Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 16, 2021.

Ali Harbi Ali[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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy delete, this is currently a WP:BLPCRIMINAL violation, he has been named in some sources as the perpetrator but only third hand, consensus on the linked article so far is not to name him. JeffUK (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Several highly reliable sources has named Ali Harbi Ali as the murderer. Stating a fact is not a BLP violation (or else we'd have to delete article on living criminals). Not even sure what the nominator's reasoning is, to be honest. It's not WP who has named him, vut multiple reliable sources. Jeppiz (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Per Jeppiz. Sufficiently reported in RSs. So not a blp violation. 2603:7000:2143:8500:A807:AEB1:9E73:BD45 (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine to #Suspect. The article neutrally reports that a person of this name was arrested in connection with the killing, and there doesn't appear to be anyone else notable with the same name, so there are no BLP issues with the redirect. Given the prominence with which the person is being named by the media this is a highly plausible search term and will remain so. If they are released without charge or tried and found not guilty then the article will reflect that very shortly after reliable sources do. I've adjusted my recommendation above. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Currently he is only named in the Killing of David Amess#Suspect section, so the redirect should be refined to that section to minimise both confusion and any misunderstandings of the nature of association between this person and the killing. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above comments. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep since there are now charges. Foul play is involved but there is no murder conviction yet, and no criminal charge either. Redirect suggests some kind of culpability. WP:BLPCRIME is clear here. At a minimum, this individual must be charged for there to be this redirect. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jumping the gun, all sorts of BLP and sub judice issues. PatGallacher (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? People are clearly searching the name and the article tells them that a person of this name has been arrested in connection with the event, which is completely factual and NPOV. If there was no mention of them in the article that would be a different matter, but they are mentioned and the place to debate whether they should be mentioned is talk:Killing of David Amess not here. Thryduulf (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is named in multiple reliable sources, and in the target article. WWGB (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Many people in this thread refer to 'Multiple Reliable Sources. Currently the sole source on the article is a 3rd hand report from Singapore Times saying the BBC said an 'unnamed whitehall official' named Ali. I'm removing it from the article on the basis it's a BLPCRIMINAL violation JeffUK (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored it, with a better source, attribution, and explanation. With this new source, I believe it is sufficient to pass WP:BLPCRIME. BilledMammal (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's sufficient, the right place to discuss that is on the article's talk page. we have a 'Perpetrator' section. Currently it's all gossip attributed to anonymous sources. Or Media quoting each other JeffUK (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (circumstances changed). /circumstances changed again and the individual has been charged/ The name of this individual isn't even mentioned in the article anymore, and there's some likelihood that this change will stick for a while. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The presence or absence of the name is under active discussion with no clear consensus either way and a likelihood that the facts on the ground will change over the next few days. I think "some likelihood that this change will stick for a while" is massively overstating the certainty. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was imprecise. I meant that consensus regarding the inclusion of the name wouldn't be formed very soon, presuming that this will likely default to the name not being included for a while. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is now a consensus to name him on the article, and his name has been re-added. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And removed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Arrested on suspicion at the site of the crime, Somali immigrant, Islamic extremist. It's an open and shut case and his name is in all the papers. Kittenenthusiast88 (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the term "immigrant" in all the papers too, or just in The Daily Mail? You think he's an immigrant? But why does that have any bearing on the question over this redirect? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • He isn't an immigrant (according to both the BBC and Sunday Times he is a British citizen who was born in Britain) and there is no proof he is an Islamic extremist, so it isn't an open and shut case, legally and your comment is very close to a BLP violation. The only parts of your comment that are relevant to this discussion are "Arrested on suspicion [...] of the crime" and "his name is in all the papers", but even the last part isn't true - his name is in many papers but not all of them. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the consensus on the article talk page is to mention that this individual has been linked to the crime by multiple media reports, as such I think the redirect is now appropriate. JeffUK (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the precedence of WP:BLPCRIME over a now-obsolete local consensus. See [1] [2] and [3] for complete explanation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now officially been charged [4].  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my !vote to keep. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:31, 21 October 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.

2022 Portuguese Social Democratic Party leadership 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand why the year is being redirected here. It would seem to assume the absence of a 2022 leadership election, which doesn't seem to make for a prudent redirect. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is a {{R from move}}. The earlier revisions of the page indicated that the election would take place in January 2022 before being changed to 4 December 2021.[5] Based on my understanding of Google Translates rendition of this article it seems that the incumbent Rui Rio wanted the election to be in January rather than December. That the previous elections to the position (about which we have articles) were in January 2018 and January 2020 also makes 2022 a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The election was expected to be held in January 2022, however, a series of internal party events forced an anticipation to December: The 4 December date was proposed by Rio himself, but because of the current political tension between the Socialists and the Left Bloc/Communists, because of the 2022 budget, Rio forced a vote to postpone the election to later date. This has massively rejected by the party in a meeting and the 4 December date was approved. Tuesp1985 (talk) 23:57, 17 October 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.

Military-gaming complex[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 24#Military-gaming complex

LeBlanc (League of Legends)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And...yet another character not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia (not even on Le Blanc (disambiguation)!), making these redirects fall squarely into WP:GAMECRUFT like those others below. Regards, SONIC678 17:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral on the first as it's properly spelled. Weak delete on the second. Delete the third entry as an implausible redirect. Anarchyte (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If we don't have any information on the topic, we shouldn't give a reader the impression that we do. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     11:11, 30 October 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.

2044 Summer Olympics[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 deleted by Justlettersandnumbers. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These seems to be analogous to the repeated deletions available at WP:Articles for deletion/2032 Summer Olympics (5th nomination). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:34, 16 October 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.

Kingston (city)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of places called Kingston. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a disambiguation page for Kingston, and there are multiple cities listed there. There's also a List of places called Kingston, which is linked to from the more general Kingston disambiguation page. While the city in Jamaica is likely the most prominent, it might be better to retarget this to Kingston#Places. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:32, 16 October 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.

Ninja 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it's the case that the primary use of "Ninja Film" would be to point to List of ninja films rather than Ninja (film). The latter seems much more natural, so I propose that this redirect be retargeted to Ninja (film). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. We already have Ninja films redirecting to List of ninja films. Jay (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ninja (film) per above (as per the precedent with stuff like Cars film), and maybe add a hatnote for the current target to that page. We don't want to get readers lost by leading them to a less natural target here. Regards, SONIC678 17:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is the list article is the proper target since the "film" is not a disambiguator. Clearly ninja film, would be a (sub)genre of film, and not the particular film named "Ninja" -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is I have my doubts that the average reader who may type ninja film is specifically looking for a film named ninja. Also, the existence of genre articles such as Action film, Romance film and Comedy film leads credence to the suggestion they someone typing this would be far more likely to be look for films about ninjas which Thr current target does.--67.70.102.227 (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from list topic}} per above. The primary topic of the phrase "ninja film" is the type of film, based on the actual usage of this phrase in Google News and Google Books. Cars film differs too much from ninja film to be any kind of precedent here: it's never been discussed at RFD, and due to the pluralisation it's at best a marginally-grammatical way of describing any of the entries at list of films about automobiles. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, the precedent I was talking about doesn't always apply. Changing my !vote to keep per the "keep" voters above. Plus, people might be WP:ASTONISHed to land at the proposed target, hence my argument about a natural target still standing. Regards, SONIC678 01:56, 21 October 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.

Summer soldier[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 24#Summer soldier

Whoa, what a freak! Looked like a talking penis.[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This quote does not appear in the target page. It does not appear to be the case that users would choose to bluelink this extra-long redirect entry rather than just linking to Samurai Jack (season 5). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedily deleted as patent nonsense. BD2412 T 07:04, 16 October 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.

Snooping as usual, I see![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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This quote does not appear in the target page. Additionally, it's not clear to me that this redirect is useful. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedily deleted as patent nonsense. BD2412 T 07:04, 16 October 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.

I've always wanted power. Now I have an unlimited supply.[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This quote does not appear in the target page and it does not appear likely that any user would use the whole quote as a redirect to Doctor Doom. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedily deleted as patent nonsense. BD2412 T 07:04, 16 October 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.

I live for the simple things, like how much this is gonna hurt![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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This quotation does not appear in the target page. I do not see anybody using this thirteen word quotation as a simplifying redirect on Wikipedia. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedily deleted as patent nonsense. BD2412 T 07:05, 16 October 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.

Finger to the throat means death![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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This quote does not appear in the target page and it does not seem likely that this will be actually used as a redirect. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedily deleted as patent nonsense. BD2412 T 07:05, 16 October 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.

I am not some starry-eyed waif here to succumb to your pelvic sorcery![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 by BD2412 per G1. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This quote does not appear in the target article. The redirect is rather long, recently created, and doesn't seem to be likely to be of use. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikehawk10: Since all of these redirects were recently created, it would be best to just tag them for speedy deletion instead of bringing them to RfD. CycloneYoris talk! 06:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris: What would the appropriate CSD tag be? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikehawk10: I was thinking about tagging them as G1, though I'm not sure if that's the correct tag. CycloneYoris talk! 06:47, 16 October 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.

Lowanna[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. ✗plicit 13:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unambiguous that "Lowanna" refers to Lowanna, New South Wales. It seems reasonable to me that it could also refer to Lowanna College. For this reason, I propose that the redirect be disambiguated. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig per nom; add a link to wiktionary -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate -- I have drafted a dab page below it eviolite (talk) 00:06, 19 October 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.

Rachel Hergert[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not mentioned in target. Geschichte (talk) 06:00, 16 October 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.

AOTY[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! 00:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be an obvious redirect. There are plenty of "A-word of the year" phrases in English, and I'm not sure that AOTY would be unambiguously associated with "Album of the Year". — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based on search results either this or possibly the Grammy Award for Album of the Year is very clearly the primary topic - other than one facebook hit which I couldn't actually view everything down to the end of the first thrid of page 3 of a google search is about that. After that point other uses are mixed in with album of the year results. Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf's reasoning. Unless User:Mikehawk10 (or any other editor) has a list of these other "AOTY" phrases and results to show their common usage, I don't see why that wouldn't be the primary usage. QuietHere (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though if such a list does exist, then I would change my vote to create a disambiguation page. QuietHere (talk) 00:59, 17 October 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.

79th Golden Globe 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 speedy deleted, and Draft:79th Golden Globe Awards has been published into the main articlespace. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Comment: Qualifies for deletion under WP:RDEL #10. An article can be created as the calendar for awards has been announced. Golden Globe Awards Set for Jan. 9 as Hollywood Foreign Press Assn. Unveils 2022 Calendar . Thanks. Rickyurs (talk) 03:49, 16 October 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.

Banana chili pepepr[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 13:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem like a very plausible misspelling, which got only 61 pageviews since July 2015, plus we already have the correctly spelled Banana chili pepper. Delete this unless someone can provide a justification. Regards, SONIC678 03:27, 16 October 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.

Annie, the Dark Child[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 13:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another character who isn't mentioned on the target article, dangerous as she may be, making these redirects fall afoul of WP:GAMECRUFT. She is mentioned on Annie (given name), but I'm not sure about redirecting there either, since people might be ASTONISHed about landing there. Regards, SONIC678 01:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all these unnotable League redirects. Winston (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first two. Neural on the third. Anarchyte (talk) 09:35, 16 October 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.

Date and time notation in Taiwan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 25#Date and time notation in Taiwan

Hecarim[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 24#Hecarim

Ezreal[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 24#Ezreal

Arurf[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 13:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAMECRUFT not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all these unnotable League redirects. Winston (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete URF is mentioned, but I doubt anyone is searching for the lowercase typography of a spinoff gamemode of a spinoff gamemode. Anarchyte (talk) 09:37, 16 October 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.

Kog'Maw[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 13:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from some passing mentions at Uzi (gamer) and Patrick Seitz, not described anywhere on Wikipedia. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all these unnotable League redirects. Winston (talk) 02:31, 16 October 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.

Khazix[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 13:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the current target, but kind of described at League of Legends in esports and 2018 League of Legends World Championship, as well as having a passing mention at Game client. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all these unnotable League redirects. Winston (talk) 02:31, 16 October 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.

Celtic Orthodox Church in the United States[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 23#Celtic Orthodox Church in the United States

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_16&oldid=1052682746"