Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 11, 2021.

Justice for Black Farmers Act[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 19:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Justice for Black Farmers Act isn't a part of the American Rescue Plan, so I don't think this redirect should exist as such. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unnecessary for now. Lorstaking 16:45, 13 February 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.

Save command[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 18#Save command

Lindi Cistia Prabha[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 19#Lindi Cistia Prabha

Printer's manuscript[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sale of the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon a few years back was a fairly big news event, but it seems that the idea of a printer's manuscript is a much wider topic than this one specific printer's manuscript. Hog Farm Talk 05:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to say Weak Keep on this one, surprisingly. I thought this would be a phrase in general usage, but basically every google search result is specifically about the book of Mormon, as are the majority of the usages in Wikipedia. The phrase just doesn't seem to be widely used outside those contexts. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put me down as a surprising keep as well. If we had a place that specifically discusses a "printer's manuscript" in general (perhaps at Manuscript?), I'd be open to a retarget, but I'm not seeing it. From usage, it does seem that the Book of Mormon is easily the primary topic amongst individual examples of a printer's manuscript. -- Tavix (talk) 19:05, 21 February 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.

Anal people[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 21#Anal people

Pralape[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 soft delete. -- Tavix (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. While I can find some less-than-reliable sources suggesting that this was an ancient name for the island that Krakatoa is found on ([1] [2]), I can't find any RS that attest this name. Delete unless RS usage can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:48, 11 February 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.

2 Tuxedos[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 19:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These songs were previously included on the EP when it was first announced in late 2019, but now that the EP has been released, are not on the final track list or any other Todrick Hall release, therefore they are no longer valid redirects. Ss112 16:31, 11 February 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.

Temporary move (Salihorsk)[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 WP:CSD#G6. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A leftover from the titular temporary move in August 2020, this doesn't seem to be necessary anymore. Delete unless a justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 15:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete G6 as housekeeping. A redirect was moved to this title then immediately moved back, I assume as part of an incomplete round robin page swap? Implausible search term and unlikely to be of any use. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as housekeeping.Less Unless (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Tagged for G6 as uncontroversial maintenance. Aasim (talk) 06:45, 14 February 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.

Gorilla Glue girl[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 19:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and carries WP:BLP issues. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per my reasoning on the target and other RFD nom. CUPIDICAE💕 16:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Current consensus at the article is that this should not be included in the article, so there is currently no mention at the target. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The incident is non-notable. I have to echo what Mangoe wrote at BLP/N: "Pretty much the textbook example of why we have both WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Person does something foolish, it creates a flash-in-the-pan slow-news-day item, we erect an permanent monument to her shame. This is something that needs to have been forgotten— yesterday." ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:41, 12 February 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.

Lisa Roberts (acdemic)[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 WP:CSD#G6 and WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo Lithopsian (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete G6 / R3 obviously created in error, the creator moved the redirect from the typo to the correct name a minute after making it. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G7. Creator blanked with edit summary "+wipe - unnecessary redirect for uncommon mispelling. Actual article now present - PLEASE DELETE". Redirect has zero views. Station1 (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G7. As Creator, I confirm this was created in error, recreated with the correct spelling, and then promoted from Redirect to article. My wiping was part of tidying up in retrospect. Thanks, Icairns 2 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 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:DW[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 19#Wikipedia:DW

Cult of the Machine[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 Cubo-Futurism#Importance of Post-Revolutionary context. signed, Rosguill talk 19:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target or anywhere else on wikipedia with respect to 40K. Some internet searches suggest that the overwhelming primary use of these phrases relate to an art exhibition from a couple of years ago, rather than 40k 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:59, 11 February 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.

Pumas (rugby)[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 Puma#Sports. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page about the South African rugby team has recently been moved from Pumas (rugby team) to Pumas (Currie Cup). The problem is that "Pumas" is ambiguous with Argentina national rugby union team. The 2 redirects have very many incoming links, most for the South African team but some for the Argentinian team. Before I fix any more, should these 2 redirects stay as they are (in which case there needs to be a hatnote), or be retargeted to Puma#Sports. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Puma#Sports: Someone using these search terms could be looking for either the SA club team or the Argentinian national team. We can't presume to know which one, so best to redirect to the DAB page so they can make the choice for themselves. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Puma#Sports: As per Joseph2302, Pumas (rugby team) was the original location of the South African side but most players link to the Rut Template anyway (already redirected to the new location) so can't see retargeting being a problem. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Puma#Sports per others. Definitely ambiguous. A7V2 (talk) 10:05, 13 February 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.

Northern Ireland national futsal team[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 Northern Ireland national futsal team moved over redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 19:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Even if the Irish Football Association run the futsal team, we should delete to encourage article creation Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, definitely do that (although this is correct capitalisation for it). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with this assessment that the redirect is the more suitable title based on other similar articles. A7V2 (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: CSDed per G6 as "holding up a page move that is non-controversial or consensual". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:45, 13 February 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.

2009–10 Cheltenham Town F.C. season[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 19:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to encourage article creation. The redirect doesn't give reader much specific info, and a season article could be created (as they played in a fully professional league, which is the footy project's guideline for whether article should be created). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation. Similar articles for other seasons exist. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. GiantSnowman 11:47, 13 February 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.

Talismans of Vaul[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 19:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article or anywhere else on Wikipedia. There was a short article at Talismans of Vaul for approx 2 weeks in 2005, but it would have no chance of surviving an AfD nomination. Unused, only recieved 8 page views in the last year 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative capitalisations/plurals added 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there is no other participation yet, it is not necessary to notify of a nomination expansion on the same day. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:47, 19 February 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.

Matrix(created universe)[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 19:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology "created universe" may or may not be plausible depending on your views here, but the lack of a space before the disambiguator definitely makes this thing more questionable. Although it's existed for years, it doesn't seem to get very many pageviews now, for example only 14 last year, possibly at least in part for that reason. Regards, SONIC678 06:39, 11 February 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.

Template:Référence nécessaire[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 in its current form. However, feel free to repurpose to make it work with translation. -- Tavix (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the English Wikipedia, we do not need a French redirect. Alcremie (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep as obviously useful (see guideline WP:R#KEEP, item #5); it currently has four transclusions. We have tons of foreign-language article and template redirects that help editors expand the English Wikipedia by making template names from commonly translated foreign-language Wikipedias readily available. I work to fix template redlinks across all namespaces, and creating redirects for foreign-language template names is an easy way to help editors who are doing this valuable translation work. If someone wants to set up a bot to automatically replace instances of this template with {{citation needed}}, I would have no objection to that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace current uses with Template:Citation needed. General purpose templates in the English Wikipedia should be in English- there's no specific affinity between French and the Citation Needed template to justify a Foreign language redirect per WP:FORRED. If an English speaking editor was editing an article on the English Wikipedia and came across {{Référence nécessaire}} or {{要出典}} or another language variant there's a fairly high chance they won't know what the template is or what it does. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also all 4 transclusions of this template are in WIP translations of French Wikipedia articles in various sandboxes, there's no usage in main article space. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fluency required in both languages to translate an non-English Wikipedia article into English is far higher than the fluency required to translate the name of common templates (although ideally they'd actually find the citation directly, I know that isn't always going to be possible). There is no other plausible use case (at least until phab:T6547 is resolved). Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – We don't need foreign versions of every template in every language. I see no reason why this one in particular is justified above any others. MClay1 (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion is not about whether we need foreign versions of every template. It is about whether this template is useful, which it demonstrably is. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alcremie (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose to make it substitute-only (automatically substituted by bot), assisting with translation to English as suggested by Jonesey95. This is what we do with many citation templates, and it's immensely helpful. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:29, 12 February 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.

Template:Källa behövs[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 in its current form. However, feel free to repurpose to make it work with translation. -- Tavix (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In English Wikipedia, we don't need a template redirection in Swedish. Alcremie (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While I could see an argument being made for templates with a clear connection to the Swedish language, general templates like this one are not useful. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No specific connection between the Swedish language and the citation needed template to justify a foreign language redirect per WP:FORRED. General purpose templates should be in English on the English Wikipedia, I can't see any point in creating hundreds of alternate language redirects. Does not seem to be getting much use lately, only 1 page view in the last 90 days. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete foreign-language redirects generally shouldn't exist in non-article space. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as obviously useful for editors translating articles from WP in other languages. See {{Kilde www}} and the dozens of template redirects like it for more examples. This template is currently transcluded in a draft article, along with multiple other similar template redirects. This redirect does no harm and is clearly useful; see guideline WP:R#KEEP, item #5. If someone wants to set up a bot to automatically replace instances of this template with its target, I would have no objection to that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alcremie (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose to make it substitute-only (automatically substituted by bot), assisting with translation to English as suggested by Jonesey95. This is what we do with many citation templates, and it's immensely helpful. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Translations are unnecessary. Aasim (talk) 06:46, 14 February 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.

Template:要出典[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 in its current form. However, feel free to repurpose to make it work with translation. -- Tavix (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Chinese redirect and I don't think this template is likely to be used. Alcremie (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an inappropriate foreign language redirect. Templates should be in English on the English Wikipedia, there's no point creating hundreds of alternative language redirects for each template. There's nothing particularly Japanese about the citation needed template that would justify a Japanese language redirect per WP:FORRED. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also you can already access all the alternate language versions of the templates on their respective wikis through the languages section of the sidebar. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both above. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as obviously useful for editors translating articles from WP in other languages. See {{Kilde www}} and the dozens of template redirects like it for more examples. This redirect does no harm and is clearly useful; see guideline WP:R#KEEP, item #5. It was created because an editor was attempting to use it on a page here at en.WP. If someone wants to set up a bot to automatically replace instances of this template with its target, I would have no objection to that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If {{Kilde www}} was the redirect up for discussion I would have voted Keep, because there is a clear and unambiguous link between {{Cite web/Danish}} and the Danish language: The template is designed to replicate the behaviour of the Danish Wikipedia template, it supports and auto translates Danish language inputs, and the reason it exists is so that you can copy and paste Kilde www templates from the Danish Wikipedia and have them automatically work. There's no such link between the Citation needed template and the Japanese/Swedish/French language. There's nothing Japanese about the concept of a statement needing a citation, the template doesn't support Japanese language inputs or outputs, and they don't even seem to work in the same way. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alcremie (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repurpose to make it substitute-only (automatically substituted by bot), assisting with translation to English as suggested by Jonesey95. This is what we do with many citation templates, and it's immensely helpful. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Translations are unnecessary. Aasim (talk) 06:47, 14 February 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.

Created disambiguation page for the name "Tony Hart"[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 deleted by Athaenara as G6. (non admin-closure) Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a leftover from a move to the correct title format, as this one's nonstandard format is unlikely to be searched for. As such, I'm not sure we should keep this lying around, so delete unless a justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 06:29, 11 February 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.

Word art[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 19#Word art

Former presidents who ran for the presidency[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 19:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents are not exclusive to the United States. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there anything on WP about former presidents from any other country(s) who ran for the presidency? Station1 (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    List of former Philippines presidents who pursued public office is the only one I could find so far. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, we could make it a dab page, although so few people ever look at it (60 all last year), that deletion is fine too. Station1 (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - title is ambiguous as could refer to the presidents of any country. Additionally the target page doesn't actually mention anything to do with the redirect. The pages the redirect should go to are Elections lost by presidents of the United States (for elections lost) and List of presidents of the United States by other offices held (for elections won).
    SSSB (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Specific unlikely search term and there aren't particular articles this needs to point to. Reywas92Talk 18:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Too ambiguous and implausible to disambiguate. Aasim (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only is this title not specific to the United States we don't have any such list for the Untied States (or any other country I looked for). Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not specific to United States and there is nowhere helpful for it to target. "Subsequent office" would include only those who won (such as Grover Cleveland) but not those who lost (such as Teddy Roosevelt), and this section was removed from the article anyway. Someone could create a list article or set index in the future. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible search term. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Ambiguous title, not helpful as DAB, and an unlikely search term. Drdpw (talk) 00:42, 19 February 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.

Our words are backed with nuclear weapons![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 19:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Onel5969 TT me 01:16, 11 February 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.

I'm gonna go build my own theme park with blackjack and hookers![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 19:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. Onel5969 TT me 01:08, 11 February 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.

Do you feel like a hero yet?[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 19:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target Onel5969 TT me 01:07, 11 February 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.

Shut up and take my money![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 19:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is not mentioned in the target article. Onel5969 TT me 01:04, 11 February 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.

Combi-weapons[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 19:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article, and redirect is unused - only 4 page views in the last year. There was some article content here which through a series of mergers and moves has ended up in this user sandbox, where it hasn't been edited since 2008. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:44, 11 February 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.

Autosanguination[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 19:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. There was a short article at this title for about 3 weeks in 2005 but I don't think it would have any chance of surviving an AfD nomination. Unused, only got 3 page views in the last year 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:34, 11 February 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_February_11&oldid=1008222288"