Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 24, 2019.

Decent[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 3#Decent

Yanwen[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 Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was an AfD before I was notified that it should go here instead. The AfD discussion so far: -- Katimpe (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

snip -

This redirect's purpose is neither evident, nor is it mentioned in the article it leads to. This was brought up on the article talk page two years ago, with no answer yet. If there is no way to know what "Yanwen" is or means, it would seem reasonable to delete it (the redirect might just as well be an error). -- Katimpe (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Yan wen" is the Hanyu Pinyin transliteration of 諺文, which is the Chinese name for Hangul. It's not a very plausible search term though (someone is going to come to EN Wiki and search in pinyin for a Korean term?) so I'm OK with deleting it. Even in Chinese, my first thought on seeing "Yanwen" was that it might be a reference to classical Chinese (called "Yan-wen-yan" in Hanyu pinyin). FOARP (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- snap

  • Weak retarget to He Yanwen; this is her given name and could, as such, be a plausible search term. Geolodus (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, implausible term.--Roy17 (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FOARP. I wouldn't necessarily object to the retarget proposed by Geolodus, but it might be best left as a red link if people are looking for the shipping company (see the linked talk page discussion above). PC78 (talk) 11:19, 30 October 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.

Also known as[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 Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not only used with pseudonyms. 95.186.143.168 (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Aka? That page explains the acronym, links to pseudonym and provides a Wikitionary link. PC78 (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 24 October 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.

G.W. Carver Middle School (Miami, Florida)[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 George Washington Carver School (Coral Gables, Florida) Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Such school doesn't seem to exist in the disambig page. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tried to follow the links and was very confused. the school mentioned under "school history" at this site [1] deserves an article; it was founded in 1899 and for many years was the only educational offering for black students over what is now the Miami-Dade metropolitan area. I believe [George Washington Carver School (Coral Gables, Florida)] should be the target article and these other names shoud redirect there. Jacona (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The school in question is now at George Washington Carver School (Coral Gables, Florida). That being said, the school is not in Miami, but next door in Coral Gables, Florida. Is this a plausible error or nah? -- Tavix (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 24 October 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.

Islamophobia in Pakistan[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. While editors supporting a retarget have pointed out that this is a useful redirect title to send readers somewhere, the majority preferring deletion pointed out that none of the proposed targets give a satisfactory amount of information to the reader on the topic they would be looking for. Deryck C. 18:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target is unrelated to redirect with the target discussing atheism in Pakistan without mentioning Islamophobia in any way. --Trialpears (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I don't see how irreligion or aetheism equate to Islamophobia. PC78 (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Islam in Pakistan - I know there isn't any real content there about Islamophobia but it seems like a reasonable target. Also possibly retarget to Persecution of Ahmadis, which might be relevant. Also OK with deletion, I haven't found any better targets. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Besides persecution of Ahmadis, there's also content regarding Pakistan in Persecution of Sufis, but I don't think such disputes internal to Islam can meaningfully be called Islamophobia. (Perhaps an imperfect analogy, but we would never label disputes between Jewish denominations as anti-Semitism, regardless of how fierce.) According to Religion in Pakistan, less than 4% of the country is non-Muslim. While I wouldn't go so far as to say we could never have an article at this title, someone would have to make a real effort, and it's not worth having a built-in search term in the meantime. --BDD (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete per nom: misleading to have redirects for topics that are not covered at all in the targets. As for the persecution of Ahmadis, this is not part of what is normally understood as Islamophobia, so that article is not suitable either. – Uanfala (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others above. Islamophobia and irreligion are obviously not the same thing (one can be religious and Islamophobic or irreligious and not), and since this subject does not appear to be covered in meaningful detail in any other article, deletion is the best option until Islamophobia in Pakistan becomes notable enough for a stand-alone article or a more suitable target can be found. Geolodus (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Islam in Pakistan for now. As the creator of the redirect, I'd like to note that opposition to Islam (as a religion) is not completely foreign a concept to Pakistan. Here's a chapter for some context. I suppose the point that such voices usually originate from within the liberal atheist, or more broadly speaking, irreligious circles of Pakistan had made this seem the appropriate redirect at the time. However, I equally understand the arguments made above. For that purpose, I would suggest re-targeting this to Islam in Pakistan for the time being, as this IMO is still a subject which remains polarizing and worthy of expansion in the future. Mar4d (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a misleading redirect. "Islamophobia" is not the same as "irreligion", nor is it the same as "opposition to Islam (as a religion)", and the topic is not covered in Islam in Pakistan. As for the chapter cited above, I take it with a bit of salt considering Hafez could find Islamophobia in a cup of tea, let alone a whole country. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to either Religion in Pakistan (first choice) or Islam in Pakistan (second choice); weak oppose to deletion. The phrase "Islamophobia in COUNTRY" is an incredibly reasonable and formulaic search phrase for someone researching Islamophobia as a phenomenon in countries or parts of the world. Just because it seems unlikely that there is Islamophobia in Pakistan doesn't mean the redirect shouldn't exist, is confusing, or is unhelpful. If someone is typing this phrase in the search bar, they probably don't know that Pakistan is heavily Muslim, or they do know that and are specifically interested in how the minority religions and cultures of Pakistan relate to Islam and the larger religious culture. We commonly redirect such things to related topics ({{R to related topic}}), and someone looking for information on Islamophobia in Pakistan without knowing it's 90% Muslim may actually find Religion in Pakistan useful and informative. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I completely understand Wugapodes' arguments, such redirects still need to lead to a target with some content about the topic, or a clear (or clearly inferred) statement that $topic in $place is not a thing (Andorran Navy comes to mind for an example of the latter). Neither Religion in Pakistan or Islam in Pakistan come close to that, Islamophobia mentions Pakistan only twice - both times in passing and both in the context of Pakistan immigrants to other countries. Religious discrimination in Pakistan comes closest, but again there is absolutely no mention of Islamophobia or any discrimination against Muslims in that article, but it's not the sort of thing that can be justifiably inferred to not exist from an absence of mention. Now if someone were to add a sourced statement to the latter article that Islamophobia and/or discrimination of/against Muslims or something similar is not a significant issue and/or does not exist to Religious discrimination in Pakistan then I'd be supporting a retarget there for the exact reasons Wugapodes gives, but at present we have no relevant content (that I've found) and should not mislead readers into thinking otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 3 November 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.

Kaiseri[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 Kayseri. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous species epithet used for several taxa with Wikipedia articles: Neurergus kaiseri, Ixodes kaiseri, Aethomys kaiseri, Cychrus kaiseri. Kaiseri is an improbable search term; species epithets aren't used in contexts where the genus isn't clear. Plantdrew (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No-one is likely to search for an epithet without knowing at least the initial of the genus; and an ambiguous epithet certainly shouldn't redirect to one species out of several. Narky Blert (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kayseri? else delete per nom. Lots use the epithet. --Nessie (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kayseri per NessieVL: very plausible misspelling for that, and no other relevant article that I can see. – Uanfala (talk) 01:39, 26 October 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.

Norman Deek[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 3#Norman Deek

Grand Theft Horses[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 4#Grand Theft Horses

Urdu Speaking[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 Urdu#Speakers and geographic distribution. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just retargeted Urdu speaker, Urdu speakers and Urdu-speaking to Urdu. These are more than enough to handle search queries and linking, and so the existence of redirects from incorrect capitalisations/hyphenations appears over the top. If kept, however, they should likewise be retargeted to Urdu as Muhajirs constitute only a minority among Urdu speakers. – Uanfala (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom as English-speaker redirects to English langauge, French-speaking redirects to French language. Delete Urdu Speaking. There's no proper noun to warrant that. Uanfala, were you getting resistance over the bold redirect? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, my first preference is to see these redirect deleted: the correctly hyphenated forms are in my opinion too much to begin with (I don't think we need redirects of the form "X-speaking" and the like), so redirects from incorrect forms of these are over the top. Resistance to retargeting? There's an opinion expressed here that's worth taking into account. – Uanfala (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Mar4d: for opinion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the ping. Please see my talk on the reason for this redirect, and how this term is used as far as Pakistan is concerned. Mar4d (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this specific term is used within Pakistan to denote people who are native speakers of Urdu. While the term in its general meaning may also be used for anyone who speaks Urdu, I don't see evidence that the latter usage is more common than the former. Mar4d (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. I'd like to suggest all of these specifically target Urdu#Speakers and geographic distribution. --BDD (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. The Speakers and geographic distribution section that BDD suggests is a good idea. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all to avoid incorrect links to these malformed titles (incorrect capitalization or hyphenation). Urdu-speaker received only 36 pageviews since July 2015 (i.e. ~8–9 per year), and is clearly not used. Urdu speaking is used, and its existence has contributed to the exact problem I noted. As for Urdu Speaking, Uanfala and AngusWOOF sum up my thoughts. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:30, 27 October 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.

Urdu people[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 3#Urdu people

Happiness (1934 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 retarget to Happiness (disambiguation)#Film. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet film was released in 1935, not 1934, whereas the French film Le Bonheur (Happiness) *was* released in 1934. So either retarget or delete since the current redirect is confusing at best. Only three incoming links, none of which are from mainspace. PC78 (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • One needs VERY good sources to prove that the Soviet film was indeed created in 1935 (rather than in 1934, as the Russian Wikipedia and most sources say). Ghirla-трёп- 19:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I'm not sure whether the date of release needs to go to the title, as Soviet films were often released many years/decades after their completion (if they were released at all). Ghirla-трёп- 19:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:PRIMARYFILM we normally disambiguate films by the year of first verifiable release. PC78 (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Happiness (disambiguation)#Film, which provides quick access to both films. I can live with the status quo given the hatnote on the Russian film. There are gray areas like this where we may just have to settle for good enough. --BDD (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD with keep as a second choice. This shouldn't be a redlink. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 3 November 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.

Reibnitz[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; she is not the only notable member of this family. See the article on her father. Furthermore, an article can be created out of this topic (Reibnitz).  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, should be a redlink until article Reibnitz family is created. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 05:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When an article on the family is created, this can be pointed there. In the meantime, disambiguation is preferable to deletion. I would've suggested converting it to a surname page, except it's also a place name; see Rybnica, Jelenia Góra County. - Eureka Lott 14:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is rather confusing as the notable Reibnitzes are actually von Reibnitz. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per EurekaLott. Even if the surname is actually "von Reibnitz" (de:Reibnitz (Adelsgeschlecht) doesn't use "von"), it should be included in the disambiguation. I don't see that as confusing so long as Von Reibnitz is created to target that page. -- Tavix (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate I've drafted a page with Princess Michael, her father, the Polish village, and a MOS:DABMENTION. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per the above. BDD's disambiguation page is much more useful than a redlink. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 3 November 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.

Guangzhou Province[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 3#Guangzhou Province

Anderson Earle Goldschmidt Powers algorithm[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 3#Anderson Earle Goldschmidt Powers algorithm

Adele (album)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 5#Adele (album)

CRT TV[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 Television set#CRT. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These should all redirect to the same location. Also, the section "Display technologies" doesn't exist. Raymond1922 (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Television set#CRT which I think is appropriate because of the context: TV and television suggest this particular application of the technology. I agree with removing the T.V. redirect. All of these redirects have very low page-view counts (until nominated for discussion). NameIsRon (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:22, 24 October 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.

Coal trucks[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 at coal truck. Deryck C. 11:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana State Road 64, Tennessee State Route 132 & others are linked to coal truck and a redirect to mineral wagon appears to be an error. But coal trucks is linked to Withdrawn British Rail stock, User:Wavelength/Articles userfied/List of environmental topics/C & William Galloway (mining engineer) and redirects to mineral wagon. This is a terminology conflict of sorts. I did not figure out how to post this on the project page. Vive the difference between American English and British English. Peter Horn User talk 13:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, what to do with the new red links in Indiana State Road 64 & Tennessee State Route 132? Peter Horn User talk 14:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nay, a haul truck is too large to run on state roads. A simple dump truck is more like it. In the mean time I went for coal truck in both state road articles. Similarly the plural coal trucks might also warant disambiguation instead of being a redirect to mineral wagon. Peter Horn User talk 16:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just discovered Coal haul truck Peter Horn User talk 16:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only stickler now is coal trucks which makes little sense as a redirect. Peter Horn User talk 19:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coal trucks can be retargeted to Coal truck as an {{R from plural}}. -- Tavix (talk) 19:19, 25 October 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 Unwanteds(Book)[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) 07:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB. Malformed title with missing space and capitalised disambiguator. No incoming links, the article was at this title for all of 13 minutes in 2015. PC78 (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per PC78. Had this been tagged in 2015, it would have been a prime candidate for WP:CSD#R3. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:04, 27 October 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.

This Is Real (Jax Jones and Selena Gomez song)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was resolved. -- Tavix (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a song by the same name on Snacks (Supersize), but featuring Ella Henderson, not able to find a recording of the song with Selena Gomez. Richhoncho (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close. I've moved this into my userspace and not left a redirect behind. I believe at one time it was listed as featuring Selena Gomez and I must have made it based on that. There is no need to go through a whole discussion as it's clearly not valid. Ss112 11:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a pretty unorthodox way of deleting a redirect. Is it your intention to have User:Ss112/This Is Real deleted? Could you not just have tagged the redirect with WP:G7? PC78 (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ss112: Why would you want this in your userspace if its an error? -- Tavix (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Tavix: @PC78: I could have G7ed, of course, but I didn't want to. I've moved it into my userspace in case I want to work on the article. It is currently charting on the UK and a couple of other charts and appears to be moving up. Hence why I didn't move it to "User:Ss112/This Is Real (Jax Jones and Selena Gomez song)", but rather User:Ss112/This Is Real. I don't see why this is an issue considering obviously nobody was going to say "keep", and I created the redirect so it's really affecting nobody else. Unorthodox maybe, but I don't believe there's anything against doing it unless someone thinks we really need to wait seven days to do the inevitable. To me there was no point. Thanks, I don't require any more pings. Ss112 12:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since we have established that it was unambiguously created in error I could have deleted it per G6, but I wanted to get clarification first. I still think it'd be easier to just start an article from scratch instead of moving error redirects around. That would also have the benefit of a clean edit history without the error nor the RfD tag. So I'm still confused why you would want all that in your userspace, but it seems you don't want to talk about it so I'll leave it at that... -- Tavix (talk) 13:33, 24 October 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.

Las Vegas MLB stadium[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) 07:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas does not have an MLB stadium. There have been plenty of rumors of the MLB coming to Las Vegas over the years, but there has been nothing significant or concrete enough to warrant a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the target article doesn’t mention the MLB or even baseball for that matter.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 04:44, 24 October 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_October_24&oldid=924753501"