Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 29, 2021.

Kreuzzüge[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 6#Kreuzzüge

Texas constitutional amendment election 2008[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 00:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate name that target page was only at for a fifteen minutes before being moved. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:35, 29 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.

Naked and petrified[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 00:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete, implausible and nonsensical redirect. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:06, 29 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.

List of digraphs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 16#List of digraphs

O͞o[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 6#O͞o

Ӏу[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! 23:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While trigraphs like кӏу and пӏу are mentioned at the target, this specific two-letter combination is not explained anywhere, and a "Ӏ" section, to which the redirect initially pointed, does not exist at this point either. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. — kwami (talk) 22:21, 29 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.

Face of Kariba[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 00:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, internet search suggests that this is a government tourism position, but unless it's mentioned at the target a redirect is not particularly helpful. Delete unless a duly-sourced mention can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:30, 29 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.

~" South Dakota State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts "[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 per G6. Obviously created in error. -- Tavix (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect, apparently accidentally created under this weird title and then moved just after that. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ~" Delete " per nom. As ~" the creator says in the page history, " " ~" that rdr creation didn't go well. "" Regards, ~" SONIC678 " 23:35, 29 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.

Ɥ[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 move Ɥ (disambiguation) over redirect. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 12:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While this is a symbol for the sound described at the target, the article about the character itself is located at Turned h, which also describes its usage in the IPA among other alphabets. Thus, I suggest retargeting this to the article about the letter, which appears to be the primary topic. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • That makes sense. Support. Gorobay (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do a lot of work on articles for Unicode characters, so my instinct is to say that any character should always redirect to the article about that character. However, I think IPA characters present a much more subtle problem where a link to a bare character has a significant chance of being about the phonetic phenomenon, rather than the actual "letter". I don't even know whether there is a technical limitation on this, but should we maybe default to upper-case links redirecting to the character page, while a lower-case link would redirect to the phonetic description? VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS (previously unsigned) — Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO capital IPA letters should rd to the article on the letter, if there is one, and to Case variants of IPA letters if there isn't. It would be weird to have the u.c. and l.c. rd to different articles, but indeed the IPA usage is far more prevalent than orthographic usage for many of these. On the other hand, how do people find the article on the letter if the l.c. rd's to the sound page instead? We should perhaps consider a dab page, but I suspect that solution would be quite annoying to a large number of readers. I'll ask at wikiproject linguistics. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kwamikagami Upper- and lower-case characters can't redirect to different pages, since an initial lower-case letter will get normalised to a capital one. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     22:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Duh! Sorry, I'm in Wiktionary mode. I think the IPA use must take precedence, then. We should have a hat note for the letter. I made a hopefully adequate hat note at Voiced labial–palatal approximant for what i mean. — kwami (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think whatever the default behavior we decide on, every IPA character should link in the first sentence between the character page and the phonetic description, e.g. "Turned h is a Latin script character used in the International Phonetic Alphabet for a voiced labial–palatal approximant.", and "The voiced labial–palatal (or labio-palatal) approximant is a type of consonantal sound, represented in IPA by a turned h." And thanks Kwami, I'll link this at Writing Systems. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 22:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which names would we want to use? There's some weird camel-case capitalization and punctuation in the Handbook, such as "T-Curly-tail-C ligature", and some labels that aren't even jargon, such as "Left-tail M (at right)". Pullum might have better labels in some cases. We certainly don't want to use Unicode character names. I suspect we might want to create our own labels for a few, as most IPA letters don't really have names. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think in most cases a form of Unicode name should serve pretty well. Obviously want to drop "Latin Letter" from the character name, but other than that, it should be fairly descriptive. There might be a few times where we'd want to go another direction, but I would think you'd want to handle that on a case-by-case basis. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 04:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ɥ (disambiguation). Since this discussion shows that there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:DAB prescribes a DAB page. -DePiep (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Interestingly & nicely, a DAB page also solves the uppercase/lowercase issue. -DePiep (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I understand how a redirect has any "uppercase/lowercase issue". ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     16:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The IPA symbol is lc only. As was noted, one cannot differentiate in an enwiki title. A DAB page typically opens with "A or a can refer to ..." (iow, a DAB-page covers both cases). The IPA entry line can specify it is about lc turned h.
    Actually, created the DAB page Ɥ (disambiguation) as proposed. It's a WP:ONEOTHER btw, so each page can simply hatnote to the other one like using {{for}}. -DePiep (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IPA-people may want to check look-alike "Ч" Che (Cyrillic), which seems to be sonething else. -DePiep (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Ɥ (disambiguation) over this redirect — agreed that there's no primary topic, but why not just move the disambiguation page to this title? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tol, the redirect was created 16 minutes before your comment. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     18:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @1234qwer1234qwer4: I think you mean the disambiguation page? That makes sense (I came across it while patrolling new pages, checked where Ɥ went, and came here). I didn't realise it was that new, though. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the dab, sorry. Given it exists now, moving it to the redirect's place probably makes sense. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     19:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, looks like a sound outcome. Would be the XfD closure too then? -DePiep (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment:: I have just today retargeted Small capital B to the ʙ article. Considering this is a similar case, should the article be moved to the descriptive title (small capital B) and a dab be created on its place as well? ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     19:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @1234qwer1234qwer4: Per (my reading of) Wikipedia:Article titles#Special characters the article should be titled Small capital B (or another name in standard characters), and I agree that ʙ should be turned into a disambiguation page. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong place for this; start at the Talkpage & link to here pls? -DePiep (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DePiep:  Done, Talk:ʙ#Requested move 1 November 2021 Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks (problem is, GF editors working on article Small capital B will not see this discussion, so loss of good info). -DePiep (talk) 19:14, 1 November 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.

Cuer[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 Caller (dancing). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that Cambridge University Eco Racing is the primary topic for "cuer" rather than a round dance caller, a sense with much more long-term significance. This is especially true when it's lowercase, rather than "CUER". I propose that the target be changed to Caller (dancing), which already has "cuer" as an alternative term in bold. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget this back to Caller (dancing), the original use when it was created in 2005 until Tulio17 took it to the current target in 2009. I get it, people might confuse it with "CUER," but that doesn't really warrant a change of the target in this case, especially if it's potentially WP:ASTONISHing. Regards, SONIC678 23:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as proposed with hatnotes at both targets. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Caller (dancing) per nom. I'm okay with hatnotes per Shhhnotsoloud. --Lenticel (talk) 03:05, 3 November 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 Crusades[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! 23:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like below the target article does not cover the entire scope of the subject as well as Crusading movement. The current target doesn't mention many of the campaigns from the campaign box and largely peters out in the 14th century whil crusading continued in a variety of forms until the 18th or even 19th centuries. The Crusade article is still well sign posted from Crusading movement in any case.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think someone typing in "The Crusades" is likely to be looking for the medieval expeditions to the Holy Land, rather than information on crusading in general, the crusading movement or on other expeditions which aren't usually referred to as "The Crusades". Hut 8.5 18:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – how does a definite article change the primary meaning of the term? ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     18:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly this is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for the current target. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above. Even if there is an issue with the article content, that would be an issue with the article and not the redirect, and that still would not mean the redirect should be changed to a target which would be a big WP:SURPRISE to the readers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:04, 31 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.

Crusaders[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 Crusades. Restored original target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect previously had the target Crusades. That article does not cover the complete scope of crusading, instead it is largely MILHIST. Crusading movement is a better fit as it covers those who were crusaders but did not fight, the wider time frame, geographies and definitions of crusading. Crusades is signposted from this article as well. Action required is the confirmation of this target as the most appropriate. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore redirect to Crusades. This is part of an effort to supplant our longstanding main article on the topic (Crusades) with a new one of Norfolkbigfish's creation (Crusading movement), despite a failure to gain consensus on the talk pages. Now, links in navigation templates and many redirects are being changed to rapidly create a large number of links to the newer article instead of the old one. It is the nom's interpretation that 'Crusading movement' is the main or broader topic. I do not believe that describes the consensus—if one can even be said to exist—on the scope and purpose of that page. Srnec (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This applies to European crusaders as well. Srnec (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore original redirect per Srnec. This was a bold redirect which was reverted, but then Norfolk reverted again, without achieving consensus for it. Given that Crusades is the logical, longstanding main article on the topic, there is no reason for this to redirect anywhere but there. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:59, 31 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.

Coat of arms of Christmas Island[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 5#Coat of arms of Christmas Island

Argument from evolution[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 5#Argument from evolution

Salah Uddin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 7#Salah Uddin

English English girl name Fiona[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 11#English English girl name Fiona

M̋[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 Latin-script letters. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 10:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No description of the character's usage; delete to encourage article creation. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of Latin-script letters, where this is mentioned albeit with no info on where it's used. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of Latin-script letters per filelakeshoe. CycloneYoris talk! 23:18, 5 November 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.

Department of Administration[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to end up here - I was expecting a disambiguation or list featuring various different departments with similar names. A quick search suggests that multiple US states including Minnesota, Kansas, North Carolina and Indiana have a Department of Administration, Nepal has a Central Department of Public Administration, Regions of Norway suggests that country also has such a deparment but it isn't linked, there are probably others. I suggest disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. If we can't say anything about it, we should say so: let the search engine do its job. We did until six months ago: the Nevada article was created on 8 July by User:Rtelly12 with the ES "Started a new page.... but the title is wrong.". It was moved the following day. This R is the ghost of that move, no more. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh? We have things to say about over half a dozen organisations that will be commonly referred to by this name. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have nothing to say about "Department of Administration". We only have things to say about instances of departments of administration. The first sentence of an article about it would start "A Department of Administration is a...". Most of these articles start "The X Department of Adminsitration" or similar. Six is an underestimte, my Wikipedia search led me to at least twenty articles that could be called plausibly departments of administration, and on top of that you have the Department of administrative affairs. To direct to any of them is unlikely to satisfy readers seeking the other nineteen.
What's the point of having a search engine if it is forever being circumvented by redirects that do not say what they mean? I'm all for redirects, I think they are a great way to get readers where they want to be, for that we have to make intelligent guesses. A DAB will simply be populated with "the stuff I found on Wikipedia's search engine": so help the search engine do its job, don't circumvent it. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What would be here would not be an article but a disambiguation page, "Department of Administration may refer to...". This is the exact usecase for a disambiguation page, so that readers do not have to hunt through search results that contain irrelevant colocations, may be several clicks/taps away (depending on how they are searching/browsing, what device they are using, whether they have permission to start a new article, etc) and may not even contain the article they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change to disambiguation - clear-cut case, many similarly-named entities, non-specific article title. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though a consensus for disambiguating has already been established, someone still needs to create a draft under the redirect for this to be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment would an SIA not be more appropriate than a disambiguation page? (though the distinction is probably splitting hairs either way) Elli (talk | contribs) 17:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: There are too many potential targets here. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setindexify' or dabbify clearly this too parochial as it is -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've drafted a set index for "Department of Administration" and similar titles below the redirect, but it needs cleanup and likely other improvement. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go with the drafted set index. Jay (talk) 18:56, 15 November 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.

Sodium trititanate[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. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium metatitanate and sodium trititanate are two different compounds. Wikipedia does not have a page on sodium trititante yet. Retarget or delete. Keres🌕Luna edits! 04:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it is clearly mentioned and described at current target. It is common to have compound names for which we do not have articles or don't merit their own article be redirects to articles for related compounds, as long as they are described there. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that if able to be expanded, the {{R with possibilities}} tag may/should be used. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     20:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mdewman6: people looking for the compound sodium trititante could misunderstand sodium metatitante as the same thing as people don't always read the whole text. Retarget to titanate would be good. Keres🌕Luna edits! 22:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no information about the compound at titanate, or even about the trititanate anion. "Sodium metatitanate" is sometimes used (arguably incorrectly) to refer to sodium trititanate, and the text you added to the current target states that and this appears to be the only information on WP. Deletion would be okay, but keeping would at least give searchers the molecular formula and show how it is different from Na2TiO3. I see that you have added a link to the current target and why you would want it to target somewhere else and not be a circular redirect, but there is nowhere else on WP for it to point. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdewman6: keeping the redirect would likely cause confusion. Delete would be the best in this case. Keres🌕Luna edits! 19:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mdewman6. No reason for confusion since this term is mentioned and described at target article. CycloneYoris talk! 23:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cyclone. Jay (talk) 05:51, 12 November 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.

Merdia[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 08:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is a misspelling of the protagonist's name (Merida). I think that this should be deleted because it seems like an unlikely misspelling, although it could also be retargeted to the disambiguation page Merida. Evil Sith Lord (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ambiguous misspelling. Could also be interpreted as a misspelling for the Spanish word Mierda. CycloneYoris talk! 06:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Yoris due to the existence of two things it could plausibly be a misspelling of. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vague due to it being a misspelling of several names/ terms --Lenticel (talk) 06:06, 2 November 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.

Fake 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 delete. ✗plicit 08:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disparaging nickname with no evidence of use by reliable sources. funplussmart (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ambiguous. There are many replica Londons across the world in themeparks -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and our 64 friend. A Google search brings up a lot of stuff about the fashion brand Fake London and some fake London movie sets to add on to the latter's point about ambiguity. Regards, SONIC678 05:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WP:R#D3. It is also practically unused, with pretty much no page visits. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 13:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fake keep Delete per above. Ambiguous and abusive with no benefits from existence. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     20:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't require usage in reliable sources to keep redirects, only that they be useful. Still think this should probably be deleted for now as the term more often refers to other things. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Birmingham Delete. No traffic prior to this nomination and this could apply to much more than the city in Ontario. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This redirect is a bad joke. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfunny joke. --Lenticel (talk) 06:07, 2 November 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_October_29&oldid=1055918528"