Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 11[edit]

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

Cup Foods[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) CycloneYoris talk! 21:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This was speedy deleted and then discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 4 where the consensus was to relist. This is a purely administrative action on my part; I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Keep, per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the store itself is notable, but not enough content exists now for a standalone article.VikingB (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This again? This was already deleted, it's very much too soon to put this back. Secondly, it has no relation to George Floyd other than a passing mention. Thirdly, this shortcut was recreated after it was deleted - this is nothing more than attempt to bludgeon the process to get what they want. W.K.W.W.K...Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty 11:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    this shortcut It's a different redirect from the one that was deleted! --JBL (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify further, the original redirect went to the George Floyd protests article. This redirect goes to a specific section in the George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul article where the store is discussed in more detail. The redirect page is for a location that has since obtained greater notability and where content exists about it.VikingB (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausible search term, serves an encyclopedic purpose. It's possible someone who heard of the store in relation to Floyd's death might want to find out some more information about it. P-K3 (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if the store is notable there is nothing about it at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not true: there is the sentence The store, owned by a Palestinian-American family, had been a fixture in the neighborhood for three decades, a photo, and some other very minor details. --JBL (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anyone searching for information about Cup Foods will find all the information Wikipedia has about it at the target section. This is the redirect working as intended. -- Tavix (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I started the original deletion discussion because at the time there was genuinely no relevant information about Cup Foods at the target, and because the redirect pointed to the top of the article where the then-present infobox image was a potentially upsetting photo of Floyd's death. Neither of those issues remains with the current article and redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 20:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - from the creation of the original redirect to the day before it was first listed at RfD, the redirect saw 908 hits, an average of 50 per day. It's clearly useful, and it points to a better target at present with as much information about the store as we're likely to include. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. In addition to the George Floyd angle, this is also a plausible search term for instant soup.—S Marshall T/C 22:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and also because this confirms that the store was not a Cub Foods (which was a frequent misunderstanding among area residents; see e.g. the last RfD). I see no case for a disambiguation page: Google Books hits for "cup food is" and "cup foods are" consist entirely of coincidental collocations, with zero uses in the sense of instant soup. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason it's plausible is because a lot of people who use en.wiki don't have English as their first language. The people who write Google Books, though, are fluent.—S Marshall T/C 16:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • People who don't speak English well, or who are deliberately trying to come up with fanciful interpretations, could misinterpret nearly any phrase as an alternative name for something. "Undersea boat" could mean a shipwreck (a boat that's now underseas because it sunk); "free masonry" could mean Habitat for Humanity (volunteers performing masonry work for free). However, WP:DABMENTION means that dab pages consist only of phrases that actually appear on target articles, while WP:V and WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTDIC mean that target articles only contain synonyms that are verifiable and widely-used in reliable sources. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a better target than the deleted redirect since this one is directly about the site rather than just the killing. Regarding S Marshall's proposal, while we do redirect errors when there is no other competing topic, we do not disambiguate errors. At most it can be a "see also" section in a disambiguation page whose existence is already otherwise justified, but that is not the case here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 15 August 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.

LM2F[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 19:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no known uses of this abbreviation for the target via a Google search. LMTF appears to be the established shortcut for the band. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP, and "2" sounds like "to". --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's opening sentence: "I see no known uses of this abbreviation for the target via a Google search." Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; mainly refers to other things. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per J947, a Google search on my part brought up very little about this band on the first couple pages. Not primarily used for this topic. Hog Farm Bacon 23:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect is ambiguous and without a mention may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect is very misleading and confusing. There's nothing about this redirect having to do with "Like Moths to Flames". Seventyfiveyears at 14:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As explained above this is an abbreviation of the target. Read the discussion before you !vote, please. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • J947, a discussion is for consensus, not a vote. If you need help, please see this. Seventyfiveyears at 01:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Read WP:!vote (the expression I used) please before you assert that I don't know the consensus process. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Our bar for redirects is very low, but it needs to be at least somewhat attested, even if it's in unreliable sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:36, 15 August 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.

Firetruck distance[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 19:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Taxicab geometry" does not mention about a firetruck or a firetruck distance path. Seventyfiveyears at 19:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I do not think the taxicab metric is ever known by this name, and my searches did not produce any evidence to the contrary. --JBL (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without a mention this redirect is confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:43, 12 August 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.

Liquidation of the United States[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 19:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I've always been under the impression that liquidation and dissolution are not exactly synonyms. Hog Farm Bacon 18:50, 11 August 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.

Imola Grand Prix[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. In the absence of anyone advocating for keeping the status quo, a dab page seems like the best compromise. I'm going to go ahead and implement 5225c's draft signed, Rosguill talk 15:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There have been Imola Grand Prix (this is a redirect from incorrect name). The 1963 Imola Grand Prix for example which was apparently the 4th Imola Grand Prix. This redirect is therefore misleading. Recommending deletion.
SSSB (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too concerned, I created the redirect as we did for Styrian GP → 2020 Styrian GP because the table on the 2020 season article had that as the name. I don't think it's misleading per se because it is a possible search term for the Grand Prix, like the Steiermark GP, but I can understand why it isn't suitable.
5225C (talk • contributions) 12:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I say its misleading because it implies that this is the only Imola Grand Prix (or the only Grand Prix which can be referred to as such, correctly or incorrectly) which is simply untrue.
SSSB (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I would then support retargeting it to either List of Grand Prix held at Autodromo Internazionale Enzo e Dino Ferrari as suggested by Thryduulf or simply redirecting to Autodromo Internazionale Enzo e Dino Ferrari as suggested by Narky Blert. Preferably the former as I've now seen the redirect linked to from some of the previous Imola races.
5225C (talk • contributions) 01:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dispute the fact that the primary topic of Imola Grand Prix is San Marino Grand Prix as it was never known as that and I have never seen a source which calls it that.
    SSSB (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I stand corrected, sourced do call it that. But I am still not convinced its the primary topic.
    SSSB (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the discussion above shows, it's completely ambiguous and there isn't a correct target to repoint it to. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are correct targets to point to. It's already shown there's the MotoGP article, and the San Marino GP article, both also called the "Imola Grand Prix" in reliable sources. Thus viable set index or disambiguation page article. -- 65.94.169.16 (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How about a disambiguation page such as this?
    5225C (talk • contributions) 08:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum it really ought to mention the races actually called the Imola Grand Prix. I would still prefer deletion though. A7V2 (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate 5225C's draft works for me. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 21 August 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.

"Riverside Community Hospital"[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) 15:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target (and likely is the name of multiple hospitals, given how common the city name Riverside is. Delete unless a sourced mention can be added. signed, Rosguill talk 16:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Redirect was made last month and there's no explanation of the redirect. I think regardless of source, your argument of it applying to multiple hospitals would be valid. I thought this was about a hospital in Florida. – The Grid (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1st as malformed. Retarget 2nd to Riverside, California where it is mentioned. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per noms. According to the Riverside Community Hospital website, this hospital is part of C/HCA, Inc., which is a company registered in Nashville, TN according to Dunn & Bradstreet. Since there is no mention of this in the Wikipedia article, HCA Healthcare, the redirect should be deleted. The Riverside Community Hospital in California may not be notable. WP:HOS -- Talk to G Moore 13:40, 21 August 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.

Jain Baniya[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) 15:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target: searching on Google Scholar and internally on Wikipedia suggests that this is the name of a specific caste category, but we don't have any information about it beyond labeling a few individuals as such. It was previously created as an unsourced 1-sentence stub, which hardly seems appropriate to revert back to, and it's not clear from search results that this is notable. I would suggest deletion in the absence of a better solution. signed, Rosguill talk 16:16, 11 August 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.

Ploo[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 18:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. Redirect created in 2013 as an "upcoming production", but doesn't look like Ploo even exists Joseph2302 (talk) 15:59, 11 August 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.

Kienspan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Kienspan

Wikipedia:BOTTOMUP[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 18:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing. The guideline says to put new topics at the bottom of the page, which means that in chronological order of OP they appear from the top down—so this is the exact opposite of what the guideline says. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seemed like a sensible redirect at the time. Although if people find it confusing, delete it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:43, 11 August 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.

Zahed Haseeb[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 18:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target article. Not clear how they would be connected. —Bagumba (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia, so there is no possible target for this redirect. Not a very active user (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned at target, and a Google search finds no connection with the target. Hog Farm Bacon 14:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing, the link seems to be this. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Without a mention to justify the redirect, this is confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article has nothing to do with "Zahed Haseeb". Seventyfiveyears at 14:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it does have something to do with it – as explained above. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:25, 16 August 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.

Straight virginity[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 18:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could also refer to heterosexuals who are virgins. Hog Farm Bacon 05:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't get the point for creating this discussion. "Straight virginity" is not found in the Lesbian article. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as is not at target. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hog Farm stated, "Could also refer to heterosexuals who are virgins." Other than that, I don't see what else it could refer to. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Add: Regarding the "a straight virgin is someone who hasn't had straight sex" commentary below, it's similar to people saying that they are anal virgins because they've never engaged in anal sex. But I would expect to see sources using the wording straight virginity (not the few fiction books on Google Books using it), and in the context of lesbians, before saying that it should redirect to the section in question. The wording is ambiguous because it can be seen as referring to either a heterosexual virgin or someone who hasn't engaged in heterosexual sex. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is ambiguous and confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - considering the context implied by the choice of target, to me this reads as referring to a lesbian-identifying person never having engaged in sex with a heteronormative partner (i.e. a "straight virgin" hasn't had straight sex). I'm not sure if what's discussed at the target section covers that base, but I could see it being a component of lesbian sexual identity, or at least a topic of discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:38, 12 August 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.

Heterosexual virginity[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 18:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This could also refer to heterosexuals who are virgins, so this probably shouldn't be specifically targeted to just the lesbian page. Hog Farm Bacon 05:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Heterosexual virginity" (same as with "Straight virginity") does not appear in the Lesbian article. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as is not at target. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hog Farm stated, "This could also refer to heterosexuals who are virgins." Other than that, I don't see what else it could refer to. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Add: Regarding the "a heterosexual virgin is someone who hasn't had heterosexual sex" commentary, it's similar to people saying that they are anal virgins because they've never engaged in anal sex. But I would expect to see sources using the wording heterosexual virginity (like a couple of academic books on Google Books do), and in the context of lesbians, before saying that it should redirect to the section in question. The wording is ambiguous because it can be seen as referring to either a heterosexual virgin or someone who hasn't engaged in heterosexual sex. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is ambiguous and confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - per my comment in the related discussion above, but "hasn't had heterosexual sex". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:39, 12 August 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.

Deep Stroker II[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 18:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, presumably a model name for a minor product. Hog Farm Bacon 05:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hesitantly, I googled this and I'm still none the wiser. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN product. The 5 Amazon reviews (2012-2015) are mixed (i.e. 3 are 1-star, and 1 looks paid-for). Narky Blert (talk) 09:51, 13 August 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.

RoboSuck[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 18:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. I'm assuming this is a product, but I don't really want to have this in my browser history to confirm that. Hog Farm Bacon 05:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:53, 12 August 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.

The Animal Genocidists[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 18:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. A Google search mostly brings up results for some video game in-game achievement. Hog Farm Bacon 05:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: A google search for "Animal Genocidist" turns up only one result, a joke about liking chocolate milk as a kid. Not a term. Delete. Normal Op (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Reads made up and pointy to an extreme.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely invented term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this is a thing, reading the target article hasn't told me what it is. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't even kind of make sense. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect term is not mentioned in the PETA article. Seventyfiveyears at 23:18, 12 August 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.

Friut[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 keep. It is WP:SNOWing. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unlikely misspelling; only 12 hits in the last month. Ghinga7 (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the U and I keys are right next to each other on a QWERTY keyboard, and someone might easily mix them up. While it may get fewer hits compared to its target, it still gets a good amount of pageviews per year, like over a thousand since July 2015. Regards, SONIC678 04:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible misspelling. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; harmless and helpful. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm usually against keeping these kinds of misspellings. But in this case I have to agree that it certainly is a plausible typo, given that both keys are right next to each other on a QWERTY keyboard. CycloneYoris talk! 22:35, 11 August 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.

Draft:Typhoon Kathleen[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 18:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect from draft to mainspace, then why it should be kept? SMB​99​thx Email! 01:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment From my understanding, the redirect from draft is maintained so that the history of the article's creation and related edits are maintained. – The Grid (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Grid: not exactly: when drafts are promoted, they are moved along with their editing history to mainspace. Page moves leave a redirect behind (see {{R from move}}) so that someone looking for the page in the old location can find it in the new spot. This one is a bit more weird because there was a cut and paste move and history repair, but the article-relevant history is properly attached to the article now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I had originally closed this discussion for what I now see to be an erroneous reason since it looks like Bradv performed the history merge I requested before I even requested it. Since the redirect no longer has any edit history specific to the target, it is now a artifact {{R from move}} that is probably unnecessary to keep per WP:RDRAFT since the target page was never a draft: The article started at Typhoon Kathleen, was moved to Draft:Typhoon Kathleen, then was cut-pasted back to Typhoon Kathleen about 6 hours later. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - my normal !vote for draft-to-article {{R from move}}ses is to keep them unless the creator wants to delete them, but in the history of the redirect you can see that the creator tried to flag it for WP:G6 deletion already; it was overwritten in all the history merging. WP:G7 probably would be better, but here we are. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:47, 12 August 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.

STFU n00b![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 18:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Internet slang" does not mention anything about the "STFU noob" slang. Seventyfiveyears at 01:44, 11 August 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_August_11&oldid=976192463"