Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 20[edit]

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

Mithridates Pontus[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 05:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first is just wrong, vague and useless, the second is technically wrong too, and the third appears nowhere and doesn't seem like what someone would type. All three are orphaned and without traffic. I don't think anyone will miss them. Avilich (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. I can't see anyone typing 1—it even sounds nonsensical to me. 3 requires the searcher to keep typing far beyond what's necessary to locate the right article, and in so doing combine titles that wouldn't normally be combined, so it seems both improbable and unnecessary. At first glance, 2 looks like a possible mistake, since we say "Mithridates the Sixth", but it's not normal to write "the", and I wouldn't expect anyone to make this mistake. Even allowing for the unlikely chance, I don't think we do this for most other monarchs with iterations, and if it's unnecessary for them, it's unnecessary for Mithridates VI. If I'm mistaken, and we do have this for a lot of monarchs, then maybe 2 would be justified. P Aculeius (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Per Aculeius comment. --StaleGuy22 (talk) 17:50, 22 January 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.

Steven King[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 27#Steven King

Carmanville, Ontario[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 27#Carmanville, Ontario

Caius Valerius Daja Maximinus[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 all except Gaius Maximinus Daia. signed, Rosguill talk 19:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of these redirects closely resemble the subject's name, they don't seem particularly plausible search terms, and they get basically zero views. I propose deleting them. Avilich (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 1, 2, and 4: all but the third seem very improbable. That one might still be useful—we have "Gaius Maximinus Thrax" and that's what pops up alongside it in the search window if you search for "Gaius Maximinus", which is quite possible if readers don't recall the nomen "Valerius", which had become ubiquitious and generic by the third and fourth centuries. Of course their shared praenomen was generic at all periods of Roman history, but still might be remembered. So the third one seems useful as a means of directing readers who forget his nomen to one article or the other—and reminding them what the likely alternatives are. Number 1 is improbable as it uses both the archaic "Caius" and the unusual "Daja" instead of "Daia" (is this actually used in English sources prior to say, 1920, when "Caius" is still likely to appear?), and placing the name before Maximinus also seems unlikely. Any one of these variations is plausible, but combining all three makes for an extremely improbable search term. Number 2 is equally improbable: it combines the unlikely "Caius" and "Daja" with a "surname first" format that isn't used anywhere on Wikipedia. Number 4 is superfluous: anyone typing "Maximinus II" will get the right article without having to type "(Daia)". I would be less inclined to delete if "Daia" appeared without parentheses, as someone might guess that form of the name, but I can see no benefit to and little probability of anyone searching with parentheses. P Aculeius (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he was even called Gaius though. His first name was Galerius, which could, I suppose, be confounded with Gaius, but neither is the primary way of referring to him. Avilich (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found one inscription that calls him "Imp(erator) Caes(ar) C(aius) [Val(erius)] [Ga]l(erius) Maximian[us Aug(ustus)", or at least I assume it refers to him. But I doubt that's how we came up with the praenomen. It's not mentioned in Grant's Roman Emperors or the Chronicle of the Roman Emperors, which are my print sources, and it's not in DGRBM either. But I'm guessing someone has it this way, and I'd like to know who before deciding that it's wrong. P Aculeius (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A brief search indicates that his name is given this way in both the Oxford Classical Dictionary and the Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization, as well as at Britannica.com and on Livius.org's profile. So it seems to be generally accepted, even though I'm still not sure as to why. P Aculeius (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That inscription you provided (ILS 8933) is apparently the only one which assigns him the name Gaius; it appears neither in his coinage nor anywhere else (PLRE). Its accuracy is questionable, though: his other nomina are given in the wrong order, and the inscription also mentions the emperor Galerius, who was himself called Gaius and whose name was very similar to Maximinus's to the point which a confusion might've been made. I presume this is why sources disagree here. Avilich (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since Maximinus was the nephew of Galerius, and as far as we know he assumed his uncle's nomenclature around the time he was adopted as his uncle's heir, I think it's fair to say that he would have assumed the same praenomen. That was the standard, if not invariable, Roman practice stretching back to the Republic. And as they both came from a recently Romanized family—one that only seems to have assumed Roman names in the middle or later third century, it's unlikely that they had any tradition of using their praenomina to distinguish between one another—a practice that even old Roman families had been abandoning gradually since the first century. For now, multiple reliable sources assume that Maximinus' name was Gaius, and I think that's presumptively correct in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. If the only evidence is that no praenomen appears in the majority of inscriptions, the evidence to the contrary is at best very weak, and insufficient to overcome the presumption that he assumed his uncle's full nomenclature. P Aculeius (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator: the above case seems reasonable, no. 3 might be justified since some sources call him Gaius. I'm ok with either keeping or deleting no. 3; the rest, delete. Avilich (talk) 16:45, 27 January 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.

Fuck her right in the pussy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 4#Fuck her right in the pussy

WWE Tag Team Championship (disambiguation)[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 "Championship", no consensus on "Champions". signed, Rosguill talk 00:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because these redirects do not target a disambiguation page, and the target is not disambiguation-like because "WWE Tag Team Champions" and "WWE Tag Team Championship" are not ambiguous terms Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment when the redirect was created the target was a dab page, the redirect was created in 2016, pages change. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 15:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have tagged both of those pages as WP:G14. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've declined the G14s as, with slightly different organisation of content, the lists at the target could form a disambiguation/set index page so they are clearly forming a disambiguation-like function. This doesn't mean the redirects are necessarily useful (I'm undecided at present) but they are not speedy candidates. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Thryduulf: The redirects ending in "(disambiguation)" that target a disambiguation-like function are also eligible for WP:G14, see this: "A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Seventyfiveyears: what you've quoted explicitly says that a redirect targetting a page that performs a disambiguation-like function is not eligible for G14. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would refine it to Tag_team_championships_in_WWE#Overview_of_titles. Based on my reading of the article, there is a valid DAB page that could be made, since the WWE has a history of tag team championships, but the resulting DAB page would be more confusing and difficult to navigate – strictly speaking some of the entries might only be in a "see also" section if not branded under WWE – and would duplicate the work done at the "#Overview_of_titles" section. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:05, 20 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 18:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "championships", keep "champions". The target page is not nominally a disambiguation page although it could serve that purpose. "Championships" has no hits at all, while "champions" has quite a few pageviews for a redirect which suggests external linking or some other use, and readers visiting that link will find the information they're looking for (a list of pages with more information about WWE tag team champions) at the current target. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 20:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete championship, keep champions per Ivanvector. "Disambiguation-like function" is nebulous. I'd say most set-index articles are definitely disambiguation-like, but it's hard to say beyond that. Does the target page ultimately do some disambiguation? I guess so. It doesn't look at all like a disambiguation page, though, and we can't entirely rule out the possibility that anyone using this search term truly wants a disambiguation page. Given this uncertainty, I'm comfortable with letting pageviews be our guide. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. I think keeping these redirects are ultimately more confusing than helpful because someone using these redirects would be wanting a disambiguation. I see the argument for keeping "disambiguation-like" pages like SIAs, but the target is nowhere near that. That being said, I'd be fine with a separate disambiguation page listing the things actually known as "WWE Tag Team Champions(hip)", so searchers can find what they're looking for easily without having to decipher the target. -- Tavix (talk) 23:40, 29 January 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:MK[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. Like some of the discussion participants, I had trouble assessing the retarget votes. They seem to amount to "keep", or at least opposition to deletion. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts originally intended for a task force that is now merged into the main project, this is confusing and serves no purpose. Not being actively linked. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Added other similar redirects. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and retarget. Seems plausible that someone who still thinks of those defunct task forces would want to be steered to a project that is familiar with the subject matter. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as above. People do discover the project by looking for more specific things. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I see here is that the defunct task forces already redirect to the target meaning that redirecting to them would mean that we would be creating double redirects which I don’t believe would be helpful.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, shortcuts that no longer make sense as the task forces they once pointed to have long been folded into the larger WikiProject. These are ambiguous and more likely to be confusing than helpful at this point. ~ mazca talk 12:41, 20 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 18:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as there doesn't seem to be a suitable target. I'm opposing retarget proposals from Shooterwalker and ImaginesTigers because I have no clue where they want to target them. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly what the nominator suggested; retargeting them to WP:VG. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not what the nominator suggested. The way a redirect is listed here is in the form of redirect title -> current target title. The nominator didn't make a specific proposal but the fact that they already point at WP:VG suggests the nominator wanted them deleted. ~ mazca talk 23:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, since it’s been established that the nominator knows WP:VG is the target they wouldn’t have created the RFD in the first if that’s what they wanted.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per ImaginesTigers; this is what I presume he and Shooterwalker meant with their comments since the shortcuts already target the main project and not the defunct task forces. Given that there is no proposed alternate use for the shortcuts, keeping them as-is is a reasonable approach. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 20:56, 20 January 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.

One horse pony[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 user:Maile66 under criterion WP:CSD#G10. Thryduulf (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the connection is between the term "one horse pony" and Joe Biden - I can't find a mention of that term at the Biden page, and can't seem to find anything about this connection on Google. Unless anyone can find something about this, I suggest this be deleted per #5 and #8 at WP:RFD#DELETE. Seagull123 Φ 17:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not sure what the connection is here. Thanoscar21talkcontributions 17:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think it's a reference to this gaffe. Not mentioned at target article and seems to be a completely non notable event. Unless added to the article this redirect is going to confuse people more than it helps. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very unlikely to be of any use as a redirect seeing as it's hard to even find out what the connection is. Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not mentioned and as neologism until it has lasting effects like Covfefe. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As creator, I now go with Delete. Thought the thing would be a more notable meme than it ever became. GenQuest "scribble" 20:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G10. Purely derogatory and serves no other purpose. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 20:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete even if G10 doesn’t apply the creator had stated they now agree with deletion so G7 certainly does.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment user:Maile66 speedily deleted this under G10 (attack page). Had I seen this before that action I would have opposed that as based on the nominator's comments this was not purely derogatory. G7 (author requests deletion) did apply though. Thryduulf (talk) 01:14, 21 January 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.

Bolger station[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 28#Bolger station

Bedell station[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 28#Bedell station

Chokoe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 27#Chokoe

Central, California (disambiguation)[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, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the entries on the dab page seems to be known as "Central, California", so I'm not sure that this (disambiguation) redirect is useful. Hog Farm Talk 15:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm actually not particularly concerned about it either way, but I think it's harmless to have. BD2412 T 16:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Central, California" is not ambiguous and the target page does not disambiguate articles that might otherwise be called "Central, California". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no other Central, Californias to disambiguate. There is a Central City neighborhood in Santa Ana, California but that is not mentioned in the Santa Ana article. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:23, 20 January 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.

Cricket In China[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 redirect to Chinese Cricket Association. [Editors are encouraged to replace this redirect with a full article. (non-admin closure)] Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket is also played in mainland China. Retargeting to Chinese Cricket Association or China national cricket team would be workable, but I think that deleting to encourage article creation may be the best option. signed, Rosguill talk 17:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that most of the writing people have done on Chinese cricket on Wikipedia concentrates on those two articles you linked to. I doubt those people will make a full-fleshed Cricket in China article, since it seems unlikely any major developments in Chinese cricket will happen anytime soon to necessitate that (Cricket's appearance in the 2010 Asian Games in China was followed by little activity, so its appearance in the 2022 Asian Games in China likely won't be either). So I'd vote for keeping the redirect, but changing the target if you prefer that. GreekApple123 (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation, although that'd probably belong at a target URL without the capital I in "in". Still, delete and then if that article gets created this can become a redirect to it. BlackholeWA (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Chinese Cricket Association, which gives a (brief) overview of Cricket in China. With a minor reformat, I'd even support moving that article to "Cricket in China" given its scope. -- Tavix (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix. The actual content we have on cricket in mainland China is particularly sparse, and that seems to be the best option we have. I can definitely see the argument for deleting to encourage article creation, but current evidence suggests nobody's particularly interested in writing about this topic - in English at least - so I'd rather give a reader or potential contributor something to start with. ~ mazca talk 13:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix and Mazca, the latter's comments are particularly persuasive. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: this is a WP:INVOLVED relisting to clear the 6 January log page, it can be closed whenever someone uninvolved determines there is consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 20 January 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.

Metropolitan Tabernacle Police[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 3#Metropolitan Tabernacle Police

Amelia Gentleman, Baroness Johnson of Marylebone[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! 18:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created in error. Amelia Gentleman is not a baroness by virtue of her husband's peerage; she is afforded the courtesy title of 'Lady Johnson'. Zadradr (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep and tag with {{R from incorrect name}}. It's a plausible error that has been independently made a couple of other times as well at least. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Amelia Gentleman is Baroness Johnson of Marylebone by virtue of being married to Baron Johnson of Marylebone. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not correct; see Forms of address in the United Kingdom under 'Baroness (in her husband's right)', which specifies that Gentleman would be The Lady Johnson of Marylebone. Zadradr (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is correct. "The Lady Johnson of Marylebone" is a form of address for Baroness Johnson of Marylebone. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag with {{R from incorrect name}} if it's incorrect. Pretty common for people to assume that the wife of a Baron would simply be called a Baroness. The linked page on UK forms of address also indicates that the Baroness vs. Lady distinction isn't even uniform in the UK, with Scottish barons' wifes being addressed as Baroness. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:43, 27 January 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.

ΜBTC[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 Bitcoin#Units and divisibility. Refined target to appropriate section. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 18:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not mentioned at the target article, and the Μ used is the Greek Μ, not the Latin M. This possibly is referring to one millioth of a bitcoin, but it's not mentioned there. 122.61.73.44 (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
  • Comment the Greek Μ is an artefact of the first letter of Wikipedia page titles always being capitalised, it is correctly rendered as "μBTC" which does indeed refer to a micro-bitcoin (one millionth of a bitcoin).[1] Accordingly the mixed script is not a reason for deletion in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine target to Bitcoin#Units and divisibility. The capitalisation problem has since been fixed with a lowercase title template. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:17, 20 January 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.

Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal[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! 18:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Journal is not mentioned at target, and likely never will be. This is not the same journal as Soundings (journal) and not the same as Soundings A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies either. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The journal seems to have a long publishing history - 1968-2020 as stated on JSTOR. It can be mentioned in the target article if we list all the journals by Penn State University Press. The question is - should we? Less Unless (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think it was necessary to add the full list but there you go—it's mentioned now. And the JSTOR listing doesn't just go back to 1968—it extends to 1917 under former names. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, until a full article is created for that journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:16, 23 January 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.

Rip Ya a New One[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, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this was the name of a level, but it's not mentioned in the target article. Dominicmgm (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it’s a weapon is the series known as the RYNO (Abbreviation of the term in question) but since the term RYNO is only mentioned once without the full name being used. there’s no need for this. --65.92.160.124 (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ratchet and Clank planet list[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, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No planet list exists in the target article. WP:GAMECRUFT #7 (levels). Dominicmgm (talk) 02:06, 20 January 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.

ラチェット＆クランク[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 27#ラチェット＆クランク

List of weapons and gadgets from the Ratchet & Clank series[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 27#List of weapons and gadgets from the Ratchet & Clank series

Extraordinarity bias[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. Hog Farm Talk 15:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target or any other Wikipedia article. (t · c) buidhe 01:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The two things I could find across the web regarding this are copies of our page when it was an article. Otherwise, I cannot find a mention of it anywhere. My search methods were not extensive enough, this is obscure, or this is a hoax. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing about "Extraordinarity bias". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Godsy's findings. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was created by a user called Utrechton, who's only other contributions have been to add references to a seemingly self published book about how humans perceive value, which was written by Bil Ton from the Netherlands. This seems to be an article on a bias that the author made up and that has seen no other usage. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many people probably don't know about this "Extraordinary Bias" thing, so I would just say delete per nom and the previous sentence I said. --StaleGuy22 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 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.

Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television[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. Hog Farm Talk 15:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, not mentioned in the target article. Dominicmgm (talk) 00:00, 20 January 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_January_20&oldid=1004717669"