Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 8, 2020.

America is still the place[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 05:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was patrolling for double-redirects using Special:BrokenRedirects and came across America is still the place, which had apparently been converted into an uncited article, to the extent one can call it that as it was little more than a bibliographic entry. Per WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY, I reverted the good-faith edit by 5patrickgilles5 and friendly notified the editor at their talk page to please establish consensus at Talk:America is still the place before removing this redirect. In turn, the editor responded on my talk page in an unfriendly manner. Thus, I'm seeking consensus here at RfD to keep this redirect targeted to its current location as variant other capitalization. I'm also open to retarget-ing or to dab-ifying, if justified. I would also support delete-ing, if that's how the consensus is If "delete" is the outcome at closure, but this is with the caveat that America is still the place should be salt protected at WP:ECP to allow recreation by a neutral, experienced editor. Thanks. Revised to clarify what has been added after subsequent comments were made --Doug Mehus T·C 22:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Per this diff, the editor is failing to follow bold, revert, discuss, so I'm going to request temporary extended confirmed protection. Doug Mehus T·C 22:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is also a book. User:5patrickgilles5 has submitted a draft on the book, which has been declined because it is a sub-stub as currently submitted. I am encouraging 5pg5 to expand and resubmit the draft. If there is sufficient information to have entries on both the book and the film, a disambiguation page should replace the current redirect. I recommend waiting one to two days to see if 5pg5 can expand and resubmit the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: thanks for linking to Draft:America is still the place. I meant to add that in, but didn't get a chance. I have towards this becoming, potentially, a dab page or some sort of other stub-class article page, if everyone else agrees to it. The RfD was just opened today, so it should run for at least 7 days anyway. Even then, I'm not opposed to the draft being moved boldy to that article title if the AfC reviewer(s) consent to it, even after the closure of the RfD. Doug Mehus T·C 03:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The book titled "America is still the place" is not a movie title. Research reveals that this is a book title available only on Amazon 0974305707 and not a movie title. Conversely, The movie titled, "I'm Charlie Walker" is the sole and accurate title of a narrative feature film work, based on the aforementioned book, featuring the actors Mike Colter, Dylan Baker, Monica Barbaro, Boots Riley and others. The title "America is still the place" does to exist on any data base as a movie. (see imdb for both titles) However, at present, the inaccurate title "America is still the place" as a movie title appears on several actor pages/articles as a movie title, due to redirects and edits possibly made is error. The will no doubt confuse readers and researchers seeking the movie and/or the book. Based on the current, relevant and reliable data found on imdb and google, I submit the deletion of the article "America is still the place" as a movie title. Additionally, the article/page "I'm Charlie Walker" movie page/article should be retained for redirecting, or stand alone entry. The book title is a stand alone entity. The movie title is it's own entity and should not be interchanged. I kindly submit these corrections based on available data.5patrickgilles5 (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.199.20 (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation FWIW, I noted that IP editor 98.207.199.20 posted, (nearly) verbatim), the above comment on the user talk page of 5patrickgilles5 via this earlier edit diff by IP editor 2601:647:301:A70:1102:1FBA:2F78:DA1D. Doug Mehus T·C 19:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've been discussing the confusion between America Is Still the Place and I'm Charlie Walker with the IP at User talk:5patrickgilles5#Nomination of I'm Charlie Walker for deletion (IP appears to also be 5patrickgilles5, or at least that's my assumption). There's insufficient sources to support notability for the book; the IP states the film America Is Still the Place was screened at film festivals as incomplete work and never released; no pre-release coverage of I'm Charlie Walker to even support existence, other than IMDb. I think it should all be clean-slated, and then when a film (under whatever title) is released and gets enough coverage for notability, an article can be started at that time. (I note that the entry for the film on Mike Colter is unsourced.) Schazjmd (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I appreciate and concur with user Schazjmd's appraisal. Delete the article "America is still the place" until notable coverage deems appropriate, would seem the proper course. Agreed that the entry for the film on Mike Colter is unsourced. 2601:647:301:A70:1102:1FBA:2F78:DA1D (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With respect, we don't care about WP:GNG for redirects. What matters is whether or not the redirect has been used. The sourcing indicates that Mike Colter is the correct target for this redirect. I would, however, strongly support protect-ing at Extended-confirmed protection, to limit changes to the redirect to those neutral experienced editors and administrators. America is still the place is appropriately tagged as a plausible miscapitalization of "America is Still the Place," which is mentioned in the target. As such, I would oppose delete-ing this. We shouldn't let apparently COI-conflicted editors dictate whether we delete a redirect. Doug Mehus T·C 22:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sourcing, or rather, inadequate lack of sourced materail proves that there is no legitimate target, or benefit of rediret. The sourse is a shadow. With respect to the opinioin of Dmehus, the fact remains that "America is still the place" is not a movie title. Multiple participants have stated and confirmed that the title "America is still the place" does not meet the level of source material. To not delete this article puts coding above factual accuracy. The article has no information, no refernce material. The original redirect was misquided and should have flagged the unsourced article for deletion. 5patrickgilles5 (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5patrickgilles5 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 5patrickgilles5 was editing both logged in and as an IP editor, until Dmehus explained the policy on that behavior, so 5p5 has been going back to their IP edits to include their account name in an attempt to rectify their mistake, that's why the some comments are showing two signatures. Schazjmd (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fair enough, but until 5patrickgilles5 adds {{small|''originally signed as''}} before the 2601:647:301:A70:1102:1FBA:2F78:DA1D signature, that delete !vote and argument should, thus be discounted as we cannot be certain whether the "comment" above is attributed to the same "delete" argument from the same person. In short, we should be treating 5patrickgilles5 and the IPv6 editor's delete/comment argument as one not two. Doug Mehus T·C 19:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation #America is still the place]] has not met the standards of "Reliable" sourcing. It is fraught with inconsistency and error as it presenetly stands. Is it a movie? Is it a book? Is it the correct title for redirect? In fact, this article more accurately fits the definition "Presumed". There is no significant coverage in reliable source. The referenced source to date is IMDb and Film Festivals of incomplete works. As suggested by anothers for concesus and I concur, the article should be deleted until proper source material exists. There does not appear to be enough significant coverage to justify this article. 5patrickgilles5 (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5patrickgilles, you'll be please to note that I'm supporting deletion per the above.Retracted. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
kingboyk It's annoying that we should have to delete a redirect based on the demands of a COI-conflicted editor, who I note still has not put the required COI notice on the userpage. It's a plausible redirect. That said, if this redirect is deleted, strongly recommend several people watchlisting it and, if it's repeatedly recreated, we should salt it at ECP brand salt. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 22:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Redirects are cheap and don't really seem to be subject to WP:N per WP:POFR; so, deleting because of a lack of notability doesn't seem like a very good reason. Moreover, deleting a redirect simply because the person who created it or someone who may have a conflict of interest with respect to it wants it deleted also doesn't seem like a good reason. The question should be whether the redirect falls under WP:R#HARMFUL or WP:R#DELETE.
    America is still the place seems to be the title of both a book and the one-time working title of a yet-to-be-released film based up said book. It's not clear whether the book will ever have an article written about it, but the film has apparently been renamed to I'm Charlie Walker. The current target of the redirect Mike Colter#Film doesn't seem really helpful since (1) only the current title of the film is mentioned and (2) it's not a film that seems as if it would be immediately associated with Colter (at least not at this time); so, that's not really a good redirect based upon the reasoning in items 2 and 10 of R#DELETE at least in my opinion. It would make much more sense to redirect to a page about either the film's writer/director or the book's author, but neither subjects have articles about them; so, the next best thing would be to redirect it to I'm Charlie Walker per items 5 and 7 of WP:R#KEEP.
    The rub here is that I'm Charlie Walker is currently being discussed at AfD, and looks like it will end up deleted. The film does seem to have some potential of being recreated as an article as it gets closer to its release date of after it's released, but it's just WP:TOOSOON at the moment. It seems that as part of such an article, a background section discussing the "history" of making of the film, including its former name, etc. would be relevant information suitable for adding to the article; so, that would make targeting this redirect (renamed as "America Is Still the Place") to "I'm Charlie Walker" plausible. If some day, an article about the book is created, then a determination can be made whether simply to overwrite the redirect with such an article or turn the redirect page into a WP:DAB page. If I'm Charlie Walker ends up deleted though, there's no point in redirecting to a page which doesn't exist. My suggestion is to wait for the AfD to close, then the redirect should be deleted if a better more plausible target page cannot be found. If at some future date, I'm Charlie Walker ends up being recreated, the redirect can also probably be recreated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:35, 15 February 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.

Bands/groups pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts[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. Due to the concern that these were nominated in bad faith, and the lack of broad input into the discussion, I am closing this discussion as no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 21:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jubël (band) and Jubël (duo). There is no article in Finnish WP, or anywhere else that I can see.
Delete Fantasy (band). We have no article corresponding to de:Fantasy (Schlagerband).
Delete Heimweh (choir). We have no article corresponding to de:Heimweh (Chor).
Delete Equal Love (group). We have no article corresponding to ja:=LOVE (note the stylisation). Narky Blert (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note to closing admin. The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl. These nominations were done in bad faith as an act of deliberate harassment directed at user:Ss112 which should be noted when closing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 15 February 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.

DJs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts[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. Due to the concern that these were nominated in bad faith, and the lack of broad input into the discussion, I am closing this discussion as no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 21:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. We have no articles on any of these English-language musicians. Narky Blert (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note to closing admin. The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl. These nominations were done in bad faith as an act of deliberate harassment directed at user:Ss112 which should be noted when closing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:56, 15 February 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.

Reünie[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 Snelle. signed, Rosguill talk 21:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, this redirect pointing to a chart page its subject is listed has nothing in great detail but a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting this redirect as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Snelle as {{R from song}}, mentioned there. Narky Blert (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note to closing admin. The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl. These nominations were done in bad faith as an act of deliberate harassment directed at user:Ss112 which should be noted when closing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Redirects pointing to List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2019[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, retarget some. Due to the concern that these were nominated in bad faith, and the lack of broad input into the discussion, I am closing the redirects for which deletion was suggested as no consensus. Because retargeting can be more easily reversed, and because the retarget suggestions are clearly grounded in best practices established by WP:NSONG and similar guidelines, I'm going to go ahead and implement the suggested retargeting signed, Rosguill talk 21:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Drunk On Love (Jang Hye-jin and Yoon Min-soo song) and Drunk on Love (Jang Hye-jin and Yoon Min-soo song) to Yoon Min-soo as {{R from song}}.
Delete If There Was Practice in Love, Lim Jae Hyun and Lim Jae-hyun. We have no article on ko:임재현 (가수) (Lim Jae Hyun).
Retarget Your Shampoo Scent in the Flowers to Jang Beom-june as {{R from song}}. Narky Blert (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl. These nominations were done in bad faith as an act of deliberate harassment directed at user:Ss112 which should be noted when closing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:59, 15 February 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.

John Blek[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. Due to the concern that these were nominated in bad faith, and the lack of broad input into the discussion, I am closing this discussion as no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 21:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, this redirect pointing to a chart page its subject is listed has nothing in great detail but a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting this redirect as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have no article on this English-language musician. Narky Blert (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Redirects pointing to List of number-one albums of 2019 (Belgium)[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, redirect some. Due to the concern that these were nominated in bad faith, and the lack of broad input into the discussion, I am closing the redirects for which deletion was suggested as no consensus. Because retargeting can be more easily reversed, and because the retarget suggestions are clearly grounded in best practices established by WP:NSONG and similar guidelines, I'm going to go ahead and implement the suggested retargeting signed, Rosguill talk 21:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Liefde voor muziek to René Froger as {{R from album}}, mentioned there.
Delete Zwangere Guy. We have no article corresponding to nl:Zwangere Guy. Narky Blert (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Ss112. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Redirects pointing to List of number-one albums of 2019 (Finland)[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. Due to the concern that these were nominated in bad faith, and the lack of broad input into the discussion, I am closing this discussion as no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 21:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ellinoora (singer) and Ellinoora. We have no article on fi:Ellinoora.
Delete Ellips. We have no article on fi:Elli Haloo.
Delete Maustetytöt. We have no article on fi:Maustetytöt.
Delete Vaaleanpunainen Vallankumous and Vaaleanpunainen vallankumous. We have no article on fi:Vaaleanpunainen vallankumous by Ellinoora (see above). Narky Blert (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Ss112. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Redirects pointing to List of number-one albums of 2019 (Portugal)[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. Due to the concern that these were nominated in bad faith, and the lack of broad input into the discussion, I am closing this discussion as no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 21:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aldina Duarte (double entry in the nomination). We have no article corresponding to pt:Aldina Duarte.
Delete Marco Paulo (album) and Marco Paulo (singer). We probably should have an article on pt:Marco Paulo (equivalent articles in Breton, Catalan, French, Galician, German and Spanish), but we don't. This is encourage-article-creation-time. Narky Blert (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Ss112. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:05, 15 February 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.

Musical works pointing to List of number-one albums of 2019 (Spain)[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. Due to the concern that these were nominated in bad faith, and the lack of broad input into the discussion, I am closing this discussion as no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 21:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Antidoto (Antonio José album). We don't have an article on Antonio José Sánchez Mazuecos, and nor does Spanish WP.
Delete Emociones (Martina D'Antiochia album). Spanish WP has never heard of her either.
Delete Ni descanso, ni paz!. We have no article on es:La Polla Records.
Dalete Otras Alas and Otras alas. By Natalia Lacunza; Spanish WP says, ¿Que?
Delete Sinónimo. We have no article on es:Rayden (MC). Narky Blert (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Ss112. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 15 February 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.

Artists pointing to List of number-one albums of 2019 (Spain)[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. Due to the concern that these were nominated in bad faith, and the lack of broad input into the discussion, I am closing this discussion as no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 21:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alba Reche. No article in Spanish WP.
Delete Martina D'Antiochia and Martina d'Antiochia. No article in Spanish WP.
Delete Natalia Lacunza. No article in Spanish WP.
Delete Rayden (rapper). We have no article equivalent to es:Rayden (MC). Narky Blert (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Ss112. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:07, 15 February 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.

Songs pointing to List of number-one club tracks of 2019 (Australia)[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. Due to the concern that these were nominated in bad faith, and the lack of broad input into the discussion, I am closing this discussion as no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 21:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. We have nothing about any of the English-language musicians who recorded any of these songs; several of them are already on this RFD page. Narky Blert (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Ss112. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:08, 15 February 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.

Artists pointing to List of number-one club tracks of 2019 (Australia)[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. Due to the concern that these were nominated in bad faith, and the lack of broad input into the discussion, I am closing the redirects for which deletion was suggested as no consensus. The ROBIN suggestion for Digital Remedy and Digital Remedy (company) is clearly valid, however, and thus I will implement that. signed, Rosguill talk 21:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Redirects pointing to List of number-one hits of 2019 (Austria)[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) 16:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Für Ewig and Für ewig. German WP has no article on the song, and we have no equivalent to de:Nockalm Quintett
Delete Mathea (singer). We have no equivalent to de:Mathea (Sängerin).
Delete Megageil im Juzi-Style. No German article; we have no equivalent to de:Die jungen Zillertaler.
Delete Nockis. This is de:Nockalm Quintett, and we have no article.
Delete Wer nicht fühlen will, muss hören. We have no article on de:Pizzera & Jaus, de:Paul Pizzera or de:Otto Jaus. Narky Blert (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Ss112. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Redirects pointing to List of number-one hits of 2019 (Denmark)[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) 16:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lord Siva (rapper). We have no equivalent to da:Lord Siva.
Delete Node (rapper). We have no equivalent to da:Node (sanger).
Delete Paris (Lord Siva song). We have no equivalent to da:Lord Siva.
Delete Super Mario (song). We have no equivalent to da:Node (sanger). Narky Blert (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Ss112. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Redirects pointing to List of number-one hits of 2019 (France)[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, redirect some. Due to the concern that these were nominated in bad faith, and the lack of broad input into the discussion, I am closing the redirects for which deletion was suggested as no consensus. Because retargeting can be more easily reversed, and because the retarget suggestions are clearly grounded in best practices established by WP:NSONG and similar guidelines, I'm going to go ahead and implement the suggested retargeting signed, Rosguill talk 21:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bramsito. No article in French WP.
Delete Eva (singer). We have no equivalent to fr:Eva Queen.
Retarget Hé Oh and Hé oh to Gambi (rapper) as {{R from song}}.
Delete Khapta. No article in French WP.
Retarget Puisque c'est écrit to Jean-Baptiste Guégan as {{R from album}}.
Retarget Sale Mood and Sale mood to Booba as {{R from song}}.
Retarget Un peu de haine to PLK (rapper) as {{R from song}}. Narky Blert (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Ss112. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 15 February 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.

Musical works pointing to List of number-one hits of 2019 (Germany)[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, redirect some. Due to the concern that these were nominated in bad faith, and the lack of broad input into the discussion, I am closing the redirects for which deletion was suggested as no consensus. Because retargeting can be more easily reversed, and because the retarget suggestions are clearly grounded in best practices established by WP:NSONG and similar guidelines, I'm going to go ahead and implement the suggested retargeting signed, Rosguill talk 21:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Du warst jede Träne wert. We have no article on de:Daniela Alfinito.
Retarget Kein Plan (Loredana song), Kein Plan (song) and Kein Plan to Loredana Zefi as {{R from song}}.
Delete Kein Schlaf (Nimo and Hava song), Kein Schlaf (song) and Kein Schlaf. By Nimo (rapper), but not mentioned in our article.
Delete KIOX (album), Kiox (album) and KIOX (Kummer album). We have no article on de:Felix Kummer.
Retarget MTV Unplugged (Santiano album) to Santiano (band) as {{R from album}}.
Delete Obststand 2. We have no equivalent to de:LX (Rapper) or de:Maxwell (Rapper).
Delete Sie wollten Wasser doch kriegen Benzin. No equivalent to de:Kontra K. Narky Blert (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Lk95. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:13, 15 February 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.

Artists pointing to List of number-one hits of 2019 (Germany)[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, retarget some. Due to the concern that these were nominated in bad faith, and the lack of broad input into the discussion, I am closing the redirects for which deletion was suggested as no consensus. Because retargeting can be more easily reversed, and because the retarget suggestions are clearly grounded in best practices established by WP:NSONG and similar guidelines, I'm going to go ahead and implement the suggested retargeting signed, Rosguill talk 21:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Felix Kummer, Kummer (rapper) and Kummer (singer). No equivalent to de:Felix Kummer.
Delete Daniela Alfinito. No equivalent to de:Daniela Alfinito.
Delete Kalazh44. No equivalent to de:Kalazh44.
Retarget Loredana (rapper) to Loredana Zefi as {{R from stage name}}. Narky Blert (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Lk95. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 15 February 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.

Albums pointing to List of number-one hits of 2019 (Italy)[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, retarget some. Due to the concern that these were nominated in bad faith, and the lack of broad input into the discussion, I am closing the redirects for which deletion was suggested as no consensus. Because retargeting can be more easily reversed, and because the retarget suggestions are clearly grounded in best practices established by WP:NSONG and similar guidelines, I'm going to go ahead and implement the suggested retargeting signed, Rosguill talk 21:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Potere (Il giorno dopo). No equivalent to it:Luchè.
Retarget Ricercato (album) and Ricercato (Junior Cally album) to Junior Cally as {{R from album}}.
Retarget Solo (Alberto Urso album) to Alberto Urso as {{R from album}}.
Retarget Veleno 7 to Gemitaiz as {{R from song}}.
Retarget Voglio essere tua to Giordana Angi as {{R from album}}.
Delete Aletheia (Izi album). No equivalent to it:Izi (rapper).
Delete Machete Mixtape 4. No equivalent to it:Machete Empire Records.
Delete Mattoni (album) and Mattoni (Night Skinny album). No equivalent to it:The Night Skinny.
Delete Good Vibes (Benji & Fede album). No equivalent to it:Benji & Fede.
Delete Ho paura di uscire 2. By it:Machete Empire Records (no article), Salmo (rapper) (not mentioned) and it:Lazza (no article). Narky Blert (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Ss112. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:15, 15 February 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.

Songs pointing to List of number-one hits of 2019 (Italy)[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, redirect some. Due to the concern that these were nominated in bad faith, and the lack of broad input into the discussion, I am closing the redirects for which deletion was suggested as no consensus. Because retargeting can be more easily reversed, and because the retarget suggestions are clearly grounded in best practices established by WP:NSONG and similar guidelines, I'm going to go ahead and implement the suggested retargeting signed, Rosguill talk 21:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dove gli occhi non arrivano. No equivalent to it:Rkomi.
Delete Gigolò (song) and Gigolò. By it:Lazza (no article), Sfera Ebbasta (not mentioned) and it:Capo Plaza (no article).
Retarget Jambo (Takagi & Ketra song) and Jambo (Takagi & Ketra, Omi and Giusy Ferreri song) to Omi (singer) as {{R from song}}.
Retarget Ostia Lido (J-Ax song) and Ostia Lido (song) to J-Ax as {{R from song}}.
Retarget Yoshi (Machete song) and Yoshi (song) to Tha Supreme as {{R from song}}. Narky Blert (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Ss112. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:16, 15 February 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.

Artists pointing to List of number-one hits of 2019 (Italy)[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 most, retargeting the two identified by Narky Blert. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lazza (rapper) and Lazza. No equivalent to it:Lazza.
Delete Luchè. No equivalent to it:Luchè.
Delete Izi (rapper). No equivalent to it:Izi (rapper).
Delete Dani Faiv. No equivalent to it:Dani Faiv.
Delete Madman (rapper). No equivalent to it:MadMan.
Delete Night Skinny. No equivalent to it:The Night Skinny.
Retarget Scatola Nera and Scatola nera to Gemitaiz as {{R from album}}. Narky Blert (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Ss112. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Redirects pointing to List of number-one hits of 2019 (Switzerland)[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) 20:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Büetzer Buebe. By Gölä (but not mentioned) and de:Trauffer (no equivalent).
Delete Dada Ante Portas. No equivalent to de:Dada (ante portas).
Delete Förschi and Kunz (musician). No equivalent to de:Kunz (Musiker).
Delete No 3 Nächt bis morn and Tommy Vercetti (singer). No equivalent to de:Tommy Vercetti.
Delete Sina (singer). No equivalent to de:Sina (Sängerin).
Delete Ärdeschön. No equivalent to de:Heimweh (Chor). Narky Blert (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Ss112. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Redirects pointing to List of number-one hits of 2020 (Germany)[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) 20:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Boss Bitch (album) and Boss Bitch (Katja Krasavice album). We have no article on de:Katja Krasavice.
Delete Liebes-Tattoo. We have no article on de:Daniela Alfinito. Narky Blert (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Lk95. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:18, 15 February 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.

Brunori Sas[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) 20:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, this redirect pointing to a chart page its subject is listed has nothing in great detail but a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting this redirect as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have no article on it:Brunori Sas. Narky Blert (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Italy chart there is very confusing. It really needs to have split articles for singles and albums. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Ss112. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Redirects pointing to List of number-one singles of 2019 (Finland)[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. --20:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Behm (singer). No article in Finnish WP.
Delete Muistuta Mua and Muistuta mua. By Pyhimys, but not mentioned in our article.
Delete On the Beach (Jubël song). Finnish WP has no article about Jubël. Narky Blert (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Ss112. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:21, 15 February 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.

Julinho KSD[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) 20:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, this redirect pointing to a chart page its subject is listed has nothing in great detail but a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting this redirect as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Redirects pointing to List of number-one singles of 2019 (Spain)[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 most, retargeting the one identified by Narky Blert. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Contando Lunares, Contando lunares and Don Patricio. We have no article on es:Don Patricio.
  • Delete Cruz Cafuné. No article in Spanish WP.
  • Redirect Darell (singer) to Otro Trago, where he's mentioned.
  • Delete Qué Bonito Es Querer, Qué Bonito es Querer and Qué bonito es querer. By Manuel Carrasco, but not mentioned there. Bare mention in es:Anexo:Discografía de Manuel Carrasco. Narky Blert (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Ss112. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Redirects pointing to List of Oricon number-one albums of 2019[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 most, retargeting the two identified by Narky Blert. Sockpuppetry again noted, but there have been no arguments against deletion. --BDD (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage redlinking of artist names and creation of stub articles for the artist at least. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 26-ji no Masquerade and their album Churu Sama!. I can't find them in Korean WP.
Retarget Endrecheri to Tsuyoshi Domoto as {{R from stage name}}.
Retarget Ima wa Ima de Chikai wa Emi de and Imawa Imade Chikaiwa Emide to Zutomayo as {{R from album}}.
Retarget Naralien to Tsuyoshi Domoto as {{R from album}}.
Delete Strawberry Love!, Strawberry Love, SutoPuri and Sutopuri. I can't find anything about the artist. Narky Blert (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Ss112. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Redirects pointing to List of Oricon number-one singles of 2019[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 most, retargeting the two identified by Narky Blert. Sockpuppetry again noted, but there have been no arguments against deletion. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, these redirects pointing to pages of charts they're listed on that have nothing in great detail about the subjects have just a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician/album/song on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting these redirects as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. These are only redirects for charts of 2019 and 2020. I am yet to investigate the charts of earlier years but I suspect there may be more that I may find and list here if this request for deletion is successful. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete =LOVE, Zurui yo Zurui ne and Zuruiyo Zuruine. We have no article corresponding to ja:=LOVE
Delete. Category/My Love, Dark Knight (song), One N' Only and One n' Only. We have no article on the artist.
Delete Last Idol. I couldn't find this artist.
Delete Magic Prince. We have no article corresponding to ko:MAG!C☆PRINCE.
Delete Matsuri Nine. We have no article corresponding to ko:祭nine..
Retarget Megane no Otokonoko/Nippon no DNA!/Go Waist and Megane no Otokonoko to Beyooooonds as {{R from song}}. Narky Blert (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom without prejudice to recreate decent stub articles if enough information is provided outside of the charting. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note The OP has been confirmed as a sock of Zawl which should be noted when closing. These nominations were likely done in bad faith as an act of harassment of user:Ss112. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:24, 15 February 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.

Bella (Eva song)[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. Sockpuppetry noted, though there seems to be no rationale to keep this. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 21#Gemeliers, this redirect pointing to a chart page its subject is listed has nothing in great detail but a single mention of the subject in a table. I do not believe it is sufficient to warrant a redirect. People looking for their favorite musician on Wikipedia will most probably not want to land in some random chart page. I recommend deleting this redirect as misleading and confusing, along for encouraging creation. Thank you. Agenzmale (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as redirect previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 29#Discussion (Songs pointing to 2019 & 2020 music charts). No need to read through that entire discussion to participate in this relist, but do refer to the deletion rationale posted there
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 8 February 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.

Dragtop[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 17#Dragtop

Luis Ángel Mendiburu[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 17#Luis Ángel Mendiburu

FC Spartakte[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. Nabla (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a typo, and would recommend deletion. Searching for "Spartakte" and "Спартакте" didn't turn up any meaningful results. signed, Rosguill talk 20:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:34, 9 February 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.

Interstate 495 (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. Nabla (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No 495s mentioned at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While I'm not an expert in Florida roads per se, I have enough grounding in roadgeekery to know how to sort such matters out through research. This redirect was first created pointing to Palmetto Expressway, before being repointed to its current target as a double redirect (since Palmetto Expressway is also just a redirect to State Road 826) — but I cannot find any indication on any roadgeekery site, or even on the Florida Department of Transportation's own website, that 826/Palmetto holds or ever has held an I-495 designation. Accordingly, this looks to me much more like a POV assertion that the highway should become redesignated as I-495, rather than an accurate reflection of any designation it has ever actually held — but, of course, your own personal fantasy renumberings of the existing highway system are not what Wikipedia is for. We reflect the way the world is, not the way you personally think the world should be changed to. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 9 February 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.

ყაზახეთი[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 05:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. None of these regions have significant populations of Georgians per the infobox at that article. -- Tavix (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFFL. There is no particular affinity between any of those countries and Georgian script from an English-language perspective. Narky Blert (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:47, 14 February 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.

პენისი[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 05:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED, the human penis has no affinity with any language. -- Tavix (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFFL. I have a sneaking feeling that this might be a slang word, because the Georgian-language equivalent page to human penis is titled ka:ასო (ორგანო), a very different set of characters. Narky Blert (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. No conceivable use. Crossroads -talk- 04:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFFL. Hog Farm (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the human penis has no affinity with any language – that's not counting this language. – Uanfala (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:47, 14 February 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.

Foundational medicine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 17#Foundational medicine

Penis (game)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target does not substantiate that "Penis" or "Penis game" is a synonym or variant of Chicken (game). Delete unless this can be done. -- Tavix (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had a talk page message inviting me to this discussion, but it seems that my only involvement has been to fix the case of the word "game", which should be lower as it it is not part of a proper noun phrase. I have no opinion about the substantive issue here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: There's a reference to a sexual game involving the partner's anatomical part at Body worship#Subsets. Could that work? Doug Mehus T·C 20:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alternatively, we could consider a soft retarget, at least of penis game (one is enough, I think?), as as synonym of pocket pool. In so doing, we promote Wiktionary whilst still remaining strictly adhering to WP:DICDEF by not allowing dictionary definitions directly on English Wikipedia. Doug Mehus T·C 20:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not willing to make such a consideration. -- Tavix (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first option, I think, was weak, but why not the soft redirect? J947 reminded us in another discussion to consider Wiktionary soft redirects. Doug Mehus T·C 20:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation for {{Wiktionary redirect}} explains when it should be used. How many times to I have to tell you to stop invoking editors who have not participated in the discussion at hand? -- Tavix (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for referencing the Wiktionary redirect, so if I can just walk through the criteria one by one:
*There is no scope for a Wikipedia article at this title, and
✓ Pass due to no suitable targets
*There is no other Wikipedia page to which this would be an appropriate redirect, and
✓ Pass due to no suitable targets
*There is a relevant entry in Wiktionary, and
✓ Pass due to "penis game" being noted as a synonymous phrase for the term at wikt:pocket pool
*Readers search for it on Wikipedia.
✓ Pass due to 1,650 pageviews from February 7, 2019-February 6, 2020, inclusive, for penis game alone; this doesn't even count the variant capitalization one or the one with the dab qualifier

--Doug Mehus T·C 20:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, there is not an entry at wikt:penis game so that fails. -- Tavix (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree that it fails that criterion. It says relevant entry. Synonymous phrases are relevant entries. Perhaps we need to establish a new consensus at the village pump to refine the wording of that criterion? Until then, though, I see no harm in going by the broader interpretation. Doug Mehus T·C 21:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In Wiktionary, any such synonyms would get its own entry. If this is a term that has attestation, to use Wiktionary's criteria, then it would get its own entry. Without that, there should not be any such mention, as a synonym or otherwise. wikt:pocket pool does not even have a mention of "penis game" so I have no idea where you are getting that idea from. -- Tavix (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful reply, Tavix. To answer your question, at wikt:pocket pool, it says that it's a variation of the game of pool in which one plays with their penis in their pants. Ergo, penis game is a synonymous phrase with pocket pool, no? (Does that help in understanding my train of thought?) --Doug Mehus T·C 22:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone searching this is probably going to be looking for the actual penis game, and it would be very confusing for them to end up at an unrelated Wiktionary entry simply because the entry maybe involves a "penis" and a "game" if you squint hard enough. -- Tavix (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that Urban Dictionary definition, so in view of that, I'll withdraw my (now second choice alternate) of the Wiktionary soft redirect. Since there's another article on English Wikipedia where it is now mentioned, I'm still going to prefer retargeting. Doug Mehus T·C 06:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect Penis game to wikt:pocket pool per my above analysis that is in keeping with WP:R#K5 and WP:R#K3. In my view, this is a strong alternative to deletion, applying the looser interpretation of criterion #3 (2nd choice); and, in either of the two choices,
Delete Penis Game as unnecessary other capitalization as most modern Internet web browsers and/or the MediaWiki software auto-correct the capitalization; and,
Delete Penis (game) as unnecessary and much less plausible search term, per WP:R#D8. Doug Mehus T·C 21:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose a redirect to Wiktionary per the above. -- Tavix (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply above. --Doug Mehus T·C 22:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've withdrawn the Wiktionary soft redirect alternative, per Tavix' convincing arguments. Doug Mehus T·C 06:01, 10 February 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.

Guest stars on Murdoch Mysteries[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 Murdoch Mysteries#Guest stars. signed, Rosguill talk 05:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. There have been three separate attempts between 2011 and 2016 to create full standalone lists of every guest actor who had ever appeared on the television series Murdoch Mysteries at all -- but two of the three titles were simply deleted outright, and this is the only one that was retained as a redirect. The series article also does not contain a comprehensive list, but simply mentions a small handful of isolated guest appearances that can be reliably sourced as significantly more notable than the norm, just as any other TV show that had featured noteworthy guest appearances would have. So this title simply isn't needed as a redirect: it wrongly implies that there's going to be more content about "guest stars" than there actually is, and there's no reason why Murdoch Mysteries would have any unique need for a special "guest stars" redirect. If we're not routinely creating "guest stars" redirects for every scripted TV show, then Murdoch Mysteries doesn't have any special need for a thing other shows don't have. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not opposed to deletion, personally, as I concur with Bearcat that it's unused, but similar to the redirect at the bottom of this page with an unnecessary disambiguation parenthetical qualifier, no inlinks, and 1 page view in the past twelve months, I can't see as there being much take up for deletion here. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)−[reply]
  • Refine to Murdoch Mysteries#Guest stars where this topic is discussed. -- Tavix (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we're not comprehensively doing that for every TV show whose article has a "guest stars" section to discuss three or four notable cameos by famous people, then I don't see the value in Murdoch Mysteries getting special treatment that the other shows aren't getting, especially when the redirect is completely unused. As noted above, it's had just one page view in the entire past 12 months combined, and me going to the redirect in order to nominate it here was that pageview. Bearcat (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there are other TV shows that give significant discussion to guest stars, I don't see an issue with a redirect there either. However, I only care about the redirect being discussed, and it looks like a useful redirect to me. -- Tavix (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And it doesn't look useful to me. Zero people expect such things to exist, so zero people are searching for it — the page has literally accumulated just one pageview in the entire past year, and that page view was caused by me initiating this nomination, which means it has had exactly zero actual use by readers. If this is necessary just because the target article has three lines about unusually noteworthy celebrity cameos, then every article with any subsections at all always has to have a comprehensive set of "[Subsection] in [Page Title]" redirects in place corresponding to every subsection that article happens to have — independently of a blanket program of always creating subsection redirects for every subsection of every article that has subsections at all, this has zero value in isolation, proven by the fact that it literally is not getting used at all by anybody. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 9 February 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.

Ipso gender[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 Cary Gabriel Costello#Career and personal life. (help in improving the Rcats is appreciated) Nabla (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete, there is nothing about Ipso gender in the Cisgender article. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There's no content in the article to explain what the redirect means — and even if I Google for outside verification of what it means, all I get is blogs and unreliable sources rather than any reliable sourcing that could actually be used to add content about what it means to the target article. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cary Gabriel Costello#Career and personal life (with applicable rcat(s)), a professor and transgender rights activist who apparently coined the term, where it provides needed context on why and how this term was coined. I suspect Bearcat would likewise have no objections to retargeting there, possibly speedily as part of a nomination withdrawal. Doug Mehus T·C 16:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm perfectly fine with this alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, retargeting to where it's actually explained (per Dmehus) sounds good. (If the term ever catches on, this can be revisited, of course.) -sche (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as above, as mentioned. I'm rather confused what IPSO organization would coin the term otherwise. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:55, 10 February 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.

Cuntboy[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 retarget/nomination withdrawn. Per Marcocapelle. Closing for him. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 16:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete, there is nothing about "cuntboy" in the Tranny article. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done and withdraw. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to Marcocapelle Sounds good. I've also retargeted Dickgirl to that list of slang terms as it was currently targeted to Shemale, where it wasn't mentioned. We should probably go through that list of LGBT slang terms and make sure all the derogatory slang terms are retargeted there, rather than to the subject articles, eh? --Doug Mehus T·C 16:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Question for Marcocapelle I looked through the list of LGBT slang terms list and the only ones I found not targeted to the list were bean queen and skoliosexual, which redirect elsewhere. Are those okay at the current targets, or should be retargeted to the slang terms list? Doug Mehus T·C 16:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Bean queen is targeted to another, more specific slang term list Queen (slang), so that's probably okay, and skoliosexual is targeted to the section of an authoritatively-sourced article where it's mentioned in a neutral way. Doug Mehus T·C 16:38, 8 February 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:GFY[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 history merge to GFY. -- Tavix (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo and search term of dubious utility, demonstrated by a mere 31 pageviews in the preceding, pre-nomination twelve month period, and considering it's located in Draft: namespace as well as the fact that we already have the GFY dab page which includes the Wiktionary link to wikt:GFY. I've reviewed the history, but there's nothing that needs to be kept here as it was previously an English Wikipedia WP:DICDEF article for the term go fuck yourself. With the only other history being frequent vandalism, I'm proposing that we delete this little-used and unnecessary duplicate redirect. Doug Mehus T·C 14:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this wasn't nominated for deletion instead of being moved to draftspace. We should delete this totally useless redirect. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 16:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chess Completely agree with you there. I looked if I could speedy delete this, but nothing really, technically, permits an accelerated deletion as far as I could tell (unless an administrator wants to boldy delete this per G6/housekeeping), I guess. Doug Mehus T·C 16:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: I disagree. There's no rush here. Sure it's unlikely that this'll be kept but perhaps someone could come along in the next week and make a tour de force of an argument on why this should be kept. There might be something in the page history worth keeping or whatever else. While I don't see any need to keep this redirect I don't see the need to deprive others of trying to convince me to keep it either. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: For clarity, there's nothing to disagree with; I was just posing that as an option and am fine with either a bold speedy deletion or a regular 7-day deletion. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but this is not a typo, and the policy on content forking does not apply to redirects. Glades12 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glades12 My linking to WP:FORK wasn't meant to be the policy-based reason for deletion. My policy-based reason is WP:R#D8 evidenced by the extremely low pageviews, showing no utility or usefulness. As well, we also have WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE policies, the latter of which is a suprapolicy in that it is said to above all other policies. Doug Mehus T·C 17:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - The page was briefly moved to the draftspace, so WP:RDRAFT might apply. Except the move to the draftspace was quickly reverted by the original mover, so I don't know if RDRAFT applies here. Hog Farm (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I don't think so. Like I said, there's nothing to keep here. And, this was originally created in Draft: namespace as a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Normally I'd say move it GFY, but we already have a Wiktionary link there, so nothing to keep And remember, we also have WP:COMMONSENSE, which is said to be a suprapolicy in that it is above all other policies. In other words, we need not be so beholden to a specific policy when, rationally, there's no reason for it. Doug Mehus T·C 01:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Histmerge back into GFY, with the optional deletion of the Draft redirect. This was at GFY for more than 13 years, and it got moved in November to Draft:GFY to make room for an article about the gene, which was in turn quickly moved to Golgi-associated olfactory signaling regulator, with the title freed up again, this time around for a new dab page. It's customary for dab pages to preserve any preceding history as redirects, and I see not reason to delete this history now. It might not contain any content we need for attribution, but it preserves the information that for a certain period of time a certain title existed with a certain function. – Uanfala (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Uanfala for that background. As long as the revisions of Draft:GFY can be transferred over to GFY and the page creator of Draft:GFY updated as the page creator of GFY, I think that's the route we need to go, so we can delete this useless cross-namespace redirect. Doug Mehus T·C 17:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's what a histmerge would do. If there's consensus for that, the closing admin will probably be able to perform it. – Uanfala (talk) 20:44, 15 February 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.

Over-church[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Over chuch below. Overchurch has no hyphen, and "Over church" is ambiguous Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've just created disambiguation page Over church. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Reyk YO! 11:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another implausible Neelix redirect. Softlavender (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Implausible, lack of mention, and no context.  Question: Why was this created? --Doug Mehus T·C 17:38, 11 February 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.

Over chuch[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. For what it's worth, I did not offer an opinion on this redirect so Dmehus's Delete per Tavix comment is incorrect. -- Tavix (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this has two errors- the space and the misspelling of "church"- makes this an unlikely redirect. One of the remaining Neelix oddities. Reyk YO! 08:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, obviously. If anyone does accidentally enter "Over chuch" (with the space) as a search term, they're almost certainly actually looking for Over church and not the formal name of a small part of the Wirral, but they're also almost certainly capable of noticing their mistake. ‑ Iridescent 09:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not a plausible misspelling of Overchurch. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wait, what, the entire internet has turned off the auto spelling mangling? Am I the only one still plagued by software that turns Overchurch into Over church when I'm not looking? This is exactly the kind of thing that "plausible spelling error" ought to cover. Also, the redirect has been around for 12 years, which means that WP:RFD#HARMFUL applies. A dozen years is definitely "a significant length of time". I like the new dab page, which was created by the second editor here (who now wants his new creation deleted?). A dab page is an excellent solution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WhatamIdoing: in case it matters, the nominated redirect is "over chuch", not "over church". Unless of course, your mangled software also drops that "r" in church? -- Tavix (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mistake. This is what happens when I edit while sick. 🤒 Although I wouldn't actually put that past the evil spilling chucker, mine is currently only adding the space. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. If this were an article about a church named Over Church, this would likely be a strong "keep," I suspect, subject to usage. However, we don't need redirects for typos of other redirects, which themselves aren't mentioned in the page. Doug Mehus T·C 17:36, 11 February 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.

Valie Export Contemporary Art on Feminism[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 06:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was the result of a good-faith but questionable page move of Valie Export to Valie Export Contemporary Art on Feminism. No speedy code applies, but there is no need for this title in article space. Requested action is Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 8 February 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.

Arlington center for the performing arts[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Per below. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the RfD below for Arlington Center for the Performing Arts, this is a redirect for variant capitalization except that neither of the redirects are mentioned anywhere in the target. Like the one(s) below, it has no inlinks from any namespace on English Wikipedia and, for the period from February 7, 2019—February 5, 2020, it had all of 5 pageviews (one or two of which may have been mine). It's simply completely unused, and would require a sophisticated reader/patron/user to know our MoS conventions with respect to article titling in order to reach the target article. Even still, though, since there's no context at the target article, readers/patrons/users will be confused. And, finally, freeing up this, and the other, article titles for article creation per WP:RFD#d10 for similar current or feature Arlington performing arts centres is very reasonable. Doug Mehus T·C 00:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but, with an abundance or respect, can I also ask what the policy-based reason is for keeping this redirect with no inlinks, extremely low pageviews in the preceding twelve months, and a lack of a mention in the target? Doug Mehus T·C 02:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have to copy and paste from the other discussion, it furthers my point that this should have the same result. -- Tavix (talk) 02:22, 8 February 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.

Arlington Center for the Performing Arts[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. Usage of the term "Arlington Center for the Performing Arts" has been demonstrated. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the other redirects, which I submitting separately as there aren't too many and they may well have different outcomes, this redirect is not mentioned in the target article. It's possible it was a working name during the planning and construction phase of the Arlington Theatre, but without a mention, this is just me crystal ball gazing. Secondarily, there are no inlinks whatsoever from any namespace on English Wikipedia, and, for the period from February 7, 2019—February 5, 2020, it had all of 7 pageviews (one or two of which may have been mine). It's simply unused, its length and lack of mention an implausible search time, and it could add to reader/patron/user confusion on why they landed at Arlington Theatre. Moreover, there's also a case for WP:RFDd10 to encourage article creation, so deletion is being strongly recommended here for all of the foregoing reasons. Doug Mehus T·C 00:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Please source your claim that there is a case for a notable article to be created at this title. -- Tavix (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will do so, but, with an abundance or respect, can I also ask what the policy-based reason is for keeping this redirect with no inlinks, extremely low pageviews in the preceding twelve months, and a lack of a mention in the target? Doug Mehus T·C 02:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:R#K5. -- Tavix (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Okay, bearing in mind that there is no mention to the subject redirect name at Arlington Theatre, I am operating under the very reasonable assumption that this was either a working name during the planning, design, and construction phase of the project or a very temporary name upon completion. Operating under the same very reasonable assumption, the Byrne Performing Arts Center, which does not have an article, in Arlington, Washington receives regular coverage in The Arlington Times, which is, perhaps interestingly, owned by the newspaper publishing owner Black Press, Ltd., of my local community newspaper the Kelowna Capital News, and other community weekly and daily broadsheet newspapers and this news item is just one such item. From the centre's own about us and history pages, we can see that the centre didn't necessarily get its current name until after it opened. So, it's equally plausible, this was a working name for that center, and, thus, a plausible redirect. Even still, local Arlingtonians may colloquially and informally refer to the Byrnes center as "the Byrnes center" or the "Arlington performing arts center". Doug Mehus T·C 02:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an argument for the creation of Byrne Performing Arts Center, not "Arlington Center for the Performing Arts", but given the slim to nil chance of that place being notable, I'm not buying it. -- Tavix (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To start, I wasn't saying that the article would be titled this; I was suggesting this redirect would make about as much sense as redirecting to Byrne Performing Arts Center as to Arlington Theatre. As to the Byrne centre's potential notability, to my surprise, though, I wouldn't call it a slim chance of being notable as buildings aren't subject to the same sort of WP:CORPDEPTH requirements of a building's owner. It just has to show coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, as I now I understand it. Nevertheless, with the lack of a mention at Arlington Theatre and the ~6-8 pageviews in the preceding twelve months, how is there a keep rationale here? Doug Mehus T·C 03:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: That's a directory listing of Santa Barbara businesses and organizations. That suggests a colloquial name; a working name from the planning, design, and construction names; or a former name. Without a mention in the target, it's crystal ball gazing for the reader/patron/user as to how they landed here. Equally importantly, too, it has 7 pageviews in the preceding twelve months and no inlinks. How do you square keeping against strong cases for deletion per WP:R#D8 and WP:R#D10? Doug Mehus T·C 17:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do you expect people you come across the term "Arlington Center for the Performing Arts" off-wiki to find it in-wiki? Narky Blert (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: Well, for one thing, there was, what, 5-7 pageviews in the last twelve months, so that's a really small sample. But, I would suspect, reasonably, that for small samples like that, there would be people who, not knowing the actual name of the performing arts centre in a given city might search for name of city AND performing arts centre OR centre for the performing arts (allowing, of course, for re or er). They may not actually do an advanced search as they would be doing a straight keyword search or direct URL entry in their web browser address bar. Doug Mehus T·C 03:03, 9 February 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 Arlington Theatre[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 06:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and little used redirect with absolutely no inlinks from any namespace on English Wikipedia. We already have the target article, Arlington Theatre, and the common variant spelling, Arlington Theater, redirecting there. This one averages ~10 pageviews or less per month for the period from February 7, 2019—February 5, 2020, inclusive. Given that there are likely many more Arlington theatres around the world, the modest pageviews and zero unlinks make a strong case for WP:RFDd10 to encourage article creation of additional Arlington theatres without needing to add parenthetical disambiguation qualifiers. Doug Mehus T·C 00:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's pointing to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the article uses "The Arlington Theatre" in the first sentence. The argument that the deletion of this redirect would somehow encourage more articles to be created is bonkers. -- Tavix (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is the argument that it might encourage article creation "bonkers"? Sure, there's no inlinks, so no redlinks, but if an editor types in this title into the search bar or into Wikipedia, they're redirected to Arlington Theatre and may not realize they can convert the redirect to an article. As well, there's no indication this is the primary topic for any future, notable similarly named Arlington theatres. Per various policies, we could potentially have Arlington Theatre for one Arlington-named theatre and The Arlington Theatre for an entirely different Arlington-named theatre. Granted, this one does have ~100-120 pageviews for the preceding twelve months, so this is, arguably, the toughest deletion argument. The rest are strong cases for deletion, especially the one with the parenthetical dab qualifier that had all of 1 pageview in 12 months. Doug Mehus T·C 00:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there's no inlinks, so no redlinks. Bingo. -- Tavix (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought you meant, and that's certainly one view and true of WP:REDLINK. However, I was thinking more from a common sense perspective of article creation—that is, if the editor, not seeing the tiny text saying this was from a redirect, they may not know how to navigate to the redirect. If they do, they may, incorrectly, assume that they can't create an article from that redirect. Nevertheless, as I say, this was, arguably, the biggest uphill battle for deletion. I'd be willing to revisit this in a year or two and, if low pageviews, no inlinks, etc., could I make a better argument for deletion per WP:RCOSTLY? Doug Mehus T·C 01:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, there should not be an article at this title because the Santa Barbara theatre is the primary topic. So it's a poor argument even before you factor in the possibility that someone could be so poorly acquainted with redirects but competent enough to write an article on a hypothetical theatre you still haven't shown exists. -- Tavix (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's the primary topic at Arlington Theatre, though, no? That doesn't give it carte blanche rights to title squat on related, albeit similar, Arlington theatre-related titles, without the parenthetical dab qualifier, no? Can you clarify what policy guidance (assuming in MoS) says what related titles such an article has such titling "rights" to? Doug Mehus T·C 02:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well you'd have to make the argument that "The Arlington Theatre" primarily refers to <insert imaginary theatre here> and "Arlington Theatre" primarily refers to the one in Santa Barbara. It's not title squatting, it's common sense. -- Tavix (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you saying if there was a fictional, notable theatre in, say, Arlington, Virginia, that was both officially known as The Arlington Theatre and covered independently in reliable sources as such, then we could still have that article titled The Arlington Theatre and this Santa Barbara, Calif., theatre titled Arlington Theatre (similar to, but not the same as, WP:DIFFCAPS)? Doug Mehus T·C 03:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral We have Arlington Theatre, Theatre Arlington, and Signature Theatre (Arlington, Virginia). The current target could be considered the primary topic, as it is the only one with "Arlington Theatre" in that order, but I can see the possibility that the others could be known as "The Arlington Theatre". Leaning towards keep and maybe create a dab page and hatnote to the dab page, but I feel like there would probably be WP:PARTIAL for those potential dab page entries. Hog Farm (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With two PRIMARYTOPICs and no other full title matches, a DAB page would inevitably fall foul of WP:TWODABS. I've hatnoted the articles to each other. Narky Blert (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Narky Blert, Hog Farm's identification of three potential dab targets would seem to nullify this, particularly when you add in potential targets to other theatres named Arlington that don't have separate articles or as found. Moreover, WP:TWODABS isn't a hard and fast rule. We have lots of dab pages with only two targets, which have existed for years, so that's evidence of (a) community support for dab pages with two links, provided they're well constructed and maintained or (b) a lack of concern in not cleaning it up. If (b), that suggest a very low priority, and thus, per WP:NODEADLINES, we've got time on our side for more potential targets to emerge. Doug Mehus T·C 17:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. Presence or absence of a definite or indefinite article is hardly ever a satisfactory way to distinguish between articles (counter-examples include The/The The and Who/The Who). Concerns about possible future articles are WP:CRYSTAL. Narky Blert (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Narky, Hog Farm's reference to WP:PARTIAL is useful here, as is his finding three Arlington theatres/theaters potentially colloquially known as The Arlington Theatre. Without a specific mention in the current target, it's crystal ball gazing, I think, to determine the reason for the redirect. No prejudice, of course, to retargeting back to the current target if we authoritatively-sourced mentions appear. At which point, we can either decide to (a) delete the dab page and hatnote or (b) move the dab page and hatnote. Even without WP:PARTIAL applicability, we have two powerful policy-based reasons for dabification, and those include WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE. Doug Mehus T·C 17:26, 8 February 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.

Arlington Theater (Santa Barbara, California)[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 06:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Highly implausible search term not mentioned explicitly, as written in the target article. Looking at the history of this redirect in the logs, it was created from a bold page move to make way for a disambiguation page in 2011, which was reverted days later. As such, Arlington Theatre is the correct spelling of the theatre, despite its U.S. locale, and Arlington Theater redirects there as a variant spelling. This redirect, however, has no history whatsoever beyond its system-generated creation, and, for the period from February 6, 2019–February 5, 2020, two days preceding its nomination, it had all of 1 pageview. Moreover, if that's not enough for deletion, it has no inlinks whatsoever, from any namespace. Doug Mehus T·C 00:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:ENGVAR and the fact that the theatre is, in fact, in Santa Barbara, California. -- Tavix (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I think WP:ENGVAR is misapplied here when you consider it has a parenthetical dab qualifier. This is no different than your arguments for deletion of the soft redirects to Wiktionary terms that had parenthetical "word" dab qualifiers. Moreover, the fact it had all of one pageview in the past twelve months, the fact it has no inlinks from any namespace whatsoever, and the fact that it getting pageviews would require a sophisticated user/patron/reader to know our MoS conventions with respect to disambiguation in article titling to reach this redirect make for an arguably very strong case for deletion. If extremely low pageviews and a highly implausible search term aren't deletion rationale, then we could, theoretically, create hundreds of questionably plausible redirects for every article. Doug Mehus T·C 00:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Theatre/Theater is a very common variation regardless of the context. -- Tavix (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get that for, Arlington Theater, but I'm not proposing to delete Arlington Theater. It's a useful English variation spelling. I'm saying the combination of 1 pageview in the preceding 12 months and the unnecessary parenthetical dab qualifier, combined with the no inlinks, make it a highly implausible search term in which to access the article. One could also argue this orphan redirect could be a potential honeypot for vandalism, spam, and off-topic banter on the talk pages. Doug Mehus T·C 02:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buildings are very commonly titled using this format, so it follows that someone would search using this common format. -- Tavix (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and I get that, but per your "keep" rationale of WP:R#K5 in a related redirect, but we also have to show utility. In this case, it had all of one pageview. Other editors, such as Narky Blert, Hog Farm, and Rosguill, from what I've gleaned from their arguments in other RfD discussions generally use, as a gauge, a minimum of 50-100 pageviews in the preceding, pre-nomination twelve month period. This redirect has one. Are you saying you don't subscribe, at all, to pageviews as a deletion rationale? In this sense, I would argue, in addition to the above arguments, this redirect can be deleted on WP:R#D8 grounds. Otherwise, and I'm by no means suggesting I would do this, but someone could reasonably create a redirect or article they watch and perform maintenance on, to provide for easier sortation and filtering in their "watchlist," i.e., Arlington Theatre (redirect for Doug Mehus watchlist), no? Doug Mehus T·C 02:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put words in the mouths of other editors that are not participating in this discussion, that's very inappropriate. Besides, page views are not an argument for or against the deletion of redirects. It may give clues on how obscure a topic is, but that's about it. -- Tavix (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't putting any words in their mouths, but just saying what I've been able to presume may be their rough guideline. I may well be completely incorrect. If and when they find this discussion, they can clarify, if they wish. But, anyway, what I'm asking is, if not using pageviews to assess utility at WP:R#D8, how does one assess this? Doug Mehus T·C 03:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're invoking other editors to your cause even though they haven't participated in this discussion. If they wish to give their thoughts, they, and ONLY they may do so. Don't ever do that again. -- Tavix (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I did so with the good-faith intention of rationalizing some sort of guidance in terms of what that pageview threshold is, in absence of such, and with apologies, noted and understood. Doug Mehus T·C 03:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Theatre vs. Theater is a legitimate spelling difference, and it targets to the theater of that name in Santa Barbara. Redirects don't have to be exact string matches, they just have to be plausible. Hog Farm (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hog Farm and WP:CHEAP. Narky Blert (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above, the article was at this location for over 22 months so WP:RFD#KEEP#4 would likely apply even it it has very few views. Also per Tavix it would be reasonable for someone who doesn't know that this is at the base name to search for this title since there are several others[1][2][3][4]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: for @Narky Blert and Hog Farm: and Crouch, Swale is welcome to chime in with his own rationale...yes, I get that redirects are cheap, but that alone doesn't make a basis for keeping, particularly when (a) there's no mention in the target article as constructed and (b) this is, after all, an unnecessary disambiguation qualifier as Tavix has said there's a primary topic that is extant to Wikipedia. So, in order to avoid deletion per WP:R#D8, how do you square the 1 pageview in the past twelve months as being both plausible and useful? I have seen you both !vote to delete similar redirects to articles and soft redirects to Wiktionary for redirects with significantly more pageviews. Can you help me understand the thesis here? Because, as I see it, if this is kept, the only way to keep it is per WP:IAR (policy-based reason) and the Wisdom of Solomon of Tavix as a long-time, experienced editor. Doug Mehus T·C 17:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dmehus: I think this is one of those situations where different editors can legitimately draw different conclusions from the same policies. WP:ENGVAR allows for the theater/theatre misspelling, and the qualifier points to the specific Arlington Theatre (see my listing above of different things that could be known as "Arlington Theatre"). It's not the exact name of the theatre, it's more of a descriptive name. To me, this makes the redirect plausible, although you may well disagree. I see pageviews as the determinate of borderline plausibility cases, and I see a strong enough case for plausibility that I wouldn't judge it by pageviews. Feel free to disagree, but I see this one as a keep. Hog Farm (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its a redirect from unnecessary disambiguation so there's no need to mention "Arlington Theater (Santa Barbara, California)" in the target similar to the fact that "Jupiter (planet)" isn't at Jupiter or "Paris, France" isn't at Paris (other than in citations). The 1 view is surprising but given as noted the page was at this title for over 22 months it is possible that views are coming from outside WP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:15, 9 February 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_February_8&oldid=1171579480"