Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 20, 2021.

Thrall-Noldorin[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; it is non-canonical (i.e. not Tolkien but derived sources). It is not impossible it could become notable if it gets enough game and TV mentions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chiswick Chap - we have no content about this at the moment. Thrall-Ñoldorin should be deleted as well. Hog Farm Talk 16:30, 25 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:Holy shit, something really fucked up happened[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 18:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how this is related to the target. No backlinks in 15 years. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Straightforward. The redirect is very inaccurate and is also an implausible search term. ―NK1406 talk•contribs 22:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but mark as historical or hoax. If this weren't so old I'd say "delete - straightforward" but in some ways it's like a long-lasting hoax. If this had been a similarly useless-but-funny-and-historical link in mainspace, I'd say move it to the Wikipedia: namespace, like we do some ancient hoaxes upon discovery. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per NK1406. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete - While there are several places this would be funny to redirect to, I'm not seeing a compelling use that this really seems to accomplish anything. No live backlinks, and pageviews suggest there aren't really any links anywhere, in old revisions or out on the web or otherwise. As of now, this is just clutter in the search bar. Hog Farm Talk 22:09, 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.

Talcum X[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 Speedily deleted by User:Bishonen. (non-admin closure) Paul_012 (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted. It appears to be an uncommon derogatory nickname for King that is not referenced in the article at all. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree that the nickname is derogatory and I was unable to locate any reliable sources that referred to King by this name. ―NK1406 talk•contribs 22:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G10. --Un assiolo (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied. Bishonen | tålk 18:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, but not speedily (redirects don't have to be neutral): plenty of uses online for this nickname, but it's still not significant enough to be mentioned in the article; without such a mention, this redirect is useless. – Uanfala (talk) 18:50, 23 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.

Ôzaru[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 01:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with Dragon Ball. 122.61.73.44 (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This might not be the best target—it is mentioned at several Dragon Ball articles—but the nominator clearly has not done their research. Oozaru is the Japanese name for the Great Ape that Saiyans, including Goku, in Dragon Ball can transform into. Ô is just an alternate way of representing a long vowel (the "oo" in "Oozaru") in Japanese; Ō is more commonly used instead. Ss112 07:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it and all the other iterations (Oozaru, Ozaru, Golden Oozaru). It is mentioned in several articles but there is no coverage of this specific topic, which has been the status quo for about 11 years. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Goku as mentioned there, and add a hatnote. Keeping it with Dragon Ball franchise article is also okay but may need an {{R without mention}} AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xezbeth. Search results will have to do unless/until we can explain the term in a logical place. I'm not familiar with the franchise, but it sounds like AngusWOOF's suggestion would be like redirecting "lightsaber" to "Luke Skywalker". --BDD (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not a fan of third relists, but the other redirects Xezbeth mentioned ought to be added to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oozaru was a 22kb article before being redirected in 2010. If the concern is a lack of coverage, (some of) this content could be restored in some form. -- Tavix (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect to Dragon Ball and oppose deletion of all other related terms. The nominator is incorrect about their assertion that it has nothing to do with Dragon Ball. The live action film Dragonball Evolution, though much aligned and deviates from the source material, has a character which is specifically named Ōzaru.Tavix is correct, this content could be expanded summary style if there is lack of coverage as the information is certainly verifiable. Haleth (talk) 04:31, 2 March 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.

Trumparoo[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 21:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no mention of this website in the main body of the article. There is one reference that says "Founder of site Trumparoo among dead at Capitol", but I don't think that is enough of a connection to sustain a redirect to this target. -- Tavix (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If the Trumparoo website ever becomes notable (doubtful, seeing as how it is now shut down) an article can be created for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WWGB (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not appear to be a useful redirect. Bishonen | tålk 18:36, 23 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.

Indigenous American[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 Native Americans. signed, Rosguill talk 18:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be disambiguated, as the term may refer to Native Americans in the United States more specifically and Indigenous peoples of the Americas more broadly Bangalamania (talk) 20:34, 20 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.

Divinium[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 28#Divinium

Zyz, Italy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 28#Zyz, Italy

Drug ring[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 Drug cartel. signed, Rosguill talk 21:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Retargeting to Drug cartel might be a bit more helpful. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:28, 20 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.

Office under the United States[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) feminist (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like the one I just nominated, not mentioned in article, unlikely alternate name. Onel5969 TT me 17:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is in fact mentioned in the lead, quoting a Justice Department opinion: "All offices under the United States and all officers of the United States are created and filled according to the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution." The quote is a legally significant memo, so is correctly included in the article. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The terms have been ruled to be synonymous and are used completely interchangeably within the legal definition of officers, because only any person holding an office under the United States is by definition and officer of the United States, according to the Bradbury citation [3], "the Court’s conclusion in Buckley that the methods of appointment in the Appointments Clause are exclusive for anyone who can be said to hold an office under the United States was anticipated by a line of Attorney General opinions dating back to well before the Civil War. See, e.g., Appointment and Removal of Inspectors of Customs, 4 Op. Att’y Gen. 162, 164 (1843); see also Civil Service Comm’n, 13 Op. Att’y Gen. 516, 518 (1871) (Appointments Clause “must be construed as excluding all other modes of appointment” of executive and judicial officers). Moreover, the text of the Appointments Clause emphatically applies to “all” officers of the United States, unless their method of appointment is “otherwise provided for” in the Constitution. : 75 

--199.46.249.141 (talk) 04:29, 25 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.

Officer under the United States[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 28#Officer under the United States

Llanfairpwllgwyngllgogerychwyrndrobwllynyngofod[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 21:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Eeeehhhhhhh This seems to be a misspelling of Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllandysiliogogogoch, and should redirect there if kept, but I don't think it's any more likely than any random syllables appended to "Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwll", and this one even lacks a y in "pwllgwyngyll". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. although the band did release a record called Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch, this spelling does not appear in the article, and there is no reason to assume that it it a probable missspelling of the band's record title. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The name given in the band's article was incorrect. The song's title is "Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyndrobwllantysiliogogogochynygofod" (though it's given by the BBC source as "Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychyndrobwllantysiliogogogochynygofod"). This redirect is still a typo of both, though. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the spelling in the nominated redirect "Llanfairpwllgwyngllgogerychwyrndrobwllynyngofod" appears to be a fairly common misspelling, reproduced by the BBC[1] and the Guardian.[2] --Paul_012 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the band's song is fully known as "Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyndrobwllantysiliogogogochynygofod", "Llanfairpwllgwyngllgogerychwyrndrobwllynyngofod" is not a possible or likely search term. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible misspelling. ―NK1406 talk•contribs 22:27, 20 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.

Sususs Amongus[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#G3. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not an alternate name for the subject of the target article, just a meme relating to the game Among Us that will be forgotten in a year or less. This adds nothing to the encyclopedia, so it should be deleted. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. Non-notable meme, not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - absolutely no connection to the target beyond "memes lol". ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both We’ve had a spate of Sussus Amongus meme vandalism recently and this is just more of the same. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Was going to say it sounds like a hoax, but evidently someone with more knowledge of memes beat me to it! P Aculeius (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per wp:g3 and wp:g5. Created by an account-hopping vandal who has done the same in Valentinian I already. Avilich (talk) 14:59, 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.

Public organization[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 Public sector. signed, Rosguill talk 21:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created this redirect to State agencies of Thailand in 2015, as it is a specific legal term in Thailand, but upon reconsideration it's not specific enough in general usage. Proper uses are now linked to Public organization (Thailand), leaving incorrect incoming links. I'm not sure though what would be a better target. Organization? Public sector? Or should it just be deleted? Paul_012 (talk) 15:56, 20 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.

Brutality-killing[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 21:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term due to the unnecessary hyphenation and broken English sentence structure. This redirect doesn not seem to be synonymous with it's target to me, if I were to search for this I'd expect to end up at something like Killing. A google search turns up a load of results related to Police brutality, but I don't think that's an appropriate target either. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Newly created, no incoming links from articles, confusing target. Possible targets might include homocide - but that is pretty broad, or murder - but some brutality killings might be called "acts of war" rather than "murder" per se, so best to delete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nobody's gonna search for this, and if they did, the target is a very uncomfortable fit. Bishonen | tålk 18:44, 23 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.

Wikilabs[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 21:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This might be referring to WMF Labs, but seems to have additional meanings, including a Wikimedia project proposal and an IT solutions provider. Either retarget to Wikipedia:Wikimedia Cloud Services, where the other WMF Labs redirects point at, or delete as ambiguous. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:49, 20 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.

Ciley Myrus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 27#Ciley Myrus

Wikimedia Toolserver[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 Wikipedia:Toolserver. signed, Rosguill talk 21:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was retargeted to the mainspace article after Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 27#Toolserver, but is not currently mentioned at the target. I suggest retargeting it back to Wikipedia:Toolserver, similarly to WMF Labs pointing at Wikipedia:Wikimedia Cloud Services (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 10#WMF Labs). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:29, 20 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.

Matt Halprin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 27#Matt Halprin

Arne Klempert[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 History of Wikipedia#Effect of biographical articles. signed, Rosguill talk 21:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. History of Wikipedia#Effect of biographical articles seems to be a viable target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:18, 20 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.

Astropath[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 21:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Group of psychic communicators from the Warhammer 40,000 universe that aren't discussed at the target article. The article content in the page history ended up in Psyker, which was redirected in 2019 following an AfD nomination. They have a name drop in Rogue Trader (role-playing game)#Career paths but I don't think there's enough there to justify a redirect 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:08, 20 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.

Uriel Ventris[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 21:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Space Marine from the warhammer 40,000 universe that isn't mentioned anywhere in the encyclopaedia. There was an article here for about 20 days in 2010. If this is kept it might be better targeting Space Marine (Warhammer 40,000), but I don't see the value in pointing this to an article where this character is not mentioned. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:45, 20 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.

Navis Nobilite[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 21:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faction of ship navigators from the warhammer 40,000 universe not mentioned in the target article or anywhere else in wikipedia. There was an article at Navis Nobilite for about 9 months in 2008 which was redirected due to having no third party sources and insufficent notability for a stand alone article 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:35, 20 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.

Void shields[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 21:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable fictional technology from the warhammer 40,000 universe not mentioned at the target article or anywhere else with relaton to 40K. The article content in the page history ended up in Equipment of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000 which was deleted in 2011 following an AfD nomination. There are a few articles on force fields in fiction that might be suitable targets (e.g. Force field (fiction)) but they're not discussed in there by this name either 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:09, 20 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.

State farm[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 3#State farm

S. Taylor (cricketer)[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 21:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful XNR; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. There is a mention at List of English cricketers (1841–1850)#T, so I suggest retargeting there. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:26, 5 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 18:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:55, 20 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.

List of former United States presidents who ran for office after leaving the presidency[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 3#List of former United States presidents who ran for office after leaving the presidency

Fordmil Meansbad[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of LazyTown episodes#ep27. signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Dominicmgm (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:06, 20 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.

Annam Tower[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 but as nobody argued in favour of the status quo, defaulting to keep would not be in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, so I will default to retarget as the softer option. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While Annam was an old name of Vietnam, there is no such thing as Annam Tower. This should be deleted. Greenknight dv (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Colonial exhibition. There was a "Annam Tower" in the 1906 exhibition in France, but we don't have an article on that specific event yet, so retarget to the list article where it's pictured. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great point! Marseille colonial exhibition (1906) could be good target too if this article is created. Greenknight dv (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be fine if there is any source calls Báo Thiên Tower "Annam Tower" or "Tháp An Nam". Otherwise, we couldn't be sure. Greenknight dv (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as I can tell, the tower depicted at File:Expo coloniale 1906.jpg is not actually called "Annam Tower". The French description says "la tour de l'Annam" – it isn't capitalized, implying it's just a generic Annam tower, not a specific tower called "Annam Tower". References to an "Annam Tower" are probably a result of WP:CITOGENESIS; all mentions of the tower that I've found on Google come from the Wikipedia redirect or from the description of the aforementioned image on Commons, meaning that no one will come to Wikipedia looking for an article on "Annam Tower". The redirect should be deleted, even if an article on the Marseille colonial exhibition is created. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:53, 6 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 18:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per IP. French does not usually capitalise generic parts of proper names, and no inference can be drawn from failure to do so. La Tour d'Annam would look weird. To pick a really obvious example, la tour Eiffel in French WP. Narky Blert (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, but this still doesn't establish the notability of the Annam tower. It was just one of many exhibits at this colonial exhibition (see for example the Cambodian pavilion and the Laos pavilion mentioned at fr:Exposition coloniale de Marseille (1906)). These exhibits are not notable enough even for a redirect. They are highly implausible search terms. It would be like having redirects for every booth and every event at a trade fair. --Un assiolo (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, until or unless an article for the 1906 exhibition is created and the tower is discussed therein. Sure, the tower is mentioned in the suggested target, but it's a bit too obscure since it's only in a caption of an image. I'm also concerned that the suggested target is too broad, so any actual discussion of the tower would be undue weight. -- Tavix (talk) 18:32, 7 March 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.

J. Barker[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 Barker (surname)#D–K. There's a strong consensus against the current cross-namespace redirect. Beyond that, there is a fairly even split between deleting and redirecting to this relevant but nonspecific disambiguation page - we shall default to retargeting in the absence of a particular argument that the search results would be preferable, as it may help some readers, though there is no particular strong feeling either way. ~ mazca talk 23:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful XNR; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. Does not seem to have a mention on Wikipedia. Delete to encourage article creation, unless an appropriate target can be found. Per the backlinks, this also seems to be ambiguous with a painter. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's no use of a redirect to a category.Less Unless (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Barker (surname)#D–K, where there are five J. Barkers mentioned, plus four disambiguation pages with many more. Although none of them seem to be cricketers, this is still better than redirecting to a category where there's just a circular link. Then again, there may or may not be a primary topic for that term... Regards, SONIC678 05:29, 7 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 18:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or separately disambiguate. It would be particularly useful to have a separate disambiguation page at this title if there are multiple people primarily known as "J. Barker", or if there are people whose given name would abbreviate to "J. Barker" but who go by a middle name or otherwise might not show up at Barker (surname) as starting with a J. BD2412 T 16:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (without prejudice against redirecting to a notable person known as "J. Barker" or disambiguating). If there is evidence of multiple people who are primarily known as "J. Barker", a separate disambiguation page should be created to distinguish against people with surname Barker who happen to have a first name starting with J, but do not use "J. Barker" in any context. -- Tavix (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the existing disambiguation page without prejudice to creating a separate one. Readers will be better helped by the disambiguation page than by search results. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 8 March 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.

Omegalul[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! 00:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've added a mention. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the mention might be undue weight but that's not for RfD to decide. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it would be WP:UNDUE to put on the "LOL" page since it is an emote limited to a single service (and unofficially, at that). Since it's not an official emote, it couldn't be located on the Twitch page either.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand Zxcvbnm's point. We have what is definitely a "variant" documented in a reliable source. The Kotaku article even mentions that "omegalul has now similarly entered common usage". As far as I'm concerned, people use it and it's sourced, so it should stay. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with J947 that as long as the mention is in the target article the redirect should stay. ―NK1406 talk•contribs 23:05, 20 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_20&oldid=1146000857"