Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 9, 2021.

Europeans only[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 17#Europeans only

Kiki Wigglesworth[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. MBisanz talk 04:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grand total of 872 Google hits if put into scare quotes, so clearly not something anyone calls her reasonably often. Origin is fairly clearly this throwaway line in a Craig Ferguson bit from 2011, but while it's a modestly hilarious moniker, it clearly didn't wind up sticking, so WP:RFD#D8 would seem to apply... AngryHarpy‍talk 21:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I've never heard this before. There's no mention of it in the article and before this nomination no-one had viewed the page for over a month. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's not a Natural search term per WP:CRITERIA and as above, nobody is using it.Chumpih. (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have been a regular contributor to Catherine's page and have followed news surrounding her. I have never heard this term before, not even once. And I cannot find any significant results online either. I believe it needs to be deleted. Keivan.fTalk 07:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How can the origin be the Craig Ferguson bit from 11/11/11 when the redirect was created on June 2011? Was it some kind of a game between editors (see this archive)? Perhaps Mclay1 can answer, since the redirect creator is now inactive. Jay (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jay: I have very little memory of this from a decade ago but it rings a bell. I would likely have found this redirect by searching after hearing it on Craig Ferguson. I think it was a recurring joke so likely he'd used it prior to November. The redirect seems pretty harmless but I also don't care if it exists. It's obviously less useful now than it was in 2011. MClay1 (talk) 07:59, 17 December 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.

Paul Anthony Gutierrez[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. Jay (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned neither at target nor at 2022 United States Senate elections in California, Ballotpedia suggests that this is a very low-profile candidate; I cannot find any useful information about this candidate on enwiki that this could be pointed to. Hog Farm Talk 17:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete practically no views, and indeed, scant other information about this guy as a significant candidate so unlikely WP:NOTE.Chumpih. (talk) 22:51, 10 December 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:Newsletter[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 17#Wikipedia:Newsletter

Kraantje Pappie[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 standalone article created. Jay (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:RFD#DELETE condition 10. Kraantje Pappie has only made two singles together with Kris Kross Amsterdam. The target article contains no information about him as a solo artist. Redirect should be deleted to encourage article creation. ― Ætoms [talk] 14:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Two singles with somebody is more than one or nothing, and a mention on an article is enough for a valid redirect in my book (and plenty of other editors' books, it seems). If I considered two singles together "virtually no information on the subject", I wouldn't have created the redirect. Ss112 22:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ætoms: We can probably mark this nomination as closed now, or at least no longer applicable, considering I've just expanded the article. Ss112 03:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the search results are more informative to readers than any individual existing article. Search results show his collaborations with multiple other artists, rather than just a single other artist. Additionally, the redlink acts as an honest signal to editors that we do not have an article about him and they should keep an eye out for WP:RS coverage so they can start one. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We do have an article on him now. I just made it :) Ss112 03:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Close per A7V2. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close since the redirect is now an article. A7V2 (talk) 08:03, 10 December 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.

Andrew Patfield[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 per G8. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Target page deleted CSD G2 A7 JW 1961 Talk 14:38, 9 December 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.

Artists pointing to lists of number-one hits/albums[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 17#Artists pointing to lists of number-one hits/albums

'nam[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 16#'nam

Ron Fontaine[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. As unopposed deletion request. Jay (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This name was listed as a notable person but with no grounds of notability. The page creator did not responded to a request to state such grounds. Looking into the target page history I see that Ron Fontaine was listed under Chiefs, with citations and additional statements,[1] but that largely-unreferenced list was removed in 2012,[2] and has not been reinstated; only former Chiefs who have their own articles are listed under Notable citizens. – Fayenatic London 10:32, 9 December 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.

Ratchet Feminism/ Womanism[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. Jay (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved history to Ratchet Feminism. The remaining redirect is an implausible search term and should be deleted. Anarchyte (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ratchet feminism challenges womanism & Black feminism, which is why it shouldn't be redirected to womanism. It is part of the lineage of Black feminism, being born out of Hip-Hop feminism. Ratchet feminism (sometimes called ratchet womanism or ratchet radicalism) is often tied to scholars like Brittney Cooper, Mikki Kendall, and Joycelyn Wilson, who have published on the topic. The root term "ratchet" also appears in other Wikipedia articles like Respectability politics and Ratchet (slang). I will be working on the style and citation issues of the article. User: Mkibona 6:57, 12 December 2021
  • Delete due to extraneous space after the slash. HotdogPi 00:51, 16 December 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.

Lack of sense of responsibility of psychopaths[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. MBisanz talk 04:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, very unlikely search term. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's obvious the term is in the article without even looking at the article. Seems like a frivolous nomination... Huggums537 (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete while it is a subheading in the article, it's not a likely search term and subheadings do not inherently need to have redirects. My largest hesitation is if there are incoming links because this redirect has existed for 10 years. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 02:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:28, 9 December 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.

Mile road system[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2#Mile road system

Sulla's First 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 no consensus. The discussion did not see much participation despite two relists, and pinging of participants of a previous AfD. There is a split opinion for retargetting based on the redirect's name (Roman vs Sulla). There is more support for deleting the Sulla redirects than the Roman ones, and a future nomination with a smaller set may result in an outcome. Jay (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover redirections from an article that was gotten rid of a while ago. There's only a single "Sulla's civil war", with nothing in the article indicating otherwise. This was also not the "first Roman civil war". Avilich (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak retarget the "Roman [Republic] Civil War" ones to List of Roman civil wars and revolts, where Roman civil war points, but the first entry doesn't have an article (and there may've been such conflicts happening before that, so I'm not really sure about this course of action). Definitely delete the rest per nom, plus you must've missed the "Second Civil War" one's lowercase counterpart, which I'm adding here. Regards, SONIC678 02:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sonic678: Thanks. The entry in red, which I assume is the one you mean, is the actual first civil war. I'll perhaps create that article myself in the future, and the redirect may be recreated then, but those 'First Civil War' terms are never used as proper nouns, so I don't really see any use for these redirects with upper-case initials. Avilich (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, I'm not averse to recreating those two "first civil war" redirects (there is, so far, consensus to delete the others) when the corresponding article is written, but right now they're not of much use, and they would be more useful if they were written with lower-case initials. This doesn't seem controversial or a good reason for relisting this further. Avilich (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget any that don't mention Sulla to List of Roman civil wars and revolts where someone can find whichever civil war they may be thinking of. Retarget the redirects that mention Sulla to Sulla. I just read through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sulla's civil wars and I'm not buying into the argument that these names aren't used at all. Like it or not, Wikipedia had separate articles for separate events titled this way for twelve years. Anyone who comes across sources that uses these names should have a landing page, and Sulla is a good option because it goes into detail about all the events he was involved in that could conceivably be called a civil war if you use a broad enough definition. I'm also disappointed in the lack of participation here despite a healthily attended AfD, and perhaps if this is relisted again it would be worthwhile to ping the participants therein for their opinions given their interest in this topic. -- Tavix (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are placeholder names invented by Wikipedia users, and they only remained there for years because that's the time it took for someone like me to come in and point out the mistake. If you happen to find the term somewhere online, it's because it was copied from wikipedia. These are misleading terms that are not discussed in any article, and the events implied by them did not exist. The "broad definition argument" also holds no water here since most of those "civil war" terms are specific, and the concepts specified in them ("first" and "second civil war") are not real. Avilich (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@T8612: More or less: The original "Sulla's first civil war" article was a careless amalgamation of parts of the Bellum Octavianum with Sulla's march on Rome. The term "second civil war" was then invented for the only genuine "Sulla's civil war" because a distinction needed to be made with the fake "first civil war". You're probably one of few in Wikipedia who can acknowledge this fact without problem, but, for others who lack subject-matter knowledge, the explanation can sound confusing and unconvincing (such as Tavix's comment above), which leads to time and effort being wasted on merges or discussions. What's indisputable is that the mistake originated in Wikipedia; thus, any attempt to justify keeping these as plausible search terms becomes a circular, self-perpetuating problem. It doesn't seem to me that we should allow Wikipedia's past errors to perpetuate themselves, and deleting all this should be no more controversial than a regular cleanup of any article. Avilich (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @T8612: I don't think I pinged you correctly, so I'll give another try. Your opinion in this sort of thing is valuable since, unlike most, you actually know about the subject -- but you're always so brief! Anyway, what you said about what the former article originally refered to doesn't really matter here, since it doesn't exist anymore, these are just in-wiki redirects that remained as leftovers and now have no suitable targets. Hopefully you can clarify your point. Avilich (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Avilich: I agree that these redirects should be deleted, but the problem is that I can still see several mentions of Sulla's first/second civil war in some pages (examples here and here). I suggest you finish removing these mentions from the text first (hop it's not too much work!). T8612 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Administrators sometimes remove wikilinks after deletion discussions, but if nothing happens here I'll do it myself no probem. Avilich (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've cleaned up most of the articles as of now, except the category, which I'll deal with later. Avilich (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on a possible closure: It is not clear which redirects T8612 wants deleted. T8612's starting comment mentioned only two redirects - Sulla's First Civil War and Sulla's first civil war. Jay (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jay All of them now that Avilich cleaned them. T8612 (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2022 (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.

Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan[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. Most participants oppose the creation of a DAB page, and there's also an agreement that a primary topic does actually exist. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate between Afghanistan, Taliban, and Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001). Looking at the incoming links and disambiguation fix list, it is clear that redirecting to the modern state is not appropriate for a large number of the links out there. There is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose disambiguation, Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan clearly refers to Afghanistan currently under Taliban rule. Taliban is the ruling organization, just as the Chinese Communist Party is the ruling organization for the People's Republic of China. Also using search as a metric for primary topic (and I did this in private browsing), and it seems that there certainly is one: islamic emirate of afghanistan - Bing islamic emirate of afghanistan - Google Search
There is a clear difference between the ruling party and what the party calls its government.
It is also worth mentioning that our title policy means we choose the most commonly searched title for a topic. Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is not a commonly searched term (afghanistan, islamic emirate of afghanistan - Explore - Google Trends), but nonetheless refers to the new country and thus is a suitable redirect. It is even in the lead of the Afghanistan article. Aasim (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even bothered to look through the incoming links? Before you reverted, I was going through the disambiguation fix list, and the vast majority of the incoming links were from older articles that were using the term "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" as distinct from Afghanistan as a country, to refer to the first Taliban state or the Taliban itself (which is called the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and has been this whole time!). WP:DPT tells us to look at the incoming links in determining the primary topic, and that's what we should do. Look, I get there's an almost morbid interest editors have in making sure "Afghanistan" is made totally synonymous with "Taliban", but it's going too far. Yes, the Taliban is Afghanistan's government now, but we have a lot of historical content that treats it as a rebel group. ― Tartan357 Talk 21:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Taliban is not a political party. It is the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. That is the group's name. "Taliban" is an exonym. Your analogy is incorrect. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (modified from Keep at 01:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)) Afghanistan is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the hat notes are sufficient in my mind. It is similar to how French Republic redirects to France and not French Republics. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 13:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not like other countries. We only recently started treating the Islamic Emirate as a government and not a terrorist organization. A lot of links are supposed to point to Taliban, which is an article about the organization and its history. There is relatively little coverage about the Taliban at Afghanistan because that article is about the country. What matters here is the incoming links and where they're supposed to point, and this redirect broke a lot of them. Editors are so eager to treat the Taliban as a government that they're ignoring the large amount of historical coverage we have treating them as a terrorist organization. That content hasn't disappeared. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere am I ignoring that the Taliban is a terrorist organization. My argument was not in any way related to that and does not hinge on that. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 22:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that there is a lot of more-relevant content at Taliban that we are ignoring by declaring the country article the primary topic. Please keep in mind that "Taliban" is an exonym and the organization's name is the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the organization's name is the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, but it's called that quite infrequently in English compared to the use of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan to refer to the nation under the control of the former. It is a truly regrettable situation, as it leads to much confusion. I do think that a redirect hat note for Taliban as well should be added to the page. It's a tough situation because I feel that your arguments all are based on correct information, but I also believe that it's unlikely someone will use that term to search for the Taliban. I'm trying to avoid making an argument from WP:NWFCTM because I feel like I'm approaching that. NGram is honestly not even useful here when it comes to something like WP:DPT because there is no real way to determine when someone searches for this term what they are intending to search for. I still !vote for keep, but I'll weaken it because your arguments are convincing. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 01:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(unrelated comment but the Taliban are not internationally recognized as terrorists, most commonly referred to as Militants, or even in some cases, freedom fighters.) "The Taliban is no longer considered a terrorist organisation and is involved in political processes in Afghanistan. However, sanctions continue to apply in relation to persons and entities designated for the purposes of the Taliban sanctions regime. " off of [3]] Anyway, that's all. Noorullah21 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the incoming links, the hat note that shows the previous Islamic Emirate should be enough. While it's impossible to remedy all incoming links a hat note is a not terrible medium. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 22:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about remedying "all incoming links". It is about the fact that Afghanistan is the wrong target for most of the links already out there; WP:DPT tells us to disambiguate in such a situation. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support for Disambiguation The Taliban is not a political party or group, but rather it is the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. The State and Political/Armed Group articles are only separate because it is fits an encyclopedia better to have some distinction. Because of this, the 1996-2001 and 2021-present state articles should be considered to be of the same organization, even if separated by time. Support for Disambiguation between Taliban, Afghanistan, and Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001). Serafart (talk) (contributions) 01:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is The base article has a history section. What is now Afghanistan, and major components thereof, has been an emirate several times, not just the two under the Taliban. -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I get your point and although I agree with it at face value, there are a lot of pages out there that are currently linking to the "Islamic Emirate of Aghanistan" with intent to have the reader redirected to the page for the country. Doing this would break all those links; Leading the reader to a disambiguation page instead of the page for the actual country, and there are tons of these pages that will be broken if this were to pass. Besides, at the very top of the Afghanistan page, there is already a "mini-disambiguation" to help out readers that may have been looking for something else when searching for "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan". ThatDohDude (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support/Keep as is - I can see both Disambiguate working, but also just adding to the current text at the top of Afghanistan, "For the group currently in control of it, see Taliban." Wording can be worked on. WittyWidi (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (weak) Disambiguate since it could refer to either the formal name for the Taliban, or for the territory of Afghanistan. 'For' could work, though. Chumpih. (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep redirect and create Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (desambiguation). --Panam2014 (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. It is the official, formal full name of the present country of Afghanistan, pretty much like "Kingdom of Spain" redirects to "Spain" or "French Republic" redirects to "France", no matter how many different kingdoms and republics they have had (and they have had quite a few.) MaeseLeon (talk) 01:46, 14 December 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.

Charlotte Marchandise-Franquet[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 13:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend deleting this redirect. There is no mention of Charlotte Marchandise-Franquet in the Rennes article, nor, apparently, has she ever been the mayor of that city. See also below for another form of her name with the same target. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:38, 9 December 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.

Charlotte Marchandise[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 13:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend deleting this redirect. There is no mention of Charlotte Marchandise in the Rennes article, nor, apparently, has she ever been the mayor of that city. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:33, 9 December 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.

Quadratic extension[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 18#Quadratic extension

Christmas parade[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 16#Christmas parade

Wikipedia:HISTORICAL[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 18#Wikipedia:HISTORICAL

Wikipedia:Size[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 16#Wikipedia:Size

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA[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 03:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a very, very unlikely search term (note that one of the "HA"s has two "H"s). jp×g 02:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as very unlikely search term. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely search term at best --Lenticel (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom...hahahahahaha!...and everyone above me! I'm not sure people will search this, hee hee hee, up and-hahahahha-use a misspelling here! Ah! I can't stop laughing! Anyways, regards, SONIC678 17:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Obv improbable redirect kek Aasim (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Extremely implausible all-caps typo, not helpful, and unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:9800:BA31:F6:BC3F:ED78:C130:2209 (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It goes against nature. Chumpih. (talk) 22:41, 14 December 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.

Kobbo massacre[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 03:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5 unused redirects created by spammer and now-blocked sockpuppet Rastakwere going to the same target. (The grouping: Kobo incident, Kobbo incident, Zobel massacre, Kobo massacre, Kobbo massacre) Platonk (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These event names were coined by the Wikipedia editor, not the newspapers. Village of Zobel is in district of Kobo. Platonk (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that redirects should be deleted. Zobel is an obscure name... all sources refer to the place as Kobo and it is better known locally as Kobo. Human Rights Watch published a report corroborating the massacre today so it needs to be renamed from "Incident" to "Massacre". It should be a standalone article especially now with the emergence of the HRW report.[4] Efekadu (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Efekadu: Irrelevant because these redirects aren't articles. And anyway, there's nothing about that HRW source or its concepts in the Timeline of the Tigray War. Start there. Platonk (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as G5 socking. This was originally an attempted event article that was then redirected to its entry in the Timeline of the Tigray War (July 2021–present). Kobo also has a few sentences about it. Whether the actual Kobo/Kobbo/Zobel incident/massacre term is actually used is not supported by any useful references. Coverage of the event can be elaborated at the Timeline and potential split discussion, but should be originated and expanded upon by someone who is not associated with the sock. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:00, 10 December 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.

Meleager of Gléagros of Gadara[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 03:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Implausible typo. The redirect was created as a result of this piece of vandalism, which the editor who created the redirect utterly failed to recognise as nonsense for some reason. Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, result of vandalism as stated. – Fayenatic London 10:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: WP:G3. While the page may have been made in good faith, it was the result of a good-faith editor building upon someone else's bad-faith edits. Aasim (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the editor who made the redirect, I can confirm that I was confused by somebody's bad edit on Anthology when I created the redirect. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 02:27, 10 December 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_December_9&oldid=1212555557"