Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 4, 2019.

Todd McCormick[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) 02:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the target article no longer refers to Todd McCormick. Mention appears to have been removed here. See also: – Wdchk (talk) 22:14, 4 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.

Gilles de Rais (Castlevania)[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 Castlevania characters#Gilles de Rais. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target, so in the unlikely event that someone searches for this they won't be met with any useful information. Also potentially mildly confusing as Gilles de Rais was a real person (I don't know whether or not the video game character was based on the historical figure). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The character has a section in the List of Castlevania characters article. I also don’t see confusion as an issue since someone looking up the historical figure wouldn't type (Castlevania).--67.68.29.177 (talk) 01:16, 5 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.

For the Love of Money (2011 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) 02:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was not a 2011 film. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both per nom. PC78 (talk) 15:52, 5 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.

John Wells (20-century British politician)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Already deleted by Athaenara per WP:G7. PC78 (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This had been made in a accidental move by @GoldRingChip: back in May 2018. Doesn't seem to be a common search target. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, housekeeping. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, same reason. Fine with me; sorry for the accidental move. —GoldRingChip 11:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Explicitly acknowledged as an error, the article was at this title for all of 1 minute. G6 housekeeping. PC78 (talk) 15:55, 5 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 Real Definition of a Republic[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) 02:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per this RfD discussion, "Definition of Foo" -> "Foo" redirects are superfluous. gnu57 14:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as book title not discussed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was actually some sort of personal essay or rant back in 2004, but then all the text was deleted and it was changed to a redirect to republic. It was moved to a different title twice in the process. This redirect was apparently left dangling from the moves. JIP | Talk 08:08, 6 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.

Prince roger nelson[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) 02:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The combination of bad capitalization and misspelling (it's "Rogers", not "roger") make this IP creation a very unlikely redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:41, 4 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.

Plastron[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. –Darkwind (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to a disambiguation page. There are many incoming links for uses other than "the underside of a turtle shell". JIP | Talk 13:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I can tell, this has never been a disambiguation page. It has the potential to become one, though. You could create a draft disambiguation page for review, if you'd like. - Eureka Lott 15:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After further review, I have to go with keep. While the nominator is correct that this term has multiple meanings, the large majority of links to the page refer to turtle anatomy. We also lack content for the other definitions, except for Plastron (arthropod), and that's linked via a hatnote. The remaining subjects are essentially WP:DICDEFs, and we don't create disambiguation pages for those. - Eureka Lott 01:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EurekaLott. No harm in keeping the draft disambiguation page in the meantime. It's informative, but needs attention per MOS:DAB before it's ready for mainspace. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 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.

Hartford Patriots[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 History of the New England Patriots#Gillette Stadium, per suggestion to which nominator agreed. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While the Patriots at one point considered moving to Hartford, this never occurred, and the article doesn't mention Hartford in any capacity. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 07:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good suggestion. signed, Rosguill talk 13:30, 4 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 li[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 Li. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous redirects. gnu57 06:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. When I see the "The Li", Leadership Institute wouldn't be the first thing in my mind. Perhaps I might think of the Li River or a mispelling of Lea (the river or the valley), and googling "The LI" gives Landscape Institute. Could be redirected to something else, but what I'm not exactly sure. Hzh (talk) 10:46, 4 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]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 19#Depictive construction

Heimr[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 25#Heimr

Flerovium-283[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. jni(talk)(delete) 06:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isotope has not been characterized or claimed to have been synthesized. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it's been aimed for, and is mentioned on our main page for Flerovium as well as on the target Isotopes of flerovium. So I would prefer to Keep this one as a plausible search term that targets to somewhere that gives information about it. Double sharp (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Double sharp. Enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant a redirect; it has been aimed for and has a decent chance of being discovered within a few years. It thus makes a plausible search term. ComplexRational (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Double sharp. Utopes (talk) 22:56, 8 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.

Boy next door (stock character)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 21#Boy next door (stock character)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_4&oldid=917699725"