Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 30, 2020.

Cipolin[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 Cipollino marble. There is consensus here to retargeting Cipolin to Cipollino marble would be beneficial to readers/patrons/users. I have added the rcats {{R from incomplete name}} {{R from incorrect name}} (redundant when used with the incomplete name sub-category rcat) and {{R for convenience}}, but feel free to correct or add any additional ones, Narky Blert, Fram, Vexations, or nominator. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 12:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Doesn't seem to This may be an alternative name for the subject at Cipollino marble. either. The nominated redirect has incoming links, so I would imagine that there is a subject somewhere out there to target this redirect, but in lieu of that, it may need to be deleted per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...Hmm, this may indeed be an alternative name for the subject at Cipollino marble, but I'm not completely sure; in effect, I've updated my nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the French term for Marmo cipollino. [1] Vexations (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, retarget to Cipollino marble is the right way to go. That article was only created in 2011, and the redirect dates to 2006, so at that time the generic "marble" was the best target. The term is occasionally in use in English sources, e.g. here a few times or here or here, clearly referring to a kind of marble. The fact that cipolin and cipollino are the French and Italian names for the same or very similar things can be seen here or here, or in this recent gem dictionary. Fram (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to cipollino marble. The first five Google hits were English dictionary definitions, several of which (e.g this), from Collins Dictionary, equate it with cipollino. Narky Blert (talk) 10:07, 31 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.

Redirects to Marble[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 Nero Marquina to Nero Marquina marble, no consensus for White marble, delete rest. signed, Rosguill talk 22:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential variations of the target page's subject that are not mentioned in the target article. Probably best to delete these, considering that some of these could be search terms for readers trying to find Marble (toy). Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...But retarget Nero Marquina to Nero Marquina marble per below. (I didn't think that a subject for it existed since Nero Marquina was created by the same editor who created most of the other redirects in this nomination.) Steel1943 (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On balance, I tend to concur with Steel1943 that deletion is likely best here. What's our policy guidance on redirects described by various adjectives (i.e., colour combinations)? Seemingly, the potential colour combinations are endless, so where to draw on the line on what's useful. Do we just look at pageviews for each and, if less than 5 pageviews per month, delete? Doug Mehus T·C 22:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Redirects not mentioned in the target are useless. Colour adjectives are fine if they define something specific, but listing every possible colour of a natural substance opens the floodgates (why no redirects from 'red marble', 'pink marble' or 'blue marble', all known colours). Narky Blert (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except White marble as highly used. The confusion with marble (toy) makes me recommend deletion in most cases but White marble is used enough to be useful. The hatnote can suffice in the latter case. J947 (c), at 01:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...The page views for White marble seem to stem from the fact that it has a good number of incoming links in the "(article)" namespace. To me, that hints one of two things: Either the adjective "white" is unnecessary to link and thus erroneously included in these links, or the term "white marble" represents an encyclopedic subject separate and independently notable from Marble which rationalizes it being deleted per WP:REDLINK to allow article creation at that title. Bottom line is if anyone searching that term is expecting to find information about the subject "white marble", the redirect in its current form is unhelpful with helping readers find that information since it doesn't exist at Marble. Steel1943 (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Nero Marquina to Nero Marquina marble. Even if this hadn't existed as an article, I don't understand the need to delete this. It clearly isn't the name of a toy, and if I, as a reader, would read about "nero marquina" without knowing what it is, would get redirected to "marble", then surely I would at least know that it is a type of marble? Having such a redirect is better than not having it. The other ones have marble in the title, so these are rather unnecessary or at worst confusing: but "nero marquina" has no indication what it could be. Fram (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Yes, when I stated "...some of these could be search terms for readers trying to find Marble (toy)...", Nero Marquina was the redirect I nominated which was meant to be excluded from that part of my nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 12:51, 31 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.

Elven-king[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 Elvenking. Per the unanimous, albeit light, consensus between @Hog Farm and Narky Blert:. Thought light consensus, it's a very plausible alternative spelling and, because the new target is the dab page, the reader/user/patron will not be confused. I'll add {{R from misspelling}}; feel free to add any other equally specific rcats post-close. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 14:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is this fictional character's title. However, this title can refer to multiple fictional characters (the title is not even exclusive to Thranduil in Middle-earth, there are a couple other elves referred to as the "elven-king"). There are also several poems (Erlkönig for one) and a band (Elvenking (band) with either this name or one the translates closely. Proposing retarget to Elvenking, since this redirect could refer to many things besides just Thranduil. Hog Farm (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. "Der Erlkönig" is not only a famous poem by Goethe, but also an extremely famous lied by Schubert; one of his best-known half-dozen at least. It's most often translated as "The Elf King" (actually mistranslated - it's "The Alder King"), but with 200 years of translation, who can tell what variants have been used? There's also the band. This is simply too ambiguous to be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Narky Blert (talk) 22:47, 30 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.

Fake minerals[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) 18:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase could also potentially refer to subjects pertaining to Mineral, a higher-level topic for Gemstone. This phrase/redirect, which seems to not have affinity to any specific subject, would be better off deleted due to misleading readers wherever they may go if forwarded to a specific article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The best-known fake mineral may be fool's gold; but it's only fake if it's used with intent to deceive. Paste gems are also fakes, in a loose sense of that word. This redirect is just too ambiguous. Narky Blert (talk) 23:00, 30 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.

Shawty Putt[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 22:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently an associated act, but no discussion of them at the target article. BDD (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Shawty Putt is apparently the stage name of this artist. Shawty Redd, mentioned in the article, seems to be a different "Shawty" and the cofounder with Lil Jon et al. of the record label. Shawty Putt has decent pageviews (316 from 29 January 2019 through 29 January 2020, the day before BDD nominated it), but, due to the lack of a mention and the fact users/readers/patrons will be confused and may incorrectly think Shawty Redd is Shawty Putt, deletion is best here, I think. This is, of course, without prejudice to recreation should it be mentioned in this article in the future. As well, WP:RFD#DELETE criterion #10 likely applies (would sure have been nice to have WP:FORRED as a shortcut for this more appropriate policy target!). --Doug Mehus T·C 13:13, 6 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.

Sammy (singer)[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) 18:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single line mention in a list. I would suggest deletion as less than helpful. signed, Rosguill talk 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, and the singer herself is not really notable outside of her involvement with the games either. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's very unlikely visitors will know our style standards for parenthetical qualifiers. So, I'd go so far as to suggest that these sort of redirects could even be speedily deleted (possibly G6?) as non-controversial housekeeping and cleanup. It's unlikely such a deletion would be challenged. --Doug Mehus T·C 00:29, 5 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.

Sonic Synergy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nom. Closing for them. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 22:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 22:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually the original name of the game [[2]]. I’m not sure why it isn’t mentioned though,--69.157.252.96 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per nom's updated rationale, subject to BDD's edits remaining extant to the article and there not being a more suitable target in future (was Delete per nom). At Ubiquitous Synergy Seeker, the artist received airplay on the Sonic radio station in Edmonton, Alberta, so the terms "sonic" and "synergy" are mentioned there, but as a complete term, I don't see any mention anywhere. So, delete per (a) lack of mention, (b) potentially ambiguous or unclear term, and (c) not a search engine. --Doug Mehus T·C 13:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added the source given by the IP and added the purported working title in the development section. I don't really doubt the source's reliability, but still hedged(pun?) my bets and phrased it deliberately, just that Nintendo Life reported this as a working title. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with keeping in light of these changes. signed, Rosguill talk 22:23, 7 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.

Enterprise networks[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 10#Enterprise networks

BRD algebra[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) 18:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation. BRD algebra is Brouwerian D-algebra; probably named after L. E. J. Brouwer, but not mentioned in either his English or his Dutch WP biographies.
(Clearly nothing to do with assessing the risk that you might be about to overstep WP:3RR.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above...interestingly, I thought the same thing as Narky Blert's small text comments, but just in different verbiage. I was thinking more along the lines of WP:BRD, but Narky has articulated well what I was thinking. --Doug Mehus T·C 13:24, 6 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.

IWA World Tag Team Championship (1 time)[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) 18:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable search term, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom but because of the presence of the parenthetical qualifier, which makes it grossly improbable as a search term. Otherwise, I think it's potentially an alternative name redirect without a mention. --Doug Mehus T·C 13:25, 6 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.

Marillyn Lockheed[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 to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump#Other people. I'm going to one up Doug's suggestion and do this in one step. As far as process is concerned, if anyone disagrees with this change we can start a new discussion either here or on the talk page as if I had just boldly redirected rather than bringing this to RfD. signed, Rosguill talk 21:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term as a portmanteau of the target's first name and the company she works for. I would lean toward deletion, noting that this redirect has received very little use since its creation. signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 30 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.

Light-foot[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 Lightfoot. --BDD (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not explained on the target article. I suggest retargeting to list of unusual units of measurement#Light-nanosecond. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmehus: (1) It does now, see the edit history of Lightfoot for background. (2) There is no unanimity here yet. Narky Blert (talk) 10:56, 5 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.

Appllodorus[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by Narky Blert. Closing for him. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 17:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo, 63 views in 2019. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; useful as shown by the view count and the closeness of 'o' and 'p' on the standard QWERTY keyboard. No argument that follows WP:RFD#DELETE has been given. J947 (c), at 19:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least for now, per J947. It's definitely a plausible typo. I hate keeping redirects strictly on that basis, but this qualifies. Add one or more rcats for misspellings and/or typographical errors. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947. Redirects like this are cheap 'n' harmless. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn by nom, this discussion is only going one way. Narky Blert (talk) 17:48, 4 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.

River Running[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 6#River Running

Mexican Federalist War[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 10#Mexican Federalist War

Former island[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 restore article. Consensus really did coalesce around restoring to the previous diff identified by davidwr, which I will do post-close. Feel free to re-categorize, update, and improve the restored article post-close. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 13:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The word "former" is nowhere in the target article, leaving the reader unable to locate the information they are looking for if they are searching this term. Steel1943 (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are several options emerging, but no clear consensus yet on whether this redirect should be deleted as unmentioned in the target article and potentially ambiguous, retargeted to Phantom island as proposed by ComplexRational, or converted back to an article using a previous diff as proposed by @Davidwr and Soumya-8974:.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 15:17, 30 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.

Phenatine[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There could plausibly be an article on the subject of an individual drug, but this article contains no information whatsoever on phenatine. It's better to leave a red link than a misleading redirect. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wikidata:phenatine exists, with no links out.
Phenatine is mentioned in Methamphetamine#History, society, and culture together its snigger-inducing synonym Perviton; but only to avoid confusion with the equally snigger-inducing name Pervitin (which is a brand name for methamphetamine, and is a stimulant). Narky Blert (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above but also because it's an ambiguous term for the generic drug, thus retargeting to a mention of a specific branded version of it is inappropriate. --Doug Mehus T·C 14:21, 6 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.

JGN strauss[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 JGN strauss and delete the rest. signed, Rosguill talk 22:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JGN Strauss and J.G.N. Strauss already exist, making these improperly capitalized redirects unnecessary. Not a very active user (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. They're harmless and redirects are cheap. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – These are typographical errors with no incoming links. Deleting them will result in nobody missing them. That they are "cheap" is a reason to delete, not to keep. Senator2029 “Talk” 12:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first as a likely typo, delete the others as unlikely. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first; Delete the others per Headbomb's rationale. Doug Mehus T·C 15:15, 3 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.

Albert Dock[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 move by Andy Dingley. WP:SNOW applies to this move. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 21:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no primary topic, then the disambiguation page should be at the base name. Leschnei (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glades12: There is no need for a speedy. All that is needed is a WP:ROBIN move. I would have done it myself if this discussion had not been open. Narky Blert (talk) 19:08, 30 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.

Launch mount landing pad[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not explained on the target article. Instead of deleting the redirect, I am suggesting to retarget this to SpaceX Starship#Landing. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I get Soumya-8974's wanting to retarget, but I don't think that we can retarget this to an article on SpaceX considering there are multiple companies, including Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin that would have similar "launch mounts" or landing pads. Although not mentioned in the target (or either target, really), and it is showing some very modest usage despite it being a less plausible search term, it's thus ambiguous and there's no primary topic. So, I recommend deletion per WP:RFD#DELETE criterion #10, to encourage article, or dab page, creation. --Doug Mehus T·C 14:17, 6 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.

F11952[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Withdrawing as nom. (non-admin closure)
SSSB (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

F1 1952 would be an acceptable redirect (and it is a redirect) but this just is a silly typo.
SSSB (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's harmless and redirects are cheap. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This one I can see the logic behind, so, in part, per Hairy Dude even though I prefer not to use WP:RCHEAP as a keep rationale. It's an abbreviation or code, formulated in a logical manner, that abbreviates Formula One/Formula 1 as "F1" and combines it with the year of the F1 race (1952). Thus, I think either, or both, the rcats {{R from systematic abbreviation}} and/or {{R from code}} would be helpful here. --Doug Mehus T·C 15:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidently used, but could be confused with later versions of this Ford (example). However, our search engine doesn't help for access of the Ford so I'll say keep it as it is. J947 (c), at 05:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawal by nom per WP:SNOW. No need to get an admin to do this.
    SSSB (talk) 10:14, 5 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.

Naeem Ul Hassan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 9#Naeem Ul Hassan

Foundation for Historical Outlook[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unclear why this redirects there Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Foundation for Historical Outlook is ru:Фонд исторической перспективы (a sizeable article). According to Russian WP, Natalya Narochnitskaya was its founder. It is unclear whether she is still associated with it. Delete to encourage article creation. Narky Blert (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. Too generic of a foundation; this could potentially be a dab page when two or more than two subject articles emerge. --Doug Mehus T·C 15:29, 30 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.

University of International Business[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 University of International Business and Economics. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The University of International Business is this organization. It is not the University of International Business and Economics (Beijing). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but not per Headbomb's rationale, per se. There's got to be more than one "University of International Business" besides the website for the one Headbomb identified; delete, as ambiguous; or, failing that,
Retarget to the dab page per Narky Blert --Doug Mehus T·C 15:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget (rapidly changing mind) to DAB page University of International Business and Economics as {{R from ambiguous name}}. Narky Blert (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with a retarget to the dab page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:35, 30 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_30&oldid=940164902"