Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 11, 2020.

Scot Scoop[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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. My reasoning for deletion is not suitable in hindsight. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 17:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a high school's publication. Not a likely search term. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:44, 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.

Climate Change[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 global warming -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should the capitalized variant target the same page as the lowercase variant, or should the two redirect point to the same target? I feel like the latter should be the case, as "climate change" is sometimes referred to as a proper noun for the phenomena. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to global warming per nom. — J947 [cont] 04:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - I'm not too sure about this one, but the argument that this ought to go to 'global warming' as the concept is sometimes referred to as a proper noun with such capitalization makes a lot of sense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to climate change Of the participants so far, I am the most experienced in the climate pages. There is a vast and complex backstory in the saga over article scope at main articles covering the topics of "climate change" (presently under title "Climate change (general concept)" and that of contemporary warming of average global surface temperature and its related effects, causes, and human responses (presenting under title "Global warming"). If this is retargeted anywhere OTHER than Climate change, then as this saga continues we'll hvae to come back to this one and maybe adjust it further. If instead we just point this at the same term written in sentence case, we can forever forget about this one. If the sentence variant is retargeted that redirect will pipe the user who comes here in stead to the new target. So regardless how its capitalized both pages will always end up at the same destination. I'd otherwise agree with the nom but that way increases odds of further attention being spent here. If we just point this at the other term, we will never need to revisit this one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @NewsAndEventsGuy: Climate change is a redirect to global warming. — J947 [cont] 21:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know that. I'm a founding member of the climate change wikiproject. My point is that there is a seething debate about all this which is, by consensus, taking a time out. There is a very strong possibility climate change > global warming redirect will be changed in the future. If we point this at the current target, then this will be broken if it changes again. We can simply avoid that. Just point this at the Climate change > Global warming redirect. It will pipe through to the target global warming no matter how it is capitalized. But later if we change those article's titles/scope issues in the next round of debate, this will always go along for the ride without anyone needing to remember or debate. Probably somewhere in the rules its advised to not point a redirect at a redirect, but then we also have WP:IAR. My argument makes longterm maintence simple. THat's a good thing, right? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Planck thermal insulance[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) 19:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More planck redirects Utopes (talk / cont) 22:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all – Not a concept that is likely to be searched for or to be covered in WP. (Also same editor that created a bunch of questionable redirects.) —Quondum 22:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This extends to the two added ones; we now have three here. —Quondum 00:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, this is another one of those things that isn't really a thing and that no one will be looking to find the meaning of. XOR'easter (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion extends to the two added redirects as well. "Planck amount of substance" verges on self-parody. XOR'easter (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - The core issue in these discussions always revolves around that one simple question: "are these really useful?" Again and again, we keep seeing these scientific related redirects being made that aren't. Has someone contacted the creator about this yet? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer your question, yes, attempts have been made to reason with the editor about their editing, with limited response and no apparent change in editing behaviour. They are at present blocked. —Quondum 11:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for letting me know. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:59, 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.

Square metre-Kelvin per Watt[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. Note these were picked up in a mass deletion of creations of a user globally locked for long term abuse. If anyone feels strongly enough that either of these (or their caps variants) should exist, feel free to recreate them, but please note the comments made in this discussion first. -- Tavix (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More unit redirects Utopes (talk / cont) 22:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – By the same editor who was creating many of these. Pity about the capitalization, and I cannot really see the value (it is unlikely as a search, and as a link editors should not be encouraged to use the incorrect capitalization by the existence of the link). If it is kept, it should be moved to lower case and the original deleted, IMO. —Quondum 23:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Highly implausible search term, and incorrectly capitalized at that. XOR'easter (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - I'm not sure what to say. These simply aren't worth keeping due to their uselessness, as with the many other, similar redirects we've been talking about. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first two. What exactly is wrong with them? These correctly describe in words the units used, noting that Kelvin, Watt (and Joule) are commonly capitalised words as they're named after people, and their abbreviations are capitals. And I don't think they're ambiguous. Delete the third, as an error (joule per cubic metre). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shhhnotsoloud. I do not miss saying these units out loud but they do relate to their linked concepts (save for Toughness' redirect's error, in which case it should be renamed). --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the third, as not only is it misspelled, but J m-3 is also the unit for energy density. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:40, 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.

Orders of magnitude (thermal insulance)[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) 19:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More orders of magnitude redirects Utopes (talk / cont) 22:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •      Weak delete (thermal insulance) – The target has a table with a range of values, but not a typical orders-of-magnitude table. I don't see the point of the redirect. Other could argue the opposite, I guess. —Quondum 23:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete (thermal transmittance) – does not have what the links refer to; pointless redirects. —Quondum 00:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete (amount of substance) – these don't have what the links refer to; pointless redirects. —Quondum 00:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete (toughness) – these don't have what the links refer to; pointless redirects. —Quondum 11:39, 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.

Emergenc[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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is more likely to be a misspelling of Emergency than Emergen-C. I don't think it's a particularly helpful typo to support, as it gets in the way of search box results. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No reason we should be cluttering search-box results with a "health" product that just enriches the urine. XOR'easter (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but add a hatnote to Emergency. It's only an omitted hyphen from the current target, which I think is a likely omission. -- Tavix (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. My immediate reaction was that this was a typo for emergence, not for emergency. Narky Blert (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and consider changing to a typo disambig page (does WP have such things?) since it’s only an omitted character from Emergen-c, emergence, and emergency. This would address both the "cluttering search-box results" concern noted by XOR'easter, and the alternate interpretation/reaction from Narky Blert above. Tantek (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. IMO, better to leave the searchbox to do its job than to create a DAB page containing nothing but WP:PTM typos. Narky Blert (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What Narky Blert said. XOR'easter (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Narky. The search page is not the best but provides readers an easy way to add on a y or an e to their search, as well as a high-up link to Emergen-C. — J947 [cont] 04:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I also think that we should simply let people search. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:18, 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.

RobGz[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) 19:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Searching online, it seems that RobGz and Anuel AA have worked together, but RobGz is not mentioned at the target article or anywhere else on Wikipedia. I would suggest deletion unless a sourced mention can be added. signed, Rosguill talk 19:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No mention in target, so the redirect is not really helping a curious reader. Also does not appear to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia, so all this redirect is doing is implying there's useful content that there isn't. ~ mazca talk 17:24, 21 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.

Seizure (machinery)[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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Seizures" are only referenced as a passing mention at the article. There is no dedicated information on this subject at this page, so a redirect appears to be unnecessary here. However, I can imagine that this is a likely search term, so I would not be opposed to retargeting. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation. This is an important topic in mechanical engineering, and we have no good target. Lack of lubrication is only one possible cause of seizure. Another is bearing failure. Still another is differential thermal expansion. Tribology would be a better target than lubrication, but it still isn't good enough. Narky Blert (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I believe that WP:REDLINK applies here. Agreed. 05:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)
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.

Battle of dale[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. No need for a full discussion when there was a strong consensus for deletion in the previous discussion, and the capitalization had nothing to do with why it was deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 18#Battle of Dale. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:09, 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.

Surgical Strike India 2016[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 19#Surgical Strike India 2016

Wikipedia:BLACKMAIL[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:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Blackmail. (non-admin closure) feminist #WearAMask😷 07:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing deletion. Although the redirect shortcut WP:BLACKMAIL was created as long ago as 2008, I first encountered it yesterday in reviewing an unblock request. I found it confusing, as "blackmail" does not reasonably describe the "no personal attacks" page or any subsection of that page. Redirect creator not notified because he/she retired in 2009. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe retarget to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Blackmail? Glades12 (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Glades12. Good idea, right on point. Narky Blert (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Glades12. Normally I'd be unsure about this maybe breaking links, but project page redirects are unlikely to gather links on external sites, and the only in-project links are two user talk pages (one from a user indeffed in '08), a talk page archive, and an admin noticeboard archive. Not gonna mess up too much to retarget this. Hog Farm (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - I agree with the above users. This is pretty straightforward. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. — J947 [cont] 04:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Glades. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:02, 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.

Michael Fisher (disambiguation 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 move without redirect. Michael Fisher (disambiguation 2) will be moved to Mike Fisher (disambiguation) and Lions Gate (disambiguation 2) will be moved to Lionsgate (disambiguation) to preserve their histories as disambiguation pages for those titles. However, for Gorontalo (disambiguation)(2) it appears that for a long period Gorontalo and Gorontalo (disambiguation) co-existed as disambiguation pages, so there is no good place for the history to go, hence it will be deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects were once disambiguation pages for the titles of their targets minus "(disambiguation)" (or related ones for the first and second, i.e., Mike Fisher and Lionsgate), which were later moved to get them away from incoming links to their targets. While these are interesting histories (found at [1], [2], and [3]) they only got 13-14 pageviews in the last 90 days...and might seem like search bar clutter, perhaps? Regards, SONIC678(2) 15:28, 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.

Westside island (sonic)[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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since Westside Island (Sonic) also redirects to the same target, I think this one is unnecessary clutter. That one used to have article content - this one never did. This redirect had a grand total of 11 page views in all of 2019. – numbermaniac 15:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Double capitalisation error, should never be linked, searchbox clutter. Narky Blert (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete multiple errors since correct version exists. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:22, 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.

Andunië[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 per SNOW. (non-admin closure) — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 02:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible partial diacritic omission of “Andúnië” 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for people not terribly keen on diacritics, it's more than possible they'll get it half-right, and redirects are cheap. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I believe these redirects do more help than harm. Not a very active user (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's nothing implausible here. For instance on an Italian keyboard layout it can be common to have ú, while the diaeresis is almost only used on i. Nemo 13:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R to diacritics}} {{unprintworthy}}. Plausible mistypings. Narky Blert (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, partial diacritics are plausible. Users may not remember the exact diacritic or may not know how to enter all of the markings. Hog Farm (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Këëp për the abovë, it's still handy to këëp rëdirëcts likë thësë lying aroúnd (wë have Protegé but wë don't havë Protége, but pëople still might forgët to pút all the diacritics ovër thë lëttërs, which woúld be a good rëason to have these rëdirëcts, ëvën if thëy gët a diffërënt vërsion, likë thë lattër úsëd in my ëxamplë woúld lëad thëm to Protege). Rëgards, SONIC678 15:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wïkîpędīǎ doesn't need yet more heavy metal umlauts; but redirects from missing diacritics are another matter. The last time I entered USA, Customs forcibly confiscated all my diacritics as unAmerican under 589 CFR 1073.5(c)(ii)(1b) or somesuch rule. I still bear the scars. Narky Blert (talk) 19:17, 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.

Samux[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 20#Samux

Pharamaul[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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target page, or anywhere in Wikipedia. Not a very active user (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's in The Tribe That Lost Its Head by Nicholas Monsarrat; a novel on which we have no article, and on which there is little detail in the article about its author. Narky Blert (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The novel may deserve its own page. However, as things stand, deletion seems to be the right call. I wouldn't really be sure about keeping this redirect even if the novel's article did exist, to be honest. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The novel may well deserve a page; I think I may have read it; it had some fame in its day. However, it's in that twilight zone where all the citations will only be in print and nothing will be online. Classic WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST; so go find 'em. Narky Blert (talk) 19:26, 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.

Hohenwald (fictional country)[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 fictional European countries#Hohenwald. (non-admin closure) feminist #WearAMask😷 07:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hohenwald is not mentioned at the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 10:38, 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.

Slug-O-Cola[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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slug-o-cola isn't mentioned at the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Even within the broader Star Trek fandom, this is just an obscure trivia point. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing; was removed as uncited here. — J947 [cont] 04:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unbelievably minor plot element. Hog Farm (talk) 22:02, 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.

Katanaspace[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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term "katanaspace" is not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia, and seems to be more related to to hammerspace than magic satchel. Not a very active user (talk) 07:32, 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.

Ashura the Hedgehog[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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Wikia article, "Ashura" is an unofficial fan-created name given to a glitched version of Sonic you can get when you mess around in Debug Mode. Neither the name, nor the glitch, are mentioned in the target article. – numbermaniac 02:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I couldn't find any reliable independent sources that mention this name, and the only other reference to it aside from the Fandom site is Sonic Retro, which appears to be another wiki site. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 03:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as a misleading redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:10, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_11&oldid=1072177288"