Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 23, 2021.

Dead and Buried (American Horror Story)[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 13:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Alex 21 with the reason "Episode title is unsourced and does not appear anywhere in the parent article" FASTILY 23:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. The "original" titles seem to be based on no reliable source (and thus are not even alternate or renamed titles). -- /Alex/21 03:17, 24 August 2021 (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.

Bingus[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. ✗plicit 03:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bingus article was deleted in February 2021 for failing GNG, redirect seems unnecessary. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bingus Joojay (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2021 (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.

Mark Zuckorberg[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 Delete. G5, created by a sock. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be a plausible misspelling, google turns up a grand total of 29 uses across the entire internet 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2021 (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.

Covid depression[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 at COVID-19 depression. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 02:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous redirect with dual meanings, this could refer to the economic depression during the pandemic, or it could refer to the effect of the pandemic on people's mental wellbeing (in which case Mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic would probably be the best target). 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2021 (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.

Wikipedia:PROPOSE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 1#Wikipedia:PROPOSE

Weird Russian Singer[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Philosophy of Miracle. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if he is the only weird Russian singer, congratulations (I guess?), but the article does not mention that, and so this redirect should be deleted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2021 (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 all cryptocurrencies[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. ✗plicit 03:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remnant of what appears to be an abandoned attempt to compile a list of all cryptocurrencies in existence, not just the notable ones. Since List of cryptocurrencies isn't intended to be a list of all cryptocurrencies, just the notable ones, I would be inclined to delete this redirect. — Smjg (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the nominator has it right; this redirect is misleading. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an exhaustive list isn't at its target and indeed doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy restore and send to AfD - this is another article being discussed in the redirects forum. Article deletion has its own process: articles for deletion. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an article this would be speedy deletable under criterion A10, and it wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving an AFD, so restoring it to delete it as an article seems like pointless bureaucracy to me. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you mean it's an article? List of all cryptocurrencies is a redirect (albeit wrapped in RfD markup at the moment). I suspect you inadvertently opened the wrong link. — Smjg (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I did not. This page was created as a standalone list of cryptocurrencies (Special:Permalink/1039375476), evidently by someone who wanted to chronicle all cryptos regardless of notability. List articles are articles. There are three processes for deleting articles: speedy deletion, proposed deletion, and articles for deletion. In fact the article was PRODded (Special:Diff/1039375628), and rather than wait the 7-day hold period for PRODs, another editor blanked and redirected the article out of process. Evidently the article creator intended to object to the PROD (they tried to remove the notice), and the next step in the article deletion process is AFD, not trying to sneak a deletion through the wrong forum. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @PEIsquirrel: What evidence have you that this is a case of trying to sneak a deletion through the wrong forum? I would have thought that if this were the case then the same user who changed it to a redirect would have started the RfD. OTOH, when one user changes it to a redirect and then another RfDs it, as is the case here, the reasonable interpretation of the latter action is that it relates to the redirect, not the article that was previously at the title. — Smjg (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      An out-of-process nomination can be inadvertent. It's still out-of-process. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @PEIsquirrel: So what? I nominated this under RfD because it's a misleading redirect. Not as a comment on the article previously at the title. As such, in my mind it isn't out-of-process at all. Still, let's see what comes of this discussion. — Smjg (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Clearly we disagree on that. An article with a rejected PROD was blanked and redirected anyway, that is the out-of-process part. I don't think anyone did that on purpose, it all happened within a few minutes and the history was confusing, but that action violated a policy and we shouldn't just be carrying on as though that didn't happen. It's pretty clear that nobody else cares, though, and the outcome is likely going to be deletion anyway, so I think it's probably best for everyone if you stop pinging me back to this discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Would like to understand what is out of process here? An article with a rejected PROD was not blanked and redirected. Rather, the PROD got rejected only when the article was blanked and redirected by Donaldd23. Jay (Talk) 20:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As misleading, the target article is a curated list, not an exhaustive list of all cryptocurrencies. We have enough issues with people trying to use Wikipedia to promote NN cryptocurrencies as is. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero chance this would survive an AfD, let's not prolong the inevitable. -- Tavix (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jay (Talk) 20:52, 30 August 2021 (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.

In defense of bad music[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 2#In defense of bad music

Stand Columbia[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. ✗plicit 03:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 14:15, 23 August 2021 (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.

Deidre DeJear[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 2022 Iowa gubernatorial election#Democratic primary. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 05:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deidre DeJear is a candidate for Iowa Governor in 2022, but when visiting Deidre DeJear, you get redirected to 2018 Iowa elections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey1254 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tamzin, most are simply not brought up at RfD since there is almost always no reason to do so. You can bring up all your examples, but there are lots of redirects of candidates who have run in multiple elections, and many former redirects that became their own pages after a successful rematch (House races are a goldmine since many candidates seek rematches). I pinged Muboshgu, and I’ll ping him again, since he deals with this sort of stuff (if you followed the Theresa Greenfield controversy, you’ll know why). Muhibm0307 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 2022 Iowa gubernatorial election#Democratic primary. Yes, there are multiple articles that mention DeJear, but the latest election is the better option over the earlier one (and avoids a WP:XY situation where there are multiple equally-plausible targets). First, most people searching will want information on DeJear in the context of the current run, which is the 2022 election. Secondly, the 2022 article mentions DeJear's previous run and has a link to it, so if you're actually wanting that election, you can easily find it. -- Tavix (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am recused from a !vote, but agree that 2022 Iowa gubernatorial election is a preferable target over a 2018 election-related target if an article does not exist. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:46, 25 August 2021 (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.

Field of Dreams (Laredo, Texas)[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 13:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's zero evidence that Uni-Trade Stadium in Laredo is actually called "Field of Dreams", and it's just confusing. There's no mention of "Field of Dreams" in its article. (There is one anon review on Tripadvisor about Uni-Trade which the random commenter titled "Field of Dreams" and I suppose that's where this came from.) Herostratus (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Eureka that the name pre-dates the TripAdvisor post, and from the creator's redirect summary, it appears the name was used in the planning stages of the stadium. As the Field of Dreams in Laredo, Texas is not being confused with something else, and because it's an old redirect and happened to be the article name for a long period, Keep. Jay (Talk) 18:08, 1 September 2021 (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.

2021 Minnesota's 2nd congressional district special election[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. ✗plicit 06:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, it looked like Minnesota's 2nd congressional district election would have occurred in 2021 for a little while, but a judge ruling had it happen in 2020 like originally planned, so there isn't a MN 2nd Congressional district election planned or held in 2021. Not sure that it would have necessarily been a special election at that, as it would have been the regularly planned one. Hog Farm Talk 04:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Misleading. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Agreeing with 力. This election was supposed to happen and an article made sense then but the judge ruled it was unnecessary so that page should’ve simply been just deleted, not redirected. Muhibm0307 (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2021 (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.

WeatherTech[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 30#WeatherTech

Pendamic[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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling is rare, switching a to e is too far for common misspelling. Pendamic is more likely a misspelling of "pedantic" rather than "pandemic". SunDawntalk 04:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The contention that it is more likely a misspelling of "pedantic" than "pandemic" is evidently not true. A simple google search reveals this (google at first just shows me results for "pandemic", then pretty much every search result after setting it to show "pendamic" is a misspelling of pandemic. I think this is a highly plausible misspelling. A7V2 (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Likely typo, especially for those that hear the word pandemic and aren't sure how to spell it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination. Thank you. SunDawntalk 01:40, 24 August 2021 (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.

Covid stimulus[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. ✗plicit 06:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 stimulus term did not apply only for American CARES Act, but other countries also have their own COVID-19 stimulus plans. SunDawntalk 03:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be re-targeted to a general article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which seems to be the general article on the topic. -- Tavix (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete per WP:G5, without prejudice against someone in good standing recreating the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix. Plenty of other countries besides the United States offered economic stimuli related to COVID-19, and the proposed target is a good place to list them all. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete both per WP:DENY. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: The page under discussion has been deleted as part of a G5 nuking of sock Misspelling Wizard's contribs. 192.76.8.74 closed this discussion as speedy delete; however, since there were two !votes to retarget, I don't think that's appropriate. I've contacted the deleting admin to restore this page, and am un-closing the discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:15, 25 August 2021 (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.

Fully vaccinated[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. ✗plicit 06:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This does not apply exclusively to COVID-19. Redirecting it now just because COVID is relevant is Recentism. WIKINIGHTS talk 03:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Fully vaccinated term applies to all types of vaccine, not just COVID-19. SunDawntalk 03:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Has this term ever been used to refer to any other vaccine? Every use I see using Wikipedia search is referring to COVID. That said, the article itself doesn't really discuss the concept (nor does any other I could find), only mentioning it, so for that reason I would lean to delete. A7V2 (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Yes it is. Especially for HPV vaccine. See [1]. Rmhermen (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best a WP:DICDEF. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to Vaccination or Vaccine (not sure which is better), otherwise Delete. It clearly isn't appropriate to redirect such a general term to an article on one specific vaccine. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expect either Vaccination or Vaccine to have some content on the concept of multi-dose vaccines, but I don't see anything to that effect, nor do I see a standalone article on the topic. Normally I would say to thus delete until/unless mentioned, essentially per WP:REDLINK... But in this case, the current target is the best-known and best-documented multi-dose vaccine, and we should be hesitant to delete or retarget redirects away from information that could help them find information they need to avoid COVID. Weak keep as potentially beneficial to public health. -- Tamzin
  • Procedural note: The page under discussion has been deleted as part of a G5 nuking of sock Misspelling Wizard's contribs. 192.76.8.74 closed this discussion as speedy delete; however, since I had !voted to keep, I don't think that's appropriate. I've contacted the deleting admin to restore this page, and am un-closing the discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G5, without prejudice against someone in good standing recreating the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is essentially what's happened here. Ponyo G5'd it, and then restored it at my request. (I hope I count as "someone in good standing," at least. ;) ) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete could refer to any vaccine and since it was created by a sockpuppet it should be WP:G5 speedy deleted Lunacats (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ambiguous dictionary definition. Along with the other multiple-dose vaccines that have been mentioned already, this could also refer to children who have had all of their various scheduled immunizations, other people with boosters, pets and livestock, maybe others I haven't thought of. Let search results handle this. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague at best --Lenticel (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2021 (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.

Taxie[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 Delete. G5, created by a sock. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google search shows variety of uses, including as misspelling, as the name of a product, in the name of the film Taxi-Taxie. Not a common enough misspelling of taxi to keep; a disambiguation is not justified, either. WIKINIGHTS talk 03:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed that the use of "taxie" as a misspelling is not common enough. SunDawntalk 03:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not established that this is a plausible misspelling. This Misspelling Wizard ought to be talked to before this becomes another Neelix situationishnessly. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:39, 23 August 2021 (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.

Spanish covid[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 Delete. G5, created by a sock. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of common use as a term. WIKINIGHTS talk 03:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. While both are respiratory disease, they are caused by different viruses, and the term "Spanish COVID" is not common at all. SunDawntalk 03:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:R3 - not a plausible search term for this whatsoever. Hog Farm Talk 03:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as is inaccurate and confusing. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to COVID-19 pandemic in Spain, which seems like a semi-reasonable target, or Delete. The current target is not appropriate, there's no evidence I can find of people referring to Spanish flu by this name. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible and ambiguous. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:45, 25 August 2021 (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.

Hotle[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 13:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. From a Google search, Hotle is more common as a surname than a misspelling, but we do not have an article "Hotle (surname)". WIKINIGHTS talk 03:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • But you have Motle --> Motel. Thought this would be similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misspelling Wizard (talk • contribs) 03:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 11 § Draft:Hotle: Google results suggest that it's a plausible misspelling, and we don't have any articles on any of the handful of halfway-notable people with it as their surname, so it's a valid redirect. I'll add to that that Special:Search/~Hotle doesn't really contain any content that would help someone looking for anyone with this surname, just passing references of their existence, largely in sources. If we wind up with a situation where an article discusses a person named Hotle at any length, this can be re-RfD'd, but as currently stands we do more good than harm for our readers with a redirect. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this is new and a bulk creation, based on the creator's activity I am less certain it is necessary. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: The page under discussion has been deleted as part of a G5 nuking of sock Misspelling Wizard's contribs. 192.76.8.74 closed this discussion as speedy delete; however, since there were two !votes to keep, I don't think that's appropriate. I've contacted the deleting admin to restore this page, and am un-closing the discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless you feel strongly enough to re-create the redirect, I would have just let the IP get away with this. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G5, without prejudice against someone in good standing recreating the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is essentially what's happened here. Ponyo G5'd it, and then restored it at my request. (I hope I count as "someone in good standing," at least. ;) ) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you should have recreated it instead of asking for it to be restored. My objection is with the fact that this redirect is created by a checkuser-blocked account. -- Tavix (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I'm not an admin and hadn't visited the redirect prior to its deletion, I didn't know if there were any rcats, or any relevant edits made by someone other than the sockmaster, both of which would have been obscured by me just recreating it with the same target. And even if the creator according to the system logs is the blocked account, the creator according to policy (viz. WP:PROXYING) is me regardless. If this is about WP:DENY, I suppose you could RD5 delete the username on the original revision; not like there's any attribution issue for just a redirect. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just a misspelling redirect, and really the only thing you can say about it is that it is a misspelling. A misspelling does not have enough creative content to be attributable to anyone, so you need not worry about intervening edits getting lost or proxying. And yes, this is absolutely about WP:DENY. Besides, I'd much rather someone who actually cares about the redirect to get "credit" as the author over a sock puppet or a stricken username. -- Tavix (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't feel comfortable making the decision that the previous edits didn't need to be restored. If you feel that it was, and you want to delete it and have me recreate it, I'm willing to. Ditto with Fully vaccinated. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a plausible misspelling. Plausible means that a user looking for information on hotels is likely to search using this term thinking that it is the correct spelling, which I don't buy. Random typographic errors are not plausible misspellings, they're just cruft. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as implausible misspelling. However I'm willing to have a look at the Google search results that Tamzin found. Jay (Talk) 19:44, 30 August 2021 (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.

Jiff Bezos[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. Good lord. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too rare a misspelling to be worth redirecting. Google exact search for "Jiff Bezos" returns 135 results from obscure webpages. (Some misspellings are intentional and humorous.) WIKINIGHTS talk 02:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—concur, we need not have nor create redirects for every oddball possible misspelling. N2e (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. We do not need to include this one. SunDawntalk 03:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete the redirect too. For no reason that is good this made me think of Spaceman Spiff. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:33, 23 August 2021 (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/2021_August_23&oldid=1042031277"