Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 24, 2020.

Imperial spy[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 23:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article, and is more related to Star Wars or Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga. Delete unless a justification can be proven. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as vague. I get some hits about a similarly titled book and enemies from various video games. --Lenticel (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lenticel. It could mean every spy from every empire that existed in history. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 05:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. In Rudyard Kipling's 1901 novel Kim, the protagonist was a spy for the British Empire and his opponents were spies for the Russian Empire. Narky Blert (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one and quite possibly the one below it, it's really ambiguous as to what it refers to-the Mark Robson novel isn't mentioned anywhere on his article, and it can mean imperial spies anywhere, real or fictional (or perhaps even on Wikipedia), so it's best as a redlink or with a disambiguator in this case. Regards, SONIC678 18:17, 25 June 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.

Imperial Spy[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 23:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section is gone, not mentioned at target article, and is referring to a character in Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga. Also, Imperial spy redirects to Galactic empire (which does not mention the redirect either and is also referring to the same character), so I'm nominating that one separately. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:40, 24 June 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.

위키백과:대문[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. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RLOTE signed, Rosguill talk 19:54, 24 June 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.

⧖[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 1#⧖

⧓[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 1#⧓

Multilinear[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 2#Multilinear

2015 LG ICC Awards[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep per recent RfD. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Redirect left over from move, as stated in that rationale, LG didn't sponsor the awards this year and so this redirect is wrong and misleading Joseph2302 (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per {{R from move}} and it's a very plausible search term given that LG did sponsor the previous several awards. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf, and as stated in the previous RfD (which was closed just yesterday) deletion should be avoided since the article was at this title for 3 years. Absolutely no need for deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 04:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hadn't spotted that the previous RfD was so recent (closed less than 24 hours before this one was opened) - I think we're into speedy keep territory here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked to see if this had been RfDed before, and didn't see that nom. Consider this post my withdrawal of this nomination- can someone put the proper withdrawn tags on it? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 25 June 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.

What is thy bidding my master[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 23:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article. Delete unless the article both mentions and explains the importance of the quote. OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete while it’s true Vader said that I don’t see why we need to have this as a redirect if it’s not mentioned. I also noticed that this originally was a redirect to Palpatine and have verified that the quote isn’t mentioned there either.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 20:59, 24 June 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.

Detroit-Hillsdale-&-Indiana Railroad[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 23:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totally implausible misspelling. John from Idegon (talk) 16:19, 24 June 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 talk (parenting)[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 The Talk. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out at Talk:The talk (racism in the US), this could either refer to the current target or The birds and the bees talk. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 15:05, 24 June 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.

L2 norm[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#L2 norm

Sihi( सीहि)[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 22:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible combination of different writing systems and incorrect formatting of brackets. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as cat-like typing. No space between main part and opening parenthesis, space after opening parenthesis, Roman alphabet main part and Nepali qualifier which mean the same thing - what's not to dislike? Narky Blert (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could be worse - the target is relevant to both parts. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while I can see the correctly formatted yet nonexistent Sihi (सीहि) redirecting here as an {{R from related topic}}, सीहि doesn't exist, either on here or the Hindi Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if this is really worth keeping. Regards, SONIC678 20:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sonic. The correctly formatted version does not exist, so unless that is created, this definitely should not either. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:55, 25 June 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.

Oberhauptling[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 22:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English as well as misspelt (Oberhäuptling would be correct); old but very few views; not referenced at all in the target article and no links. -- Der Trutinator (talk) 12:38, 24 June 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.

⦉[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. Current target is correct since they're basically all Z notation symbols. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target; seems to be related to schemas (see [1]). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. What is difference between these redirects? OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. These characters are respectively U+2989 Z NOTATION LEFT BINDING BRACKET, U+298A Z NOTATION RIGHT BINDING BRACKET, U+2A1F Z NOTATION SCHEMA COMPOSITION, U+2A20 Z NOTATION SCHEMA PIPING and U+2A21 Z NOTATION SCHEMA PROJECTION which indicates that the target is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't help the reader if he understands "okay, that's a Z notation symbol, but I still have absolutely no idea what it means". 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It helps those who don't know it's a Z notation symbol and it's better than any other target we have. Helping some people is very singificantly better than helping nobody which is what deletion would result in. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the first two could be retargeted to Bracket#Encoding, where ⦃, ⦄, ⦅, and ⦆ point already. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these symbols are more closely connected with Z notation than anything else. Bracket#Encoding basically just redirects the reader to Z notation, these are not general purpose brackets with use outside of Z. Ideally the Z notation article should be expanded to explain the syntax and symbols used. But this is likely to a complex job as syntax summary for Z runs to four pages and a complete description of the syntax runs to many pages. What might be an idea is to expand Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B explaining that these symbols are special to Z-notation. One possible redirect target might actually be to Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B.--Salix alba (talk): 16:52, 25 June 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.

⋿[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 1#⋿

⦈[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, but could, if information is added to the article, be retargeted to Image (mathematics) (see [2]). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:26, 24 June 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.

⨾[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 1#⨾

Horizontal line with a dot above and a dot below[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 Obelus. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a strange description, and could also refer to obelism. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From 5th grade, everyone knows the division sign looks like that. {{3125A|talk}} 12:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@3125A: So what is your vote? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: delete. {{3125A|talk}} 12:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@3125A: Be careful of your sweeping usage of "everyone" because not everyone enjoys the same life experiences as you did. From the article on the division sign: This usage, though widespread in Anglophone countries, is neither universal nor recommended. In my experience, division is symbolized with a slash in the real world so I never see the sign outside of an education setting. Unless taught this sign in an Anglophone primary school, one may almost never come across it and may look very strange when it is encountered—and I'm not sure how else one would look for it if they don't know the name of it. -- Tavix (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, the redirect target should be Obelus because (a) it is one of the descendants of the Obelus (b) in Norway, it means subtraction (c) there is another glyph, horizon line with dot above (only). Read all about it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, there actually seems to be some relevant recent page history. @Red Slash: Any comments? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      In March 2020, Red Slash moved the original Obelus article to Division sign, even though that is just one of its descendants. They weren't being entirely unreasonable because at that stage, most of the content was about the division sign. So I let that stand but recreated Obelus as a historical article, giving its original purpose as a manuscript annotation and outlined of its descendants (division, dagger, Commercial minus). This redirect looks like collateral damage from those moves and changes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is the most common usage of a symbol like this in anglophone settings, but hatnotes should be added to similar signs. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Obelus as the broadeset applicable article: it covers both the historical usage and the current Anglophone practice. It's not an ideal target as it also covers other variants, but it's better to redirect to an article that's a little too broad, than to one that's a little too narrow. Hatnoting for such a long descriptive phrase, and one that's barely attested (only 9 hits on google), is out of the question. – Uanfala (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Obelus per John and Uanfala. The new target also already has a link to division sign for those who are looking for the latter. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Obelus. And thanks for teaching me what an obelus is! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "6. Writing Systems and Punctuation". The Unicode® Standard: Version 10.0 – Core Specification (PDF). Unicode Consortium. June 2017. p. 280, Obelus.
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.

Yukariko[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 22:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple fictional characters with this name, none of whom are particularly notable or ubiquitously known only by their given name. A name list article comprised only of fictional characters is not helpful, so a reader would be better served by a redlink. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as having no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we don't need this when we have Yukariko Sanada, the character who's probably meant by this redirect judging by where it leads. Regards, SONIC678 14:24, 24 June 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.

Kanchanaganga[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 22:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC; could also refer to Kanchana Ganga UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:21, 24 June 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.

UFN 176[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like this redirect deleted because UFN 176 was caused by sock puppetry. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as it appears to have been very recently created and it's redirecting to a redirect that doesn't target a section. Looking at the history it appears the nominator created the redirect? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this is qualified for G7. Pandakekok9 (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plenty of old links, thus keep per K4. As an aside, I wish this was solved without renaming redirects as it has been digged into a deep mess judging by the immense amount of weird pageviews and what seems to be loss of history ([3]). It doesn't qualify for G7 because of this passage: For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move (given this was caused by apparently a substantive instance of sockpuppetery). Please don't rename redirects. — J947 [cont] 19:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:39, 24 June 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.

Welsh mountains[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 without retargeting. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of Nuttall mountains in England and Wales#Nuttall mountains in Wales by height is probably the best option here in absence of a non-list covering this topic. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to List of Nuttall mountains in Wales and split the above named list into two articles would make more sense. It doesn't include Scotland or Northern Ireland and either its the whole of the UK, or split by country -----Snowded TALK 04:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain as Wales is a generally mountainous country and the target section is adequate and relevant. A separate article for consistency with Scottish mountains (a non-list article) or Irish mountains (a list article) would have merit and could be usefully included in the current target. KenBailey (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is for now, as the current target appears to be the best general article we have (although per KenBailey) a separate article would be better. I explcitly oppose retargetting to the list of Nuttalls as that is just one of several classification schemes which seems no more or less arbitrary and no more or less prominent than any of the others. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. What a can of worms, including an article titled Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles which isn't a list of lists. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this thing as is right now, the Nuttall mountains aren't the only mountains in Wales, and this action would be more helpful to readers rather than directing them to a specific range. Regards, SONIC678 18:21, 25 June 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.

West of the Rhymney[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 22:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; this does not seem to be an alternative name for the target. This was created by Rhymney, who has two surviving edits: one to create their userpage, and one to create this redirect. The redirect seems to refer to Rhymney. Search results: [4]. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The redirect has slightly more views than normal for a highly implausible redirect, maybe this signals usage? It may just be web crawlers targeting highly important articles' redirects more, however. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It almost certainly actually refers to the Rhymney River, but this is not a logical or traditional boundary river (e.g. the River Loughor forms the West Wales-South Wales border). The target is especially bad because most of Wales is north of this river and a substantial part is east, including part of the capital Cardiff. Search results only find things that happen to be immediately west of the river (or its valley, or the railway line that runs in the valley) in the same way as e.g. "west of the Tawe" or "west of the Exe". Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 24 June 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.

Globomedia[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 22:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an unrelated Spanish company known as Globomedia with articles on eswiki (es:Globomedia) and others. There's no connection with Grupo Globo in Brazil. Search results exclusively turn up material related to the Spanish media company. Raymie (t • c) 00:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article-ify - I don't speak Spanish, but given the extensive coverage on the Spanish wiki the Globomedia company seems notable in its own right and should probably have an EN article. Could potentially request a translation of the Spanish article, if anyone is familiar with that process. BlackholeWA (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation, or stubify with a couple of solid citations to hold it in place. It cannot stay as it is, it's badly misleading as to continent, language and ownership. Narky Blert (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the redirect as I worked for media company and so was aware of their name change. I have been redundant from that job due to the impact of covid so if you want to delete it, do so, I was just trying to increase wikipedias coverage of media company's in general. I ask only that you get someone actively working in media in the discussion and who speaks Spanish before a decision is made. Back ache (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With due respect to (and sympathy with) user:Back ache, without explanation the current situation is just confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation per Narky Blert. CycloneYoris talk! 08:02, 1 July 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.

DOAW[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 22:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a complete acronym for the series: it's DOAWK or DoaWK, not DOAW. Delete, it's highly unlikely that people would search for this unfinished redirect. Scrooge200 (talk) 22:20, 24 June 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_June_24&oldid=966305478"