Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 10, 2020.

The Amazing World of Gumball: The Movie[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No film has been confirmed yet (although a script is reportedly in the works), so this redirect from a speculative title violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. The target section contains all the details. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - We don't have a title. As stated above, this redirect is fundamentally not appropriate. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2020 (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.

International Syndication of the Amazing World of Gumball[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not discussed in article, possibly because WP:NOTDIR. Target section was removed 26 days after it was merged. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:45, 10 April 2020 (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.

Joyful Burger[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) 23:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional elements not mentioned at target nor important in-universe. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:37, 10 April 2020 (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.

Equational[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 19#Equational

X of of Y, politics and religion[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure someone would search "of" twice in this context. Delete, perhaps? Regards, SONIC678 04:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all all per nom. For example, Bishop of of Mallorca received only 9 pageviews (7 since this RfD began) in the past 90 days versus 19 for the correct Bishop of Mallorca and 336 for its target article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least check the pageviews for the ones I've opined to keep. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 03:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I disagree completely with the idea that these are helpful. The "of of" error is a blatant one that's easily noticeable immediately. I'd prefer that we just get rid of all of these. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2020 (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.

Financial impact of the the Boeing 737 MAX groundings[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 List of characters, delete others. signed, Rosguill talk 20:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate "the", delete. Narky Blert (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List of characters in the The Longest Journey series per above, since the title has "the" at the beginning (I can see people searching either way, and both ways are definitely plausible), but delete the rest since they're implausible uses of a duplicated "the" (consecutive uses of an article). Regards, SONIC678 22:35, 10 April 2020 (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.

Xboxen[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely searchen term. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak deleten. This seems to be either a deprecated mod (whose notability is questionable) or a plural (German, perhaps?). Either way, I don't know if it is a likely search term. Regards, SONIC678 01:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlikely typo. If related to the deprecated mod, there's no mention at the target. -- ferret (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't a likely search term for Xbox and isn't needed since there's no information about "Xboxen". TurboSonic (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unlikely to ever warrant a mention at the target article, or anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 03:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an {{R from plural}}: a humorous and rare but still decently attested way of forming the plural patterned after ox ~ oxen. – Uanfala (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uanfala. There is some usage, examples include [1] [2] [3]. -- Tavix (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uanfala and Tavix, see wikt:boxen#Etymology 2 and the last two sentences of English plurals#Plurals in -(e)n. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, while the English language technically allows for this words...existence...it’s not common usage at all. The redirect averages zero views. It’s not something people say, let alone search for... Sergecross73 msg me 19:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sergecross73: Tavix's links prove this is a real term, and the redirect got 84 views last year - which is about 75-80 hits more than can be explained by undetected automated uses, random links, etc. This is uncommon but it is used and given that it is not misleading or in the way of anything else its existence causes no problems. Deletion on the other hand would be mildly harmful and bring no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Context matters though. Think about what you’re saying. Thats roughly one view every 4 or 5 days. That’s extremely low. And Tavix has provided three sources for a prominent product line spanning 20 years. Anyone who follows the industry will tell you it’s not a common term in the least. Sergecross73 msg me 00:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the term could technically exist at best the fact the that the page views shows that no one is using it makes the redirect pointless.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I don't see pageviews as at all relevant in the majority of cases: we shouldn't have any qualms about deleting redirects with hundreds of views per day if they're misleading, and we shouldn't shy away from creating and looking after appropriate redirects to obscure topics that may see years without a single pageview. If using pageviews at all, we should look at context, as suggested by Sergecross73 just above: the most relevant page to compare to here is not some "ideal" redirect for a misspelling, nor the pageviews of the article itself, but an equivalent redirect to the same target, like the regular plural Xboxes. Surprisingly, last year the two redirects for the correct and "incorrect" plural received almost the same amount of views [4] (though the difference is much greater for this year so far). – Uanfala (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's inspired by a joke in a Brian Regan (comedian) skit (the version in the skit was "boxen of donuts"). We don't need to create redirects to other words based off on comedically incorrect word forms. Hog Farm (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep weird and unusual as it sounds, it's a valid plural term used in reliable sources. Juxlos (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While it's goofy as hell, the term has been used quite a lot it seems, as stated above, and deletion seems like the wrong call. I'm inclined to think that we just leave this redirect alone. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is still not clear
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 20:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm coming fresh into this debate, having never seen "Xboxen" written down before. The page views quote above suggest that, whilst "quirky", this (mis)spelling is nowhere near common enough to justify staying. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlikely neologism.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above; nothing is gained by deleting this redirect; K5 applies as well as RHARMFUL. — J947 [cont] 23:23, 16 April 2020 (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.

HowDoesOneEditaPage[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is an {{R from old history}}, but the target is probably not what a searcher would expect. I suggest deletion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this particular sort of wording applies to what's usually meant by allowing certain CamelCase redirects. Something like BarackObama makes sense, but we don't have TheFirstBlackPresidentWasWhoAgain. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Jenkins Roberts. -- Tavix (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's true! CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 20:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Help:Editing. Deletion of pages this old won't help the project much, but it will break several links. Glades12 (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlikely redirect and it shouldn't be in the article namespace. The original page history was lost anyway, so it doesn't even qualify for "historical significance". Unnecessary.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No one is going to search for this or link to this. Natureium (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a likely search term for anything, but certainly not worth the CNR. --Bsherr (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2020 (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.

Niob[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 19#Niob

Thanet Independents[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) 19:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually mentioned in the target and thus not terribly helpful to readers. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am neutral on this but for information: it appears that the page was created to help colour the election results box at 2019 Thanet District Council election. I wonder if the specific party is not notable enough for its own page, but the editor/creator wanted to have the party name and colour appear through the {{Election box metadata}} set-up. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This shouldn't be kept. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2020 (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.

Tan Huat[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. We don't create a disambiguation page for a term which is a correct title for precisely zero entries. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:R#D8. Incorrect random removal of the first syllable of the given name of either Tan Kim Huat or Tan Eng Huat, but not the correct name of anyone, and thus not suitable for disambiguation per WP:PTM. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig It is a very plausible mistake for someone used to British or American naming customs to interpret "Tan Kim Haut" or "Tan Eng Haut" as firstname, middle name and surname - especially if the context in which they've seen or heard the name does not indicate they are Chinese names. We do a disservice to our readers by making it harder for them to find the article they are looking for in situations like this. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PTM. Either way, disambiguations should not be created solely based on error. Search results for Tan Huat prominently display both options should someone incorrectly assume the wrong naming custom. -- Tavix (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per Thryduulf. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Thryduulf. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How shall we write the introduction of the dab page without stating the falsehood that "Tan Huat may refer to" either of the individuals mentioned? E.g. "Tan Huat may be an incorrect name for ..."? "The following people have the syllables Tan and Huat in their names"? 59.149.124.29 (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tan Huat may refer to... is not a falsehood. If someone arrives at this page they will have either seen one of these people referred to as "Tan Huat" or may be referring to one of these people in that manner themselves. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...but neither of their names are Tan Huat, so it is a falsehood. -- Tavix (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's true that neither of them have that name, but nowhere are we saying that these are their name, we're only saying that "Tan Huat can refer to", which it is. It's not the correct way to refer to them, but again we aren't saying that it is (or isn't). Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • But that's not true, "Tan Huat" cannot refer to either of these people. -- Tavix (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • You mean other than when people use "Tan Huat" to refer to those people? You can't correctly refer to those people using that name, but just as you can incorrectly refer to Isabel Preysler as "Isabel Presley" you can (and it is likely people do) refer to either of these people as "Tan Huat". We make no assertions about the correctness of referring to them in this way (and nor should we, correcting any misconceptions or misunderstandings is the job of the article). Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • However, these people are not referred to in this manner in the first place, so no, that does not work. -- Tavix (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Disambiguation pages consisting of only errors should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Otherwise, they cross the fine line between accommodating reader errors and promoting them. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. I agree with BDD that you'd need a better reason to justify a disambiguation page consisting solely of errors, and there isn't one here - if you put "Tan Huat" into the search engine, the top two results outside of this redirect are indeed Tan Kim Huat and Tan Eng Huat. Someone making this mistake can easily find what they're looking for that way without the need for such a disambiguation page. ~ mazca talk 02:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Internal search results are adequate for people under the impression that Tan is a first name; in addition to contradicting PTM, a dab page has the potential to reify the reader's misconception. signed, Rosguill talk 23:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak disambiguate. In Southeast Asian dialects of Chinese, it is (was?) common to create nicknames - especially for older men - by skipping the middle word of a three-word personal name, leaving only surname + final word of given name. Shortening "Tan Kim Huat" or "Tan Eng Huat" to "Tan Huat" would fall into this category, and I wouldn't say it is necessarily an inadmissible PTM. As Special:Search/Tan Huat~ doesn't return either of these two people on the first page of results, I'm somewhat swayed by the argument that a DAB is better than deletion. Deryck C. 16:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate; Thryduulf convinced me in the first place and Deryck adds on to that. There's no harm in creating a disambig, and we don't have to necessarily create falsehoods. Try: With Tan Huat, you may be looking for:. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 22:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are many Chinese names which format the characters as (Family)(1st)(2nd) and its fairly easy to find a matching instance of (Family)(2nd) between two people on the wiki (and even more elsewhere). By the argument of having to disambiguate (Family)(2nd) because any name of the format (Family)(1st)(2nd) is interpreted as (First)(Middle)(Last), then we would need to create disambiguation pages such as Lim Eng→Lim Guan Eng or Lim Lip Eng; or Goh Swee → Goh Keng Swee or Goh Swee Swee; plus any name of that format would be justified in having an accompanying redirect (Family)(2nd) → (Family)(1st)(2nd) in order to aid searching. Unless this is a very common search term used to look up a specific person, redirects of this type could be ambiguous and confusing and would also qualify for WP:R#D2. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Deryck C's comment gave me pause but I don't think it's enough that "Than Huat" is conceivable as a nickname for us to be creating a disambiguation page. The bar has to be a bit higher – either this form needs to be actually attested for both people, or the format should be pervasively used (as is the format of given name + family name in Western society). The search results are doing an excellent job here (no need to chase away the needed articles by using tildes) and they're also guaranteed to stay up to date as new articles about other people following this pattern eventually get created. – Uanfala (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is still mixed. One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not sure what I can say that would add to the excellent points made by Uanfala. I agree. It's been a long debate, but deletion appears to be the right call at the end of the day. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Uanfala. --Bsherr (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2020 (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.

Ameircan Health Care act[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how plausible this typo is, although I can see someone accidentally transposing the R and I keys here... Regards, SONIC678 16:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That's why I created it. Nightscream (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. For reference, Ameircan doesn't exist and it shouldn't due to being an unlikely misspelling. It is misleading if we have the nominated redirect, but not the base misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. This seems useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that I also think that 'Ameircan' shouldn't exist and any permutations of 'Ameircan _____' shouldn't be made either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2020 (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.

Confederate English[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Confederate States of America was not strictly equivalent to the area where Southern American English is spoken. Additionally, the forms of English spoken in the 1860s during the Confederacy's existance are by no way equivalent to current Southern American English. Hog Farm (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - I'm not sure about this one. Still, the core point that the areas in which Southern accents are heard isn't precisely the same as the Confederacy is well taken. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - AFAIK, this term has no salience in popular culture or academia, so it's not only inaccurate (as others have pointed out), but also an unlikely search term. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – "Confederate English" is not mentioned in this article, so there's no point to this redirect. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 18:49, 10 April 2020 (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.

Southern drawl[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 Point both to Drawl#Southern drawl. signed, Rosguill talk 20:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These two should redirect to the same place, but I'm not sure which place would be the better target. Hog Farm (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I disagree? I feel like "The Southern Drawl" is a proper noun referring to a specific defined dialect, while a "southern drawl" refers to a variation on "drawl". I would keep the redirects as they are, I think... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 18:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget, respectively. They're definitely referring to the same thing, so I'd be fine if it went the other way, but it looks like the drawl is more of a subtopic to the accent as a whole (that was news to me—colloquially, I'd think they'd be considered synonyms). And it's much easier to access Southern American English from Drawl#Southern drawl than vice versa. --BDD (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Let's do what BDD said. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2020 (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.

UbL[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 UBL. signed, Rosguill talk 20:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing retargeting to the dab page UBL, where the current target is mentioned, as users searching for this string may be looking for some of the disambiguation topics. Hog Farm (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree - Note that "UbL" here meant "Usama bin Laden" if it's spelled with a U, but there are other meanings and I support retargeting. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep "bin" is lowercase because it is a preposition. There are no other entries on UBL where the B represents a preposition. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to DAB page as {{R from other capitalisation}} {{R from ambiguous term}}. The argument about the lowercase 'b' doesn't stand up. For example, IoT redirects to DAB page IOT not to Internet of Things, and I've seen several similar examples. Redirecting such abbreviations to an article rather than to a DAB page is a guaranteed way of accumulating bad links which are unlikely ever to get found and fixed. Narky Blert (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2020 (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.

Chance (gaming)[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 Game of chance. signed, Rosguill talk 20:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should this redirect to game of chance instead of the current target? Not a very active user (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I immediately thought of random chance, which game of chance is close enough to. I'm not sure if I have a preference here but there's definitely a distinct meaning there that someone could easily prefer. --Izno (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did just add "life" to the Chance disambiguation page. A separate redirect, perhaps "chance (video gaming)", might make sense? I think this use of the word "chance" is niche and specific enough to not need mention in the redirect target of this page. I support this proposal. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 18:40, 10 April 2020 (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.

Magic (game)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Magic#Other media. signed, Rosguill talk 20:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magic (game) might also refer to Magic: The Gathering, which, according to the article, is colloquially known as "Magic". Not a very active user (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2020 (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.

Hit Dice[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hit dice are not mentioned at the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Never heard of these concepts. I assume they are related to tabletop roleplaying? Not mentioned in this article, so delete all. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick google looks that way, particularly for Dungeons and Dragons. --Izno (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The concept is described in the History section, albeit not by name, and how they're used these days in rulesets like Dungeons and Dragons 5e is a little more complicated than the targeted article describes. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 03:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These were certainly a thing in paper-and-pencil D&D, and I'm surprised we don't seem to have a mention anywhere. Humanoid characters had levels whereas monsters had hit dice (d6, IIRC). The terms were equivalent: in both cases, roll the specified die the specified number of times and sum the results to calculate hit points. A feeble monster such as a giant rat might have 1 hit die, and a dragon 30-50 hit dice or more. Narky Blert (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - I know that these are real concepts in tabletop gaming, but the lack of any mention in the target page as well as the obscurity means that deletion appears to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2020 (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.

550ppm[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 Climate change mitigation scenarios#550 ppm. signed, Rosguill talk 20:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although 550 ppm forms part of the conclusion of the conference, would a better target for this general term be Climate change mitigation scenarios#550 ppm? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both. --Izno (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both - I agree. Somebody searching these will be looking for general scientific information. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either retarget or delete both. "550 ppm" is a measurement of a quantity within another quantity and could refer to anything, not just climate change. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 03:21, 11 April 2020 (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.

Stabilization of greenhouse gases[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 Climate change mitigation. signed, Rosguill talk 20:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although this term is part of the subtitle of the conference, is a more general target such as Climate change mitigation more appropriate? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both - I agree. The average reader is going to expect to find a general article on the concept, trying to deal with emissions through different initiatives, instead of a specific page about a conference that itself isn't that notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2020 (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.

Dangerous global warming[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 19#Dangerous global warming

Catastriphic global warming[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this were spelt correctly, I don't think the target is appropriate. Delete, since global warming and climate change both exist. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both - I don't believe that these typos are worth keeping. My feelings are distinct about the different question of something like 'catastrophic climate change', spelled correctly, but that doesn't apply here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per above. The typo versions seem unlikely. --Izno (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both A catastriphe indded. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:40, 15 April 2020 (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.

Zero and Negative HP[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Target page has no information about negative hit points. Not a very active user (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page was originally created as an encyclopedic article of its own, but the subject is not covered in any reliable sources. It's not discussed on Wikipedia at all, so delete both. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - I agree. These aren't worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 0/negative HP must be kept for attribution. The other seems like a reasonable delete. --Izno (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I already question the worth of 'Obama bin Laden already, but this here seems ludicrous. I agree. Deletion appears to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the concept of 0 hit points is over at targeted article, the article doesn't go in-depth about tabletop RPG's negative health. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 03:24, 11 April 2020 (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.

Kumbalangi Nights (2018 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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a 2018 film. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2020 (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.

Death of Obama bin Laden[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand Obama bin Laden, but not this. feminist (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. Unnecessary to have a misspelling redirect at this level. Delete ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Obama bin Laden" also seems to have been used as a negative nickname for Barack Obama. No need to have this. Hog Farm (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with others Bondegezou (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I suspect mischief at play with that oh so hilarious slip of the keyboard. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:51, 10 April 2020 (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.

DPSer[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Term is not mentioned at the target page, or anywhere in Wikipedia. Not a very active user (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It should redirect here if anywhere: Glossary_of_video_game_terms#Damage_per_second. The noun here refers to a player class in video games who focuses on damaging opponents/enemies. The concept of the "glass cannon" is related. But yes, this type of character class is not described anywhere on Wikipedia, so Delete this redirect. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:59, 10 April 2020 (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.

Spinie[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This term doesn't appear to be mentioned on the target article. Since the beginning of the year this redirect has had exactly 4 page views (compared to 50,300 for the target article), so it doesn't seem to be benefiting anyone either. – numbermaniac 03:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not sure if "spinie" is a plausible misspelling for "spiny," but spelling aside, it can refer to a lot of things, like the enemy in the Super Mario Bros. franchise, or the Spiny Badniks of the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise who made their first appearance in the game this redirect's target is centered on. Regards, SONIC678 04:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Loking st the redirect history it’s said to be a specific enemy from Sonic 2 but it’s not mentioned there or any other related article I can find.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 06:21, 10 April 2020 (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.

Tara Reade[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, G7. No one currently supports keeping the redirect as is or retargeting without mention. I am indeed going to salt this given what a hot topic it is. As soon as there's consensus from the RfC to mention her and the relevant content added, it should be recreated. Contact me with concerns. (To clarify: While I'd be happy to unsalt and/or recreate once the conditions are met, I have no objections to any other admin doing so then. No need to contact me in that regard.) --BDD (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current redirect for this topic is irrelevant to the topic itself. The topic would be better served if it was made into its own article, or if it redirected instead to the Allegations section of the Joe Biden topic. (Joe Biden#Allegations of inappropriate physical contact) No Malarkey (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the username (No Malarkey) of the editor who listed this for deletion and compare with “No Malarkey,” Joe Biden’s unabashedly lame new slogan, explained. Also note that No Malarkey listed this redirect for deletion after trying and failing to delete the sourced material the redirect points to.[5]. I do not believe that the reason given above is the actual reason No Malarkey listed this for deletion. I believe that the real reason is at [6]; "The redirect that was present for this article was one that would imply a false narrative and lead those seeking information on this topic to believe an unfounded conspiracy. For that reason, I have elected to submit an RFD nomination", which is not a valid reason for deleting a redirect. Also see User talk:Callanecc#Counter-argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect to Joe Biden#Allegations of inappropriate physical contact. If somebody is searching the name of somebody making an allegation of inappropriate physical conduct against Joe Biden, then it seems far more fitting to bring them to the sub-section of the Joe Biden page on such allegations. It doesn't make sense to redirect to a completely different topic, even if the person making the allegation is briefly mentioned on that page. Domeditrix (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you want this redirect to point to a section that does not mention Tara Reade or her allegations that Biden sexually assaulted her by pinning her up against a wall and digitally penetrating her,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] and instead want it to point to a section about Biden's "inappropriate proximity to women and children, including kissing and touching" that occurred ten years later? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what refspamming here is supposed to achieve, but it's also worth noting that the allegation is also no longer included on the page for Media blackout. It therefore makes absolutely no sense to redirect to there. Domeditrix (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The references are to counter your false statement that Tara Reade's allegations that Biden sexually assaulted her by pinning her up against a wall and digitally penetrating her are the same thing as several women's allegations ten years later that Biden kissed and touched them without permission. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Grim, Ryan (March 24, 2020). "Time's Up Said It Could Not Fund a #MeToo Allegation Against Joe Biden, Citing Its Nonprofit Status and His Presidential Run". The Intercept. Retrieved April 9, 2020.
  2. ^ Marcotte, Amanda (March 31, 2020). "A woman accuses Joe Biden of sexual assault, and all hell breaks loose online. Here's what we know". Salon. Retrieved April 9, 2020.
  3. ^ North, Anna (March 27, 2020). "A sexual assault allegation against Joe Biden has ignited a firestorm of controversy". Vox. Retrieved April 9, 2020.
  4. ^ "Tara Reade discusses Biden allegation with Hill.TV's 'Rising'". The Hill. March 26, 2020. Retrieved April 9, 2020.
  5. ^ Da Silva, Chantal (March 27, 2020). "Joe Biden's Sexual Assault Accuser Wants To Be Able To Speak Out Without Fear of 'Powerful Men'". Newsweek. Retrieved April 9, 2020.
  6. ^ White, Adam (April 8, 2020). "Rose McGowan calls Charmed co-star Alyssa Milano 'a fraud' for endorsing Joe Biden". The Independent. Retrieved April 9, 2020.
  7. ^ Halper, Katie (March 31, 2020). "Tara Reade Tells Her Story". Current Affairs.
  8. ^ Finley, Nolan (March 30, 2020). "Finley: I believe Tara Reade". The Detroit News. Retrieved April 9, 2020.
  9. ^ "How to weigh an allegation of assault against Joe Biden". The Economist. April 4, 2020. Retrieved April 9, 2020.
  10. ^ Soave, Robby (March 30, 2020). "Why Are the Mainstream Media Ignoring Tara Reade's Sexual Assault Accusation Against Joe Biden?". Reason Magazine. Retrieved April 9, 2020.
  11. ^ Mahdawi, Arwa (March 28, 2020). "Why has the media ignored sexual assault and misbehaviour allegations against Biden?". The Gaurdian. Retrieved April 9, 2020.
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.

List of Enlgish football transfers summer 2013–14[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questionably plausible typo aside, there's obviously other things that make these two redirects less plausible. 1) Their target refers to the summer of 2013 (the summer of the next year has its equivalent article), and 2) the first one's correctly spelled counterpart was deleted in 2013 (strangely, the incorrectly spelled version survived all this time). The only link to one of them also appears to from the second one to the first. Regards, SONIC678 02:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. (1) "English" is misspelt. (2) English football seasons extend over two years, but English summers only over one (if that). Narky Blert (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2020 (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.

Redirects to Image macro[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 penguin, redirect walrus to Minazo. signed, Rosguill talk 20:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:33, 10 April 2020 (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.

Robert Cohen (acting theorist)[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguator of this redirect is an undefined term on Wikipedia. For one, there has never been an article or redirect at Acting theorist, Acting theorists, Acting theory or Acting theories; not having a clear way of defining these terms in such a manner leaves a reader scratching their head trying to figure out what an "acting theorist" is. Also, trying to search for these terms through Wikipedia's search function doesn't help in attempting to locate what the definition of the disambiguator is either. (In fact, I also recently nominated the related category for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 2#Category:Acting theorists due to the unclear nature of this term.) So, I'm proposing this redirect be deleted due to having an unclear, undefined disambiguator. (Also, note that this redirect currently has no incoming links in the "article" namespace; its target page had been sitting at the title of the redirect for several years.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This will likely be the first and only time in my life that I'll see the term "acting theorist" used. Deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm satisfied that Robert Cohen will get readers to the right place. --Bsherr (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2020 (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.

Dan Price[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 replace with article. Draft:Dan Price will be moved to Dan Price. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page was locked several years ago due to an edit war about COI and notability. At the time, Price was Wikipedia:BIO1E and only really covered for this minimum wage increase. In the years since Price has been the subject of many reputable articles related to not only his his minimum wage increase but also lawsuits, abuse claims, and, just a few days ago, his pay cut to help his company survive covid-19.

This is enough to consider Price notable distinctly from Gravity Payments. His name is in the headlines of articles and people are going to search for him and may not care about his company. It is valuable to show people both the positives and controversies of Price distinctly from his company.

I apologize for not making this request earlier in the process but I am newer to wikipedia and didn't see that he previously had a page until after making this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dan_Price

Let me know if this makes sense RayScript (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RayScript: Hello! Did you see the text at the top of the page? "If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!" That would suggest you could just create the article by restoring the old version of the article that is in the redirected page (see page history) or by integrating your new draft. That might involve a history merge, so someone with more expereince in that area may be better able to comment on the best way forward.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ThatMontrealIP: Hello thanks for the response! I did see the text at the top but the Dan Price page appears to be protected. Unless I am misunderstanding how it works. If it is protected is there a different process I should follow? RayScript (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect and Replace it with Article - I reviewed Draft:Dan Price and saw the history and advised User:RayScript that one way to get consensus to change a protected redirect would be RFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article replacing redirect - @RayScript: I created the original Dan Price article in 2015 after reading about his $70,000 minimum salary offer in the news. He had also been recognized earlier by President Obama. The article that I was happy with at the time was [[7]]. There may be some info there you can use. After that, company employees started going in and adding promotional info. I went so far as to contact the company to ask them to stop, but they claimed they didn't know who was doing it. As punishment, the article was turned into a redirect. I tried to restore it and asked them to check the IP addresses of the editors to prove that I wasn't an employee, but nonetheless got lumped in with COI accusations and got my first and only block. I still think he's more notable than the company, and if anything a redirect from Gravity Payments should go to his article, which neither he nor the company would want, but it is what it is. Good luck with building consensus. The person who reported me and got me blocked hasn't been active in years, while I continue to put in time when I can to improve the encyclopedia. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirect was not tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:14, 10 April 2020 (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.

Casarrondo[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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-earth concept related to Moria (Middle-earth). Rather minor, not mentioned in target article, and not likely to be due to be mentioned in the target article. No page history that needs to be retained, no mergers occurred. Hog Farm (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nowhere for them to go and no need for them either. --Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2020 (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.

Optical Society of Amerca[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, more Amercan stuff! Although this typo is somewhat plausible, I'm not sure how helpful these are, as per this other discussion below... Regards, SONIC678 17:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Optical Society of America is The Optical Society's legal business name, with The Optical Society it's DBA and name used by the organization. The Optical Society was founded as Optical Society of America in 1916, but had it's name change in the 1990s (I will have to research exact dates). For most of it's history The Optical Society was know as Optical Society of America, and it's primary journal is still called Journal of the Optical Society of America (JOSA). Does that help why I setup the redirect? mooP (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moop2000: Yes, it does, and Optical Society of America is definitely a valid redirect. The redirect I nominated here is its cousin Optical Society of Amerca, which has a misspelling and is more in the gray zone of validity. Does this help answer your question? Regards, SONIC678 18:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. We shouldn't have redirects where a common word inside a longer phrase is misspelt: the typo is handled alright by the search engine, and the presence of these two redirects can pre-empt that engine from auto-correcting, which has the net effect of making it much harder for readers who make this typo inside any number of other phrases. – Uanfala (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unhelpful misspelling. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:27, 14 April 2020 (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.

David Pollack (Fotball Player)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how plausible this typo is (which has to do with why its target was moved to its current title almost 13 years ago), and also football players don't all play American football like this guy did before he suffered his career-ending injury. Also, strangely, we don't have David Pollack (football player)... Regards, SONIC678 00:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:G6: multiple unambiguous errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to the points already made, (football player) should never be used as a qualifier because it is ambiguous. It could refer to one of the gridiron codes or to one of the kicking or kicking+handling codes or to one of the rugby codes. Narky Blert (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This doesn't seem to have any worth. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2020 (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/2020_April_10&oldid=1073158636"