Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 31, 2020.

Halo 7[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. Participants remain split between delete and two different retarget proposals. Based on the discussion, it seems reasonable to assume that most participants would prefer either of the retarget options over the current target, so no prejudice against someone boldly changing the targets. signed, Rosguill talk 04:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources confirm that seventh or eighth games in the series have been announced. These redirects should either be respectively retargeted to "March of the Pigs" and The Downward Spiral for now (Confused? See Nine Inch Nails discography#Chronology) or deleted altogether. Vaporgaze (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect or delete, as mentioned these games aren't confirmed and there's not really any significant consensus of sources to refer to them this way either. Can be discussed again in the future if that changes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (was Delete) There's nothing to keep here, and just because this game uses one or more songs from the proposed targets, I see no reason for keeping here, particularly since these will ultimately be needed for the future Halo games (once released). A clear-cut WP:FORRED reason here. But, besides that, no reason for the redirect creator to receive article creation credit for the future Halo game editions. --Doug Mehus T·C 15:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the Nine Inch Nails usage as identified by the nom since the video games have not yet been confirmed. -- Tavix (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But how is that fair to give some editor who created these redirects years ahead of their time article creation credit, if and when these are ultimately converted into articles? Unless there's a tool in the admin toolkit that can, appropriately, update the page creator, I just don't see how retargeting or keeping is helpful. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bizarre consideration to make. Of course, the edit history will show who has contributed to the article once the article is created and those editors will get their credit that way. In the meantime, these redirects should point to a legitimate usage of "Halo 7/8", as has been identified. -- Tavix (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect these redirects were created, for that very purpose, as a good faith and proactive attempt to appear as the "page creator" for the (likely) planned future installments of the gaming franchise. I don't think it's bizarre at all; the fact that we just had another editor, in a good faith attempt, to future plan the list articles for films by year to 2062 indicates this. Not all editors may have that motivation, but I just don't see how retargeting to a Nine Inch Nails article with only a vaguely related passing reference is helpful. I think this is a case of us over-reaching to avoid deletion. That's not say I wouldn't be opposed to keeping; in fact, I'm planning on refusing my !vote to basically anything other than retargeting to an unrelated or tangentially-related subject. Doug Mehus T·C 17:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, these redirects were originally created for the Nine Inch Nails usage, just like all the other redirects from Halo 9 onward target likewise. It is disingenuous to delete a redirect for essentially a WP:CRYSTAL argument (ie: these will be used for the games eventually, so they shouldn't be used now). We have useful targets now, so they should redirect there until or unless that day comes. -- Tavix (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tavix Okay, fair enough. You've convinced me with the first sentence of your rationale to at least not be completely opposed to deletion. I'll leave my !vote stand, but I'm at least modestly supportive of retargeting (call it a "weak retarget" per your reply). Doug Mehus T·C 16:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No clear target. Search engine will serve a better purpose for visitors searching for these terms than any redirect possibly could.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: How is there not a clear target? Searching "Halo 7" in the search bar only provides results related to the Nine Inch Nails usage, and the only target for that is March of the Pigs. -- Tavix (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaporgaze: Noting your reply, the above, and that you also favoured deletion, I guess I misspoke or was confused. Nonetheless, there's no clear primary topic here if Halo 7 and Halo 8 can potentially refer to either song by the same artist. Deletion is best here because of that ambiguity, because of the low pageviews, and, in so doing, this will pave the way for potential future article creation if and when Microsoft announces the next installments in the primary topic gaming franchise or, if not, to potential recreation as a dab page. Doug Mehus T·C 15:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no ambiguity! Halo 7 is one song and Halo 8 is a different song. The games you are referring to do not exist so you are falling for the WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Tavix (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tavix, your edit summary suggests you didn't assume good-faith as I wasn't "wrong yet again." I thought (a) they were different songs from different arts until @Vaporgaze: clarified as the preceding discussion was not all that clear and then (b) thought there were to be different targets. Knowing that now, and since there are no other possible targets including Wiktionary soft redirect options, I am willing to change my !vote. Doug Mehus T·C 15:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not assuming bad faith to point out when someone is wrong. It does, however, test ones patience when someone is wrong several times in one discussion when all they had to do was read the targets in question to understand what the articles are about. If you can't do your basic homework required of your participation, the discussions would go much smoother without your participation. -- Tavix (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget Halo 8 to The Downward Spiral
with rcats {{R to song}} and {{R from code}}, per @Tavix and Vaporgaze: above, until such time as Halo (franchise) includes a sourced mention to each at which time we can boldly retarget back there. Doug Mehus T·C 15:42, 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.

List of US assassinations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 10#List of US assassinations

Beijing Airport[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 Beijing#Air. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify as there are now two main airports with commercial service serving Beijing (Capital and Beijing Daxing). Conifer (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Beijing#Air, which gives more context then a disambiguation would. -- Tavix (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Beijing#Air per Tavix, with {{R to section}}, {{R from subtopic}}, and {{R unprintworthy}}. J947 (c), at 02:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Beijing#Air: good idea. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per Conifer, as I don't think having the reader/patron/user make one extra click to the correct article is particularly onerous. As well, I don't think there's a clear enough primary topic here because searching for Beijing Daxing, without quotation marks but all about the airport, produces about 3.5 million Google web search results versus about 1 million for Beijing Capital, with quotation marks because without you get lots of results about the city. We should not be crystal ball gazing trying to guess which is primary topic when it's not particularly onerous to our patrons to click through the correct and exact article they're seeking. Moreover, nom and Tavix note that there are more than two airports in Beijing, so we can potentially add even more than two dab links. We should also be encouraging dab page creation, so WP:RFDd10 likely applies (though there's no need to delete to do this, since we're not a bureaucracy). What do you think, Narky Blert? Doug Mehus T·C 16:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. There's also Beijing Nanyuan Airport. The proposed target section serves as a sort of internal WP:BCA, with brief information and relevant links. Because it's so detailed, I'm (for once) not worried about the possibility of accumulating bad links. Narky Blert (talk) 16:10, 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.

Frerin[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) 18:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Dwarf mentioned only in the appendix to The Lord of the Rings. As a non-notable character, he is not mentioned on the target list. In fact, he is never mentioned on Wikipedia, so there are no suitable targets for this redirect. BenKuykendall (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as minor as they come. Couldn't we group some of these guys to do a bulk delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, There a couple of character redirects at Dwarf (Middle-earth) that previously redirected to Durin that might need to be looked at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:E990:2463:427D:F460 (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@2601:241:301:4360:E990:2463:427D:F460: I've listed three Durin-related redirects at RfD. The others are all either mentioned in the dwarf article or the Moria article. Hog Farm (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can find no references on the English Wikipedia using the search function. Hog Farm (talk) 21:26, 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.

Nár[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) 18:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nár is a fictional Dwarf mentioned only in the appendix of The Lord of the Rings. He is not notable, and thus not described on the target list. I am fairly sure he is not described anywhere on the Wiki; he is certainly not mentioned on Dwarf (Middle-earth) or Moria (Middle-earth) which are the most relevant articles. BenKuykendall (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Are we having a competition for most minor dwarf? This one's nano, to coin a phrase. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and update the NAR dab page after deletion, I can find no entries with this spelling. Hog Farm (talk) 21:25, 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.

History of PSG[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) 22:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PSG is a disambiguation page, so it seems improper to assume that readers searching for "history of PSG" are looking for the football club. However, we can't just retarget to the disambiguation page, because the "History of" articles don't belong there. Thus, I think that deletion is the best option at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to History of PSG F.C. without leaving a redirect. Hopelessly ambiguous title, it could refer to almost anything on the DAB page; which includes no "History of" articles, so that anyone following this redirect to there would be left guessing. Although PSG is unambiguous to followers of association football, we cannot assume that a reader finding this redirect is interested in football. History of PSG F.C. would be an unambiguous search term which means that readers don't have to know, or remember, what PSG stands for. Narky Blert (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no basis on which to move the article to History of PSG F.C., as the club's name is not PSG F.C. The current location of the article itself is correct, the issue is this redirect...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea is to move the redirect to History of PSG F.C., not the target article. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for misunderstanding.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - ambiguous. GiantSnowman 11:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but as an unlikely search term. Sidebar comment: I have the PSG dab page on my watchlist because the Progressive Senate Group article I created is listed there. Doug Mehus T·C 16:08, 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.

The Nonmetels[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) 15:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unconventional use of the word "The" + misspelling = unlikely and unhelpful. Steel1943 (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the double reason identified by nom. (I thought they might be a band, but they don't seem to be.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Leftover redirect after cleaning up from an inappropriate move. There's also a related Talk:The Nonmetels redirect to delete. --Carnildo (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unlikely spelling. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 15:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unlikely spelling. I assumed this was the name of a band when I saw it, but nothing musical came up when I typed this name into Google. Hog Farm (talk) 23:49, 1 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:Other nonmetals[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improper use of the "Draft:" namespace. Was initially created as a redirect to Nonmetals as the creator's only edit ever, which was corrected by a bot to fix the double redirect a few minutes later. Per the edit history of the redirect, seems that it was created in a manner that violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with fire. No history here, no merge, has always been a redirect from the draft space to the article space. Nothing of value here. Hog Farm (talk) 19:13, 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.

Crowne Plaza Rosemont[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) 18:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target and almost certainly would not be DUE to mention it there, the redirect was created by a UPE editor who has since been blocked for socking. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 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.

King Richard (film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. No longer a redirect, it is now an article as explained in the discussion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of an IP user who requested it to be deleted. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears the current is a redirect to the tennis coach... if you are writing an article about the film (as you are in draft space), then when your article goes live we can change the redirect... no real reason to delete the current article... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... and considering that the upcoming film (currently in draft space) is about the tennis coach, I don't think any deletes will be necessary, only changing some rediects... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moot issue. I've turned it back into an article now that filming has begun. Rusted AutoParts 18:40, 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.

Heroes: Heavy Rain[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) 18:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any evidence that this is an alternative name for the target. Per the now-blocked creator's other contributions, seems this may have intended to target some topic related to Heroes (TV series). Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 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.

Pissing it down[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 without prejudice against a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Consensus is clear that no one wants these to continue pointing at Rain, but it's not obvious whether there's consensus for a soft redirect. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. It seems to be a phrase related to heavy amounts of rain, but it seems to be a slang-ish WP:DICDEF that could leave readers confused being forwarded to any specific target for this phrase. Steel1943 (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both as not quite the right colloquial term. Rain is sometimes referred to as "pissing," but I've not heard it used in that exact phrasing. So, call it an implausibly incorrect phrasing deletion rationale.
Soft redirect to wikt:pissing it down per J947's good find, as a useful WP:ATD. Doug Mehus T·C 18:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Precise colloquial British English for heavy rain; as are e.g. "chucking it down" and "tipping it down", among others. As of now, neutral on the value of these redirects. Narky Blert (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both (neutral no longer). (1) "It's pissing down" and "it's pissing it down" are interchangeable. (2) Anyone looking for a slang WP:DICDEF in an encyclopaedia is looking in the wrong place: they should be looking somewhere like Urban Dictionary or Wiktionary. If the WP article doesn't mention a term, a redirect from it is useless to readers. And, I can't for the life of me think why rain should mention every known slang term for rain; I could probably come up with 50. (3) I suspect a schoolboyish attempt to get something into WP, "Look what I've done". Narky Blert (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Narky. Unencyclopedic slang. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. Always good to check for definitions on Wiktionary. J947 (c), at 00:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we seriously claim to not be a dictionary, we can't just redirect everything to our dictionary sister project. We should reserve these for likely search terms or common words and phrases. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTADICTIONARY has done its job by keeping us from writing dictionary articles on this website. There's no reason to not soft redirect something which we are confident that we don't need an article for. signed, Rosguill talk 04:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's just a lot of things we don't need an article for. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing, Rosguill, about WP:NOTDICTIONARY/WP:DICDEF in that Wiktionary soft redirects (a) help save us from having sub-stub dictionary definitions on English Wikipedia and that, in turn, (b) provide for a soft cross-promotional opportunity for underutilized Wiktionary. As a side note, I've noticed page move and deletion discussions there can take months, presumably due to a lack of both editor involvement and patrolling administrators. In short, English Wikipedia gets the lion's share of the Wikimedia network of web properties' page views, editor volunteerism, and so forth, and, in turn, it should do its part to try and encourage participation elsewhere. --Doug Mehus T·C 17:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129, Thank you for your, as always, concise and rationale argument, but I noted you linked to WP:ATF—the WikiProject for Anarchism. I assume you meant WP:ATD? Doug Mehus T·C 12:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All of the above wikilinks which are not preceded by WP: are English Wikipedia soft redirects to Wiktionary
Thanks, Rosguill. I don't think I clarified above that I don't think we need to keep Pissing it Down as MediaWiki and/or most, if not all, modern web browsers adjust for the casing of the URL so Pissing it down is probably sufficient as the soft redirect to wikt:piss it down; Pissing it Down can be deleted. What do you think? Doug Mehus T·C 17:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. signed, Rosguill talk 22:07, 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.

Gavaccino[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. Despite spirited opposition from Dmehus, I think there is a consensus to delete among all other editors in the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. and apparently, returns zero results on third party search engines. Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...Apparently, my third party search engines aren't working correctly for some reason. See the discussion with the external link for the search provided by Dmehus below. Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it passes my pageview statistic test (402 pageviews for the period from January 30, 2019-January 29, 2020, inclusive, pre-nomination). That's, comfortably, above my minimum threshold of 5-10 pageviews per month to make it worth keeping. I would also add a more specific rcat besides {{R from alternative name}}, and possibly, both of the {{R to article without mention}} and {{R for convenience}} rcats. One could also add {{R to related topic}}, too, potentially. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Okay, so it has pageviews. Pageviews of a redirect do not validate that the redirect is pointing at the right target, nor does it validate that the redirect is an actual term for anything. Also, did you by chance find any evidence to back up any of the possible WP:RCAT tags you are proposing? I mean, with the rationale above, I could create any nonsense word or phrase as a redirect, mention it on some widely-viewed social media site, that would generate pageviews for the redirect on Wikipedia, and thus would result in a similar opinion that the redirect should be kept. (The argument to keep this redirect is akin to a WP:CIRCULAR argument: You are referencing the page views on Wikipedia for the reason to keep the redirect without presenting evidence from third party sources the term's validity. Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 20#Other nonmetal for a ... rather long ... discussion where a similar claim was discovered to be made, and the redirects were deleted.) Without evidence or references of what this redirect actually means, the redirect in its current state is a WP:HOAX and/or unverifiable WP:OR at best. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Steel1943 I disagree that pageviews are a circular argument; they demonstrate whether or not the redirect is useful, and experienced editors and administrators alike frequently use that in ascertaining whether to keep something. We have lots of redirects for memes, misspellings, alternative names, and that sort of thing, but the crucial thing is whether it's being used (i.e., pageviews are good for this) and whether it targets to the appropriate, or most appropriate, destination. I'm not sure we need the section in the existing target, so wouldn't be opposed to removing that, or to retargeting. Nonetheless, this does seem to be a legitimate type of coffee, and this points users to useful information. As to WP:OR, that's a guideline for article creation, not redirects. Nevertheless, it clearly doesn't apply here as this is a very real type of specialty coffee beverage. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      ...WP:OR can apply to anything. I could find something, real or bogus, that claims that a bird is also called a Whoosipansitan, so I could create a redirect at that title, assuming that I did not consider any of Wikipedia's policies stating for me not to do that. In that instance, I created that redirect from original research. (Seriously, the whole argument that stuff articles can be construed as original research and nothing else can be ... heard it many times. That argument is like the blind leading the blind.) Also, your claim that "...this is a very real type of specialty coffee beverage...", you'll have to back that up with a reference since, as I said, third party search engines return zero results for the redirect as a search term (I have never seen that happen ever before), so you will have to provide a reference to back up that claim; without it, that claim "...is a WP:HOAX and/or unverifiable WP:OR at best." Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      ...Hmm, just noticed and clicked the external link in your comment. I wonder why in the heck my search results returned zero entries when the external link you provided returns results for "Gavaccino". Well ... yep, that's some sort of reference right there. I'm still advocating for deletion as the most helpful option since 1) the redirect is not mentioned in the target article, and there doesn't seem to be an appropriate place to mention it and 2) WP:REDLINK since the subject may be notable. Steel1943 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment following Reflection While I disagree with Steel1943 that WP:OR applies to redirects in all contexts or that I'd need to provide reliable, independent source citations "evidence" on its usage, since redirects are, fundamentally, a navigational aid. Moreover, while by no means am I suggesting that Steel1943 does not believe this, to remove any doubt, I should add a general point of relevant information to the discussion on the purpose of redirects, incorrect, commonly used redirects targeted to the proper article with the correct information can be very useful. The pageviews show us this is either (a) a type of specialty coffee beverage (i.e., we can see multiple online forums and blog posts on "how to make a 'gavaccino'") or (b) it's a semi-common misspelling, possibly for "javaccino," which is like an iced frappé, Frappuccino, or some other hot or cold espresso-based specialty coffee beverage. While not mentioned in the target, I propose, because of the active use...
Retarget to List of coffee drinks#javaccino, where it is now mentioned with three citations, with rcats like {{R from misspelling}}, {{R to list entry}}, and {{R to anchor}}. I think this would be a more satisfying target. Doug Mehus T·C 21:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...@Dmehus: So, I never once cited or linked WP:RS, so please don't claim that I did; obviously, a third party search engine search is sufficient. And I don't know where in the heck you saw me disagree that "...commonly used redirects targeted to the proper article with the correct information can be very useful." With that being said, I'm going be very blunt with this next statement: Please stop claiming that I said either the opposite of what I said or that I said something I did not because I'm getting to a point where I'm considering requesting a two-way interaction ban between us. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...I'm just going to say that this is the revision my previous comment is in response to, and this is the action taken by Dmehus which significantly altered the statement which I was responding to regarding "...commonly used redirects targeted to the proper article with the correct information can be very useful.". It makes me look like I was responding to something other than what I was responding to. It is bad form to alter statements which have already been responded to unless the previous statement is struck through (which was done) and there is clear emphasis on what was added, such as by using italics on the new text, in order for subsequent comments to make sense. (As of this moment, I have not read or acknowledged any other edits or messages by Dmehus, and don't plan on doing so until at least 12 hours from now.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: For clarity, I took from your reference to "evidence" and to your ignoring my provided Google search results as meaning that you wanted reliable, independent source citations. I never intended to imply that you quoted WP:RS, not at all. Seeing, though, your struck out section, and your subsequent comment, it's clear that you were seeing different results (or lack thereof, in your case) when searching Google. I hope that makes sense. Doug Mehus T·C 21:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As a late friend of mine, Fred Tutchings, one of nature's gentlemen, onetime Royal Navy signalman, and strong bridge player used to say when there was an argument at the card table: "Why don't you two get married?" Narky Blert (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Narky Blert, smart guy. There were some interesting points between Steel1943 and I above, but in the grand scheme of the discussion, I don't think it's essential to this redirect's discussion, particularly I've since changed my !vote. I would be fine if he would like to remove all or most of my preceding comments and his as well, and just start fresh. I respect Steel1943 and his experience very much, so it concerns me greatly to know that he is upset with me. I would like to make this right, so that's why I'm thinking, at the end of the day, most of our argument was over a misunderstanding in what the other guy meant and to one of us not being able to see any search results. Doug Mehus T·C 02:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...Just to note, I responded to this comment via my talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Simply strike (<s>...</s>) any of your own comments which you'd like to remove from the discussion. Deletion from, or editing someone else's posts on, a discussion page is not a good idea. Narky Blert (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: Thanks, but I never removed or modified other comments; only my own. In this case, since the issue was between Steel1943 and I, and I could see how my original statement was misinterpreted, out of an abundance of good-faith and goodwill, I felt it was best to rephrase my above statements. Since much of the above between Steel1943 and I is not relevant to this discussion nor helpful to anyone, I'm just saying that if Steel1943 would like—and only then—per WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE, we can mutually remove our own comments and clean up this discussion a bit. Hope that clarifies. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shhhnotsoloud But "gavaccino" is mentioned, explicitly and specifically, at List of coffee drinks. There's even an embedded anchor there to which we can target—that is List of coffee drinks#javaccino. The pageviews show this is quite a common misspelling, so we should retarget to that target, as it's more satisfying to the user in terms of what they're looking for, with rcats {{R to anchor}}, {{R to list entry}}, and {{R from misspelling}}. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: "gavaccino"—with a "g"—is not mentioned, explicitly, specifically, or in any other way, at List of coffee drinks. Because it's not a thing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shhhnotsoloud: Yes, I should've clarified that, but the fact it's had more than 500 pageviews in the past twelve months, preceding its nomination day, suggests is a plausible typo worth keeping (thus the {{R from misspelling}}). As WilyD et al. often remind us, it gets the users to their destination and to the information they're seeking. Since it's a list, there's a plethora of information available to satisfy what that information is. Since it's a misspelling, I don't see article creation as being viable, unless it becomes a massively viral meme, like "World spells 'javaccino' incorrectly as 'gavaccino' on massive scale; spawns viral meme". Doug Mehus T·C 16:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure we have the full story here, but what we do have only points me to deletion. I see a grand total of 12 (!) results for gavaccino -wikipedia, which alone is fairly damning. Taken as a misspelling of "javaccino", I just don't get it. "Java" as a nickname for coffee is well known, and very unlikely to be rendered "Gava". If you're getting the G from Greece, gravaccino is more likely; if you take it as Italian, giavaccino (for what it's worth, none of these forms show up anywhere on the Italian Wikipedia). Finally, and perhaps most concerning, current use on Wikipedia suggests this is something else entirely: it's linked from Coffee roasting, which may help explain the views. Combined with where the redirect points now, it suggests a coffee griding/brewing method that affects caffeine content. If not outright WP:MADEUP, this is a very obscure topic indeed which we don't cover. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 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.

Domestic architecture[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 04:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding no evidence on third-party search engines that this redirect is exclusive to its target. For example, this redirect could also refer to an apartment. Steel1943 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete We'd be better with a WP:REDLINK. It's a valid topic, but we don't have a decent target for a redirect. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or switch to go to Vernacular architecture, which has issues but will probably help most readers, as the vast majority of Domestic architecture is vernacular. The apartment argument is very weak as they don't really have "architecture", any more than rooms do. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But domestic doesn't mean anything remotely like vernacular. There is no reason why we must have this redirect, i.e. we ought to point it to a wrong place, if we don't have a right one. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of vernacular architecture is domestic, and vice versa. If we actually had an article on Domestic architecture (which you say is a "valid topic"), what would it look like? House, or failing that Vernacular architecture. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Vernacular architecture Johnbod's right here, Vernacular architecture is a very good target for this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the majority of domestic architecture isn't necessarily vernacular, and that's the direction which we'd care more about here. Brunskill on vernacular architecture is largely about farmhouses, as working buildings.
If you look at books specifically on domestic architecture, James Ayres' Domestic Interiors would be one, the two main themes of the period covered (1500-1850) are the shift away from large households (as economic units) to something more like modern families, and also a shift from houses built individually by their occupants (and largely vernacular) to the idea of on-spec building by builders, then for sale or rent, where we see estates of matching designs start to appear and architectural styling and fashion takes over.
Vernacular is part of this, but it's only one part, and it wouldn't be an adequate coverage (even for a redir) to offer "vernacular" as an answer to "domestic". This is still a REDLINK. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer disambiguate (1st choice) to Vernacular architecture and House as both are reasonable targets. There is little prospect of this being converted to an article, so a redlink deletion is rather weak. If and when it is, the dab page or redirect can be swiftly converted to an article boldly. Better to direct users/patrons to the article(s) with which they're seeking. Note, too, other dab targets can be added as necessary. Doug Mehus T·C 16:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly get behind a disamb page. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod Thanks. I've created Domestic architecture (disambiguation) as a redirect to a dab page if this closes as dab. Narky Blert and others may well want to refine my draft dab page. Doug Mehus T·C 16:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've created a preliminary dab page draft. Narky Blert et al., feel free to edit, revise, or add to, as potential targets are found. Doug Mehus T·C 16:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The draft disambiguation page looks like it should actually be an article about a subject by this name, especially given the section Domestic architecture#Styles of domestic architecture. If the intent is to create an article at this title, I would recommend to go ahead and do it. In the disambiguation page's current form, it looks more like an article (probably a "stub"-class) masquerading as a disambiguation page rather than an actual disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The draft disambiguation page does not disambiguate the term: neither of the 2 entries mention the phrase. Search is better. A redlink would encourage article creation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Steel1943 and Shhhnotsoloud: There may be potential for an article of this name, but not a proper disambiguation. Neither "house" nor "vernacular architecture" are called "domestic architecture". And as Andy Dingley suggests, deleting this might encourage someone to create a relevant article. Cnilep (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With the greatest of respect to Shhhnotsoloud and Cnilep, and those arguing for deletion on WP:RFDd10 grounds, what article creation exactly? We already have several articles on house design, construction, planning, and architecture. Note, too, that the draft dab page is only a draft, and we have a number of willing editors to focus on searching to a greater degree to add more dab links and better refine it. An arguably very weak deletion case has been made on that basis, I think. Doug Mehus T·C 16:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See comments by Andy Dingley and by Steel1943 above: "domestic architecture" is, roughly speaking, (the study and/or practice of) the architecture of homes. (See also Susan Kent, 1990, Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space, for an interdisciplinary approach.) Cnilep (talk) 23:56, 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.

Christopher Wilson (reporter)[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 Christopher Wilson (biographer). (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. Implausible search term. No context in which the target is related to the subject redirect. Doug Mehus T·C 14:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Since there is no specific mention in the target, this redirect is ambiguous with Christopher Wilson (biographer) who has also been a reporter. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of mention. signed, Rosguill talk 21:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Christopher Wilson (biographer). I recall a case from a year or so ago (possibly WP:RM rather than RFD) where a cue sports player was known for both pool and snooker. The consensus was that the article title should be qualified by the sport in which he was better known/had had more success, and that the other qualified title should redirect to that. Narky Blert (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Narky Blert But how likely is it that someone is going to mistype the wrong parenthetical qualifier? Otherwise, we could potentially add lots of redirects to target articles with multiple former occupations to them. I honestly think deletion is best here. If his primary occupation was as a reporter, then we could move Christopher Wilson (biographer) to Christopher Wilson (reporter) over the redirect. --Doug Mehus T·C 21:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How likely is it that a reader is going to search for a parenthetical qualifier at all? I've seen more than one case where, to invent the circumstances, the Joe Bloggs who had a possibly-notable college football career but wasn't mentioned as such on the DAB page turned out to be better known as Joe Bloggs (politician), U.S. Congressman. Narky Blert (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Narky Blert True, but then makes an even stronger case for deletion. In any case, this redirect in question was created by a confirmed sockpuppet account, VivaSlava, whose sockpuppeteer account Charles lindberg had been blocked for serial sockpuppetry. It can't be G5'ed, in part, because this sockpuppet account hadn't yet been found out/added to the sock puppet investigation at the time it was created and also because there was a redirect that was added by another user. Thus, I'm bringing it to RfD. I wouldn't be completely opposed to you, or someone else, re-creating it (if really that there was use of it) to a different target, but given all of that, I think deletion is best here. Doug Mehus T·C 22:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For those just joining this discussion, reviewing the pageview statistics for the pre-nomination 12 month period, you get ~18-20 total pageviews for the preceding year (January 24, 2019—January 23, 2020, inclusive). Most months there are zero pageviews; in other months there is a 'spurt' of activity with 1-3 pageviews, at most. Moreover, this redirect was created by VivaSlava in or around August 2017, after sockpuppeteer Charles lindberg had already been indeffed for serial sockpuppetry. The user's VivaSlava account hadn't yet been found out and added to the sockpuppet investigation, so on that very, very minor technicality, CSD G5 cannot apply. As well, different editors have taken the perspective on whether retargeting to a new target is considered a significant edit to qualify for G5, with Rosguill and I either fairly uncertain or certain that such an edit would not be "significant" whereas Glades12 views that as a "significant" edit. Nevertheless, where we're at is whether or not it:
  • (a) makes sense to keep absolute rubbish created by a sockpuppet account of a indef blocked serial sockpuppet;
  • (b) when it's not mentioned in the current target; and, finally, whether or not,
  • (c) we should be keeping multiple disambiguating redirects, which are themselves unlikely search terms and very implausible typographical errors, for another, unrelated target whose primary/principal occupation is as a biographer/journalist.
Channeling my inner Robert McClenon, this is crud, in more than one way. Do we keep problematic crud? Doug Mehus T·C 18:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Christopher Wilson (biographer) per Narky Blert. Readers looking for another reporter by this name will be disappointed regardless, so we might as well help provide access to those looking for this one. I'd be less inclined to retarget if this Christopher Wilson were more well known for something else and had briefly been a reporter, but that's not the case. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 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.

Human biodiversity[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 7#Human biodiversity

Gourmet tea[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 9#Gourmet tea

Alternative Tea[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 22:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target page is unclear in what the adjective "Alternative" is meant to refer to. Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Herbal tea, i.e., beverages called tea without the leaves of the tea plant. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All a search yielded was various alternatives to tea, and a redirect to entry "Tea" in the The Free Dictionary which doesn't mention it. Narky Blert (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Malformed capitalization and extremely low usage (~18-20 pageviews in the preceding 12 months, pre-nomination), this is similar to the redirect for Christopher Wilson (reporter), which had ~18-20 pageviews as well. No prejudice to someone re-creating it, of course, but we don't need to keep low usage redirects. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:34, 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.

Teamelier[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) 18:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Doesn't exist on Wiktionary either. Steel1943 (talk) 15:49, 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 Tea#Loose tea[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 Korean tea#Unoxidized. signed, Rosguill talk 22:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, so thus the connection is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 15:46, 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.

Pitewey[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) 15:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Per third-party search engines, this word seems to have some connection to India a Native American language, possibly a translation for the word "tea", so it is possibly a WP:FORRED issue. Steel1943 (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It seems to be the Miꞌkmaq language word for tea; so Native American not Indian, and WP:RFFL applies. (Indian-language words for tea are likely to be "cha" or similar.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Corrected. I think I blame my geolocation for my messed up search results. Steel1943 (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neelix nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 11:11, 1 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.

Harry Goatleaf[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) 15:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article (and rather minor figure), and only mentioned in two places: in a list of all characters referenced in the credits of the movies at Middle-earth in film, and at Tom Kane in a list of all credited roles. Not heavily used either 1. Hog Farm (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meh How many more Middle-earth redirects do we have to through? We should just ping Chiswick Chap for his expertise on these on whether it's a major or minor plot or character element, and then evaluate how often these redirects are being used. --Doug Mehus T·C 18:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I can do any better than you, and we're all volunteers, unless you're proposing I apply to WMF for a Tolkien scholarship or something (no thanks). He's very minor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: I'm doing my due diligence here, too. I've been trying to retarget instead of take them here when applicable, and while I may not be Chiswick Chap-level, I know a fair amount of LOTR, too. I'm aware if something generally very minor. Hog Farm (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: How many more Middle-earth redirects do we have to through? Hundreds! There are 182 redirects to Middle-earth alone, and a further 239 associated with the WikiProject. There are probably hundreds more beyond that. Since the recent slew of Middle-earth mergers, many if not most of the redirects are to minor elements not discussed at their targets. Involved editors are trying their best to boldly retarget when possible, and to bundle closely-related and uncontentious nominations. But there are just so many bad redirects and this is the only venue to delete them. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither of those mentions is strong enough for a redirect. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. My "meh" has solidified as a delete. Doug Mehus T·C 17:18, 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.

Linhir[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 04:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article, but the name of a power plant at List of geothermal power stations, so I propose retarget to List of geothermal power stations. Hog Farm (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The power plant is "Lihir" not "Linhir" (now corrected in the article), on Lihir Island; see this. Not mentioned in the current target, so a useless redirect. Narky Blert (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom comment - I support delete now due to User:Narky Blert's discovery that the power plant entry was an error. Hog Farm (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delete per Narky and nom's comment. --Doug Mehus T·C 13:56, 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.

More regions of Gondor[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) 15:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More regions removed from the Gondor article and not mentioned anywhere else (Note: "Angbor" is mentioned once at Middle Earth Strategy Battle Game as the name of a playable character, likely taken from the Middle-earth context, but the mention is in a trivial context). Also, if Poros (Middle-earth) is deleted, we will need to update Poros (disambiguation) accordingly. Hog Farm (talk) 14:58, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_31&oldid=940523335"