Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 29, 2020.

Redirects to Deathline International[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 16:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These all redirect to a target in which the subject of the redirect isn't even mentioned. The only thing I can find is that these individuals are listed as additional performers in the personnel section of an album by the band but no further info is provided. Are such redirects going to be useful to readers? Some of the names (Gander, Hansen, Harrison) are mentioned in other articles referencing a different person by the same name but who also don't have articles. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not even sure the target page would survive an AfD, but that's just my two cents... Steel1943 (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: literally no point whatsoever in creating redirects to a target that doesn't even mention any of these people, let alone provide any information about them for readers, and no indication as to what their connection to the redirect target is. Richard3120 (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. No info at the target means that a reader who follows one of these redirect has completely wasted their time. Narky Blert (talk) 10:18, 1 September 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.

Bia Angkor[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! 21:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An internet search suggests that this is the Vietnamese name for this brand, which may fall afoul of WP:RLOTE and thus should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 14:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as not just Vietnamese but apparently a plausible spelling of the Khmer name បៀរ អង្គរ. The first word is "Beer" and the second is "Angkor". In បៀរ (the first word):
    • the first letter ប gets romanised either as <b> or <p> depending on the romanisation system
    • The vowel cluster ៀ has a schwa at the end (i.e. the same sound at the start of the word about)
    • the final រ (r) is silent in most dialects, says Khmer script#Variation in pronunciation
(Warning: I speak zero Khmer.) 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as while it's a reasonable romanization of the Khmer name, it basically requires someone to transliterate the Khmer name, rather than using the English spelling that is also on the bottle. This strikes me as basically hitting all the reasoning at WP:RLOTE except with an extra unlikely step to actually be useful. ~ mazca talk 20:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an apparently plausible rendering of the target's native name. I don't think we can assume that all varieties of the beer will be like the one pictured in the article in having the English name printed, and we can't also assume that all readers will be searching based on what they see on a bottle (rather than, say, hear spoken in conversation). – Uanfala (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A reasonable transliteration of the product's native name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:17, 1 September 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.

Hörfunk[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 16:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. The target article's subject does not have affinity to any specific language. Steel1943 (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment tending to weak keep for as long as its not in the way of some other entry. Is this perhaps used as a loanword in some German-language-rooted locales in the US (like f.e. the Pittsburgh area)? I'm asking, because, from a German perspective, the entry makes a lot of sense, as in the German language the term "Radio" refers exclusively to a "broadcast radio receiver" device (not to wireless communication and wireless communication devices in general), and the correct term for the wireless transmission of audio in one-to-many (public) broadcasting is "Hörfunk". (There is also "Sprechfunk" for wireless transmisson of speech-only audio in one-to-one radiophony.) Might be worth some further research... --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:19, 29 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.

Network (2018 film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 16:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. The article says that the "Network film" was released in June 2019. Seventyfiveyears (Seventyfiveyears) 20:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: Was it originally scheduled for release in 2018? — Tartan357  (Talk) 20:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it was pushed back to 2019, so this redirect should be deleted. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it was heavily advertised as "coming 2018" then it is a plausible redirect. If someone sees an old poster or promotion with the 2018 date, then that would be a reasonable search term. The plausibility depends on how heavily it was advertised as being scheduled for a 2018 release. If there were no posters/ads made with that date, then I'd say that it should be deleted. — Tartan357  (Talk) 20:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, its pageview stats do not suggest much usage. Someone typing it in anyway would receive search results offering the 2019 film first, so I don't think this is particularly necessary. ~ mazca talk 21:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Upon a quick search I didn't find any posters/promotional content prominently advertising a 2018 release, so unless someone can find otherwise, I'd say this redirect is implausible and should be deleted. — Tartan357  (Talk) 21:04, 29 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.

Rage killing[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 Crime of passion. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umm ... I'm not sure what subject on Wikipedia would be the proper subject to arrive at if the redirect is searched, but I didn't expect to arrive at the current target. Steel1943 (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment provocation (legal), maybe? The exact phrase "rage killing" doesn't appear there, but it discusses homicide extensively and has the word "rage" in there at one point (In common law, "passion usually means rage ..."). Though it's always a bit difficult trying to figure out the best legal concept that corresponds to a colloquial phrase. Anyway clearly the current target is no good, so this should be deleted if people don't think provocation (legal) is a good target either. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to crime of passion - "a violent crime, especially homicide, in which the perpetrator commits the act against someone because of sudden strong impulse such as sudden rage". Narky Blert (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. This redirect may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 20:04, 29 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.

Kim Ruff (politician)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 16:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is the vice chair of a national party caucus, and likely meets WP:GNG. This redirect points to an entry in a table with no substantial biographical information on the subject. It should be deleted to allow for the existence of red links to encourage article creation.  — Tartan357  (Talk) 19:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is some information about her at the target, and a redirect is better than a redlink in this case because of ambiguity with Kim Ruff the singer. A new article could easily overwrite the redirect.Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since subject is mentioned at target article. CycloneYoris talk! 22:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination. — Tartan357  (Talk) 02:52, 6 September 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.

Super Mario Wii[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 Super Mario (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is too vague to be for just one game. There were 16 Mario games for the Wii, 6 of which have Super in the title. CaptainGalaxy 19:14, 29 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.

Mark Graue[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 16:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I researched, he is a prominent video game and TV show voice actor. I don't think his name should be linked to just this one game when, at the very least, he has worked on more notable games. CaptainGalaxy 19:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that's the case, that knocks this redirect even more because they didn't spell his name correctly. CaptainGalaxy 20:20, 29 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.

Ajania pacifica[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 5#Ajania pacifica

Vexation[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. XfDcloser bugged out on me, meant to close this without relisting. signed, Rosguill talk 18:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as though this redirect could also refer to subjects such as Annoyance, Frustration, and Worry. Due to its ambiguity, it's probably best to either delete the redirect so the search function on Wikipedia can do its job, or retarget to Wiktionary:vexation. Steel1943 (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:05, 29 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.

Percentage (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 19:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect causes confusion because "Netflix programming" has no content about this subject. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There isn't a single mention of the film in the target article, so this redirect is not useful. — Tartan357  (Talk) 20:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Confusing and not helpful if not mentioned. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:05, 1 September 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.

Rebecca Freyja O'Rourke[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) 15:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. No reasonable article to re-target it to, either. - Whisperjanes (talk) 23:14, 29 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.

Parfum[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 Aroma compound. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French WP:FORRED. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 15:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Common name for the topic on English versions of ingredient lists on various products, showing very common use in English. For this reason, WP:FORRED wouldn't apply. Steel1943 (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...Or retarget to Aroma compound since Fragrance redirects there, and the subject of "fragrance" seems to be the common use/synonym for "parfum" as used in the English language. Steel1943 (talk) 15:54, 29 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.

Blast hole & Bomb holes[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 18:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Research into these two redirects' topics makes it seem as though they are synonyms for the same subject. However, it's also unclear where they should both target if they are to be synced. (Also, note that Bomb hole, the singular for "Bomb holes" does not exist.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, failing that I'd probably leave them at the current targets - a bomb hole is a kind of blast hole, but a blast hole isn't necessarily a bomb hole. But that aside, neither topic is really discussed in either article, and I don't think our readers really need a redirect to inform them that a bomb hole is caused by a bomb, or indeed a blast hole is caused by blasting. They're the kind of redirects that are neither harmful nor particularly useful. ~ mazca talk 20:43, 29 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.

Saxony Wool[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 Merino. signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article's subject unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Merino, which discusses Saxon sheep at some length. Narky Blert (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm far from an expert in wool. Do we have any idea if most of the wool from Saxony is from Merino? I'd hate to obscure other uses by retargeting to a subtopic. --BDD (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget' to Merino, as it does seem to be the closest useful target we have. Most references to Saxony Wool on the web seem to be various suit manufacturers talking self-promotingly about it, but some of them are reasonably informative. It does not seem to be used frequently to refer to wool literally from Saxony, but rather a historical style of wool now from sheep generally farmed elsewhere. This is potentially the kind of topic that could have its own article if there's been actual coverage of it outside of websites selling suits, but the significant mentions at Merino seem to be the best we can offer. ~ mazca talk 20:52, 29 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.

Vakıflar[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 Waqf. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 23:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vakıflar just means "foundations" in Turkish, and points to their article for Foundation on trWiki ([1]). Even on English Wikipedia, we have VakıfBank and Vakıflar (İzmir Metro). Searching online, I don't see evidence that "Vakıflar" on its own generally refers to the Directorate General. I would lean towards deletion, although disambiguation may also be an appropriate option. signed, Rosguill talk 18:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the singular vakıf (without the -lar plural marker) points to waqf. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the "foundations" referred to by Rosguill is an overtranslation; I suspect it refers specifically to waqfs. At present, I think the most likely use of the word in English is to mean the Vakıflar, or, less likely, as a sort of search for Waqfs in Turkey, to which our closest article is still Directorate General of Foundations (Turkey). From my experience Vakıflar is used to mean the government ministry in English, but that's in a particular field. By the way, VakıfBank is the financial arm of the Vakıflar. I'm not sure the Vakıflar (İzmir Metro) is really valid at all; the page is terribly out of date and I don't see much evidence of the station's existence at present, at least not under that name. It doesn't appear on this map. I suspect the name Vakıflar was attached becuase the proposed station is at the site of the Vakıflar offices. GPinkerton (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Waqf per IP. If the singular version is an acceptable foreign-language redirect, which I think it is, the plural should be too. --BDD (talk) 15:32, 9 September 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:Флаг[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 6#Template:Флаг

Super Mario 64 Glitches[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 5#Super Mario 64 Glitches

Mutated Cap[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 18:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that doesn't exist in the game, so who is this helping? Looking at the visits, barely anybody has used it. CaptainGalaxy 14:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No idea what that is. Popcornfud (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete as unmentioned in the target article, and a concept not part of the target article's subject. Steel1943 (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I Google'd this, and I'm none the wiser as to what the meaning of this is. Hog Farm Bacon 15:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the previous target this appears to be a glitch in the game but even fan Wiki pages specifically about Mario 64 glitches don’t mention the term meaning that even people that are specifically looking for Mario 64 glitches wouldn’t use this as a search term.--67.68.208.64 (talk) 23:41, 29 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:Move Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest 1970[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 18:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty obvious erroneous legacy of a botched pagemove (I checked: no Move Yugoslavia participated in that year's contest), with no substantive history, but housekeeping speedy was declined. Note, the correctly titled redirect Draft:Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest 1970 exists. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The content of the target article page was never at this title. So, ultimately this redirect's existence is an improper use of the "Draft:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Housekeeping. Looks like a leftover from a slightly-botched WP:ROBIN pagemove through what should have been the recommended "Move/" temporary page. Narky Blert (talk) 20:15, 29 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.

Heroes (band)[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 Héroes del Silencio. If any content about Darren Costin's Heroes is added to Wikipedia in the future, then the redirect can be revisited. signed, Rosguill talk 18:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a reason (not currently mentioned in the article) for this to target Wang Chung, it should be retargeted to Héroes del Silencio, aka Héroes, as {{R to diacritic}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Heroes (disambiguation) This originally redirected to Darren Costin, member of Wang Chung, whose band Heroes put an album out on RCA in 1987; it's what he did after leaving the band in 1984, while the rest of the group cooked up the soundtrack for To Live and Die in LA. Costin's article was bulldozed and then redirected without discussion in 2017, which is how Heroes came to redirect to Wang Chung; the Wang Chung article doesn't mention Heroes because no content from Costin's article was merged. (This turns out to be a nice illustration of knowledge and article rot.) Heroes del Silencio is another plausible search target, so I think redirecting to the dab is the best solution. Chubbles (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Héroes del Silencio or delete per nom and their following comment. If there is not more than one subject at a disambiguation page which an ambiguous title refers, then retargeting the redirect there is unhelpful and erroneous. Steel1943 (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Héroes del Silencio per nom. It would be misleading and somewhat unnecessary to retarget to the DAB page when Héroes del Silencio is the only band listed there. CycloneYoris talk! 19:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to all commenters: If more than one band were listed at the DAB page, would retargeting still be recommended? Chubbles (talk) 00:19, 5 September 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.

Heros (tv)[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 18:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly a misspelling; a badly capitalised disambiguator; definitely ambiguous with many other entries at Hero (disambiguation), Heroes (disambiguation) but not at Heros. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If there were any TV-related entries at the dab page Heros, then retargeting there would have worked. But there aren't, so it won't. The term is much more plausible as a misspelling for "Heroes" than for "Hero", but I don't see a need for retargeting to Heroes (disambiguation) because of the combination of a misspelling with an unusual and miscapitalised disambiguator. – Uanfala (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the qualifier alone: non-standard capitalisation, and ambiguous - TV channel or TV series? A google exact-spelling search for "heros tv" yielded several hits, including Heros TV Senegal, but no obvious target. Narky Blert (talk) 14:12, 29 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.

'Heroes'[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 18:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary and confusing use of single quotes. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:06, 29 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.

ClueBot NG[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 per either SK#1 or #3. An assertion that a redirect shouldn't be an article is not valid grounding for an RfD at any stretch. (non-admin closure) — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not need an article about ClueBot NG. Sysages (talk | contribs) 02:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed it doesn't, which is why this is a redirect instead of an article. Keep as {{R from merge}} given that no one at the 2017 AfD besides the nominator supported outright deletion, the topic is covered at the target article, and there has been no suggestion about removing the content from there. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This nomination is clearly erroneous. ClueBot NG is mentioned at target article and that is why this redirect exists, aiding readers who want to find information about this bot. Similarly titled ClueBot is another redirect that also targets this article. Deletion should be out of the question here. CycloneYoris talk! 02:53, 29 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.

Marnie Champ[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! 08:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why this redirect targets the target page. It's not mentioned in the target article. and I'm not able to verify if this is an alternative name for the target subject. Steel1943 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Google Scholar seems to think it's an alternative name for her. There's seemingly one paper published by Marnie E. Champ, which is listed in the article (last entry in the publications list), and seems to be the topic Marnie Blewitt won a prize for. Can't immediately see any reference for why she's published under two surnames, but there are plenty of reasonable possibilities. ~ mazca talk 01:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With no mention, this redirect is confusing. Seventyfiveyears at 12:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: With Mazca's findings, I'd like to withdraw this nomination, but cannot do so while Seventyfiveyears' "delete" vote is present. Steel1943 (talk) 15:04, 29 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_29&oldid=978278829"