Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 31, 2021.

2028 United States Presidential Election[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 without salting at this time, as I don't see any evidence of it being repeatedly recreated. signed, Rosguill talk 20:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is just WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON material. Dominicmgm (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and/or protect as 2024 United States presidential election/United States presidential election, 2024 was until after the 2020 election, per AFD. A redirect is not a big deal, but it is too soon for this to be open to becoming an article. Reywas92Talk 22:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. WP:CRYSTAL and repeatedly recreated, so until there's significant discussion or we're in 2024, such a redirect will inevitably not lead readers to relevant information (in the target article specific to 2028) and be subject to repeated attempts to create an article. ComplexRational (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm very surprised that I've not been able to find any content about this. I wasn't expecting much more than a sentence or two saying it's expected to be held on <date>, the electoral college votes are expected be the same as/different to 2024, and any other notable aspirations/plans/hopes notable people/groups have said/expressed about 2028; but I was expecting something. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 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.

Gabriela Cartol[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 20:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see the point of redirecting an actress's name to an article about an actor in which all we ever learn about her is that she once starred opposite him. Also, WP:R#DELETE #10. Victor Lopes Fala!•C 20:07, 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.

.NET[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 8#.NET

Complete List of Beyblade Characters[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) 22:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this list complete? If not, is a complete list practical here? --BDD (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BDD: No, it doesn't seem to be complete. In the page history there has recently been a lot of trimming of unsourced/non-notable characters (the page has been reduced from 88k to 15k), and some of the characters are listed at various subpages for the spin-off series. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Delete, then. It matters a lot whether these lists are actually complete, or reasonably could be without running afoul any guidelines. --BDD (talk) 18:11, 12 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.

Complete list of Booknotes interviews[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of Booknotes interviews. ~ mazca talk 15:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:46, 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.

Complete List of Jasoosi Dunya (Old)[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) 22:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Old... older than what? Dominicmgm (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nominator. Also, weird disambiguator. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the nomination is completely incorrect - the target is a complete list (the author is dead so it is a finite set), WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) and WP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody. This title, which has existed since 2008, got almost 300 views last year so it's obviously either a plausible search term and/or linked from somewhere - in either case deletion will hinder people finding the content they are looking for. The "(Old)" disambiguator is unusual but it's not obviously incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I assumed the "(Old)" here had the same meaning as that for Imran Series below, but I don't see anything at Jasoosi Dunya to indicate the series was continued by other authors, so this is likely to confuse. --BDD (talk) 16:52, 11 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.

Complete list of authors published as UK first editions by Collins Crime Club[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. The facts that the list does appear to be complete, and the length of time this page existed at this title, leads to greater weight being given to those arguments versus the vague boilerplate nomination. ~ mazca talk 15:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as extremely long redirect title. Dominicmgm (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nominator. A long title is not a reason for deletion, though (the target article has quite a long title, too). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the nomination is completely incorrect - the search term is highly plausible and correct - the first sentence of the target is This is a complete list of authors published as UK first editions by Collins Crime Club and no additional works are being published so the list will remain complete. WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) and WP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody. This is possibly the worst of these mass nominations as it's clear the nominator has not even looked at the page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Crime Club has not been publishing since 1994, so the list is complete and will likely remain complete for the foreseeable future. The main list was at this title for 4 years until moved in 2017, so this is also a useful R from page move. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf's comprehensive argument. This redirect is unambiguous and gets very high amounts of usage and thus deleting it serves only to deter many potential readers. As an aside, I highly doubt that this particular (horrible) PANDORA argument espoused by the nominator has any basis – surely readers would be likely to after searching this up, look at the big black title at the top of the page, and subconsciously remind themselves that including the word complete is unnecessary? They'd at least be more likely to do that than pay no attention to the extremely easily noticed big black title at all and continue typing things exactly the same way, as the flawed PANDORA argument assumes. I think that a person's use of two similar everyday phrases like complete list / list tend to vary, with a tendency towards the more concise phrase – but then again, my armchair linguistic psychology with no basis probably shouldn't be relied upon. But neither should this PANDORA psychology. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:45, 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.

Complete List of Imran Series (Old)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 19:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I thought the "(Old)" was a placeholder from page views, but it seems to be indicating the "old" original Imran series, which has been continued by subsequent authors. Given that, and its status as a previous title, I don't see a reason to delete. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 11 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.

Complete list of Rock Band Network songs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of Rock Band Network songs#Complete list of available songs. The fact that there's a "complete" section on this page certainly justifies the page title in this case. ~ mazca talk 15:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:43, 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.

Complete list of works produced by Hanna-Barbera[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. ~ mazca talk 15:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no issue with tagging this {{R unprintworthy}} with the idea of discouraging "Complete list" titles, but since this one indeed seems to be a complete list, there's no problem. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

CAT:FRINGE[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 Category:Fringe theory. At the risk of sounding like a supervote, there doesn't seem to be a reason to prefer the more specific Category:Fringe science over this. WP:FRINGE itself doesn't refer exclusively to science. Many fringe theories relate to science, but not all. --BDD (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than one category related to a topic with "fringe" in its name, like Category:Fringe festivals, Category:Fringe (TV series), or even Category:Fringe science, so I suggest deleting this shortcut. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Shortcuts may be and generally are ambiguous; they are not intended for readers but rather for editorial purposes. That aside, theses shortcuts usually point to maintenance categories etc. (not "regular" categories for lack of a better way to put it offhand).— Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's not the target I would have chosen, but it is a valid redirect - and the Edinburgh Festival Fringe is "the Fringe". All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Retarget to Category:Fringe science, in the same way that WP:FRINGE and {{Fringe}} already go to fringe theory topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HotdogPi (talk • contribs) 22:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per HotdogPi, this is clearly what the "FRINGE" shortcut means on Wikipedia. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per HotdogPi - all other things being equal, the current target would be a reasonable one for this shortcut, but WP:FRINGE is a commonly used shortcut with a specific meaning in Wikipedia, and it seems best to make this consistent. ~ mazca talk 13:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, but to Category:Fringe theory, which is the catch all category for fringe material including Fringe science. Both WP:FRINGE and {{Fringe}} are about generic fringe theories, they're not specifically fringe science, and they could equally well be applied to pseudo-history or Conspiracy theories, for example. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:40, 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.

Men In Cages[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. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

I say delete the page. It is clearly not androcide, I have made a mistake and I hope to improve
  • Comment Author has requested deletion in good faith, so would G7 now be applicable? ComplexRational (talk) 22:06, 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.

Complete list of downloadable content for the Rock Band 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 retarget to List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series#Complete list of available songs. Formally no consensus, implementing the refine proposal as it appears to uncontroversially be an improvement over the status quo. signed, Rosguill talk 20:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:28, 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.

Complete list of NJ Transit stations[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 20:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, "complete list" -> "list" should not be something we redirect in general Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be a lack of consensus, and it doesn't feel plausible to keep the redirect. WP:PANDORA is probably one of the valid reasons for deletion, stated by 1234qwer1234qwer4.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:PANDORA is very much not a valid reason to delete anything. Redirects are judged on their own merits, regardless of whether similar redirects do or do not exist. The existence of one redirect implies nothing about the desirability or otherwise of another redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO, the relisting comment given was more of a !vote than a comment on consensus determination. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:27, 5 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.

Complete list of non-English Wikipedias available[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, "complete list" -> "list" should not be something we redirect in general Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per WP:PANDORA/the newly created WP:COMPLETELIST. Note also that the list also includes the English Wikipedia. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contains both English and simple English Wikipedias, so it's not a list of non-English Wikipedias. The list doesn't seem to be complete either, e.g. there's no mention of the hoax "Siberian Language" wikipedia. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 86.23.109.101. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the search term is plausible, WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) and WP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody. The title is also not incorrect - that the list includes English Wikipedias does not alter the fact that it does contain a complete list of non-English Wikpedias. The deleted Siberian Wikipedia is not available so it's absence from the list is also irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The title is accurate. HotdogPi 00:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf and what I've outlined in similar nominations. It isn't helpful to nominate these harmless redirects to RfD. Note also that this redirect is pretty old history – it's from 2002. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:23, 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.

Complete List of Pokemon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wrong capitalization and no need for the word "complete" in redirects. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Between the incorrect capitalisation and unnecessary "Complete" this is an implausible search term. Only got 8 page views in the last year. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the nomination is completely incorrect - the search term is extremely plausible, WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) and WP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody. While there is not a single list of Pokemon, anyone searching for such will easily find what they are looking for as complete lists by generation are linked from the target. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf and what I've outlined in similar nominations. It isn't helpful to nominate these harmless redirects to RfD. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:21, 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.

Complete list of Michael Cimino's unrealized projects[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 Michael Cimino's unrealized projects. signed, Rosguill talk 20:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, this should be retargeted to Michael Cimino's unrealized projects, where more information is provided; however, I don't think this is a likely search term. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:COMPLETELIST of course. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the complete list of Michael Cimino's unrealized projects at Michael Cimino's unrealized projects where searches will find exactly what they are looking for. Given that the target is a complete list, WP:COMPLETELIST (which reflects the opinion of only 1 or 2 editors and is far too blunt to be anything approaching useful) is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: (only replying once, though this addresses most of your comments on this page) fair enough. I wasn't trying to act like WP:COMPLETELIST was a policy, more that it's more efficient to link a short essay than to write the reasoning in every nomination. I do think that the redirects are generally harmful to the project, though. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that that that essay is a gross oversimplification built on top of the fundamentally wrong idea that no list on Wikipedia can ever be complete. That there exist so many "complete list of..." redirects additionally demonstrates that the idea these are implausible search terms is also incorrect. The reference to PANDORA (an idea that is equally faulty and not representative of either reality or consensus) is also telling - these redirects need to be examined individually to asses their utility. A redirect that accurately describes that content it leads to, is unambiguous and not in the way of anything else is never going to be harmful absent truly extraordinary circumstances - circumstances that would need to be identified individually. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Michael Cimino's unrealized projects per Thryduulf and don't delete per what I've outlined in similar nominations. It isn't helpful to nominate these harmless redirects to RfD. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:20, 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.

Black Friday (2007 film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 8#Black Friday (2007 film)

Gould (Europeans cricketer)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Francis Gould (cricketer). signed, Rosguill talk 20:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Francis Gould (cricketer)? If yes, retarget there, otherwise delete per below. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Francis Gould (cricketer) who played for the Europeans. He may not be the only Gould who played for the Europeans but I'm pretty sure he's the only one who we've got an article on. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:21, 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.

Hyde (Europeans cricketer)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful XNRs; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. Delete to encourage article creation. Neither of these seem to have mentions on Wikipedia: there are quite a few cricketers named "Hyde" and "Duncan" on Wikipedia, but none of them seems to have played for Europeans; "B. Gaillard" only returns unrelated citations; the rest has no slightly related search results at all. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:11, 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.

Māori All Blacks redirect[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per the edit summary of the page creation, "stupid idea". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:29, 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.

OMSI 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. signed, Rosguill talk 20:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This seems to have been a 1 line stub on a non notable video game that was blanked and redirected. The redirect is clearly inappropriate as there is no mention of the game at the target, and I can't find anywhere else it could point to.
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.

Buunemba[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 20:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently mentioned at the target. WP:BEFORE could not find anything of substance except as a possible unverifiable hoax or non-notable fan fiction, courtesy of the original creator. This redirect should be deleted. Haleth (talk) 09:27, 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.

Melbourne Sports and Entertainment Centre redir[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 20:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was left over from a temporary move to make way for a title change to its target, and doesn't seem to be used much nowadays. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#Houston, Texas (redir). Regards, SONIC678 02:07, 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.

Marianne Schifferer[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 20:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the article, Marianne Schönauer's real name was Schifferes after her father Karl Schifferes. Schifferer appears to be a plausible typo, as this is the more common and 'natural' name in German. But we should not prolong and encourage the error by having that redirect. KnightMove (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:32, 16 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 22:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 70.31. I've gone ahead and tagged it with the two suggested rcats, plus {{R from incorrect name}}. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Some surnames (e.g. Baumgarten, or McCandlish for that matter) exist in 20 or more variations, and we should not create or tolerate the creation of variant-spelling redirects for individual subjects who cannot be found using them in RS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:58, 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.

Stats grok[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 8#Stats grok

28-3[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 8#28-3

Storm Over the Pacific (Move)[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 20:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leftovers from page moves, not more needed. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as either an unnecessary artefact of a move, or as an error in disambiguating. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All. The first is an implausible typo of "movie", the second and third seem to be left over from doing round robin page swaps. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:47, 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.

Pedophile pope[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 20:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I can understand why Pedophile priest would be a helpful redirect to Catholic Church sexual abuse cases, Pedophile pope doesn't seem a particularly helpful redirect to this subject and needlessly defamatory. (Regardless of one's views on the Church's handling of the situation or the inaction taken, afaik there haven't been any seriously regarded accusations of paedophilia or child sexual abuse against any Pope). I would argue this should be deleted. Bangalamania (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete considering that the sexual abuse scandal is more about homosexuality with adolescents than pedophilia, I would consider both of your mentions to be needlessly defamatory. Elizium23 (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Needless defamatory is pretty rich, since you just lied that the scandal is about homosexuality instead of sexual assault and rape. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not sure what your comment has to do with the discussion of the redirect? Elizium23 (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lest this sets a trend for redirects of "Pedophile (profession)", like "Pedophile DJ" for Jimmy Savile. Dominicmgm (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (by creator) I must not have thought this one through before I created it (on request) some ten years ago. As Bangalamania said, there's no widely publicized pedophilia accusations against any pope (that I'm aware of), so this isn't a plausible redirect. No objections against deletion. decltype (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any significant uses of the exact term, all the hits on google are tags, separate sentences or similar ("1 in 50 priests is a pedophile - Pope Francis" for example). There is one exception to this in the top 20 google hits is a Pintrest caption "Satanist pedophile Pope Francis working to bring Anti Christ false peace in Middle East with Islam." but even if that were in a reliable source and not a one-off it would not indicate this was a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to be used in reliable sources to describe the event, and no pope has seriously been accused of paedophilia as far as I can tell. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article it leads too is not about Popes. Dimadick (talk) 19:56, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_31&oldid=1007396057"