Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 7, 2021.

1993 Kids' Choice Awards[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 1994 Kids' Choice Awards. There's some agreement that this is worth mentioning somewhere if it can be sourced - the absence of a notable awards ceremony on a given year, even if it's for apparently a fairly uninteresting reason, makes it a plausible search term. In the absence of a reliable source discussing this (and there does seem to be such an absence so far) the opinions are split over whether it's better to delete it or redirect it to the place that is most likely to help a curious reader - and Tavix's suggestion, given that it's mentioned in the lead, seems to be the best balance here given we generally default to the non-deletion outcome in a lack of consensus. ~ mazca talk 21:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly interested to see what others believe about this:

A KCA ceremony was not held in this specific year. For years people had thought there was, but in more recent years there has been plenty of research done, finding out it did not happen. In fact, I have the full '92 and '94 shows in my possession, the intros of each have the announcer say they are the sixth and seventh annual respectively (as can be seen on their articles).

Looking back at a previous version of the article, plenty of the information is actually for the 1992 ceremony, including:

  • The date of November 14, 1993 - 1992 ceremony was actually on November 14, 1992 - the promo sourced in that old version of the article is actually for 1992
  • Hosts Brian Austin Green, Holly Robinson, and Tori Spelling actually hosted the 1992 show
  • The celebrity sliming at the bottom of the article is actually for 1992
  • The 2005 KCA press site itself is actually incorrect- most (if not, all) the times the year 1993 is mentioned is actually the 1994 show

After it was figured out that a ceremony didn't occur that year, it was simply redirected to Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards. However, I'd actually think the redirect should be deleted altogether (and possibly protected from being recreated), as now it makes no sense to even have a redirect for a non-existent ceremony. Magitroopa (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually it sounds like we should have some encyclopaedic content about this - even if it's just a sourced sentence saying that there wasn't one. "For years people had thought there was [a ceremony in 1993]" means that this is a very plausible search term, as does it being part of a predictable series, so deletion is definitely the wrong thing here. Thryduulf (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless/until someone adds reliably sourced information about the lack of a 1993 edition. signed, Rosguill talk 18:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf's suggestion is the best possible outcome here, and a single reliably sourced statement would suffice. In the meantime, deletion is appropriate. --BDD (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 1994 Kids' Choice Awards. Since the KCAs were moved from the fall to the spring, the show that would be the 1993 KCA (the 7th) became the 1994 show. The lede of that article says it's the first show since 1992, which would satisfy those above saying we should have a statement—although I was unable to find a reliable source. -- Tavix (talk) 01:28, 23 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.

Ngamba-namae[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 18:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enwiki does not seem to have any content about this WP:FRINGE subject. Hog Farm Talk 23:23, 7 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.

Beninese[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 Benin. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 04:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benin seems like the most logical redirect for this. Bangalamania (talk) 22:43, 7 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.

Falangist[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 Falangism. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 03:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Falangism seems a much more plausible target as an {{R from adjective}}. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:03, 7 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.

The Something (2017 film)[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no film named "The Something", and this redirect is not mentioned at the current target. We don't have the page "The Something (film)", so this is the only mention of "The Something (film)" in the English Wikipedia. This redirect had less than 100 pageviews for the last 365 days. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. IMDB has a stub on it ([1]), but it appears no such film was ever made nor is there any indication that it will be made. This redirect was a "too soon" creation. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:06, 14 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.

Test Wikipedia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 24#Test Wikipedia

Miſsiſsippi[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) feminist (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect from a long s form that has had no pageviews in the last 90 days and is an implausible search term. There is no reason anyone would search this. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, long s forms are generally kept to aid readers who haven't encountered it before searching it up here. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 19:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947. Potentially useful and harmless. This is definitely not an implausible search term as the nom states. CycloneYoris talk! 20:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems to be a correct usage for the long s, and Mississippi is a primary topic, so it's not really ambiguous, either. I don't see deleting this really being helpful, while it might be helpful once in a blue moon. Hog Farm Talk 02:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it was used in historical documents in English in the era WhisperToMe (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the epitome of an implausible search term, unless you're expecting us to cater to the needs of people who arrived by time machine from the 17th century, and they have bigger problems to deal with, like understanding what a computer is in the first place.  — Scott • talk 12:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're catering for people encountering this specific string reading an old document on the internet, and being confused about what it refers to. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 18:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This redirect is plausible and useful. Long s forms can sometimes be useful. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Isn't Mississippi's existence a bit late for documents to still be using the long s? HotdogPi 02:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There literally could be some historian who didn't know what Mississippi was and looked at an old document calling it Mifsifsippi and searched about it on Wikipedia. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:09, 10 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.

Bilat[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. Thanks to EurekaLott for the legwork. --BDD (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as likely to be a given name as a an abbreviation of Bilateralism. Deleting to allow for search results seems like the best option at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 18:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a search for this would show bilateralism on the autocomplete.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Eraserhead1. Many users don't use the Wikipedia search function directly and I'm not sure why we would want to presume that they do. For example, I often directly search Wikipedia from my browser's URL search bar where there is no autocomplete. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. See draft disambiguation page below the redirect. - Eureka Lott 23:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rosguill. As we note on Wiktionary, "bilat" is an abbreviation for a bilateral meeting. Wikipedia somewhat strangely has very little mention of bilateral meetings, so the redirect to bilateralism was a compromise of sorts. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:54, 8 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.

Gatling laser[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 03:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Super sledge It seems that aside from Fallout, there are several companies using this term. No mention seems to be notable. Also delete Gatling laser on the same reason. This weapon is found in different video games as a futuristic version of the Gatling gun and not necessarily unique to Fallout. --Lenticel (talk) 03:30, 9 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.

Westminster, London[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! 03:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster, London, most commonly refers to the city of Westminster. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the city is linked at the top of the article so it is easy to access both pages in a straightforward manner. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 7 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.

Crazy (The Adicts song)[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 03:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect target is the album the song is on, but the album article is now itself a redirect to the artist's article (The Adicts) where this song isn't mentioned, so I suggest deleting the redirect. Lennart97 (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there is no explanation or reason for the redirect, then there is no reason to keep the redirect. It does not assist navigation, but throws up confusion. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:36, 15 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:The Bowling-Alley Cat[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 03:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was created as a redirect from the beginning, and has never been a draft. The Bowling Alley-Cat was redirected by Koavf in 2019, but that's not a reason for this redirect to exist. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, probably G2 as a test page. For some reason an IP editor copied and pasted The Bowling Alley-Cat into draft space, including the "R with history" tag and categories. I can only assume that someone was using draft space to play around with redirects. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:13, 7 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.

Njago-gunda[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More WP:FRINGE content not described anywhere on enwiki, we're better off deleting this. Hog Farm Talk 07:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No valid target. The List of cryptids target has been trimmed heavily over the past few years and these orphaned redirects should be removed accordingly. –dlthewave ☎ 16:02, 7 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.

Devil monkey[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. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Devil Monkey" is not mentioned at the target, although the string does appear in several other articles. There's no good target for this; delete to provide uninhibited search. Hog Farm Talk 06:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No valid target. The List of cryptids target has been trimmed heavily over the past few years and these orphaned redirects should be removed accordingly. –dlthewave ☎ 16:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This does appear in a few articles on TV shows and the like, but I'm not seeing a good primary target for this. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could possibly be pointed to Hellboy but it's a stretch.  — Scott • talk 12:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. I'm also okay with retarget to List of Lost Tapes episodes where an episode is dedicated to the cryptid --Lenticel (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It also appeared in Monsters and Mysteries in America and is mentioned in List of The Secret Saturdays characters, so I would oppose retargeting to this specific show. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:33, 9 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.

Chipekwe[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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enwiki has no content about this varmint. Google search suggests that this was a "dinosaur" someone "saw" in 1907. Seems to be WP:FRINGE that doesn't warrant a mention anywhere. Hog Farm Talk 06:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No valid target. The List of cryptids target has been trimmed heavily over the past few years and these orphaned redirects should be removed accordingly. –dlthewave ☎ 16:02, 7 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.

Governor 1%[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. Since the relist, consensus is forming that this is currently not an appropriate redirect. Hog Farm Talk 03:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, appears to be from one Vox article from 2014 - in no way a common name or search term. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: in addition to the Vox piece you cited, there is a 2016 Jacobin article, a 2012 WNYC article, mentions in a 2011 NYT article, a 2014 Salon article, a 2014 Times Union article, a blog post by Diane Ravitch, and surely more, suggesting sustained usage of the term. WP:R#DELETE says to delete "if the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name"; I don't think this qualifies. Is it a biased term and unlikely to be worth mentioning in the target? Surely, but that is not a reason to delete either per WP:RNEUTRAL#3. — The Earwig (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Rethinking this, I was too concerned with trying to find usage of the term. Nil Einne's arguments below are convincing that this is a confusing redirect without discussion at the target and unlikely to be the name anyone knows the subject by. We are the 99% may be a better target, but still leaves the "Governor" part completely unexplained, so I'm unsure it's better than deletion. — The Earwig (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think the redirect should point to Andrew Cuomo if something to this effect isn't mentioned in the article per Wikipedia:R#Astonish. Readers should never be left scratching their heads why they're on an article when they search for a term they've heard but don't why it's used. If we're not going to cover something then we don't cover it rather than pretending we do. It would be better to redirect this to something like We are the 99% so readers can at least gain some understanding of why the term might be used. Yes this will mean they won't know who the nickname is for (assuming they don't already) whereas a redirect to Andrew Cuomo would let them guess it's a nick name for Andrew Cuomo but this seems much more minor than the risk of confusion for those who don't understand the context. Attorneygate doesn't seem comparable since although true this does require people to be aware of the usage of -gate suffix to understand (as it isn't mentioned there), it seems far less likely someone will search for the term trying to understand where the -gate comes from than someone will search for the nick name trying to understand it. Importantly it's entirely plausible that someone looking for the article will search for that name since it's a simple short name they know the scandal by. By comparison, it seems fairly unlikely someone would think of Governor 1% as the term to find the article on Andrew Cuomo except for fun. (I.E. it may be fine redirect without explanation when there isn't really any need, but this doesn't seem to be such a case.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I took the liberty of merging the other discussion. — The Earwig (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there seems to be consensus that the redirect shouldn't be kept, it's not clear whether redirecting to We are the 99% or deletion is the preferred outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this really makes no sense at all, and the 99%/Occupy movement are completely different. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I commented above, but to clarify my position is delete due to the lack of discussion in either article. WP:RCOM, which I just found, seems to be the correct precedent to apply here. — The Earwig (talk) 08:58, 14 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.

Ace Deuce[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, no clear relation. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: a plausible if uncommon nickname, as documented here, here, and here. Doesn't seem common enough to discuss in the article (though it formerly did), but probably good enough to redirect. — The Earwig (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the second link refers back to Wikipedia as a source. Also, Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source in my opinion. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:55, 7 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.

Jimmy Zoppi[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! 03:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged pseudonym for James Carter Cathcart. Cannot find a reliable source of information for this connection which is why this redirect page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homechallenge55 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Currently mentioned in the article that this is a pseudonym of his. Also mentioned on IMDB (admittedly not really a reliable source) as one of his alternate names (right near bottom of article [2]). Also the article was called Jimmy Zoppi for 12 years or so (moved in 2018, see Talk:James Carter Cathcart#Requested move 14 September 2018) so a lot of external links etc could be broken by deleting this. A7V2 (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per—if nothing else—WP:R#KEEP#4. I spent far too long looking for reliable sources about this gentleman and came back utterly empty-handed, so a trip to AfD may be warranted. I understand the nominator's thinking, but plenty of databases or primary sources support this pseudonym, e.g. WorldCat, Behind the Voice Actors. None of these are RS, but I think it's enough to justify the redirect as long as the article exists. — The Earwig (talk) 08:31, 14 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.

Ken Gates[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged pseudonym for Rodger Parsons. Cannot find a reliable source of information for this connection which is why this redirect page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homechallenge55 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I just tagged both redirects nominated by User:Homechallenge55, since they were both missing an RfD tag. CycloneYoris talk! 01:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Less issues with deleting than Jimmy Zoppi above as the article no-longer uses the old name (due to recent edits by the nom, and as use of the other name were unsourced). Article was moved back in 2007 with the justification "Since it appears to be his actual name, it should also be the article entry name". Note also that IMDB does list Ken Gates as an alternate name of Roger Parsons (near bottom of [3]). A7V2 (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:50, 7 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.

Barnabas the Barmy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 15#Barnabas the Barmy

Canadian Association of Physician Assistants[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 15#Canadian Association of Physician Assistants

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_7&oldid=1138583304"