Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 27, 2021.

Where to buy marmite[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 00:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a search engine. Dominicmgm (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
  • Keep per the arguments raised in the previous discussion. The nominator's entire argument consists of a link to a completely irrelevant essay about spammers. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the consensus of the last discussion, BU Rob13 put it well "WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP." Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If I wanted to know where to buy Marmite from, I would not be helped by the target. It discusses regional differences in Marmite in a few different countries, but that's not "where to buy Marmite". The answer to that would probably be various grocers, wholesalers, online merchants, etc. (but I don't know for sure because that's not covered). -- Tavix (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Marmite's global availability is complex enough (having been restricted and specially-branded in multiple markets) that it merits a whole subsection in the article. If a reader comes here looking for information on Canada's attempt to ban Marmite from import, or the special brand name the manufacturer has to use in the Australian market, this is where they'll find that information, and it's perfectly reasonable to expect a reader to use "where to buy Marmite" as a search for it. If they're coming here looking for a list of retailers and locations where someone can purchase the product, they'll be disappointed no matter what search terms they come up with, so that ought not to be a reason to delete this perfectly reasonable one. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Despite my full keep vote last time, I'm sympathetic to the idea that this is misleading or otherwise not a good search term. What it's coming down to for me is the lack of a similar "proper" redirect to Marmite. Maybe something like World availability of Marmite, though that's not so helpful to the reader who's probably starting their query with Marmite. Even if we made a "proper" substitute today, I'd want to give it some time before throwing this one out. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 3 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.

Steven King[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 4#Steven King

Carmanville, Ontario[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. If someone creates a page at this title again, all we can do is assess it on its own merits. --BDD (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this redirect. There appears to be no Carmanville in Ontario (only in Newfoundland as per Canadian Geographical Names Database). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - there's some evidence that a community by this name did exist at one time in the township now known as Stone Mills (e.g. [1]), and it's pretty harmless to keep the redirect (there are no other Carmanvilles in Ontario). Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 20:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the link does NOT provide any evidence. The entry on this website (which would fail as a RS) is just speculation. It says: "While Carmanville could be some kind of landmark, we think that it's more likely to be a community. We've added Carmanville as a placeholder with the hope that we'll be able to add more information in the future. ... We haven't been able to find any evidence that it still exists." Note my highlights. Furthermore, the links has already created confusion before, see Talk:Stone Mills (which was my reason for nominating it for deletion). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 01:06, 21 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 19:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did my own searching with no luck. This redirect should remain deleted until we have some solid evidence that it ever existed. As it stands, no one is even sure where it would have been. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We still to this day have a lot of bad, unreferenced substub articles of the "Townville is a community that exists, the end" variety — so the concept here at the time was to preclude the creation of such things by redirecting redlinked titles about unincorporated communities to their parent municipality so that people would at least land somewhere relevant rather than feeling the need to create a useless article like that, precisely because editors at the time were going around creating such useless articles about every location that existed as a named dot on a map without putting in any effort to investigate or research what was or wasn't actually at that dot. Carmanville was present in MapArt's Ontario road atlas as a named dot within Stone Mills at the time, so this was redirected in accordance with that principle. But if we're so lacking for actual sources about Carmanville that we can't even be sure whether it was a real community or just a landmark, to the point that literally the best reference we can find is an unreliable source speculating about what it may or may not have been, then that's not a solid basis for actually keeping the redirect anymore. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 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.

SLCon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 3#SLCon

Valley View Elementary School[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 20:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of schools with this name, including at least five in California alone.[2][3][4][5][6] None of them seem to be notable, so there's not much value to a disambiguation page. I suggest deleting the redirect to avoid confusion. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley View Elementary School.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to avoid confusion. Per nom.Less Unless (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are Valley View (or Valleyview) elementary schools all over the place; my first page of Google has schools in Comox Valley (BC), Courtenay (BC), Calgary (AB), Peckville (PA), La Crescenta (CA), Riverside (CA), Sudbury (ON), and Toronto. None of them are notable. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to disambiguation. See my comments in #Somerset Elementary School below. --BDD (talk) 19:34, 3 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.

Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin[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 procedural close to keep all the discussion in one place. When the RFC is concluded and the dust settles the redirect can be discussed at that time, if there is anything left to settle. I will fully protect the redirect until that time as well. Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created as a content fork in Frederic Chopin to spin out a discussion of the sexuality of Chopin. It was created at the time when a Request for Comments on the same topic had completed the 30-day comment period and was waiting for closure, and so was a reopening of a discussion that the RFC had been meant to resolve. There has since been slow-motion edit-warring to create a sub-article and to replace the sub-article with a redirect. The purpose of this RFD is to decide whether a sub-article is needed. If there is no need for a sub-article, and I think that there is no need for a sub-article, then the redirect can be edit-protected to prevent re-creation of the sub-article.

Recommended action by nominator: Fully Protect. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)#[reply]

  • Edit-protect redirect to prevent recreation of unnecessary (and in essence WP:POVFORK) subarticle.--Smerus (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose using RFD for deciding whether an article is necessary. This is gaming the system. Wait for the outcome of the RfC, and see whether the closure report says anything about a subarticle (or not). Trying to get a preliminary decision on part of the outcome of the RfC is an end run, trying to avoid regular processes. If you oppose a subarticle, state so in the RfC (it is not closed yet). User:Robert McClenon's attempt to force part of an outcome for the RfC without actually stating their opinion in the RfC itself is contemptible. Robert initiated the RfC, that means, they should avoid an end run on its outcome. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a convincing attempt to turn it around on everyone else. "Gaming the system" is shunting off this crap into a separate article to evade the RfC and pretending that the RfC doesn't apply on technicalities. Crossroads -talk- 21:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There should be no redirect at this time. The new article should be evaluated in our regular AfD process. We dont even know whether there will be any hint of this in the main article. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 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.

ラチェット＆クランク[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. I don't see clear consensus on pointing to the manga section or not. --BDD (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While the series is on a Japanese console, the game series itself was developed by American developers. Dominicmgm (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree and don’t see a the fact that a game can be played on a console made in Japan is a strong enough association with the country per WP:RFOREIGN.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and maybe Refine target to Ratchet & Clank#Manga. There was a Japanese language manga published about the video game series, so I think it is appropriate to have a Japanese language redirect. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine per IP. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 18:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there's clearly been a Japanese-language manga per above, giving this a significant enough link to the language to justify a foreign-language redirect. Fairly neutral on refining the redirect to the section, as "ラチェット & クランク" is just the katakana for "Ratchet & Clank" rather than the longer full title of the manga series (Ratchet & Clank: Bang Bang Bang! Critical Danger of the Galaxy Legend couldn't be anything other than a manga!) . However, it's also likely to be the primary Japanese-language usage of the term, so either outcome is reasonable to me. ~ mazca talk 17:23, 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.

Somerset Elementary School[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 20:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The school mentioned at the target isn't the only Somerset Elementary School. There are others in Washington state[7], Minnesota[8], Texas[9], and more. None of these schools seem to be notable, so there's not much value to a disambiguation page. I suggest deleting the redirect to avoid confusion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Generally, elementary schools are presumed non-notable, but that hasn't stopped us from disambiguating in the past. Adams Elementary School was the first I found in Category:Educational institution disambiguation pages, and none of them have standalone articles. --BDD (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nominator - it can cause confusion.Less Unless (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, but no prejudice towards creation of a disambiguation page. If we weren't dealing with only WP:MOSDABMENTIONs, I'd feel more strongly that there should be a disambiguation page. (This perhaps could have been a closing statement, but I thought I'd leave it to someone else since I had previously commented.) --BDD (talk) 19:31, 3 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.

Chokoe[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) 19:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, no relevant results in an internet search, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I have been completely unable to figure out what this redirect is supposed to refer to. It's not mentioned at the article, it wasn't mentioned in 2008 when the redirect was created and google only turns up results relating to surnames. There does seem to be a Facebook fan page related to the club with the same name, but it has less than 30 likes and is in no way notable. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Likewise, I could find no relevant mentions to the redirect. Furthermore, it is the only edit by the initial creator the redirect - it could possibly be years old vandalism that was never detected, simply because it was so layered in obscurity? Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Their former coach Mark Williams was nicknamed Chocko so I'm guessing that this is a variation on that. No relevance now, if there was ever any at anytime. Could also be a thing about them choking in big games, but I don't think it's worth spending too long analysing it. The-Pope (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be some form of obscure vandalism or self-promotion. – Teratix ₵ 12:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Chayote. Choko is an alternate name for this gourd (which is mentioned at the article), the plural of which is chokoes ([10], [11]), so it seems like a plausible search term. A7V2 (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss A7V2's proposed redirect target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:51, 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.

Druze conversion to Christianity[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#G5. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The search term suggests an article discussing the phenomenon of Druze conversion to Christianity, but the target is just a list of notable Druze individuals who converted. I would suggest deletion on WP:SURPRISE grounds. signed, Rosguill talk 17:48, 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.

Kamala Iyer Harris[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. Deletion arguments veered more into the appropriateness of listing this name in the article, rather than the redirect per se. This closure should not be interpreted as a decision on the content question, and if consensus could be reached at Talk:Kamala Harris to remove the name, it might be appropriate to delete the redirect. (As long as consensus is clear, I invite any closing admin of such a discussion to delete this without contacting me.) I don't think such an outcome is likely. --BDD (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely anyone will be searching solely for the name that Kamala Harris only possessed on her birth cert. for two weeks. Seems to have been created as part of a POV push, trying to paint Harris as Tamil Brahmin because of the "Iyer" in her previous name. Zindor (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is unambiguous and correct, even though her name was changed almost immediately. It also is discussed in the article, so deleting the redirect just means that a reader will get the correct result with more difficulty from the search results. There is no reason to delete it. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Afaik it's not a name that has been used by Harris or by sources referring to her. It's a relic of a document that was overwritten two weeks after its creation, ~56 years ago. No one is ever going to search for this name. It's pointless at worst and at best its existence is being used to add weight to a fringe caste theory. Zindor (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Barry Soetoro exists even though that name has been used to push a fringe national-origin theory. This is no different. Of course, I don't support adding ethnic misinformation to Harris's article, but the solution for that is to remove any such thing that's added, not to obscure neutral and correct information. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It hasn't been discussed in the article, i.e. in the main body, not only even footnoted; it is only footnoted only in the infobox. Recognizing that name on Wikipedia as a redirected page name is precisely recognizing ethnic misinformation, the most virulent variety no less in both India's and America's toxic histories. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC) Corrected. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The association between the name 'Barry Soetoro' and Obama transcended from fringe theory into mass cultural knowledge. This redirect however has no navigational value and only serves to pander to those who mis-characterize Harris. Zindor (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the IP directly above me. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Strongly and Quickly. To keep this page, i.e. to honor that name with a WP page, would be nothing but a nod to glorifying people by ethnicity—in this instance Tamil—and heredity—in this instance Brahmin, the highest caste in Hinduism's and the world's most ancient system of apartheid. In contrast, Shyamala Gopalan, Kamala Harris's mother chose to bring up her daughters as African American girls, the absolute lowest caste—as Jonathan Capehart is at pains to point out in the Washington Post today—in America's informal system of apartheid. Her milieu in Oakland and Berkeley were pioneering African Americans, not Indians, let alone those chosen because of their Tamil or Brahmin background. Whether or not KH had that middle name for two weeks three or four, is not the question here. It is what it represents. It is the antithesis of what Kamala Harris's rise represents for herself, for America, and for the world. It is already footnoted in the article. That is enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 50.248.234.77. The redirect is appropriate and covered extensively in reliable sources. Above argument is both incorrect and misleading, but it further confirms why this redirect is necessary. 2401:4900:5117:542A:E22C:C475:E69E:1BB3 03:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:5117:542A:E22C:C475:E69E:1BB3 (talk) [reply]
  • Comment. Bearing in mind RNEUTRAL, what reliable sources mention her birth name? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
J947: Many. For a name The Mercury News[12] states that "There was one alteration found in Harris’ birth record that many parents can relate to. About two weeks after she was born, her parents filed an “affidavit to correct a record.” They changed Harris’ middle name from Iyer to Devi." 2401:4900:5117:542A:E22C:C475:E69E:1BB3 (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This would come under an exception as a term that isn't established. Usage in RS is somewhere between non-existent to negligible. The Mercury News source quoted above doesn't contain the name, only a brief end-of-article description of the document change. Zindor (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched: the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, SF Chronicle, Sandiego Union-Tribune, Seattle Times, Des Moines Register, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Dallas Morning News, Boston Globe, and the Christian Science Monitor. Not a peep did I find. See, See here I searched the 15 major foreign newspapers, the Canadian, the British, French (Le Monde) and the major Indian: Times of India, the Hindu, Indian Express, the Statesman, the Calcutta Telegraph, the Deccan Chronicle, the Hindustan Times, and the Australian. Not a wisp of an allusion was found. See here. In other words, there is absolutely nothing in the major 30 of the world's English language newspapers, the 15 American and the 15 foreign (including those in Canada where she spent her high school years and India the country of her mother's heritage). This means that the IP's argument is vacuous, i.e. devoid of any meaningful content. (PS I know WP rules, but it is ridiculous that I, a competent editor with a long history on WP, should be wasting time countering the opinions of people who have simply walked off the street, incognito. I submit that theirs should count for less in a determination of consensus here.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not really sure what Fowler&Fowler's rationale for deletion is - This name is associated with a high caste and certain ethnicity in India, so it therefore might imply that Kamala Harris had a privileged upbringing and it should be deleted? Wikipedia isn't a part of Kamala Harris' campaign literature. It isn't the job of Wikipedia to present politicians in the way they want to be presented in, and redirects do not have to be neutral. This is the name that was originally used on her birth certificate, and it is mentioned and sourced in the article. It's correct and unambiguous and there's nowhere else it could point so it only stands to help readers get to the content they were looking for. Keep and tag as R from birth name. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'd also like to know what policy states that IP editor's opinions "should count for less in a determination of consensus".
As intimated in WP:RNEUTRAL, there still needs to be due-weight for including the term in Wikipedia as a redirect; demonstrated through the term being established. The ephemeral use in the first copy of the birth certificate is not establishment. Usage in RS is, of which there is none at all. It is not a name Harris is known by and is not associated with her beyond the minute incidence i just described. In practical terms the redirect is not needed.
Without weight, a non-neutral redirect is a BLP vio. The edit warring to include Harris' name in the Tamil Brahmin article because of the "Iyer" is an example of what this redirect signifies and to whom. The creation (and keeping) of this redirect is also a dog-whistle to those using original research to define an LP. The responsible act would be to deny recognition.
As you know, there's no policy regarding the weight of an I.Ps contribution. Personally I find anonymous I.P contribution refreshes this place and stops it being an echo chamber. I do however sympathise with Fowler&fowler in situations like this where one has to refute inaccurate statements presented as fact. The reputation of an anonymous user cannot be tarnished, so being factually accurate has less incentive don't you think? Note that's not intented as an assertion on yourself, just a wider point. Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 01:31, 30 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.

Arrowhead Elementary School[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 17:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The school mentioned at the target isn't the only Arrowhead Elementary School. There are others in Virginia[13], Arizona[14], Washington[15], and more. None of these schools seem to be notable, so there's not much value to a disambiguation page. I suggest deleting the redirect to avoid confusion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, I was surprised to get this talk page notification from a nearly 13 year old edit. Definite blast from the past. The primary editor of this article has been indeffed since 2009 so happy for this to be a G7 if that would speed process along. Either way, agree with nominator that this can go. StarM 16:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nominator - there's not one Arrowhead Elementary School so the current redirect can be rather confusing.Less Unless (talk) 14:56, 31 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.

Ridgeview Elementary School[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 17:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The school mentioned at the target isn't the only Ridgeview Elementary School. There are others in California[16], Washington[17], Florida[18], Texas[19], and more. None of these schools seem to be notable, so there's not much value to a disambiguation page. I suggest deleting the redirect to avoid confusion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:27, 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.

List of weapons and gadgets from the Ratchet & Clank series[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 20:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No such list exists in the target article. WP:GAMECRUFT #7 (lists of weapons and items). Dominicmgm (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have deleted List of weapons and gadgets from the Ratchet & Clank series per consensus, but relisting Weapons from the Ratchet and Clank Series as it was not included in the original nomination and does not have a strong consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 15:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Especially with the wording of "weapons from" (not just "weapons in"), I have to imagine a reader using this search term is looking for some sort of list, which we don't provide. --BDD (talk) 19:19, 3 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.

Speed Zone (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. Hog Farm Talk 14:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover from a page move; implausible. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:27, 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.

Dance with My Father (song) (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. Hog Farm Talk 14:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created for testing purposes five years ago; does not seem to be needed any more (no incoming links). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:25, 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.

Parachutes (album)(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. Hog Farm Talk 14:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created for testing purposes; does not seem to be needed any more. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as housekeeping as either an unrequired artefact of a move (or something) or an error in disambiguating. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Less Unless (talk) 14:49, 31 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.

Brand New (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. Hog Farm Talk 14:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created for testing purposes; does not seem to be needed any more. Was even temporarily author blanked, but then restored. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:23, 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.

Decade (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. Hog Farm Talk 14:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created for testing purposes; does not seem to be needed any more. @Seventyfiveyears, Tavix, and Drbogdan: Pinging the participants of the previous discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as housekeeping as either an unrequired artefact of a move (or something) or an error in disambiguating. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how this can be useful.Less Unless (talk) 14:46, 31 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.

Module talk:Sandbox[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 3#Module talk:Sandbox

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_27&oldid=1004871469"