Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 1, 2020.

List of lists that actually exist[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 21:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a joke – judging by that and page views (18 in the last year), not a very useful cross-namespace redirect. ComplexRational (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, appears to be a pretty implausible search phrase. PKT(alk) 00:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this isn't simple wikipedia, we don't need that phrase. Kingsif (talk) 15:44, 2 January 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.

House of Roman[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. Nobody's found any evidence that these two are actually connected in use, regardless of etymological connections. ~ mazca talk 13:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While there is an etymological connection, I don't think this is a likely search term for the current target. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 1 January 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.

Nilotic peoples, origins and scholarly anthropology of[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 21:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overly precise, unlikely search term, especially with the formatting with the word "of" at the end. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the originator of the redirect—created automatically through a move to a more sensible title—I support deletion. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because I'd expect the content of the deleted page to not go beyond the content of Nilotic peoples. Landroving Linguist (talk) 07:35, 2 January 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.

Myth of Stolen Legacy[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 Mary Lefkowitz. Works for me, so this is essentially a "withdrawn" close. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 1 January 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.

Boschera bianca,[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 21:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible search or link term with a comma at the end. Six page views in 2019 also don't suggest heavy use. ComplexRational (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Ü[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 21:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no logical reason why this should redirect to the target page. GlenwingKyros (talk) 12:54, 1 January 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 Marlowe Papers[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 procedural close, converted to article. signed, Rosguill talk 21:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ros Barber wrote a novel entitled The Marlowe Papers. It would be batter to leave this as a redlink. Redirection is misleading, as the one article gets linked twice, as at this version of Desmond Elliott Prize.

Second, most of incoming links are from articles that have nothing whatsoever to do with the novel, or the novelist. Geo Swan (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK, as an evidently notable novel [1] which should have its own article. That said, the incoming links are mostly from Template:Christopher Marlowe (specifically, the "Fictional representations" section), and I fail to see how they're problematic. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say that a google-search doesn't count as notability, but that was a pretty good google-search. If nobody beats me to it, I might start that article. No problem with deleting in the mean time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Pinging Geo Swan, does that look ok to you? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, it seems the incoming links are caused by the book being linked in Template:Christopher Marlowe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as it's now an article thanks to Gråbergs Gråa Sång. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:16, 3 January 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.

Rotten eggs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 10#Rotten eggs

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_1&oldid=936057373"