Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 19, 2019.

Qwerties[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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the result and my comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 15#QWERTIES. Steel1943 (talk) 23:22, 19 September 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.

QWERT[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 3#QWERT

Spanish Troubles[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 3#Spanish Troubles

BATX[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 3#BATX

Faculty of architecture, architectural engineering and urban planning[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) 06:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is too broad Wug·a·po·des​ 22:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. - Eureka Lott 21:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral an internet search would suggest that the current target is the only thing that currently uses this title, but I can see how it's a redirect from a putatively generic term which could have disambiguation issues down the line. signed, Rosguill talk 22:09, 20 September 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.

Mincraft Nether[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) 06:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling  Nixinova  T  C  20:53, 19 September 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.

Total Miner:Forge[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) 06:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect punctuation;.  Nixinova  T  C  20:44, 19 September 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.

Minecraft 1.8.3[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) 06:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Random irrelevant version not mentioned in target  Nixinova  T  C  20:28, 19 September 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.

Minecraft 1.7[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) 06:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant pre-release version of the game not mentioned in target article.  Nixinova  T  C  20:27, 19 September 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.

Minecraft 1.2[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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant pre-release version of the game not mentioned in target article.  Nixinova  T  C  20:27, 19 September 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.

Minnecraft[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) 06:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible mispelling  Nixinova  T  C  20:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:BADFAITH[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 Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia#Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a WP:SURPRISE that this redirects to a parody page when "bad faith" is a legitimate problem with encyclopedia users. I think it should instead redirect to the same place as WP:NOTHERE. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep shortcuts to humour pages aren't problematic, unless they're hijacking a primary target. In this case, there are none, so there is no problem. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is problematic because up until last year it redirected to a non-humor page and was switched in apparent vandalism. I could just revert it to the correct one but I think that the proposed target is the better place to redirect. WP:AGF doesn't contain much about "bad faith" actions, which are equivalent to WP:NOTHERE.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the same place as WP:NOTHERE, as it seems to be the primary target. Having it redirect to a humor page is misleading. 85.76.1.1 (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing about bad faith there. If it's to be retargeted, it should be to WP:AOBF. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, that suggests that there is no such thing as bad faith on Wikipedia and therefore you shouldn't accuse people of it. Obviously accusing people of bad faith is not the norm, but pointing people to that when they might use the redirect to indicate "what bad faith behaviors are" is a bit ridiculous. WP:NOTHERE lists all the things that comprise actual bad faith editing.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 19 September 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.

Depictive construction[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These terms are not mentioned at the target, and Google scholar searches would suggest that these are features are not exclusive to sign languages. I would suggest deletion unless someone can find a more appropriate target. signed, Rosguill talk 06:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polymorphemic verb is mentioned as an alternative to the term classifier construction in Schembri 2003 p.4 used by some people. As a word, it can only refer to classifier constructions. The expression can also be used as a phrase however, where it simply means "a verb with multiple morphemes". This is the meaning found in certain writings on oral languages. I'd say that people who are looking for polymorphemic verbs are doing so because they found an author that uses this alternative term. I wouldn't expect anyone to want to look up "verb with multiple morphemes" with this term, in which case they're probably looking for polysynthesis or something.
I can't defend the term depictive construction the same way. I can't even find where exactly it was mentioned. Google also shows lots of unrelated results, so I would be fine with removing this redirect.--Megaman en m (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 4 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.

Alfred Hitchcock’s[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 2#Alfred Hitchcock’s

Europe's last dictatorship[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 2#Europe's last dictatorship

Indiam[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. MBisanz talk 04:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page history suggests that this isn't a common misspelling, and I think that this is equally likely to be a misspelling of Indian as Indium. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible. /ˈɪndiˌæm/ does not sound like any word in English, let alone /ˈɪndiəm/ or /ˈɪndiən/. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WP:XY. There is no clear reason to choose one target, and both seem unlikely or unnecessary. ComplexRational (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this redirect after hearing the word "indium" on the radio, having no idea how it was spelled or if I'd heard it correctly, and looking it up on Wikipedia under "indiam". I realise that sounds pretty dumb (and obviously at odds with other -ium words like radium or plutonium) but that was my first stab in the dark. If the consensus is that this redirect is unlikely to help any other dumbos then I have no objection in losing it. Popcornduff (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague misspelling of two terms --Lenticel (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - implausible misspelling. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 15:25, 20 September 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.

Svetosavlje[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These do not refer to the same subject, although they are related, see their respective entries on Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, [1] and [2]. As Svetosavlje is not mentioned in the target article, I think deleting and leaving it as a redlink is preferable to the current redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 23:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Svetosavlje" is Serbian term for the "teachings of Saint Sava". Since we do not have a separate article on his teachings, this is a useful redirect. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like Svetosavlje has a life of its own that extends far beyond St. Sava's teachings, as evidenced by the content of Svetosavlje and the related article on Svetosavan nationalism [3]. Moreover, a Google scholar search suggests that in English texts, Svetosavlje is used exclusively in the context of religious-nationalist movements that did not arise until long after St. Sava's death. While it may yet be acceptable to include a section on Svetosavlje ideology in Saint Sava, without such a section the redirect has the potential to be misleading for English speaking readers, as it would suggest that the modern philosophy and the medieval saint's philosophy are synonymous. signed, Rosguill talk 01:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, who makes a strong argument this should be considered its own topic. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 4 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.

Dressing of Salad[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. Keep arguments are self-admittedly weaker, but also more numerous. -- Tavix (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely capitalization and unlikely phrasing. Steel1943 (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: Not very plausible as a search term, but not misleading or or otherwise problematic enough to justify deletion. Redirects don't have to be perfectly phrased or capitalised simply to exist. Geolodus (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per Golodus. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a likely search term, and useless for linking. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Geolodus. Nothing wrong or ambiguous about it. --BDD (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 19 September 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.

National Library of North Korea[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 consensus prior to relist, and no further comments after the relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading because this institution is not the national library. It merely acts as a "quasi-national library" (International Dictionary of Library Histories) alongside the actual National Central Library (North Korea), for which we don't have an article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP. According to International Dictionary of Library Histories, there is no report about the “National Central Library” anymore after 1971, seems it disappeared, or, a reasonable peculation could be that it just move or became a part of the Grand Study Hall of the People: National Central Library is the predecessor of People's Study House before 1982. Plus, according to this story （https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20773542）by BBC magazine in 2007, the Goethe Institute, clearly called their North Korean partner, the Grand Study Hall of the People, as North Korea's national library. As the Goethe Institute runs long time programmes with the North Korean government, they must pretty sure about the situation there, could not make a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 安眠3 (talk • contribs) --Garam (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the full quote from International Dictionary of Library Histories:

North Korea also has a national library, which came into being in 1946 when the Pyongyang Public Library was designated as the national library of North Korea, subsequently changing its name to the National Central Library. ... In 1964 the collection of the National Central Library was approximately 1,500,000 volumes. This increased to about 2,300,000 volumes by 1971. Since then, officially reliable data about the National Central Library have not been reported. North Korea also has a quasi-national library, the People's Great Learning Center, founded in 1982 to celebrate the 70th birthday of Kim Il Sung.

This is a specialist source, acknowledges both libraries, and based on information available to them – even though limited – explicitly decides to call one of them the national library instead of the other. The source gives absolutely no preponderance to 安眠3's theory that Grand People's Study House was elevated to national library status sometime after 1971. The national library is not the only North Korean institution for which reliable data has been unavailable for decades but scholars still assume it exists (e.g. Central Bureau of Statistics). As for the BBC source, it's a single casual remark in a piece about something completely else, likely a mistake made by a non-expert. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete 安眠3 makes a very strong argument, but it's so difficult to look into North Korea. There are two things I'll say with the information we have available: 1) the GPSH functions a lot like a national library, and 2) though it has a stronger historical claim, we really can't be sure whether the National Central Library still exists or functions like a national library. I completely understand the desire to fill in "[Foo] of [Country]" topics, but I'd rather leave it to search results than risk WP:OR. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 19 September 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.

Aboriginal 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 move Aboriginal languages (disambiguation) to Aboriginal language and retarget Aboriginal languages to it. -- Tavix (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These should both target the same article, probably Indigenous language. Also note the existence of Aboriginal languages (disambiguation). Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, point both redirects at the general synonym Indigenous languages, which is an umbrella that includes Australian Aboriginal languages. —Michael Z. 2019-08-30 14:35 z
  • In principle yes, but do other countries use the term "Aboriginal languages" to refer to Indigenous language(s) in general? If the use is not general and widespread, is it not better to manage it with hatnotes - which Australian Aboriginal languages does have, but would need to have Indigenous language added... and actually I think that Aboriginal languages (disambiguation) needs Indigenous language too? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Canada does ([4] for example). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Aboriginal languages (disambiguation) as there is no appropriate singular target for these. I disagree that "aboriginal languages" most often refers to Australian aboriginal languages. "Aboriginal" and "indigenous" refer to the same concept, but the former is preferred in former British colonies while the latter is a more modern blanket term. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, per WP:MALPLACED, you'd want "Aboriginal languages" to be the disambiguation page, with the "(disambiguation)" version redirecting there. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close old log day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 19 September 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.

Virgin Screwdriver[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 Screwdriver (cocktail). (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joke redirect. gnu57 15:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Screwdriver (cocktail). It's a real thing, and yeah it's just orange juice, but this particular combination ends up being a WP:SURPRISE. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it? It's not mentioned at the article. I get that a "virgin screwdriver" would just be orange juice, but we need more than that. You could drink liquid dihydrogen monoxide too, but that doesn't mean we should redirect it to Water. --BDD (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I guess it's more of a joke than something you'd actually go up to a bar and order, unless you were trying to get a laugh out of the bartender or something. But a "virgin screwdriver" doesn't refer to anything other than plain orange juice, as far as I can tell. And it's more prominent than, say, a "virgin scotch and water". But I guess as a joke it's just as suitable for it to redirect to either orange juice or screwdriver (cocktail), and neither one is really helpful to readers, so really I'm fine with whatever here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 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.

São Paulo (cidade)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED, specifically the disambiguator is in Portuguese. Daß Wölf 14:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Portuguese is a language pertinent to the topic though. I'm leaning keep for that reason. Geolodus (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to pt:São Paulo. Someone searching for this is probably looking for info on the city in Portuguese, where it's a featured article, so let's offer that target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the stats are out of whack because several templates currently incorrectly pipe links to the city through this redirect, which is incidentally how I encountered it. Daß Wölf 07:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Templates in question: [5] [6] [7]. Daß Wölf 06:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I admit that applying FORRED to a disambiguator seems novel, but it clearly meets the "related to that language" (or "affinity") standard. Since there's a São Paulo city and state, I don't mind the disambiguation; I'd be less open to something like Minas Gerais (estado). --BDD (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 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.

Visible light (disambiguation)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. RfD is not the proper venue to discuss an extant disambiguation page. Please use WP:AFD if you still want to pursue deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a nomination of the DAB page in the state it was before my recent edit turning it into a redirect. Non-redirect pages do not seem to be RfD-able, even though RfD is clearly a better forum than AfD. So I turned it into a redirect to make the nom work. I will gladly accept any trouting accompanied by an explanation of what to do for future DAB pages. Anyway...

I WP:BOLDly retargeted visible light from light to visible spectrum (which I think is not very contentious but I could be wrong) and did some cleanup at the hatnotes of the various articles. The result is that the DAB page had two items, with one the clearest WP:PRIMARYTOPIC ever, and the other covered in a hatnote. Hence, I think the DAB page should go. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to the small text, DABs are normally discussed at AfD, not here. I'm going to say restore dab because this seems to be a pretty busy page suggesting it's useful or linked from somewhere. Also note that it is a dab page with three links, not two: one to light, one to visible spectrum, and one to a relevant collection of short stories, and I think that visible spectrum does not do a sufficiently good job of disambiguating that the page is unnecessary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The page was linked from light ("visible light redirects here, for other uses, see <DAB page>"), so there's probably the source of most traffic. (The page view ratio is 1:200; a 0.5% click rate on the hatnote does not seem absurd.) TigraanClick here to contact me 09:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Ivanvector. This is the wrong forum for discussing a disambiguation page. I suggest closing, reverting, and sending this to WP:AFD. - Eureka Lott 16:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Wrong venue to discuss a dab page. I reverted the change to a redirect. The dab page has three valid links. I also reverted the change in redirect Visible light. Light is the better target for this link.--Srleffler (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (nom comment) OK, so my retargeting is not consensual. I still think that "light" is not a clear primary topic for "visible light" (compared to "visible spectrum"); maybe we could move the DAB Visible light (disambiguation) over the redirect Visible light instead? TigraanClick here to contact me 09:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since the RFD tag on the redirect was removed on 29 August 2019, and I just put the tag back on the page. However, I have restored the disambiguation page below the RFD tag for reference.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 19 September 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.

Queen cake[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 List of cakes. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any references to the term "queen cake" in the article. Georgia guy (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was originally a redirect to king cake, which does mention queens, but not specifically queen cakes. - Eureka Lott 15:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This should either be mentioned in the cupcake article or it could retarget to Queen Elizabeth cake as per some recent articles about the Android 10 [8] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of cakes. Queen cake is listed and pictured there (it looks very similar to a cupcake). Incidentally, if we anchor it to the appropriate part of the list, Queen Elizabeth cake is right after. --BDD (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We also have new redirect at Android Queen Cake, courtesy of @Tbhotch, so disambiguation is an option. I think I prefer BDD's suggestion, though. - Eureka Lott 20:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - When I was a kid, "queen cakes" was the name my Mum used for the small cakes she made, much the same as what I've seen others call "fairy cakes". I've no idea if this name is more common in Scotland? Obviously personal anecdotes like that don't constitute citable evidence(!), but (for example) there's an example of "queen cakes" here. (I notice that's a South African site). Point is, there does seem to be some evidence for the term's usage out there. Ubcule (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks like the same kind listed and pictured at List of cakes. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Queen cakes are indeed like fairy cakes, see Queen cakes – 18th century dainty bakes. There is a recipe in 'Cakes, scones, biscuits & fancies for afternoon teas' by Bridget Amies (1953).Northcote Lea (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:28, 19 September 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.

Alex Ferrari (MTV CFO)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Former CFO of MTV, not mentioned in the target article. This was previously created as an article, but the subject did not meet notability guidelines. I would suggest deletion, as other CFOs don't appear to be mentioned in the article either. signed, Rosguill talk 18:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A merge is, at best, premature. With only a few passing mentions of company leaders, detailed information about a former CFO would be undue. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this the wrong forum? This article was created about a month ago, and it was promptly turned into a redirect. Bringing it here feels like a backdoor deletion. Should this go to AFD, instead? - Eureka Lott 00:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll get different opinions on that question. I see nothing wrong with it in principle, absent evidence someone's trying to game the system. Red flags for me would be the sudden redirecting of a longstanding article, or the same user doing the redirecting and the nominating. --BDD (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EurekaLott: are you referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Ferrari (businessman)? That was a different title. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was referring to the original version of the nominated page. Thanks for checking, though. - Eureka Lott 17:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to close old log day, and since the consensus I see at the present time would require me to violate WP:NACD/WP:BADNAC to close the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 19 September 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.

Philippine Ancestral Houses (1810–1930)[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) 18:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what the connection is between the redirect and the target. The edit summary for the redirect's creation says Creating a temporary redirect for the landmark 1980 coffee table book., but Gilda Cordero-Fernando does not appear to have been involved in writing this book. Also note that we have an article for Ancestral houses of the Philippines, which may be a more appropriate target. If the 1980 coffee table book really is notable, then this should just be a redlink until the article can be created. signed, Rosguill talk 18:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Gilda Cordero-Fernando edited the book, while her company, named after herself, published it. I made the redirect after historian Ambeth Ocampo cited the book as a landmark in his "In Memoriam" article for Manuel "Sonny" Tinio Jr. (In memoriam: Sonny Tinio (1943-2019)). LionFosset (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The target article has no references despite being a BLP! Adding even a partial bibliography to it could resolve this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow a bit more time for the target article to potentially be updated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article has since been updated, but still nothing related to the redirect. Delete it until or unless that information is added. -- Tavix (talk) 17:42, 4 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.

Tertius gaudens[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 12#Tertius gaudens

Generation 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 ⠀ retarget Generation I and Generation II to First generation and Second generation respectively and delete Generation I (Spy Kids) and Generation II (Spy Kids). I agree with BDD that updating the disambiguation pages is a bit challenging, so feel free to help out there if you have an idea of how they should look. -- Tavix (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There were originally separate articles titled "Generation I" and "Generation II" that were moved to add "(Sky Kids)", and later redirected. They aren't widespread terms as far as I know, and aren't at all helpful redirects, so delete. "Generation I" and "Generation II" most commonly refer to Pokémon, but those would be WP:XY (e.g. "Generation II" can refer to both Pokémon Gold and Silver and Pokémon Crystal). Raymond1922 (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirects were not tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • These should really be disambiguation pages. Searches for "Generation 2" bring up a mix of cruft and Pokémon and Transformers references. See also Generation II reactor. Raymie (t • c) 20:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, you're probably right. I just noted that those Transformers redirects had been pretty stable since they were created back in 2006. PC78 (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget these and the Transformers ones to First generation and Second generation, expanding the disambiguation pages accordingly. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also be fine with a delete per WP:TNT. I tried to disambiguate but got caught up on how to split or bundle different forms, e.g., "First generation" vs. "Generation 1" vs. "Generation I". --BDD (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the (Spy Kids) ones. Disambiguate Generation 1 and Generation 2 and redirect Generation I and Generation II to that. Gen 2 refers to some RFID thingy, and Generation 2 goes to Transformers:Generation 2. There are other things named Gen2, Gen-2, and so forth so they really need to be disambiguated and also hatnote to Second generation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more time in hopes of additional consensus-assisting comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 19 September 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.

Mediacid[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. However, I will add the hatnote on Soil pH as suggested. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, an internet search returned only results about Medicaid, even after I used quotation marks to specify only searching for this string. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This would just interfere with searches for Medicaid. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Medicaid as a redirect from typo. –Sonicwave talk 23:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The word occurs in 7 articles on species of Asplenium. I created this redirect based on references such as this (which will be found using the search term "mediacid soil") where it is defined as a (now obsolete) term for medium soil acidity (in a range also including minimacid, subacid and superacid). Yes, it looks similar to Medicaid. Ingratis (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support remove or redirect to Medicaid. Rarely used, long-obsolete terms will add more confusion than value. Kyle MoJo (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not used in the target article, and per WP:SURPRISE due to potential confusion with Medicaid. Search engine results should be used here.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. If someone later expands the article with useful content about mediacid, the redirect can be re-retargeted and given a hatnote of {{redirect-distinguish|mediacid|medicaid}}. Nyttend (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote kinda per Nyttend. While it's more likely that people will type this as a misspelling of medicaid, mediacid is a technical term to which technical articles will link. Put a hatnote on the target article pointing readers to medicaid if they have misspelled it, but probably not a good idea to hinder linking in technical articles because of a misspelling. Wug·a·po·des​ 03:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even being really charitable here, there doesn't seem to be discussion of medium soil acidity at the target page either (note also the redness of Medium soil acidity). I'm open to specific evidence that external sources would link directly to "mediacid" or specialists really would plug the term in and go, but absent that, it sounds speculative. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote per Wugapodes. It's definitely an obsolete term but one which at one time was very frequently seen throughout the English world in scholarly botany articles. Google "mediacid soil" for evidence. I found a cluster of journal articles from around 1920 referring to mediacid soils, and more up to about 1940, and found a rough definition here (1992, India) and here (1929, USA) of being soil with a pH of roughly 4.0-5.0, or 4.5-5.5. This (1920, USA) defines it as "specific acidity between 100 and 1000" (which I think corresponds to pH 4.0-5.0 but this is an unfamiliar measurement to me and the article predates standardized pH by a few years); this document uses "mediacid" 53 times. It's also a very common misspelling for Medicaid, but only in the USA and not in scholarly literature (but notably frequent on some government websites; nice bureaucracy you got there). I think a discussion on pre-pH systems of measurement of soil acidity is warranted at soil pH, and it's better for a redirect to target something definitely related to the search term than to presume that the reader made an error. For what it's worth I got about 4k ghits for both "mediacid soil" and "mediacid health", so I don't think it can be said that the erroneous query is more common by any significant degree. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Information on the subject at the target article would matter. But I question how many of those mediacid health results are really about soil. I did a search too, and had to get to the third page before I was finding anything besides typos for Medicaid. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that was my point, I was expecting that "mediacid health" would mostly turn up typos for Medicaid. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist in hopes of more consensus-assisting comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 19 September 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 Blancas[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, default to keep. No prejudice against the redirect being repurposed as an article on the city in Mexico, should an article be created.Fish+Karate 11:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article, no usage in the pageviews history. While no other page is currently a better target, it is the name of a city in Mexico and thus is probably best left as a redlink. signed, Rosguill talk 18:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From what I've been able to work out, CD Tacón is merging with Real Madrid, becoming the women's team with the transition starting this year and finishing next year. "Las Blancas" (feminine form of "The Whites", Real Madrid apparently being famous for playing in white) seems to be the or a name for the new team - whether it's an official name or a nickname I don't know (most sources seem to be in Spanish, a language I don't speak). The CD Tacón article needs to be updated, but this would be best done by a Spanish speaker who understands (women's) football in Spain so I'll ping some WikiProjects to try and find someone. Thryduulf (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of any sources or usage. GiantSnowman 08:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: while obviously created for the reason mentioned above, it's too soon. I had to dig several pages to find an SB Nation blog use of the term. Reevaluate when the 2020–21 Spanish women's season starts and CD Tacón is fully absorbed. Raymie (t • c) 07:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nickname is now mentioned in the infobox with a source. -- Tavix (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Tavix. Worth keeping an eye on, since there are other subjects with this name, just judging by a Wikipedia search, including a dam. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: - if there are other possible targets why don't we turn it into a disambiguation? GiantSnowman 08:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I started to make one just now, but can't really get it to work. Maybe the dam is the only other topic; its best coverage right now is probably at Rio Alamo, with no standalone article. Any other uses are PTMs and/or trivial. We could hatnote the dam, at least. --BDD (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Raymie. Asturkian (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more time in hopes of addition consensus-forming comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 19 September 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.

Wilfred Caplan[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) 06:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from a non-notable person to his more notable spouse, serving no obvious purpose. We do not have an established practice of comprehensively creating or maintaining redirects like this; it's done occasionally when the spouse is close enough to the cusp of independent notability to be a plausible search term but hasn't quite cleared the bar in their own right yet (e.g. Chasten Buttigieg), but we do not indiscriminately create redirects to every notable married person from the name of their spouse. There's just no substantive reason to believe Wilfred falls in the class of spouses who warrant redirects, however: his only potential notability claim is that he was an unsuccessful one-off candidate in one election 40 years ago, which is not a reason to believe anybody would actually be looking for him on here independently of Elinor. The only place this is actually being linked to is in the surname page for Caplan, in which Elinor already appears anyway — and besides that, the only other places the link was being used at all, before I unlinked them as redundant, were in the biography of Wilfred and Elinor's son, where it was also sitting right next to a direct link to Elinor and thus wasn't serving any useful purpose on its own, and in the biography of the actual MPP he lost to, where a link isn't strictly necessary at all (and could easily be piped into a direct link to Elinor's article, instead of travelling through a redirect, if anybody actually thinks a link is useful.) Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 19 September 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.

Testificate[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) 06:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Testificate is a very old test name for a mob in the game. People hardly search for this on the Minecraft Wiki, let alone Wikipedia.  Nixinova  T  C  20:05, 19 September 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.

Steve (Minecraft)[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) 20:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand/mention Steve and Alex are the default player option names for the game, so they should be described. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - potential search target that would not benefit anything by having it deleted. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:13, 1 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.

Mcpvp[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) 06:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target page. Not mentioned in the official Minecraft wiki, either. Not a very active user (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not relevant to target and incorrect capitalisation.  Nixinova  T  C  20:11, 19 September 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.

MCPvP[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) 06:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target page. Not mentioned in the official Minecraft wiki, either. Not a very active user (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Irrelevant server.  Nixinova  T  C  20:11, 19 September 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.

NameMC[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) 06:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No relevance to target. NameMC is a third party website not affiliated with the game.  Nixinova  T  C  20:06, 19 September 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.

Zainite ore[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 Justlettersandnumbers per G3. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target page. Not mentioned in the official Minecraft wiki, either. Not a very active user (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as fake. This ore doesn't exist in Minecraft.  Nixinova  T  C  20:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not an actual in-game element. May be eligible for CSD G3, based on page history and creator's contributions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:37, 19 September 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 Shotbow Network[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) 06:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target page. Not mentioned in the official Minecraft wiki, either. Not a very active user (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Irrelevant and redundant.  Nixinova  T  C  20:10, 19 September 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.

Shotbow Network[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) 06:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target page. Not mentioned in the official Minecraft wiki, either. Not a very active user (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Irrelevant server.  Nixinova  T  C  20:10, 19 September 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.

Shotbow[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) 06:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target page. Not mentioned in the official Minecraft wiki, either. Not a very active user (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No relevance to target.  Nixinova  T  C  20:09, 19 September 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.

Mushroom Island (fictional)[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) 06:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.  Nixinova  T  C  20:08, 19 September 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.

Minez[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) 06:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No obvious link.  Nixinova  T  C  20:07, 19 September 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.

Meinkraft[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) 06:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling. Not a very active user (talk) 13:58, 19 September 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.

MCEdit[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) 06:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete MCEdit is an old third-party tool.  Nixinova  T  C  20:08, 19 September 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.

Creepus explodus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 2#Creepus explodus

Illovz[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) 06:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target was created with typo's, including "illovz" for "illouz". Unlikely typo search term (and not the only "illouz" on enwiki). Fram (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, as unlikely (and ambiguous) typo. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:05, 22 September 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.

Thalapathi (2018 film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 4#Thalapathi (2018 film)

Yes-Gerard Illovz[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 4#Yes-Gerard Illovz

Altena, Netherlands[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 Altena (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) ComplexRational (talk) 21:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect with an ambiguous title. The redirect was a result of the move of Altena, Drenthe in preparation for the later added article Altena, North Brabant. There is no consensus on which of the two deserves the redirect as they are equally plausible targets and some reject the idea to turn it into a disambiguation page. Both articles are already being disambiguated at Altena (disambiguation), though. Since there are more specific targets, it is also unlikely that this redirect page will still be used as a target itself. Deletion would in my opinion be the only other acceptable solution. See also the discussion at User talk:Lithopsian#Altena, Netherlands. Thayts ••• 07:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Altena (disambiguation) as a redirect from incomplete disambiguation. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Altena (disambiguation) as a redirect from incomplete disambiguation as per Xezbeth.Onel5969 TT me 10:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: that is of course also an option, I agree to retarget. Thayts ••• 10:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the dab page as incomplete disambiguation. This is definitely still a plausible search term, if somebody knows about one Altena but not the other. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 19 September 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.

Ramu (1966 Telugu 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) 06:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a 1966 film, but 1968. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:06, 19 September 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_September_19&oldid=955615348"