Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 25, 2021.

Honey K Balani[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) 19:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:08, 25 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.

Geoffrey Chalmers[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. As the readers below stated, McConnohie was credited as Geoffrey Chalmers, and now the credited name is mentioned, shown in the infobox. (non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target. Previously blanked by Homechallenge55 with an edit summary of No apparent connection to known target. Delete unless a justification for the redirect can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created this a long time ago so I don't remember exactly where I got the info from, but at least IMDb and ANN mention that Michael McConnohie was credited as "Geoffrey Chalmers" in some roles. Not sure if we can find more reliable sources to include it in the article. nyuszika7h (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. McConnohie has been credited as Geoffrey Chalmers, and as there's no notable person known as Geoffrey Chalmers (though there is a Iain Geoffrey Chalmers), this redirect isn't ambiguous. I've added Geoffrey Chalmers as an alternate name in the target article's infobox but I don't believe it was needed to keep the redirect. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947. A reference would be nice. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. desmay (talk) 05:37, 2 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.

Gnomish[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 Gnome. signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Sindarin#External history, where there's a whole paragraph about it. Hog Farm Talk 21:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we sure this is the sole notable target? The concept of a "gnomish" language exists in several fantasy settings, also including WoW, Runescape, and Dungeons and Dragons. It's also an adjective, meaning gnome-like, or related to gnomes (i.e. a gnomish race or people, which is a sense that it is used in in the page Gnome (Dungeons & Dragons)). Could it be worth adding a DAB for some various gnome pages, with a "not to be confused with Gnomefish"? That said there aren't many extant direct mentions of gnomish languages on gnome articles even where the race speaks a language by the name, but I'm sure it's the sort of thing that could easily be referenced out. Could help avoid Tolkien-centrism? BlackholeWA (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I'm pondering whether there's enough to disambiguate here. I went ahead and created the non-ambiguous Gnomish (Tolkien) and pointing it to the proposed target above. Hog Farm Talk 02:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point -- but, simultaneously, those are all quite heavily Tolkienesque, and none to my understanding (I'm less familiar with WoW and Runescape, but certainly no edition of D&D/Pathfinder I'm familiar with delves that deep into linguistics) are very concerned about the Gnomish language. On the gripping hand, there's an argument to be made that 'Gnomish' doesn't necessarily refer to a language... Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Gnome as {{R from adjective}}. Incidentally, the only use of the word there is not in the context of language. --BDD (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Gnome per above. desmay (talk) 13:16, 2 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.

Anarchism in Somalia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 3#Anarchism in Somalia

Ãushkë[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. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what language this is in, but it is not in Serbian or Albanian, so it shouldn't exist. 122.61.73.44 (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Google Translate, sv:Çyshk (which cite geonames.org, but that site isn't working for me atm), and every other source I can find says it is Albanian. Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Seems to be an alternate Albanian name. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:28, 26 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.

Dawnless Day[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 Battle of the Pelennor Fields#Background. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 20:17, 25 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.

Southbank (2)[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) 19:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page now at South Bank, Redcar and Cleveland was created here in 2005 before being moved to a more appropriate title around 11 minutes later. The redirect has no real connection to the target other than the fact that there are 2 in North Yorkshire though called "South Bank" and this was was created first (the other was created in 2006). A Google search returns a number of places and there is an infobox for South Bank 2 Ferry Terminal in Australia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, useless. BD2412 T 02:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No-one is ever going to search for "Southbank (2)" to find South Bank, North Yorkshire. Since the article was only at this title for 11 minutes it is extremely unlikely that there are any incoming links. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 01:11, 28 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.

Nandorin[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 Elvish languages (Middle-earth)#Internal history. signed, Rosguill talk 17:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Term as such not included. Hildeoc (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added a note on their languages in case we decide not to retarget, but the easiest (re)target is actually Elvish languages (Middle-earth)#Internal history which explains all the languages, with links which once went to a page on every language but now all go to Elf (Middle-earth) which says less than the Elvish languages page does. I suggest we retarget ALL the redirects for the various individual languages to Elvish languages (Middle-earth)#Internal history, and remove all what will become self-links from that page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with CC. That's the most logical thing to do, and the most helpful for readers. Hog Farm Talk 18:12, 25 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.

Day of Broken Glass[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 18:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, appears to be based on a comment that Arnold Schwarzenegger made about the Jan 6 incident but does not appear to have gained much wider currency. IMO, this is more likely to be an erroneous search for Kristallnacht than it is for the storming of the capitol, but should probably be deleted, as that article only has a vague reference to Schwarzenegger's comments that does not explain this term. signed, Rosguill talk 16:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove I doubt even Schwarzenegger intended to call the storming that outside of comparison. Juxlos (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All search results are about Kristallnacht, which is also called Night (not Day) of Broken Glass. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either retarget to Domestic reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, where there's a sentence describing Schwarzenegger comparison to Kristallnacht in the section "Other domestic reactions", or delete. I'm leaning towards deletion on the basis that all relevant results for this phrase seem to be from the 10th and 11th of January with no sustained coverage and that searching for the phrase alone mainly turns up results for Kristallnacht. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. I would support retarget to Kristallnacht but I oppose the redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol as I do not find reliable sources making that connection. JaredHWood💬 18:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. No indication that they are plausible typos in a search for Kristallnacht. VQuakr (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. The name is easily confusable for that of the Kristallnacht (Night of Broken Glass) and is not widely used outside of that specific video. BanditTheManedWolf (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Yikes. One politician made a video and made the comparison. These terms are not in wide currency in multiple reliable sources - other than referring perhaps to this one politician comparing the US Capitol Hill Insurrection Attempt with the historical anti-Semitic event that happened all over Nazi Germany. Shearonink (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both for the reasons given above. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both! As stated above, Kristallnacht, is also called "Night of Broken Glass" not Day. Schwarzenegger's father was a Nazi. It's offensive for anyone to make comparisons to the Holocaust. IP75 (talk) 02:32, 1 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.

Subrata Roy President SurfPlasma[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 17:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Surfplasma is not listed in target, and this does not seem a plausible search term for this person. Onel5969 TT me 15:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, according to their website Subrata Roy is president of SurfPlasma, inc.[1] so it's not totally without connection and I expect this is an attempt at disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely search term. MB 02:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely search term, Non-standard disambiguation and SurfPlasma is not mentioned in the target article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:07, 28 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.

Lady Gaga's third studio album[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. --BDD (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another case of a nonsense redirect... anyone who wants to know about Lady Gaga's albums can just go to Lady Gaga discography or Lady Gaga articles. I'd consider deleting this redirect. HĐ (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unambiguous, correct, harmless and not an implausible search term. Deletion is not going to bring any benefits here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my rationale (and Ss112's) below. Also, look at the statistics and you'll see the redirect is not helping readers navigate any more easily. HĐ (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a plausible search term. Must agree with nominator here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. It doesn't really matter how unlikely it is someone will search for this since if they do, they will be taken to what they are looking for and there is no reason for deletion given. A7V2 (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless the redirect helps clear up a common misleading name, then being "harmless" is not a compelling reason to keep for me. Also, see my comments below for Maroon 5's albums. HĐ (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You haven't explained how this meets any of the 10 reasons to delete a redirect at WP:RFD#DELETE, whereas this (perhaps arguably) meets reasons 1, 3, 4 and 5 of WP:RFD#KEEP. This seems more like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT than any policy based reason to delete. A7V2 (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      This (arguably) satisfies criterion 8, which is "a very obscure synonym for an article name". Hardly anyone who wants to browse through an artist's album would search the specific order of their album (1st, 2nd, 3rd...?). Probably "artist + [year] album" may be more useful, but that is another case.. HĐ (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      D8 says that a novel or very obscure synonym is unlikely to be useful. However, this redirect is useful as proven above. Note also that a reason to keep (there are four here) outweighs a reason to delete (You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list) prefaces the RDELETE section, whereas However, avoid deleting such redirects if prefaces the RKEEP section). — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:23, 26 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 21:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Studio" looks important here. I can absolutely see someone searching for an artist's 'third album', but I can't so much see them searching for an artist's 'third studio album', and there seems to be some conflation going on. (This applies to all the 'nth studio album' RfDs.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Either way, as I said in one of the nth studio album RfDs, a certain redirect like this is harmful for readers who expect to search "artist + nth + studio album". HĐ (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Too specific to be a plausible redirect, per Vaticidalprophet. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 18:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above; useful and harmless redirect. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:23, 26 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.

Cookie cutter (lighting)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 1#Cookie cutter (lighting)

Pinnath Gelin[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 17:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not explained in target. This does not help readers seeking information on the lemma. Hildeoc (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Minor detail in the backstory that doesn't really have much significance. It's not mentioned anywhere, and I'm not convinced it should be. Hog Farm Talk 18:02, 25 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.

7 degrees C[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. The content of a prior merge appears to have all been deleted from the target article, rendering the history unnecessary. signed, Rosguill talk 17:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Although the page has some history, it mostly consists of a copyright violation, and the topic does not seem notable. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:57, 25 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.

Comic Book Roundup[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 17:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This website/company title currently redirects to Review aggregator where it is not mentioned at all. WP:EASTEREGG etc. PS. To be clear, it wasn't mentioned even before I removed the unreferenced section listing few random companies/websites. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's not helpful to readers to redirect a company to an article where they are not mentioned. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was once mentioned on the article when I made the redirect, but that was a long time ago. I was planing on making the redirect into an article eventually, but I later realized as my experience grew that the subject likely didn't pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 14:17, 25 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.

ORIGINPAGE[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 17:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example link in the documentation of {{Copying within Wikipedia}}. I don't think such a redirect needs to be in mainspace. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 06:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete needless XNR. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace usage in the template documentation with WP:Example. I don't think it's worth having this cross namespace redirect for the purpose of one template's doccumentation. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:30, 25 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.

Human Genetic Branching[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, and the results of searches of mine suggest this target probably isn't what people searching for human genetic branching are searching for, although I'm not quite sure where the best target is. Hog Farm Talk 04:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful redirect. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned at target article, and this redirect is more likely to surprise readers than help them. I couldn't find any content specifically about Human genetic branching. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:28, 26 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.

Child Welfare[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 1#Child Welfare

SARS-2[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. --BDD (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Convert into a disambiguation of COVID-19 and COVID-20 variants, as COVID-19 is only one of many SARS-2 varieties. Erkin Alp Güney 19:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is the variants are all the same virus, not different viruses. There's no real "COVID-20" in any case. It's not like it is SL-CoV-WIV1 or something else. They all cause the same disease, COVID-19. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment They have different spread rates, different incubation periods and slightly different symptoms, though. Erkin Alp Güney 09:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are all SARS-CoV-2, they are not different from SARS-CoV-2. "B.1.1.1.7" (UK variant) is SARS-CoV-2; "WIV04/2019" is SARS-CoV-2; "ΔFVI-spike" (Denmark mink variant) is SARS-CoV-2 -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 01:22, 25 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.

Pruple heart[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible, given that pruple doesn't exist. Dominicmgm (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a common enough misspelling to be reasonably typed searching for the topic. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an implausible typo. The redirect only gets an average of 4 views a month, so it doesn't seem to be getting any use. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 03:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We don't have the redirect "pruple", so this is the only mention of "pruple" in enwiki, as Dominicmgm states.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an implausible typo. MB 04:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is a simple transposition error, thus a plausible typo. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible typo. If it got more hits, it should be kept, of course, but it doesn't. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the 70. IP says above, this is a perfectly plausible transposition error. There is no valid explanation above as to how this redirect constitutes an implausible typo. The fact that no one has bothered to create the redirect pruple is beside the point. Every redirect is evaluated on its own positives and negatives and I don't see how this redirect has any negatives. In fact, this redirect has a major positive – that it is highly used. From experience, more than 700 views in 5 and a half years is good usage. Why should we disadvantage those readers? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:20, 26 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_25&oldid=1004619276"