Tavix (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion on procedural matters has been moved to the talk page. -- Tavix (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see that discussion for an extended explanation of why this discussion is not a correct use of RfD and why Tavix's !vote is actually to overturn the consensus of the AfD. See below for why this redirect does now have something to do with Star Trek. Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What a weird AfD. This redirect is not appropriate. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close - RfD is not a forum for overturning AfD results, no matter how wrong we might think the AfD closure was. Come back in a month or two, or take it to DRV. --NYKevin 23:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion on procedural matters has been moved to the talk page. -- Tavix (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Although I agree that the nominator should have probably contacted the AfD closer before bringing this here, none of that changes the fact that this redirect should be deleted. The target has nothing much to do with Star Trek, and the redirect title is a highly implausible search term. Reyk YO! 12:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the discussions about merging conclude in favour of a merge this will be the most logical search term for it. While those discussions are ongoing we should not be prejudicing them by deleting the redirect or the content behind them. If you disagree with this take it to DRV to overturn the AfD consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cmt- further to my vote, the fact that there is a video game called Star Trek: Away Team makes this redirect actively confusing, as well as being pointless. Reyk YO! 10:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that this has not been speedily kept (yet), I will ping those who commented in the AfD that people wish to overturn: @93, Andrew Davidson, Clarityfiend, Abote2, Meszzy2, Lugnuts, Reyk, and Aoba47: Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not eligible for speedy keep. And I have already commented here so there's no need to ping me. Reyk YO! 19:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My primary vote on the AfD was to delete the article, and I only commented that the merge discussion sounded interesting. It is honestly not the weirdest redirect I have seen. I do see a connection between the topics (the Star Trek away team could be interpreted as a sci-fi version of a landing party), but I also understand the concern about whether or not users will actually type in this term in a search bar. I do not have a preference either way. Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete that there is a Star Trek video game called Away Team makes it all the more confusing. Also, per MOS:DABMENTION, Away Team would need to be mentioned in the Landing party article for it to be retained in the Away Team disambiguation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The landing party article is just a stub and so needs expanding. I have added material about Star Trek and so most of the above comments are now moot. Andrew D. (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree with the addition there—the landing party article is too different and it doesn't flow due to the sudden break from history to Star Trek. I think if the content is added somewhere, it needs to be a Star Trek-related article. -- Tavix (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion on procedural matters has been moved to the talk page. -- Tavix (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to request that the closing admin review the "extended discussions" which Tavix has repeatedly moved to the talk page. They are relevant and should not be ignored. --NYKevin 15:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I endorse this request - the procedural matters are an integral part of this discussions that must not be swept under the carpet just because one editor dislikes them. Thryduulf (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closers should always examine everything related to a matter before closing. That's a given and I would hope no one ignores anything of the sort. -- Tavix (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's very easy to overlook something that has been moved to the talk page with summaries that strongly imply it is tangential to the matter at hand or somehow off-topic. In this case the comments you've unilaterally separated from the discussion are not some digression into unrelated matters but equally fundamental to this challenge to an AfD closure as the comments you have left here are. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 11:31, 9 May 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.

N.B[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) B dash (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deletion, correct abbr.: N.B. Tobias Epos (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • N.B and N.B. both redirect to Nota bene. Best leave them both alone. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expect that both N.B and N.B. would redirect to the dab page NB, as does the lower-case n.b., which incidentally has a stronger case for targeting Nota bene. – Uanfala (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a hatnote to nota bene indicating both N.B and N.B. as redirects. I think it would make sense to retarget n.b. to nota bene per Uanfala above and update the hatnote to include all three/four (N.B., n.b., N.B, and n.b-currently a redlink) terms. In the meantime someone who knows how should also add the RfD template to all 3 redirects linking to this discussion as well to get wider input. While I'm going off-topic, Nb should probably keep targeting NB/NB (disambiguation) as those are directly mentioned at the top of NB. Just to explicitly state my view on the actually stated RfD term N.B, I think it currently has the correct target: nota bene. - PaulT+/C 21:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Anthony Appleyard. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:35, 13 May 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.

Football in Europe[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 Sport in Europe#Association football as the most feasible of the proposed alternatives; WP:XY doesn't apply because the those two targets are synonyms. There's not a strong consensus for any particular option so if anyone has an idea for a disambiguation/set index page they should feel free to create it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current target is misleading, Football in Europe is not an administrative body and it was played long before 1954. The current redirect is something like linking World to United nations. I therefore suggest deleting the redirect or creating an article that has some sense. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Set index. Per the nominator, UEFA is not synonymous with "football in Europe", and football is also ambiguous and searchers may not be looking for information about soccer. However it is a very likely search term, and we have several articles (including UEFA) that deal with various aspects of the topic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP #7. Seems to be an entirely reasonably title/idea for an article, allowing for the possibility of turning it into an article is the best course of action. While the current target is not ideal, deleting the redirect will serve no useful purposes given that it is a valid search item, particularly when European football is commonly used to mean UEFA competitions. Hzh (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:26, 9 May 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.

Korymbos[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 14:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The connection between this redirect and the target is that the target is a portmanteau of korymbos and another Greek word. However, korymbos does not appear to actually refer to the target in Greek or any other language. signed, Rosguill talk 21:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Korymbos is a Greek word meaning "bunch of flowers" and is used in many botanical articles including Corymb. Gderrin (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - Corymborkis is not a portmanteau really, it's a scientific name, and korymbos is one of its roots. κόρυμβος translates to corymb, so it should be retargeted there or made into a disambiguation page with Corymbus. --Nessie (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:25, 9 May 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.

Tom and Jerry feture-length movies[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 speedily deleted by DragonflySixtyseven without referencing a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect, especially with the spelling error. Reyk YO! 09:59, 9 May 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.

Racism of low expectations[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 Michael Gerson#Lines attributed to Gerson. wikt:racism of low expectations is a more accurate target, but interwiki redirects are generally avoided when there is a suitable native alternative. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Also, should this go to Michael Gerson#Lines attributed to Gerson (where "soft bigotry of low expectations" is mentioned) instead?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to wikt:racism of low expectations. While this phrase is derived from Gerson's "soft bigotry of low expectations", it's not actually mentioned there so someone searching for the term can only guess what the phrase means. The Wiktionary entry defines it, connects it to Gerson (with a link to his article), and includes a few quotations in context that use the phrase, so that's a much better target. -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to wikt:racism of low expectations. I'm persuaded by Tavix's argument that the Wiktionary page is more useful for a reader searching for this phrase. Deryck C. 19:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a clear consensus to retarget this, but no consensus yet regarding where to retarget it to
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 9 May 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.

Tenjouin[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) 01:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a surname used by several fictional characters. There's no justification for pointing to a single one of them and I don't think there's value in making a set index exclusively for fictional name-holders. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:51, 9 May 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.

Images Kanyakumari[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) 01:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion under G6 by UnitedStatesian with the reason: "created with incorrect title" FASTILY 06:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 14:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the page was created in 2006 so it is quite old, but it gets less than 10 hits per year. I could really go either way. - PaulT+/C 02:38, 16 May 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.

Thereisahellbelievemeiveseenitthereisaheavenletskeepitasecret[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) 01:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the redirect is anything useful. For abbrs, there exists There_Is_a_Hell. 94rain Talk 05:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- no reason to suppose anyone would type this combination of words without spaces. Utterly useless. Reyk YO! 10:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a hashtag, but it doesn't seem to be massively well used and nobody who knows the hashtag will either not know or not be able to figure out what it's referring to. And even if they didn't/couldn't they'd search with a leading # not this title. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 14:47, 9 May 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_May_9&oldid=1138582880"