Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 30, 2021.

White(people)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 05:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect spacing; nothing links to it. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. While we have the correctly formatted White (people) and this one (without the space) gets much fewer pageviews (because of which I have a weak preference for deletion), it still seems to get a semi-decent number of pageviews per year (e.g., 73 last year). Regards, SONIC678 14:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I don't remember starting this redirect, but presumably I intended it as a redirect from a typo. If it helps anybody get from a typo to a possibly relevant article, mightn't that justify keeping it? Tim Ivorson 2021-03-31 15:13, 31 March 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.

Heavy (magazine)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 05:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Heavy Magazine in Australia at heavymag.com that has nothing to do with Heavy.com in New York, US. Should this be removed or split off? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:29, 30 March 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.

3.1415926535897932384626433832795[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. This was just nominated a couple of weeks back with clear consensus to keep. 2 and a bit weeks is too small a timeframe to renominate. (non-admin closure) — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 19:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely (if ever?) used approximation for pi that I guess that only Windows' Calculator and other 32-digit precision calculators use. Not notable, thus I request deleting 3.1415926535897932384626433832795. Same for 3.141592653589793238462643383279, 3.141592653589793238462643383, 3.14159265358979323846264338, 3.1415926535897932384626433 and 3.141592653589793238462643 as I don't know when one uses more than 20 digits. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 18:44, 30 March 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.

Political opening[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. ✗plicit 02:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Scholar search suggests that this phrase is used in a wide variety of contexts, usually but not exclusively referring to some process of either liberalization or destabilization, and hardly limited to the context of Brazil. In the absence of a good alternative, I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fair, just saw the article Abertura politica on the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, so thought nothing of making this redirect. A more specific redirect could be "Political opening (Brazil)", would there be any objection to this? Thanks.--Grnrchst (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable by me. signed, Rosguill talk 19:24, 30 March 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.

Muscle fiber[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 8#Muscle fiber

Wikipedia:Rahat Ali Warsi[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 under criterion G8, as the target page has been deleted. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Left over by move of autobiography into project space prior to move into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 30 March 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.

Anatov[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 8#Anatov

Abrogationism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 05:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Less sure about this one but given the creator it's worth discussing. I'm not convinced that this is a real word, but if it is one of the pages listed on the Abrogation DAB page might be a better target? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the Dab, but I am unsure (as you say it maybe just made up by the creator.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note the creator of all of these has now been blocked for not being here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've also noticed that they've also been CU blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia as a sock puppet of User:Fatma ceylan, who has been blocked here for vandalism, so these might qualify for G5 speedy deletion.
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.

Correctionism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 05:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be another made up "ionism" word by the same creator, almost all google results relate to a pintrest account and some kind of graphic design thing. Not mentioned in the target article or anywhere else in the encyclopedia. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure about this, there is a vague kind of connection. But we do not need redirects that will never be used.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 30 March 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.

Imprecationism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 05:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be another made up "ionism" word by the same creator, less than 400 usages across the entire intenet, almost all of which are in wikis or mirrors or non english sources. No usage of the ionism form of this word anywhere in the encyclopedia. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No idea what this has to do with the topic it directs to, another example of misuse (at best).Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 30 March 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.

Conceptionism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 05:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This does appear to be a real philosophical theory (see Wiktionary) but I don't think the current target is correct, and I don't know where it would be better to target it. Unreliable creator who seems to have been making up words, and no mention anywhere in the encyclopedia. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need more input on this, it may be valid.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 30 March 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.

Transfigurationism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 05:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be another made up "ionism" word by the same creator. Google turns up a total of 280 usages across the entire internet, which seem to be split between religious usage and something related to a NN art movement, with almost all of the appearaces being unreliable blogs and the like. Not mentioned in the target article or anywhere else in encyclopedia. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:52, 30 March 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.

Draft:Let Me Reintroduce Myself (EP)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted under G5. (non-admin closure) JJPMaster 20:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination; this redirect was originally listed at MfD by Carbrera with the following rationale:

This "EP" is fictitious and no such thing exists, so a draft is irrelevant.

JJPMaster 13:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created by sock, I’ve requested a G5 deletion, no further discussion needed. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:39, 31 March 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.

Conspirationism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 7#Conspirationism

Kohlenstoff[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 05:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED; this is the German name of carbon. Double sharp (talk) 13:16, 30 March 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.

Occupationism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 05:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the many other nominations below and the discussion on Slatersteven's talk page this appears to be a word that the creator of this redirect has simply made up. Google turns up ~1200 hits for this across the entire internet, almost all of which are related to discrimination based on occupation. I can find no connection between this redirect and it's target and I don't see evidence of this being a Widley used word. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Less sure about this as there is a huge link between Occupation and collaboration. But yes it still looks like their own made-up word.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 30 March 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.

Disputationism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 05:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THis look made up. Its hard to see what a word whose root is dispute has to do with (specificaly Islamic terrorism.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google turns up a whopping 350 usages of this word across the entire internet, the majority of which are either on non-English websites or social media (seems to be some kind of facebook group using the term). Per Nom This word seems to have no connection to Islamic terrorism, almost everything I can find is people talking about disputes. We do have a Wiktionary entry for the term, but I wouldn't be happy redirecting there because it's unsourced, was fairly recently created by an IP and hasn't been touched by a regular human editor yet - it's only had a bot edit. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all of this editors' redirects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:59, 30 March 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.

Coagulationism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 05:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THis look made up. But at least this one the root word is actually related to the article it redirects to, I am just not sure it will ever be used.Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google turns up ~ 400 uses of this word across the entire internet, all of which are in random pages on Wikis that are obviously mirroring each other. I can find no relation at all between this word and clotting, and it isn't mentioned anywhere in the encyclopaedia. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also this turns up zero google scholar results, so this doesn't seem to be used in medical literature either. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all of this editors' redirects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:00, 30 March 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.

Objectionism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 05:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THis look made up. The root OBjection has no relevance to objectivism. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak soft redirect to it's Wiktionary entry, or Delete. This seems to be used in two contexts, either to mean objecting to something or to mean Objectivism, but neither use seems particularly well established and the overwhelming majority of the results I get are unreliable rubbish like Facebook (there's a lot of results from people who've decided to invent their own philosophical system and have written about it on their blog). This is a weak retarget suggestion because the Wiktionary entry is unsourced. No mention anywhere on Wikipedia outside this redirect. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I get the impression this maybe what all these "ioism's" are about.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on the creator's comments on your talk page, I think they were just making up words that they thought fitted the pattern of "ionism" words and therefore should exist. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doing a bit more searching it seems that there's been a load of IP editors from Turkey adding these "ionism" words to all kinds of wiki projects since at least 2018, so it does seem like someone's attempt to invent a load of words. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all of this editors' redirects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Made up term with no substantial relationship to the target and no clear alternative target. --RL0919 (talk) 10:40, 1 April 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.

Collectionism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 05:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THis look made up. Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A search suggests to me that this is an uncommon word relating to collecting, it seems to mainly be used as the name of a psychological trait associated with Diogenes syndrome and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, a name for art collecting or the name of a musician. There are a couple of artists pages that have sections on their "Collectionism" and the term is mentioned in Diogenes syndrome, but I don't think that either of those would make good targets as they're more "examples of the word being used" than content on the concept itself. Maybe Collecting would be a suitable target? I could find no relation between this word and Collectivism so I agree with the nom's assessment that the current target of the redirect appears to have been made up. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above, another redirect whose root word seems to be unrelated to what it redirects to.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all of this editors' redirects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:00, 30 March 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.

Concentrationism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 05:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THis look made up. Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Again a word that seems unrelated to what it is a redirect for.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No connection to centrism as far as I can tell. Google turns up a total of ~700 results, the majority of which are from political Facebook groups and blogs opposing the "Concentrationism" of political powers. The remaining uses seem to be a mix of contexts where the word is a synonym for concentration, e.g. talking about why so many people have the same birthday as an example of "Birthday Concentrationism" or twitter posts about having the Concentrationism to beat flappy birds. No mention on Wikipedia outside this redirect. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all of this editors' redirects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:58, 30 March 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.

Lucciano Pizzichini[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 13:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, but redirected as the result of this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucciano Pizzichini A deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 March 11 was closed as no consensus on procedure, but generally thought it should be deleted, so I'm listing it here. Semi-procedural I suppose, but I don't actually see a counter to the "not mentioned at target, and won't be" rationale for deletion. WilyD 10:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom- --Smerus (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not mentioned at the target and furthermore can't be mentioned at the target because he doesn't fulfil the requirements of the list. I don't even see the point in having this discussion since nobody seems to think the redirect is appropriate after this was pointed out. Hut 8.5 19:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not mentioned in list so a redirect here is pointless. Since the inclusion criteria for being mentioned in the list is having a standalone article (which in this case was just deleted at AfD) this person does not qualify for an entry. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:20, 3 April 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.

Get Out of My Head[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 disambiguate. signed, Rosguill talk 19:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Get Out of My Head is easily confusing with Get Out My Head. And the page "Get Out My Head" (Shane Codd song) is even more notable than the television series including the episode titled Get Out of My Head. BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. See draft disambiguation page below the redirect. - Eureka Lott 19:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eureka Lott: I see that! I think the disambiguation page is ok, please close the discussion or wait other users to comment. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 07:22, 3 April 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.

Central Temple[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 INC Central Temple. In the absence of a particularly decisive consensus, this seems to be the preferred option versus the status quo. If someone does wish to produce a disambiguation page to cover other significant uses instead, this is not particularly excluded by this discussion. ~ mazca talk 13:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should this really redirect here? This is not the primary topic especially temples as a whole, this redirect is too ambiguous in my opinion and should either be retargeted or disambiguated (preferred). PyroFloe (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator is suggesting to disambiguate or to retarget, but a potential new target has not been proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if disambiguated there should be a see also link to Middle Temple. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to INC Central Temple, which seems to be the primary topic for this term. signed, Rosguill talk 19:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to INC Central Temple as the primary topic. I disagree that Middle Temple is relevant. -- Tavix (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to reveal the search results. Central temple may refer to the main temple of a city or a monastic complex – quite a few instances of that in various archaeological sites are revealed by the search results, including cases where Central Temple is the proper name (e.g. in Shenhe District). – Uanfala (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:CONTEXTUALISATION[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 19:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This just-made highly inappropriate cross-namespace redirect should be deleted. The "WP:" prefix gives excessive authority to a mere recently made and userspace essay which itself has issues. (Note that the essay has been edited by only one user, who also created the redirect; the comments by others are copy-pasted from WT:RS.) Myself and others have criticized the concept of the essay at this discussion. Also a major issue is the essay's WP:COATRACK about Marxism-Leninism. The user originally had an essay about Marxism-Leninism which was nominated for MfD and accumulated support for deletion, but the user deleted it via CSD-U1 before the discussion ended properly; this essay was created shortly thereafter with much of that material copied over into this new essay. I consider that evasion of process WP:GAMING. Given these problems with the material, it should not have a "WP:" redirect. Crossroads -talk- 03:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the redirect. Feel free to look at the essay at User:Vincentvikram/Always keep context in mind when arguing claims. Crossroads is hoping to WP:Right great wrongs by deleting any mention of M-L which I think is unhealthy. I have been given feedback at RST and the essay is developing further. Vikram Vincent 04:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment most of the nominator's issues appear to be with the essay, not with the redirect to it. If so, then this is very much the wrong venue, given that there is a long-standing consensus that at least some Wikipedia: redirects to user essays are appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I gave those issues because there's no other way to explain why this particular new WP: redirect is not appropriate. Crossroads -talk- 03:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:20, 30 March 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.

Husman[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 13:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No longer mentioned in the target article; no other target can be found. Not even a plausible misspelling of another DJ, Hausman, currently listed at List of Monstercat artists. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:45, 30 March 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.

Histoire[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 8#Histoire

ThreeLawsOfAlGore[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 Userfy (to User:TimShell/ThreeLawsOfAlGore) due to the redirect's historical value signed, Rosguill talk 19:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, was tagged as humor. Template:Humor should never be used on pages in the article namespace, because the article namespace should never include any non-factual or non-encyclopedic pages. wbm1058 (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree with the nominator completely. Not worth having around. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep in some form. This is originally from February 2001, and as such should be kept in some form to retain our old history. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article content and Userfy. This page was created back when there were no namespaces except article, but a humour page doesn't belong in mainspace per above. Restore the contents and move to the creator's userspace or wikipedia space without a redirect. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear delete nonsense redirect in CamelCase,Sadads (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep in some form due to the history. I don't think it should remain in mainspace, and I'm indifferent as to whether it goes to TimShell's userspace, or to projectspace along the line's of WP:UuU, perhaps as a subpage of WP:BJAODN. 51.79.156.12 (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep in some form outside mainspace per 51.79.156.12 and J947 with not preference as to location. Wherever it ends up, consider listing it at Wikipedia:Records or somewhere similar. This is in CamelCase because, when it was created, Wikipedia used CamelCase. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and userfy. This is ancient stuff and it's worth preserving. Dominicmgm (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, keep, mark as historical, and move to creator's userspace. Normally I'm okay with deleting old stuff, but this is really old and should probably be preserved. Hog Farm Talk 13:50, 6 April 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_March_30&oldid=1138583254"