Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 5, 2021.

Anaheim Boulevard[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 13#Anaheim Boulevard

Justice Amina Adamu Aliyu[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The honorific title shouldn't be there at all, so no need to keep the redirect. Em-em talk 19:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a {{R from move}} and an apparently unambiguous {{R from name with title}}. No reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Narky Blert (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have no other articles on people named Amina Adamu Aliyu that this could get confused with, and it is entirely reasonable that someone searching for a judge might include the honorific. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:53, 7 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.

Poloniae Annalibus[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the name of the redirect is neitehr the name nor a surname of the subject; the name is probably a mistake by the user who created the page Veverve (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - The article was created at the redirect name in 2008. It stayed at that name for over 12 years. Redirects are cheap, this one does not do any harm and we take the chance on breaking external links to the article if we delete it. This should come under WP:RFD#KEEP#4. ~ GB fan 19:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GB fan. This is a standard {{R from move}} which should be kept unless there is a strong reason not to. Given that the mistake was made by the creator of the article and was not corrected for over a decade suggests that even if it weren't a redirect from move it would still be a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 5 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.

Bangkok Mass Transit System[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. Yes, an RfD should be considered moot when an article is written, unless the author specifically wants it to be a draft for consideration (usually this happens with disambiguation pages). This does not preclude AfD, merge discussions, etc. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok Mass Transit System Co., Ltd. (BTSC) is the company that operates the BTS Skytrain (BTS), as well as the Bangkok BRT and Gold Line (Bangkok). It is a majority-owned subsidiary of BTS Group Holdings Public Co., Ltd. (BTSG). The BTSC redirect currently points to BTSG, but sfalpha has noted that there appears to be some confusion between BTSC and BTSG. It's possible the redirect may be contributing to that confusion.

Should Bangkok Mass Transit System redirect to BTS Group Holdings as it currently does (all of BTSG's other major subsidiaries redirect there), or should it be retargeted to BTS Skytrain, its most notable service (though it's not the only one, and the BTSC isn't currently mentioned there)? Paul_012 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to BTS Skytrain per the usage in that article. MB 21:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Added second redirect to discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon some more consideration, it seemed best to create a separate article for the subject, which I have done. Please consider the request withdrawn unless MB objects. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the new article and don't see a reason for it. We don't need a separate article on every division of a company just because it exists. The article is only two paragraphs and could just be merged into the article on the holding company. It could always be split out later if either article grew too large, but that is not the present case. As for the redirect, we need to consider what the reader is most likely searching for if they type "Bangkok Mass Transit System" and it still looks like that is probably the transit system itself, not some technical/artificial corporate structure. MB 17:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons are noted in the above-linked discussion (Talk:Mass Rapid Transit Master Plan in Bangkok Metropolitan Region#Difference between BTS Group Holdings and Bangkok Mass Transit System). They are different companies, covering different business areas. While it's not unreasonable to cover subsidiaries in the parent company's article, there's no rule against not doing so either, provided that all the companies satisfy the notability guidelines and the articles aren't redundant. Covering them in separate articles should make things clearer, given the confusion issue. As for the primary topic, nobody actually refers to the Skytrain as "Bangkok Mass Transit System". Look at Google News search results and you'll find that most of them are about the company. (The BTS Skytrain is named after the company, after all.) --Paul_012 (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's better to have one article which explains the differences between BTSC and BTSG. A redirect does not imply "these two things are the same thing". BTSC probably doesn't have enough content to merit its own article at the moment. For comparison, look at MTR Corporation which lists a number of subsidiaries, joint ventures etc. Although say MTR Tunnelbanan AB runs the whole Stockholm metro and has 3000 employees, if there's not enough info to merit an encylopedia article its better to keep it as a section in a main article. Matthewmayer (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the page has been converted to an article, I think this discussion is now moot? RfD doesn't seem to be the correct venue to discuss merging, which should probably be done on the article talk page. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page has not been converted to an article. It is still a redirect with a potential article appended. MB 04:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I take it that you're still disputing that the company is the primary topic for Bangkok Mass Transit System, and are saying that the content, even if not merged, should be moved to some other title? --Paul_012 (talk) 13:47, 12 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.

Cameron Green (disambiguation)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Target was formerly a DAB, but is now a clear Primary Topic and WP:ONEOTHER situation. Spike 'em (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: Criteria G14: "A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function." This is exactly the case for this redirect post-move. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't know about that one! I saw mention of another CSD reason in other discussions that didn't seem to fit.Spike 'em (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a disambiguation page, with a primary topic and just one other page it can be handled with a hatnote on the primary topic article, per WP:ONEOTHER --Bcp67 (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And the hatnote has been there since the 5th so no need for a dab page until another notable Cameron Green emerges.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 05:07, 12 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.

Ben Swolo[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) 16:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion of this meme name at the target, delete unless a duly sourced mention is added. signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Prospero One (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there’s evidence that reliable sources have covered this meme.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 05:02, 12 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.

Donovan danhausen[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 restore wrestler article, which I'll do along with a few moves to make sure the edit history related to the wrestler is all in one place. Since the wrestler seems to be mononymous, I'll have it at Danhausen (wrestler). The point here is to largely revert to the status quo, with the base title redirecting to Minichamps. No prejudice against an WP:RM for the wrestler, or an RfD for Danhausen (or any other discussion, e.g., AfD for the wrestler), but please do not take unilateral action. Apologies if any of this seems overly bureaucratic. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects were created to point to a target at Danhausen, but the article there was removed in favor of a redirect to an unrelated subject as the article subject was deemed non-notable. Assuming no change at the target article, these redirects are now misleading and should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 17:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Danhausen was created by me in 2011 as a redirect to Minichamps because it was a previous name of the Minichamps brand of scale model cars. Recently, Interlaker replaced the redirect with a full-blown article about the wrestler Donovan Danhausen (without discussion) and also created Donovan danhausen as a redirect to Danhausen. Naturally, I undid his changes to Danhausen. However, unknown to me, a bot had also changed a double redirect so that Donovan danhausen redirected directly to Minichamps.
My suggestion is to leave Danhausen as a redirect to [[Minichamps], create a new article Donovan Danhausen (wrestler) for the wrestler and change Donovan danhausen to redirect to Donovan Danhausen (wrestler).  Stepho  talk  20:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, move, hatnote The article about the wrestler should be be restored and then moved to Donovan Danhausen. Danhausen and Donovan danhausen should both redirect there and it should have a hatnote to Minichamps ({{Redirect|Danhausen|the brand of scale models|Minichamps}}). The wrestler is the clear primary topic for "Danhausen" but the article should be at their full name. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The wrestler is most definitely not the primary topic unless you are a Florida wrestling fan (a quick web search shows he's only active in Florida wrestling). Danhausen, the scale model company, has been around since 1921 and is rather important in the scale modelling world and served customers worldwide. A look at the history of Danhausen shows that it has received no changes from its creation in 2011 until just a few weeks ago - indicating that the wrestler isn't all that promenant to many readers. As a compromise, Danhausen could be a disambiguation page.  Stepho  talk  04:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I search for "Danhausen" every single one of the results on the first three pages is for the Wrestler. I am not interested in either wrestling or scale models so my search results do not have a bias for either. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Google finds 148,000 results for "danhausen model cars" (all searches without quotes) and only 49,500 results for "danhausen wrestling". Bing finds 166,000,000 and 15,400 results respectively. Web searches are notoriously unreliable for establishing notability and priority and are heavily biased to your location and previous search history. Eg: do you live in the US, have you previously searched for cars or sports?  Stepho  talk  23:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those searches are irrelevant for determining what the primary topic is for the term "danhausen" without any additional context. I don't search for wrestlers or models and very rarely cars, and I'm located in the UK so my results between these two should be unbiased, and indeed I get the same overwhelming disparity in a private window. I even looked using two different Tor identities, the first was German and of the first 30 results on duckduckgo only 1 was for the models, all the others were about the wrestler, on Google the first results were for a mechanic in Aachen and then an advertising agency. After that the results were about 50% related to the Wrestler and 50% a mix of the models, a model shop in Aachen (not exclusively Minichamps), the mechanic and things I wasn't able to easily determine. The second Tor identity was geolocated to northwest France, Duckduckgo results were almost identical to last time - nearly exclusively about the wrestler (although it did display the Wikipedia article about the wrester with the heading "Minichamps" which is definitely wrong) but this time with 2 about the the models. I couldn't get Google to show me search results this time. So, over all the searches I've done for "Danhausen" without any context the wrestler has been primary over the models on every occasion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Curious that you're willing to dismiss out-of-hand a 3x factor in the number of scale model websites. As I said, web searches are notoriously unreliable (see WP:GOONOTE and Criticism of Google#Possible misuse of search results for why web search engines are not good at determining notability). The primary topic here very much depends on the reader's interests and neither topic is known to the average man on the street world-wide. Neither topic is really the primary topic and a disambiguation page is, therefore, the only sensible option.  Stepho  talk  22:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Once again you are missing the point. The only thing that matters is what topic people are looking for when they search for "Danhausen" without any qualification, and every search I do for the single word brings up results for the wrestler before and significantly more often than it brings up results for the models. We aren't judging notability (absolute or relative) and so how many hits a topic gets when you refine your search to get results only for that topic (e.g. by adding "wrestler" or "models" is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • I see your point but you don't seem to see my point. You have done a web search in a particular way that supports your point (by the way, I get a mention for scale models on each of the first few pages for a Bing search for "Danhausen" alone). Web searches don't document how they do their rankings but it is suspected that they like to prioritise recent pages over older pages. The wrestler is relatively new compared to the historical name for the scale models - hence there is a bias in the rankings. See the links I pointed out above for not relying on web search rankings. By adding qualifying words to the search we can see that the number of results for scale models and the number of results for the wrestler and it shows that the scale models have 3x more. I could argue that this shows that the primary target should be for scale models but I know that web searches are notoriously bad for establishing ranking of topics. Which is why I go for the middle ground for a disambiguation page.  Stepho  talk  21:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shouldn't there be a more formal discussion about the notability of Donovan Danhausen first, rather than editors here just wiping out the content claiming he isn't notable? I see no reason why Donovan Danhausen (wrestler) need be created in any case as there is no reason to disambiguate. Spike 'em (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no problem creating an article Donovan Danhausen about the wrestler. The only issue is what happens at Danhausen. Should it redirect to Minichamps, as it has done uncontested for 9+ years, should it redirect to Donovan Danhausen for followers of Florida wrestling, or should it be a disambiguation page? My preference is, of course, to redirect to Minichamps but the fact that we are having this discussion implies that a disambiguation page is the way to go.  Stepho  talk  23:12, 6 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.

Escobar Fold 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 retarget to Escobar Inc#Smartphones. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While there was a scam related to this phone involving an Escobar ([1]), it's not mentioned at the target and isn't really an appropriate redirect unless it does. Delete unless a duly sourced mention is added (I'm currently leaning toward it being undue). signed, Rosguill talk 17:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles for Roberto Escobar and Escobar Inc which both mention the product in question so I believe this should be retargeted to either of those article since they are birth more relevant than the current target.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Escobar Inc#Smartphones thinking it through it’s better of the two choice since it will directly lead someone looking up the product to a section that specifically mentions it.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds good to me. signed, Rosguill talk 23:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Escobar Inc#Smartphones per above. Thryduulf (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. BlackholeWA (talk) 11:54, 8 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.

Hyoscine-pentothal[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. I'll refine to the #Fictional use section. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barely mentioned at the target article and questionably relevant. Unlikely search term. Jontesta (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete According to the target article: "In the television series, 24, a fictional drug called 'hyoscine-pentothal' was used to inflict pain on characters during interrogations in several episodes." Otherise mentioned only in passing in 24-related articles Tony Almeida and 24 (season 6). Ditto. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This redirect arose from this AfD discussion back in 2008, but then retargeted several times. Before the current target, it was targeted to Truth serum#In fiction. Given the extensive history of this page, we should attempt to find the most appropriate redirect target as opposed to deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given this redirect's history and the content at the current target justifies a redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd be wary of redirecting a fictional plot device to a real-world topic. The mention in the target hardly seems noteworthy, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was removed someday. It would be better to retarget to coverage about the TV series. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:36, 5 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.

André de Boulanger[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) 16:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic is not mentioned on target page nor elsewhere in enwp. Certes (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably this French monk (1578–1657). Certes (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not mentioned at target article. If an article for that monk is created, they should link there rather than to the surname anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The monk is fr:André Boullanger. Narky Blert (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this for the French monk as he had an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia and we generally assign notability for CE articles. Also has an article in the French Wikipedia. Added him to the disambiguation page. JASpencer (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you find a WP:DABMENTION mention anywhere in English Wikipedia to justify his inclusion on the disambiguation page? If so then we could retarget the redirect to there. Certes (talk) 11:24, 7 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.

Lithium dibromide[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 17:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Unlikely search term. Jontesta (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This redirect is the result of this AfD discussion back in 2006. I would argue it should be kept for that reason, but agree it should be mentioned at the target. Looks like this is a fictional drug mentioned in the episode described at the redirect target page. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's a wildly specific reference to one line of the episode (looking at the former article history for it), so implausible search term. And not even mentioned in target article Joseph2302 (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fictional drug could well be mentioned at the target article, but it really doesn't need to be. The question is how likely a search term this is. Would we get a reader asking, "What's that Simpsons episode where they transport lithium dibromide?" Simpsons titles can be cryptic—even when I was much more active fan, I was puzzled how people could know them when they're never shown along with the show itself. That makes me sympathetic to the idea of providing some access, but searching on this term just doesn't seem plausible. --BDD (talk) 16:00, 5 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.

KB2267602[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. Thryduulf (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any use for this redirect. KB2267602 was a 2018 definition update for Windows Defender Antivirus. I can not think of any reason someone will use this to search for the product now called Microsoft Defender. ~ GB fan 17:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That's the same reason why I requested that Speedy Deletion. Feelthhis (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm the creator of the redirect. KB2267602 is the standard virus definitions update, and has been so for a few years now. I created it because someone somewhere (I thought it was Reddit, but I can't find it now) was asking what it was and whether it was required. So I thought I'd add it here to save others asking and/or hunting. Anyway, that's why it's here is all I'm saying, and I'm not objecting if people think it's inappropriate.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and has been so for a few years now. I was working on many redirects to MS Defender and my sole motivation for the deletion of this one was that I thought it was a specific definitions update released on a given date some years ago. As you’re saying it concerns to every definitions update, I change my decision and I apologize for my flimsy google search, A bit iffy. Feelthhis (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK Feelthhis, cheers.🙂--A bit iffy (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this seems unambiguous and A bit iffy makes the case that some people find this redirect useful. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not mentioned at the target article. Users familiar with the topic will almost certainly be able to find Microsoft Defender without it, and those not familiar are likely to be confused. Granted, it's very unlikely users unfamiliar with the topic will be searching on this, but that's another strike against it, frankly. This reminds me of the recent RfD for inmate numbers. --BDD (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:56, 5 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.

Yilauta[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 17:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does not look like a typo worthy of a redirect. There are sporadic instances of the spelling online by non-Finns mostly, but nothing particularly noteworthy. Frankly I'd just delete this. --Prospero One (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep {{R from typo}}, and this isn't the Finnish wiki, so this looks more normal in English than the original Finnish spelling. As it has been used as a mispelt form of the target, it works as expected. It is a single letter typo by omission -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It strikes as unlikely to me, but checking from the page information, the redirect has got 4-7 hits a day at best. Given that the article doesn't detail a very popular subject, I guess that's decent enough to justify a redirect. --Pudeo (talk) 23:48, 6 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.

More released films that are still upcoming[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) 16:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's already 2021, so these films are no longer upcoming. They were already released two years ago and last year, along with the pages that just have "(film)" in the title. Similar redirect like "Shahenshah (Upcoming film)" was already deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 9#Upcoming redirects. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page is already screened. So no need of "upcoming film" tag. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per the upcoming film deletes before. They all exist, so none are upcoming Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all consistent with consensus established previously. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:53, 6 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.

Iceland women's national under-19 football team[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) 16:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 8#Northern Ireland women's national under-17 football team, should be deleted to encourage article creation. Not mentioned at target article, and Iceland under 17 team redirect was deleted at aforementioned discussion Joseph2302 (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 16:00, 5 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.

Yoshi's Circuit[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 speedily deleted by Sphilbrick per WP:G5. --BDD (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAMECRUFT. No need to have a redirect for each individual racetrack in the game. This track is not mentioned in the target article. Additionally, it's ambiguous, because this track has appeared in at least 4 different Mario Kart games (Double Dash, DS, 8, and Tour). – numbermaniac 04:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia, so we have no information to show to readers. Even if it were, per nom any single target among the four wouldn't be correct. Not suitable for disambiguation or its own article either. So the best we can do is show search results. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Ambiguous, as appears in many games, so no evidence people would be looking for that game. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too many possible targets for this one. And I agree with the nominator, there's no need to include every racetrack - unless there's something notable about it. Less Unless (talk) 13:04, 5 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.

Georgia senate 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. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopelessly ambiguous, even to point it to the ongoing ones, as there's two separate articles for the regular one and the special election. Hog Farm Bacon 03:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In standard election cycles there's going to be a Georgia senate election almost once every 2 years. This could even refer to a state senate election given how ambiguous the title is. Definitely delete. – numbermaniac 04:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nominator and Numbermaniac - it's too ambiguous. Less Unless (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. Could also refer to elections to Georgia State Senate. Narky Blert (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this per everyone above, there's a ton of elections it could refer to, including those that could happen in the as-of-yet unestablished upper house in the Parliament of the country Georgia. Regards, SONIC678 01:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per everyone above, hopelessly ambiguous is right. ThirdDolphin (talk) 06:48, 6 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.

COVID19 new[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) 16:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion of the redirect as it is too unspecific. The redirect originated from an article about the "UK mutation" of the coronavirus and was redirected to the respective article, Variant of Concern 202012/01. However, "COVID19 new" as redirect or title may refer to any new variant or mutation. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Variants currently lists 4, which could be called "COVID19 new". I am sure as time progresses, there will be plenty new "flavours", requiring constant update work for the redirect to whichever is the latest and greatest "new" variant. Therefore, request to delete as unspecific, arbitrary. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 02:55, 5 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.

Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak[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 keep. WP:SNOW, no valid reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by Deaths from the 2019–21 coronavirus outbreak. Brycehughes (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It was known as the 2019-20 outbreak for some time, so there's almost certain incoming links that would be broken and it's still logical as a search term. Hog Farm Bacon 02:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, no incoming links from article space. Brycehughes (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 115 views in the last 30 days, readers are using it. Narky Blert (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per both above. Links will continue to come from external websites, bookmarks, etc. for a long while yet, possibly indefinitely (it will in part depend how long the pandemic actually lasts). Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 05:11, 6 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_5&oldid=1000703945"