Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 30[edit]

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

Mohawk Civil War[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 20:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per very old discussion at Talk:Oka Crisis#Mohawk Civil War redirect and Talk:Oka Crisis#Mohawk Civil War redirects here..., the event this redirect refers to is not the Oka Crisis, so it should be deleted until an article on the actual Mohawk Civil War is made. James Hyett (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got a source on either one to affirm that this redirect goes to the wrong article? Montanabw(talk) 18:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While the issue is slightly confused by some contemporary sources referring to the Oka Crisis as the "Mohawk Civil War", here are a few (including a contemporary one published before the events at Oka kicked off) that discuss the events at Akwesasne: [1], [2], [3] James Hyett (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Winegard, Timothy (2009). "THE FORGOTTEN FRONT OF THE OKA CRISIS: OPERATION FEATHER/AKWESASNE". Journal of Military and Strategic Studies. 11 (1 and 2).
  2. ^ Busatta, Sandra (2005). "The Native American Entrepreneur and the Mohawk Civil War" (PDF). American Indian Workshop. Retrieved September 11, 2020. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  3. ^ "MOHAWK CIVIL WAR BLAME THE RESERVATION". Greensboro News & Record. Greensboro, NC. May 7, 1990. Retrieved 11 September 2020.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentIs there enough content to create a stub on the topic so as to replace the redirect? That might be the fastest solution. Montanabw(talk) 05:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It would be different if this term were broadly used to refer to the Oka Crisis, but as such, it seems plainly unfitting. The Oka Crisis was not an intra-Mohawk conflict, nor meaningfully a Canadian civil war. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy ping for MBisanz, who seems to have gone unexpectedly AFK mid-relist [1]. Please feel free to revert without contacting me if I've misunderstood. --BDD (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems to be closely related to the Oka Crisis, but a distinct event (see [2], [3], [4]). In any event, a highly contentious name that ought not stick around without good referencing in the the target (I see there's a book called One Nation Under the Gun: Inside the Mohawk Civil War cited in the target, but no use of the term in the article). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:15, 1 October 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.

Space Mafia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 8#Space Mafia

Mukhuli[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Scholar search doesn't suggest that this is a likely search term. Matches of Mukhuli in the context of Mongolian names are largely for one of Genghis Khan's generals [5], around a millennium after Mugulü was in power. It also appears to be the name of a Korean sauce ([6], [7]) and a Tibetan garment [8]. I would suggest deletion, as I was unable to find any information about these other subjects on Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 16:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Linguistic confusion consists of replacing the letter q with kh (Qaghan -> Khagan) and is common in Turco-Mongolic languages. In this case a disambiguation page would be needed instead of a redirect.signed, 181.221.44.181 talk 16:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the two above comments, Pequeno Rourano seems to ignore that I found evidence that this name is also used to refer to one of Genghis Khan's generals, and the suggestion of disambiguation would only work if we had articles for each of these various subjects. signed, Rosguill talk 18:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 白鳥庫吉 1910; 内田吟風 1971: 218.
  2. ^ Ginfu 1971, p. 218, note 4.
  • It is therefore necessary to create an article on Mukhuli (Genghis Khan's general) and to create a disambiguation page for these two individuals. 181.221.44.181 talk 17:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, with no prejudice against a disambiguation page or article whenever someone is ready. Many of these topics sound difficult to handle in a disambiguation context, so it may make more sense to write an article about the military figure. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rosguill and BDD. I agree that a dab page needs to be created later, once the military figure’s article is published. CycloneYoris talk! 23:00, 8 October 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.

Ser Amantio di Nicolao[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 Steven Pruitt. No consensus on whether to use a hatnote. signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While Gerda Arendt even removed the hatnote I added, I suggest this is actually disambiguated between the character and the Wikipedian: This redirect gets more than a hundred pageviews a month and usually multiple a day, whereas Maestro Spinelloccio, another minor character in Gianni Schicchi, had one single pageview since I created it two weeks ago. The only way I could explain this is that people try to look for Steven Pruitt by searching up his username. Courtesy pinging Ser Amantio di Nicolao. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep nothing wrong with a redirect from an opera character to the opera. Connections from article space to user space, however, are not wanted. We don't have to tell the thousands of readers of Gianni Schicchi (per month) something about some person's user name, - distracting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gerda Arendt: How is it a connection to user space if this is a name mentioned in the article about the Wikipedian? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no connection between a person with a real name and the opera, besides the person's choice of a user name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Gerda Arendt: (please ping) And that's a reason to not even include a hatnote? Minor planet's names don't have any connection to their eponyms either, but that doesn't stop us from helping readers by mentioning them in hatnotes or dab pages where it is possible the reader was looking for them. And I've explained in my nomination rationale why it is very likely readers are looking for the user, in an argument that has not yet been disputed. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where would a reader meet Ser Amantio and not be able to connect to the user? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Gerda Arendt: (please ping) Maybe the searcher wants to find out if there is an article about the user? His userpage does not mention it anywhere. Why not give the reader what he is potentially looking for? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • You did not answer my question, but never mind. Two things: If my dear old friend Ser Amantio wants no connection, then it's his privacy which we should respect. On the other hand, when I search via google for the character name, I arrive right at Pruitt, photo and all, so see NO REASON to molest readers who only want to know about Puccini's opera with that cute connection. Others said the same in the talk, remember? I'm out here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Gerda Arendt: (please ping) I do not fully understand your question and decided asking for clarification would sound more uncivil than reply missing the point. Obviously, Ser Amantio's comments should be respected, for whose sake I've pinged him. Not everyone who wants to find something on Wikipedia used Google (duh), so why not add a hatnote for who uses Wikipedia's search? And I see no difference between the "molestation" caused by this particular hatnote and the one caused by others. Hatnotes will be read by readers whom they don't concern, but that is not an issue and nothing to be discussed here. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lean to Keep (for hatnote) I created the initial redirect 6 years ago. I created the redirect because as an editor I'd seen the editor's username, wondered what was its classical reference (assuming there was one - at that time I believe it was not linked from his userpage), and painstakingly tracked down the operatic character. I thought a redirect would make it easier for other editors to track down the operatic character, in case they wondered the same thing I had wondered.

It took me awhile to grasp what this redirection discussion was all about. Once I understood, my impulse was to think it was indeed inappropriate to keep a hatnote to a Wikipedia user. But indeed the hatnote is to an article about that real person, rather than (inappropriately) to the user account. I couldn't see a rational argument for why such a redirect would be inappropriate, apart from the fact that the username might only be known within Wikipedia. But then I did a Google search for "Ser Amantio di Nicolao" and lo and behold there were more than 50,000 hits, seemingly overwhelmingly outside of Wikipedia, and seemingly overwhelmingly (at least at the top) about the Wikipedian. Restricting the search to media coverage still yielded 350 hits, all outside of Wikipedia. A number are profiles of the Wikipedian, but others are photo credits to him (as the Wikipedian).

So I concluded that I couldn't see a rational reason to oppose the hatnote. I am inclined to agree with Gerda that it will not be too common for someone to arrive at the opera character without having first encountered the Wikipedian. But perhaps not too uncommon. Someone who sees a photo credit, wonders who the author is and (with somewhat erroneous logic) goes directly to Wikipedia's search window, might benefit from such a hatnote. A Wikipedia editor who does the same thing might also benefit. In fact, until today I had no idea there was an article about the real person behind the user account. Unless this represents a form of "outing" I see no reason to oppose a hatnote, and perhaps a modest benefit (might save a few people the minor step of dropping into an overall Google search).

A hatnote to the Wikipedia user still strikes me as a bit weird and somehow unaesthetic, for causes I cannot fully identify. But in this case I am letting rationality preempt my aesthetic impulses, and going on record as leaning toward keeping the hatnote. Perhaps later I will shift to full support of a hatnote, unless someone refutes these considerations. --Presearch (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the comment by Presearch it appears that the Wikipedian is the overwhelming primary topic, so retargeting to Steven Pruitt seems like the best choice: the article already has a mention, in bold, of the name in its lede. I don't see a need for a hatnote to the opera article: as far as I know, we don't normally provide navigation for minor characters, and the lead already explains, in a broader context that the table entry in the current target, the existence of that character. I don't see a need for a hatnote to his user page, as the appropriate place for such a link would be the "External links" section at the end. – Uanfala (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retargeting to Steven Pruitt is okay with me. And I suppose it's only a remote chance that some future version of the Steven Pruitt article would stop mentioning or linking to the opera. In such a future contingency I would lean toward having a hatnote in Pruitt linking to the opera. I wouldn't be averse to having one now, since ordinarily minor characters are not made prominent in the fashion that this name has been made prominent. --Presearch (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Steven Pruitt per Uanfala, since the Wikipedian is clearly the primary topic. I would have to agree that hatnotes, both for the opera article and to Pruitt’s user page, would be completely unnecessary and a distraction to readers as Gerda has correctly pointed out above. CycloneYoris talk! 06:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aw shucks. I thought we had a consensus, at least implicitly, and that we were done. I thought we could retarget the redirect to Steven Pruitt, and not have any hatnotes. Is there anyone at this point who wishes to oppose that outcome? --Presearch (talk) 04:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't object to retargeting, but I do object to the absence of a hatnote. There are clearly two topics that the phrase can refer to, so why would we hide one from readers? (It would be different if the editor requested privacy, but that doesn't seem to be the case.) --BDD (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly suspect we have a consensus to retarget to Steven Pruitt, so the remaining question to be resolved is whether or not the Steven Pruitt article should contain a hatnote that points to the opera article. Regarding such a hatnote, I am content to either include or omit a hatnote. But perhaps others differ, so let me try to sum up relevant arguments and seek to get the divergent views engaged with each other:
    1) @Uanfala: argued earlier above that "I don't see a need for a hatnote to the opera article: as far as I know, we don't normally provide navigation for minor characters, and the lead already explains, in a broader context that the table entry in the current target, the existence of that character."
    2) Now @BDD: just argued on the contrary for including a hatnote, apparently on the basis that failing to include the hatnote would amount to "hiding" the opera character from readers, despite the clear mention of the minor character and link to the opera article in the second sentence of the Pruitt article.
     Query to user Uanfala: Would you object to including a hatnote if BDD persists in thinking it's necessary?
     Query to user BDD: In view of the prominent mention of the opera character in the Pruitt article, please clarify why you believe that omitting a hatnote "hides" the minor character (and for bonus kudos, you could also address the issue of norms for navigation for minor characters, which Uanfala says are ordinarilly omitted).
    Thank you --Presearch (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If others are of the opinion that the minor character is significant enough, let them put a hatnote, I'm certainly not going to remove it. My own view is that this is smaller than the smallest-hole-size sieve we've got. It's impractical and unnecessary to create access points for minor characters in operas and films that are mentioned in the article about the opera or the film, or for songs in an article about the album, streets in the article about the city, parents or relatives in an article about a person, etc. – Uanfala (talk) 19:27, 7 October 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.

Attitude control (fixed-wing aircraft)[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 Attitude control#Aircraft attitude control. signed, Rosguill talk 20:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better explained at attitude control. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aircraft isn't mentioned at Attitude control, somewhat surprisingly. Though the article is framed as being about aerospace vehicles, the practical focus seems to be on space vehicles. By contrast, the current target does discuss attitude in a few places. I admit I have minimal knowledge of this area, but as things stand, retargeting without any edits doesn't appear wise. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually wanna withdraw this nomination and wait for someone expert in aviation. However, I think Aircraft principal axes is a better option. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object if you wanted to withdraw. Aircraft principal axes is in Category:Attitude control but would benefit from some mention of it in the article body. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But I won't right now. Let's wait for other commenters. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Flight control surfaces is probably the best place for this redirect, attitude is in the lead. My background is aircraft engineer and pilot. Another form of fixed wing aircraft attitude control is the reaction control system which is used as a supplementary control system for extreme high altitude flight and special applications like the Hawker Siddeley Harrier. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine, I would make the change and close this discussion. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:01, 7 October 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.

Shocketing[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, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Per the edit summary of Shocketing's creation, this is a neologism without wide use in RS or otherwise, and should thus be deleted. "Startle advertising" and "startle marketing" do not appear to have any use on the internet, other than in sentences like "these are things that startle marketing people". "Controvertising" appears to have been used exactly once before, in the title of this article. I'm not sure that's wide enough use to justify keeping. The two "Offend" formulations are ungrammatical in addition to not seeing wider use. signed, Rosguill talk 17:35, 30 September 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.

San Bartolome Catholic Cemetery[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, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of a cemetery at the target. While it's plausible that the subjects may be connected, without a mention it's not useful to readers. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:33, 30 September 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.

Dicking[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 disambiguate. Thanks to the IP for the work. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is not mentioned in that article. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate for Derkacze and Derkacz, West Pomeranian Voivodeship, which both list Dicking as an alternative name (see [9], apparently not vandalism like I first thought). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, disambiguate (can add a "see also" entry for Dickin). I'm happy to find out there were German villages with this name, a neat complement to the Austrian Fucking. Incidentally, while looking around the encyclopedia for other topics, I came across mention of a dicking mechanism. It took me some time to find out for sure that this was down to a bit of vandalism [10] that went undetected for a decade. – Uanfala (talk) 00:35, 1 October 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-duty[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The target does not disambiguate "light-duty", and using Search is better. Note that Light duty is a redlink. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Light truck, which mentions the term.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Search results show "light" versions of many types of technology. Retargeting to one will obscure others. I don't see a good way to disambiguate, as we've done with Heavy Duty. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 7 October 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.

Hong Kong protesters[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 List of protests in Hong Kong. *gestures vaguely at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 23#Minneapolis Riots* --BDD (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This term is too broad. There were certainly many massive protests in the history of HK besides the 2019 one. It's not appropriate to redirect this to any one of them, or make this a disambiguation. -- RZuo (talk) 08:29, 30 September 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.

Beitian[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 disambiguate. Thanks to Uanfala for the work. --BDD (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either retarget to Britain as {{R from misspelling}}, or (my preference) delete as WP:RFD#D5 ("makes no sense"), as there's no mention at the target. My Google search assumes I've made a typo for "Britain", but with an exact search with variations of "Turkistan", "Kazakhstan" etc, I get no results at all. Since Britain is a DAB page, it is probably better to delete it and let the search engine do its job. Nothing except this discussion links to it, and it has had 104 page views in its 5-year existence, i.e. on average two every five weeks. 85.238.91.38 (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • An earlier version of the target article had a mention, since removed, of an association between the modern-day city and the ancient Beitian. The ancient city is currently mentioned, appropriately, in the article about the kingdom it was the capital of: Kangju. However, there are also present-day places with the same name in China, so disambiguation seems like the best thing to do. A draft is available below the redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate using the draft - thank you @Uanfala:. There's a mention at Tashkent but that's covered by the link at Kangju. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:06, 30 September 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.

This is Paris[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. There is no chance that this will be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A wiki article with the same name has been published on the same topic, and two appear in search Shadowrvn728 (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shadowrvn728, I would advise that you read the guideline surrounding redirects as your nomination indicates a lack of knowledge of why a redirect is useful. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 06:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Nomination is clearly erroneous, and no valid reason is given for deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 08:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CycloneYoris: Do I need to provide more info? I didn’t think a redirect would be needed when the title of the redirect is “This is Paris” and the article name is “This Is Paris. The only difference between the two pages is that the redirect is capitalized. It used to redirect to a now irrelevant page, and now has been changed to the relevant page where a redirect is no longer needed. Shadowrvn728 (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above; RHARMFUL and K5 apply also. Again, please read WP:R before making any more RfDs. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:41, 1 October 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_September_30&oldid=983069442"