Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 5, 2020.

Carzy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 13#Carzy

.Itlp[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 01:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No-one would use a capital letter after the dot. .itlp exists and is used. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, one simple harmless miscapitalisation, could even be an autocorrect error. — J947 [cont] 04:10, 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.

When Kirk Met Spock[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 13#When Kirk Met Spock

Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic cases/WHO situation reports[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 05:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per unprecedented. This has only redirect history. There is not such template redirect in Category:Redirects to the main namespace. Sawol (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a result of a page move: K4. This is likely to get a lot of views in coming days from old links and there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever in deleting this. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 20:15, 29 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 21:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947. Besides, RFD does not work purely on precedent, so the nominator's deletion rationale is invalid. Glades12 (talk) 07:46, 6 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.

Flag of Arunachal Pradesh[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 12#Flag of Arunachal Pradesh

Flag of Uttarakhand[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 12#Flag of Uttarakhand

Per kelvin[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 22:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This term is not specific to the target. Would suggest retargeting to Kelvin. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:45, 28 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 21:22, 5 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.

Eastern Commandery[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 12#Eastern Commandery

American Freight[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 Franchise Group#American Freight. (non-admin closure) buidhe 17:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, I wasn't able to find any mention of Franchise Group by poking around American Freight's website. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 28 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 21:16, 5 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.

Donald Ttump[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 22:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not plausible enough (evidence). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the nominator. No reader would miss the "r" when hearing it pronounced, let alone spell it with another T at the beginning of a word. R and T are next to each other on the keyboard, but I don't think that is enough to justify the existence of this. Glades12 (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think this redirect is based off of a tweet Trump made where he accidentally typed "Ttump". I think this goes against WP:RCOM. OcelotCreeper (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "R" key is next to the "T" key on the predominant English-langauge keyboard layout, QWERTY, so it would seem to be a plausible typo. No opinion on keeping this or not. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already mentioned that above. Glades12 (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. this isn't Covfefe AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:R3 - It is not a likely misspelling or misnomer. I see the remark it might be an accidental missed key on a QWERTY keyboard, but so would four others of trump, tfump, tfump, or teump. But no need to provide for miskeys. Just not feasible to provide 5 alternatives at each letter. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Markbassett: This redirect is about 7 months old, which is way too old for R3 to apply. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Thryduulf - it is a WP stated reason for deletion and one that also allows an admin to just delete it. "Speedy" seems to mean how fast the deletion can go, not on how long it took for the page to be spotted. See the deletion discussion above for "Bobama" is tagging R3, and that redirect is from 2010. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Markbassett: WP:R3 explicitly says "recently created" not "recently spotted". 3 months is not "recently created" let alone 7 months or 10 years! It has already been correctly pointed out in the Bobama discussion that it is not eligible for R3 speedy deletion so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up here - possibly you might not have understood Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion fully? Thryduulf (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • User:Thryduulf - Thanks, but look -- the implausible typo did not cease to be implausible typo. I've not actually filed at speedy delete, so that limit is n/a. But unless you think the badness somehow expires and it has become good on day X, or that it just was not deleted at the time so that I somehow am not allowed to point out 'implausible typo' ... just let it go. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Violating a policy is not the way to change it; direct discussion is. There is also a reason for R3's "recently created" restriction: deleting older implausible redirects has the potential to break links to them. I don't see that as likely in this case, but it might be elsewhere. Glades12 (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • All parts of a speedy deletion criterion need to be met for it to apply. Implausible typos are a reason for deletion regardless of the age of redirect, but only when they are recently created are they are reason for speedy deletion. Glades12 points out the principal reason for the recently created restriction. While that doesn't apply here the rules of speedy deletion criteria require that every page that could be speedily deleted under a given criterion should be speedily deleted, and that would not be the case if that restriction was not there. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, roughly one person has used this a day ([1]) so I don't see the rationale for deletion. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 23:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a very plausible and reasonable single letter typo, and it's completely and utterly harmless. Plus, at the risk of falling deeply into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this is getting far more usage, and is barely any less plausible, than "Seaborgeum", which was unanimously kept. (Though, in fairness, considering my track record at RFD, if I vote "Keep", that's probably a very good sign it should be deleted...) Thegreatluigi (talk) 15:23, 5 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 21:13, 5 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.

Googers[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 01:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Googlers exists now, but it's just a redirect to Google. It's not clear whether people's conditional votes expected it to be a redirect or an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:11, 5 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.

2020 Democratic Party in Florida[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly surprising search term, as it doesn't specify whether it refers to the primary, the party organization, etc. I would suggest deletion, and note that it has received essentially no use since its creation. signed, Rosguill talk 19:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As stated above, this could refer to various entities. The ambiguity make it rather unhelpful. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — J947 [cont] 02:13, 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.

Diskoteka[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) 16:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually can't figure out what language this is supposed to be, but given the lack of mention at the target, the language almost certainly does not have specific relevance to nightclubs/discotheques and thus I would suggest deletion per WP:RLOTE. signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. In most languages of Eastern Europe the word for a nightclub is one or another local form of discotheque, which will normally look – or sound – like diskoteka. I don't see it as a RLOTE in a particular language, but as a plausible misspelling for speakers of any of those languages when attempting to go for the English discotheque (which follows an uncommon spelling pattern, so is much more likely to be misspelt than other words). A complicating factor is the existence of Discoteca, which goes to a completely different place and which probably could do with some attention. – Uanfala (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that Discoteca is an example of the kind of problems that can crop up from this kind of foreign language redirect. Someone searching for Diskoteka on enWiki is much more likely to be looking for a specific song, album, band or festival (of which several are attested in internal search results), rather than an article about nightclubs in general. signed, Rosguill talk 21:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RLOTE per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFFL (mainly, transliterated Cyrillic). Hampers searching: this search throws up several other possibilities, including an album, a song, a music festival, a TV station, and the partial title match Diskoteka Avariya. Narky Blert (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per all. — J947 [cont] 02:15, 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.

Mariotta[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the presence of other subjects by the name of Mariotta or Mariota, I think that deleting this redirect and relying on internal search results is best. Marcus Mariota does appear to be the primary target for the correct spelling of this name, so I'm not including Mariota in the discussion at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 19:45, 5 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.

Cheating on online gmes[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 22:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling error and an ungrammatical preposition. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 19:28, 5 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.

No longer untitled projects[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 for Weezer and Doctor Strange, delete the rest. I think that we'd probably end up keeping the two that I'm closing as no consensus if the discussion was relisted, but don't see a reason to delay closure given that no consensus has the same practical outcome as keep. signed, Rosguill talk 22:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More "untitled" stuff that's no longer untitled. Regards, SONIC678 19:09, 5 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.

Jenniffer Haller[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) 16:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a DUE sourced mention can be added. signed, Rosguill talk 19:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Her name is "Jennifer" not "Jenniffer", and she is known only for being the first person outside China to receive a particular experimental vaccine against COVID-19. Link. That doesn't give her the same place in medical history as, for example, Louis Washkansky or Louise Brown - or even the first person in China to get that shot. Narky Blert (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also adding Jeniffer Haller to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 23:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not mentioned at the target. Bondegezou (talk) 15:22, 6 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.

Planck current density[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) 15:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. A Scholar search turns up two results about "Fokker-Planck current density", but unless it's mentioned at the target it's not terribly useful. Delete unless a justification or sourced mention can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – as for the others that have been nominated in the preceding days. It not a named unit that is used for serious physics in the real world, so WP should not invent it for its similarity to others. —Quondum 21:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Quondum. "Fokker–Planck current density" is actually something else. (Roughly speaking, it's a rate at which probability flows — it pertains to the Fokker–Planck equation, not to Planck units. Same physicist, different subject.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:36, 5 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.

Untitled A Quiet Place sequel[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 22:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sequel now has a title, not sure why we should still have this title redirect to Part II. I'm thinking it should maybe be deleted (or whatever else works best) at least until there's a third Quiet Place movie announced. Regards, SONIC678 18:54, 5 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.

Megan Wants a Millionaire Cancelled[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 12#Megan Wants a Millionaire Cancelled

2010-2011 Canceled American TV Shows[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 22:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the target article is specifically 2010 only, leaving these redirects misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 5 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.

Nine Untitled Demos[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 22:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be an alternative name for its target, and the phrase is ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 18:17, 5 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.

Untitled The Walking Dead spin-off[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 22:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer untitled. Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No longer needed, title's been well confirmed for a while. --Masem (t) 18:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:58, 8 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.

Untitled Tom McCarthy 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 22:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer untitled. Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 5 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.

Template:R from modificatoin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 12#Template:R from modificatoin

􍁷[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 12#􍁷

Cubesmith Lubricant[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 22:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've created this redirect some time ago, but since then the product has been removed from the list. Unless there are any arguments against, I would say delete. I've actually also redirected some other list entries there, but the unsourced list appears to be OR, so maybe it should be removed completely with the redirects. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:24, 5 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.

Donald Turnbull[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) buidhe 05:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a Robotboy character. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand the disambiguation page, if desired. The disambiguation page can cover people who went by variants of Don or Donald. - Eureka Lott 16:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @EurekaLott: However, the article does not mention the character be called “Don” anywhere. I'd suggest making this page the disambig and redirect the Don variant to this title, as “Donald” is the more common variant. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The title of the disambiguation page is beyond the scope of RFD. If you wanted to rename the page, you should have started a WP:RM discussion. - Eureka Lott 16:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The redirect currently targets a disambiguation page where both people on the target page have the name of "Donald Turnbull". If it's also the name of a Robotboy character, then just add them to the disambiguation page if it is notable enough. If not, then I don't see why the redirect should be retargeted or deleted. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are thousands of redirects like this in Category:Redirects from ambiguous terms (which I keep adding to). It doesn't matter if the redirect is a longer or shorter version of every entry on the {{hndis}} page. It is not for us to decide how readers might be searching, just to help them easily find what they're looking for. In this case, both people on the hndis page have the given name "Donald" even if they both go by "Don", and might be searched for by their full given name. Narky Blert (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 21:53, 5 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.

U+f8ff[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 22:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a section about this codepoint four years ago, which is now removed. I don't think this is any useful any more. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless sources can be provided for the former section. If that were restored, this redirect would still be useful; otherwise, keeping this does not make sense per my comments above. ComplexRational (talk) 17:58, 5 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.

(disambiguation page)[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 22:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not generally used as the disambiguation page disambig qualifier. One of them also has a miscapitalisation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Note that some of these (including the two of which I was notified) are merely resulting redirects from moving pages at these titles to their correct titles. I would suggest alerting the editors who actually originally made the pages at the wrong titles. BD2412 T 15:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I plead guilty to absent-mindedly creating William Bradford (disambiguation page) instead of William Bradford (disambiguation) while tidying up Bradford (disambiguation) in 2008! No objection to it now being deleted. So perhaps check the date before alerting anyone to ancient history? PamD 15:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But I now discover that in the intervening 12 years things have been moved around so that there is no link from Bradford (name) to the dab page at William Bradford - only an entry for one particular gent of that name! Aaaargh. Will fix. PamD 15:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And that was the case since a misguided edit in 2012 (by a no-longer-active editor) which no-one spotted. Ah well. PamD 15:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Although "(disambiguation page)" is not the one suggested by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages for the title of a disambiguation page, it is fine and harmless, and does not meet any of the 10 reasons for deleting a redirect page. And all the redirects nominated above are either the result of page move or reasonably old. Deletion of them is harmful because "if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here")" (see Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons). So they do not need to, and should not, be deleted. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:RDAB. Redirects like this clutter the searchbox and cause User:DPL bot to report WP:INTDAB errors if linked. Narky Blert (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. "Article (disambiguation page)" does not cause any inconvenience to those who search for "Article" or "Article (disambiguation)". And User:DPL bot does not, and should not, report WP:INTDAB error if the incoming link to a disambiguation page is in a redirect page (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#When to link to a disambiguation page). --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • DPL bot reports each and every link to DAB pages as errors except those through (disambiguation) qualifiers precisely as INTDAB errors, and so it should. Read the documentation of that guideline. Narky Blert (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Narky Blert: Again, why should DPL bot report (disambiguation page) as an INTDAB error? — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 21:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Narky Blert: If DPL bot reports redirect pages to a disambiguation page as errors, does it mean that those redirect pages should be deleted? Of course not. The documentation of the guideline WP:INTDAB states that links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are typically errors, but those in redirect pages are, among others, exceptions (see its current version). So DPL bot should not report redirect pages as errors. If it does, it needs to be fixed. --Neo-Jay (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • DPL bot should report a link to Donald Turnbull as an INTDAB error though. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 03:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • DPL bot should report a link to, not the link in, Donald Turnbull as an INTDAB error because Donald Turnbull is a redirect page without the "(disambiguation)" qualifier to a disambiguation page (Don Turnbull). The link in a redirect page to a disambiguation page is not an INTDAB error; a link to a redirect page without the "(disambiguation)" qualifier to a disambiguation page is. --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Neo-Jay: I don't think we are on the same page. Any link to Kazakh (disambiguation page), for example, will show up as an INTDAB error. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 05:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • @J947: I know that a link from mainspace to Kazakh (disambiguation page) (a redirect page to disambiguation page Kazakh) will show up as an INTDAB error. What I am talking about is the distinction between "the link in" and "a link to" a redirect page (without the "(disambiguation)" qualifier) to a disambiguation page. The link in that redirect page should not be an INTDAB error, while a link to that redirect page is. In other words, we can create a redirect page without the "(disambiguation)" qualifier to a disambiguation page, but should not add a link to that redirect page in an independent article (for example, Kazakh (disambiguation page) can be a redirect page to Kazakh, but an independent article should not have any link to Kazakh (disambiguation page)). So the redirect pages nominated here should be kept. --Neo-Jay (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, redirects are cheap, but not free, and even cheap this is more expensive than useful. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all; these do not match a page-titling convention here, so they don't really qualify as plausible typos.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as costly errors which clutter the search page. Our convention is to use only the precise suffix " (disambiguation)". Certes (talk) 19:22, 8 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.

More wrong (disambiguation)s[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 WP:SNOW -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

misspelt disambig qualifier 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:24, 5 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.

Lola Mbolắ[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 22:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is that spelling? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:18, 5 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.

Chracters, charectors, charecters, charactors, charaters, and charcters[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 22:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

misspelled disambig qualifiers. DidnT check the histories this time, as I think the general consensus has always been delete in such cases the last weeks. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Useless clutter with no incoming links (I checked). Narky Blert (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. We don't need to keep every imaginable typo, or we'd have several million more of these things.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:16, 7 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.

VS Sup[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 per http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2011/11433-short-block-names.html (non-admin closure) 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the block being abbreviated like that anywhere. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:49, 5 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.

Pursuit of happiness[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 The Pursuit of Happiness. (non-admin closure) buidhe 05:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because pursuit of happiness is recognized as human right in South Korean and Japanese constitutions, this redirect violate NPOV. 2001:2D8:21F:1E97:0:0:3D94:D0B1 (talk) 05:40, 5 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.

Who Seen the Snail?[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 22:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob doesn't have a connection to the Polish language, since it isn't a Polish TV show (this is the English translation of Kto widział ślimaka?, the episode's Polish title), and this title has had only 37 pageviews in its lifetime. I don't see why it should still be lying around. Regards, SONIC678 05:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:OR. This is not an English title, and translation of "widział" as "seen" rather than "has seen" is unidiomatic. Narky Blert (talk) 17:49, 5 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.

Princess Elise(character)[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 22:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article only existed for 2 minutes in 2007 with some un-encyclopedic content. Princess Elise already exists as a redirect to the same target (which I'd consider useful), so I'm inclined to delete this one. – numbermaniac 04:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not only does it have the wrong punctuation (although I can see people forgetting to press the space bar, the correct version of such redirects will show up in the search bar in most cases), but the disambiguation also seems unnecessary. Regards, SONIC678 05:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary clutter. Why offer readers two searchbox options, one of them malformed, which point to the same place? Narky Blert (talk) 17:51, 5 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.

Armada Music redirects by Zawl Part 2[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 22:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target; cannot find another suitable target. Another batch of artist to record label redirects created by Zawl. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:06, 5 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 Asen IV оf Bulgaria[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 22:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Bulgarian language uses a form of the Cyrillic alphabet, I'm not sure someone would search using a Cyrillic О in the word "of." Also, this redirect seems to get very few page views compared to its target ever since it was moved to its current title several years ago. Regards, SONIC678 02:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Mixed-alphabet redirects like this are pure clutter. No-one will type them in, but only use them when selecting between two visually-identical options in the searchbox. Narky Blert (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mega-useless. Makes about as much sense as redirecting "Tourism ın Turkey" to Tourism in Turkey.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:23, 7 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.

If If We Make It Through December[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 00:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why "if" needs to be repeated twice here, especially since the lyrics don't seem to have two consecutive instances of "if" anywhere. If if that is the case then, delete if if justification can't be provided. Regards, SONIC678 00:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree. This just isn't helpful and shouldn't be kept. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to note that I've yet to see a since case of these repeated word redirects being kept after user discussion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It hasn't been the case that the deletions have been following policy though. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 05:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per K4. Don't see the harm in this redirect however. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 05:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unhelpful. Who on earth is going to start a search string with "if if"? Narky Blert (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • K4 is about links, not searches. Also, absentmindedness can play a part. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 21:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which makes it an even weaker rationale, really. People do sometimes do things like "the the", etc., when typing fast, but if they're creating links to thing, we can reasonably expect them to check that they're actually linking to something other than a 404 error.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • For almost a year the article was at this title, any external links would have had to go to this title. Ther is no common-sense or policy-based reason to delete this redirect, as it is absolutely harmless. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 22:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an improbable typo.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:25, 7 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.

List of times the name "Stephen King" or a Stephen King work is mentioned in some context[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 00:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page, after being moved from List of cultural references to Stephen King (whose nomination ended with no clear consensus) formerly redirected to the now deleted Stephen King in popular culture (see its 2nd nomination here). Since this isn't mentioned in the article, I'm not sure about having this redirect lying around... Regards, SONIC678 00:16, 5 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.

List of counties and cities[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 00:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Target is not a list of counties or cities. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 00:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If we're going to keep this, I would think List of cities by country to be the best target. Not all administrative divisions are cities. -- Tavix (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Counties though? — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 03:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I read it as "list of countries and cities". I'm going to have to go with delete then, I don't think there's a target that's relevant enough as I think the suggested retarget is too broad and opaque. -- Tavix (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. Narky Blert (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. Yes, a retarget to List of administrative divisions by country would be an improvement, but I really struggle to imagine the hypothetical reader who's typing this into a search bar and what they're actually looking for. This just is not a useful redirect, counties and cities are different entities that aren't dealt with in the same way. ~ mazca talk 22:19, 5 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_5&oldid=1072177348"