Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 6, 2021.

Z Street (Portland, Oregon)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a street that has never existed in Portland, Oregon. (When streets in Portland were given alphabetical names in 1891, what would have been Z street retained its existing name of Reed Street.)[1] No other alphabetical streets in Portland have articles or redirects. A Google search doesn't bring up any relevant results, so this is unlikely to be a common search term. This redirect was created to try and prevent Z Street being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z Street John B123 (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close/administrative close This is attempt to split or bypass discussion in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z Street. User:John B123's has behaved badly, in my opinion, over several days relating to several disambiguation pages on "Z Street", "Y Street", etc., including accusing me of incivility for asking them at their Talk page to stop templating me and to accept having a central discussion. Their accusation here suggests they might believe that the existence of that redirect would somehow cause the AFD outcome to go differently is far-fetched. And everything there is above-board, no matter what John B123 might want to insinuate. Anyhow, allow the regular AFD process to continue. And John B123, please don't wp:CANVASS more here or elsewhere. --Doncram (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How else would you describe calling somebody a jerk on their talk page? As documented at the AfD discussion, the page was nominated as a disambiguation page that doesn't disambiguate any existing articles, your creation of a flimsy redirect is clearly an attempt to save the page. If by "behaved badly" you mean I nominated several disambiguation pages you created for G14 because they didn't comply with the guidelines then guilty as charged. Please stop bending the truth and as requested yesterday, stop these personal attacks. --John B123 (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Leaving aside the bickering, the fact remains that the source being used by both sides of this argument doesn't actually support either the claim above or that made in the article. I'm having difficulty getting a good picture of the situation, but the one thing that no source I've found supports was that there was ever a Z Street. It's not even clear to me that the original lettered streets went beyond O Street. The fact that they were renamed 130 years ago, and that none of the streets appears to be notable in its own right, leads me to question any redirects to the Alphabet District for individual letter street names. Mangoe (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mangoe. There's no reason for someone to search for a street that has never existed. -- Tavix (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mangoe. I don't see people searching for obscure things that don't exist. Mgasparin (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first few pages of my searches turn up a design agency and an apartment letting agency, along with a brief mention on a blog about how z street does not exist. This does not seem to be a common way to refer to Reed Street, and I don't think it's particularly plausible that readers will be searching for street names that don't actually exist. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I doubt anyone searching for information on why Z Street has never existed in Portland will type "Z Street" followed by the given parenthetical, so this is not a meaningful redirect for navigation purposes. Ultimately, while some article titles for non-existent members of a sequence or list might be worth a redirect to somewhere (Pope John XX comes to mind), this is not one of those. --Kinu t/c 21:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Update. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z Street which User:John B123 was trying to fight about, by expansion to other venues like here, it looks like the resolution is that it will be accepted that "Z Street" shall redirect to Street or road name#Z Street. I set that up, and redirected it already, and John B123 indicates there that is okay, except they maybe want to fight about my having redirected it already. About me calling them a jerk on their Talk page, I did not. I probably did say please don't be a jerk by continuing to template me. Due 50 percent to their incompetence with their editing tool, they were in the middle of applying 20 unnecessary sections and/or templates to my Talk page. The other 50 percent was due to being unwilling to stop and discuss principles/facts/whatever involved, when asked (or they should simply have known better). And then wanting to complain about civility.
About the redirect from Z Street (Portland, Oregon), I don't think anyone should care one whit. Redirects are cheap. This one is just like previously existing one Z Street (Washington, D.C.). No purpose served by deleting it. But I also don't care if it is deleted. What a waste of editor attention this is, brought on by one editor exhibiting wp:BATTLEGROUND behavior. --Doncram (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still no reason to keep this redirect. Mangoe (talk) 23:18, 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.

Alimena, Palermo, Sicily[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created in error by another editor, who carelessly made this slapdash redirect on one of the articles on my watchlist; he made it without even checking for the already-existing Alimena article, let alone how to properly format a geographical article title, and to top it off, he had originally redirected it to a completely wrong place (Pistoia, wtf) hundreds of miles away. No pages link to this misbegotten thing. It has no reason to exist. Please get rid of it! Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't quite understand the issue here. Regardless of the original target, it now redirects to Alimena. As Alimena is within the Metropolitan City of Palermo, on the island of Sicily, Alimena, Palermo, Sicily is not a completely implausible search term, is it? Lennart97 (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm also not seeing the issue with this redirect, comma separated lists are a standard way of writing places? See for example New York, New York, USA, Berlin, Germany or Milan, Lombardy. The mistake in it's target has been fixed so it seems to now be pointing at the right page? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly useful redirect. It was used in Maria Messina until you removed it. I put it back per WP:SEAOFBLUE. MB 20:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't do that. I'm just trying to clean up your mistakes. There was no need for it in the first place. Please leave well enough alone. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This is accurate, useful and harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whether it is linked to or not (and the example above looks like a valid usage) is not a reason to delete. No reason has been given for deletion and it seems plausible and anyone searching will undoubtedly be taken where they wanted to go. A7V2 (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per prior. This strikes me as a rather spurious nomination. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:26, 7 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.

Bay of Eldamar[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely obscure search term. Not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia as an obscure geographical feature of a non-notable location. Jontesta (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it's not obscure, there is a whole section on Eldamar (Elvenhome), a core concept in Tolkien's mythology; and the bay is already mentioned in the section, as are the harbour and beaches that are on the bay. (By the way, it would be appreciated if Middle-earth discussions were notified at WikiProject Middle-earth.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The target section isn't the best worded, but all of the references to "the Bay" in the Eldamar section are referring to the Bay of Eldamar, so we do have content about this. It's a potentially useful redirect. Hog Farm Talk 00:34, 7 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.

Edit count[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 13#Edit count

Muslim cinema[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 13#Muslim cinema

Richard Stalin[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 22:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Odd combination of Richard Stallman and Joseph Stalin, not mentioned in the target. Google search returns in the IMDb page as the first result. Purplneon486 (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy G10 as an attack page unless someone can figure out a connection. I can find no connection between Richard Stallman and this name. Seems to be intended to imply that free software = communist? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pun names are not really useful redirects. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, especially considering this is a BLP, unless someone can find actual usage. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:27, 7 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.

Nazi[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Looks like there's an overwhelming consensus to Keep the current target page. I will just model the disambiguation page like the Capitalist (disambiguation). Cheers, PyroFloe (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster and Oxford dictionary list the word "Nazi" as referring to the people that followed the movement rather than the ideology itself. [2][3]. I think that redirecting this to the ideology is a bad redirect. I am suggesting either changing the disambiguation page to just the word "Nazi" without "(disambiguation)" (requires an article move of the DAB also) or potentially creating a new article about the people that followed the ideology with a brief mentions of modern Nazism (Neo-Nazis). Or lastly, we can go the route of the redirect Soviet that leads to the former country of the Soviet Union by changing the target to Nazi Germany. What are your thoughts for this redirect? PyroFloe (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move Nazi (disambiguation) to Nazi. This is a tough one, but I'd say that "Nazi" in isolation is at least as often used to refer to Nazi Germany, the Nazi Party or indeed Neo-Nazism as it is used to refer to Nazism, the ideology. Therefore, Nazi would be better suited as a disambiguation page in its own right. I'm opposed to creating a new article about "Nazis" as a group of people, as it would likely only duplicate Nazism and Neo-Nazism with no added value. Lennart97 (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is given that we don't have an article on "people who are Nazis" - we only have Nazism - a redirect there makes the most sense. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elliot321: Are you sure that Nazism makes the most sense? Just for example: in the context of WW2 (which is arguably the most common context that the word Nazi is used in), when people talk about "the Nazis" or use "Nazi" as an adjective, they usually refer to the nation of Nazi Germany and the people who fought for it - not necessarily the ideology of Nazism and its adherents. I think that this alone is sufficient reason make Nazi a disambiguation page. Lennart97 (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do think Nazism makes the most sense. Otherwise I could see an argument making it a topical page, since "Nazi" as a word is often used to describe people who are authoritarian in general - like Grammar Nazi. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this as it is per Elliot to be consistent with stuff like Capitalist, Communist, Fascist, and Socialist. Nazism makes the most sense as a redirect, as it can also refer to the movement, the ideology itself, among other things. Regards, SONIC678 19:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quire sure if the analogy makes sense - none of the words Capitalist, Communist, Fascist or Socialist, in isolation, are ever used to refer to a specific nation, while Nazi is widely used to refer to the specific nation of Nazi Germany. Lennart97 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lennart97: Yes, it is true that none of those four terms refer to a specific nation, but as nouns or adjectives they can refer to anything associated with those ideologies-a believer, a movement, a nation, a policy, even the ideologies themselves. That's why I was using my analogy above (I didn't mean a specific nation, but rather the fact that they're potentially ambiguous). Does this answer your question? Regards, SONIC678 22:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sonic678: Thanks for the reply. It does and doesn't - it actually makes me wonder whether I'm getting my point across, so I hope you don't mind if I give that another try. Nazi differs from the other terms in that it is very specifically tied to the nation that is, at least in common speach, named for it: Nazi Germany. "The Capitalists" or "the Communists", even in the specific context of WW2, can't be used and aren't used to refer to specific nations and the same is true for e.g. "a Capitalist soldier/officer" or "a Communist soldier/officer" - we don't divide the fighting parties by ideology. However, "the Nazis", used in a general sense, will usually refer to the nation of Nazi Germany, and similarly, "a Nazi soldier" or "a Nazi officer" always refers to someone in the military of that nation, even though that doesn't necessarily mean that soldier or officer adheres to the Nazi ideology. So there's the difference, and what I think makes Nazi Germany as valid a target as Nazism and thus justifies a disambiguation page at Nazi. Sorry for the wall of text! Lennart97 (talk) 23:21, 6 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.

Pardon of Donald Trump[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 22:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Premature at best. Trump reportedly considered attempting a self-pardon, but that isn't discussed in his article. Delete or retarget to List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump. "Pardon of" would usually refer to the person being pardoned, but I could see this as an acceptable search term. BDD (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, its unlikely Biden will pardon him. I opt for delete.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Donald trump hasn't been granted a pardon, and there is no discussion of this at the target. Alternatively Very Weak Retarget to List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump as a list of people Donald Trump has pardoned. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Donald Trump has not been pardoned, and I can find no discussion on Wikipedia of whether he will and/or should be (by Biden or himself). Retargetting to a list of people pardoned by Donald Trump would be misleading so I oppose that. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete misleading redirect. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he is pardoned in the future, this can be recreated after that occurs. Hog Farm Talk 22:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Biden shows no signs that he will pardon Trump, or is even considering it. Mgasparin (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:35, 8 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.

Resignation of Donald Trump[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#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading. Trump recently resigned from SAG-AFTRA, but we don't cover that (and don't need to). BDD (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

as creator of redirect, please delete. Thanks. Starzoner (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree delete.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G7 as the creator has requested deletion. Not sure what this is referring to. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:34, 6 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.

Non-English speakers[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 22:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This concept is not discussed in the target article. I don't think we have any article that covers this topic. (t · c) buidhe 16:01, 6 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.

唐纳德·特朗普[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 22:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent redirect that doesn't pass WP:RLOTE muster. While China was a big aspect of his foreign policy, I'd feel the same about an Arabic or Hebrew transliteration. BDD (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Donald Trump is a big exception to other chinese to english redirects, due to being president of the United States for 4 years and making headlines countless times in the Chinese Media in chinese. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination, a different script for another language is unlikely to be typed here in English Wikipedia. PyroFloe (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mgasparin (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Donald Trump has made headlines in basically every country and every language, and while China was a major focus of his foreign policy the same could be said about numerous other countries (e.g. Mexico, Israel, North Korea). This doesn't seem to be a Chinese name that Trump chose or that has any other specific connection to him personally. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:42, 9 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.

W. Cooke[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 Cooke#W. N.b. that Cooke (surname) is a redirect to Cooke. signed, Rosguill talk 22:08, 13 February 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. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:41, 6 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.

Matthew Gisborne[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 13#Matthew Gisborne

Richard Carroll (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 22:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful XNRs; 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. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:22, 6 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.

Tom and Jerry: War of the Whiskers (page)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14#Tom and Jerry: War of the Whiskers (page)

Mark "Spike" Stent/redirects[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 22:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover from a page move; the only content in the history was blanked by the author. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:18, 6 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.

10 Years (band) (redirect)[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 22:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created for testing purposes, no longer needed: no backlinks. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:01, 6 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.

John D. O'Brien[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 1997–1998 Massachusetts legislature#Senators. BD2412 T 20:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page on which no-one has the middle initial "D". He was a state senator, see 1997–1998 Massachusetts legislature. Delete to encourage article creation. Narky Blert (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to 1997–1998 Massachusetts legislature#Senators, and tag with "R with possibilities". This seems to be the only John D. O'Brien mentioned on Wikipedia, so retargeting in this way will allow people to at least find some information on him (i.e. what legislature he was a part of and what dates). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:05, 31 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 13:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per IP above. I can see the argument for deletion as well, but I do think it's more important in this case that a reader is directed to a place that has some relevant information. Lennart97 (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per IP - and the senator should be mentioned in the DAB ofc. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:58, 6 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 borderless country[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. Delete has both greater numerical support and stronger arguments. signed, Rosguill talk 22:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An ip bold change the redirect target to List of countries and territories by land borders. That ip was reported to ANI for related issue, but assume good faith on the change in redirect target anyway and I open this RfD instead. The redirect is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of borderless countries BTW (closed as delete). Matthew hk (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That ANI is irrelevant is it? Can you explain why you think that's relevant? Have you actually got any concrete, valid evidence that there have been off-site canvassing or meat/sock or hopping? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is now relevant since you was blocked for more than a day exactly due to that ANI. Matthew hk (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of countries and territories by land borders. Borderless is not the same thing as Island, Ireland for example is an island country but has a border with northern Ireland, and the united kingdom is an island country but has land borders e.g. in Gibraltar. The article this probably should target was Deleted 5 years ago as a non notable concept not covered in reliable sources, but the proposed list article contains basically the same content, just sort the list ascending. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Gibraltar is another country so their border with Spain isn't an Anglo-Spanish border. Other similar examples would be, e.g., Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Brunei, Papua New Guinea, Greenland (if the border runs across Hans), the Åland Islands (land border over Märket) and so on. (Tasmania is likewise an island state with a land border with another Australian state. But that isn't a country anyway. On the other hand Bahrain would be such a case where there's a land border on an artificial island.) 220.246.55.231 (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not relevant....Since the redirect is not redirected to List of borderless countries. Matthew hk (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget per 86.23.109.101 above. Move List of borderless countries back to the main namespace and retarget that per 86.23.109.101's comment too. A user moved that to their own user space and claimed that they would work on it but nothimg had so far happened. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since i am not the actual editor that bold change the redirect and i am not sure i should count as a nominator, i would say if List of borderless countries was deleted via Afd, List of borderless country should treat as the same as Delete. Island countries does not have land border but i am not sure it should be defined as "borderless". Also countries is the correct article title and country is not. People should got to WP:Deletion Review or somewhere else for the Afd. Matthew hk (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or delete. The current target is suboptimal. CMD (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, having already been tried at AfD. "Borderless country" seems like a whimsical, novel, and probably wrong way to refer to an island country (the borders of an island country are much more clear and real than most national borders!). It may be because of the current ArbCom case I'm working on, but "borderless country" instead makes me think of something like Kurdistan, that's not a nation-state with clearly defined boundaries. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as, well, complete BS. There's no good reason to create a redirect for a nonsensical idea. Mangoe (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are too many ways to interpret "borderless country". --Un assiolo (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a potentially ambiguous or confusing, ungrammatical term. I would be okay with retargeting as an {{R from singular}} if we thought we needed List of borderless countries, but it seems like we do not. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:28, 7 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.

Arui[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. signed, Rosguill talk 22:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

deletion, there are other things in Wikipedia called Arui, a language, a district in Papua, Barbary Sheep page mentions word once, in a minor context, can't find Redirect page but there is a redirect. Brunswicknic (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've added the tag to the redirect and notified the creator on behalf of the nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Serui-Laut language, for which this is an alternative name, and possibly add a hatnote to Barbary sheep#Names where it is mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. There are other plausible targets. CrazyBoy826 20:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Barbary sheep seems to be the dominant meaning as far as I can tell, but some might be looking for the language. LWizard @ 20:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Seventyfiveyears: Why did you relist this one? I know I'm involved, but it looks rather like consensus for disambiguation to me. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think relisting might have been the correct option because there's no dab page drafted (and as soon as one is drafted the discussion can be closed), but I'm not confident that that is the reason why Seventyfiveyears relisted the discussion. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate that relist was pointless though. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per above. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate the two meanings per above. I might have a go at drafting it soon. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:37, 7 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.

Friedhof cemetery[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Friedhof. (non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mistranslation of the target: Friedhof means cemetery in German, making this redirect mean "cemetery cemetery", a title that could refer to virtually any cemetery in a German speaking location. A correct translation would be Wilmersdorf Cemetery. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 12:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Friedhof. If a reader is looking for a specific cemetery that they mistakenly believe to be named Friedhof (not unlikely), the disambiguation page Friedhof will tell them that Friedhof simply means cemetary as well as present them with List of cemeteries in Germany (which I just added to that page) plus some more specific entries, potentially helping them find the specific cemetery they are looking for. Lennart97 (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Lennart97. We should be helpful to readers where we can be and the Friedhof page is more helpful than any search results. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Friedhof per the others. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:57, 7 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.

Roblox Guest[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 22:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in article 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable WP:GAMECRUFT not mentioned in target article. The article should have been deleted rather than redirected. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. While there is an article in the page history that doesn't quite meet any speedy deletion criterion, it wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of surviving an AfD discussion so I'm happy deleting it here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oof per nom. Dominicmgm (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not mentioned in the article. Darubrub (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crufty redirect. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:00, 6 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 Yogis[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 13#List of Yogis

Something Stupid[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 22:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The song is by Jonas Blue and Awa, Jax Jones had nothing to do with it.- Lk95 (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The only connection between Jax Jones and a song called "Something Stupid" is that the latter sometimes appears in the same playlist as a Jax Jones song. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G7 as the creator of the redirects has brought them here asking for them to be deleted. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly no reason to keep these anymore. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:00, 6 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.

Julia (Filipina actress/entertainer)[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 22:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of these four three Julias seem to go mononymously by their first names, as argued over at the TRAINWRECKed discussion earlier. Delete unless a justification can be provided (and see also all those earlier "Jennifer (actress)" redirect discussions). Regards, SONIC678 06:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as unlikely search terms with triple (nationality, career, birth year) disambiguation. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also unsure why "actress, born 1997" and "entertainer, born 1997" go to different places, when the entertainer seems to be an actress. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Nevermind, they do go to the same place, I was just being stupid 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:09, 6 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_6&oldid=1138583135"