Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


September 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 6, 2021.

Vitamin E oil[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 15#Vitamin E oil

Cattle Shoot (computer and video games)[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 22:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 4#Cattle Shoot (ping Susmuffin, the only participant there): Not mentioned at target and no use anywhere else on Wikipedia with this meaning. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: These redirects are unrelated to their target. ―Susmuffin Talk 22:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unmentioned and probably confusing to our readers --Lenticel (talk) 00:14, 7 September 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.

Successor regime[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 12:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, all usage of this phrase that I was able to find online or on Google Scholar seems to use this as a generic phrase for a regime that succeeds a prior regime; deletion thus seems like the best course of action. signed, Rosguill talk 21:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment . . Yang himself uses it. Here & here. But you can delete, whatever. If it ends up being important, it will get re-created. If not, then deleting was the right course of action. ~ skakEL 16:29, 7 September 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.

2500s[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 22:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unhelpful because these decades redirect to an empty section. Someone searching for specific information on these decades will not be able to find what they would be looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: empty section providing no information to the reader. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: Wikipedia has no information on topics known by these terms, so the redirects have no good target. Certes (talk) 00:40, 9 September 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.

2587[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 22:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this one separately because for most of its history it was targeting Major League Productions. However, it's not mentioned there either and there was no mention at the time of it's creation. -- Tavix (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Wikipedia has no information on topics known by this term, so the redirect has no good target. If MLP does contain any relevant information, no one is likely to find it. Certes (talk) 00:39, 9 September 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.

2504[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 22:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow-up to an WP:AFC/R I recently declined. It makes no sense to be redirected to a section that is literally empty, so one searching for information about a specific year will not find it at the target. If we treat these as numbers, this group is not mentioned at 2000 (number)#2500 to 2599. Because they are not even significant as numbers, I say delete. -- Tavix (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Empty section providing no information to the reader. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can delete the one I made (2545) I don't really care. I was a moron back in 2007 and made a lot of pointless redirects. And I agree with your reasoning too. Also, I quit Wikiepdia a long time ago, I don't edit here anymore. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: Wikipedia has no information on topics known by these terms, so the redirects have no good target. Certes (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and recreate as articles in 500-600 years when there's more information about those years. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:35, 9 September 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.

2500[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 00:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow-up to an WP:AFC/R I recently declined. It makes no sense to be redirected to a section that is literally empty, so one searching for information about a specific year will not find it at the target. If we treat these as numbers, this group is mentioned at 2000 (number)#2500 to 2599, which is an option I am open to. -- Tavix (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget all to 2000 (number), where they're all mentioned; but my preferred solution would be nuke the lot and let the search tool do its job.
Q - Does anyone else get pissed off by the fact that attempting to edit a section in RFD often opens another section altogether? It took me four goes to post in this one. Narky Blert (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a new section is created in the time between the page initally being loaded and you clicking edit, the "counter" gets messed up and takes you to the wrong section. Because I was nominating all these individually and then bundling, that's why you kept getting the wrong section. My sincere apologies for pissing you off. -- Tavix (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, but it confused me at first, and I thought it is a bug (and I still think it is). Then I found if I refresh the page and try again it works. Jay (Talk) 04:21, 7 September 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.

Hivemind (Game show)[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 12:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak Retarget to Hive Minds, an article about a BBC quiz show, otherwise delete. I'm not sure if one word vs two words, the plural and capitalisation are enough differences to make this a reasonable search term or not. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The two (three?) spelling differences and the miscapitalised qualifier are just too many mistakes. Narky Blert (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Narky: too many errors. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:41, 7 September 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.

DigiBlast[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Restore and send to AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 04:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently removed the target section, regarding a short-lived console called digiBlast. The only sources given failed verification, and the product seems to fail WP:GNG, as I found only initial announcements and WP:SPS on the internet. The latter was a short-lived article created fairly recently, which can be taken to AfD if needed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and send to AfD. There was an article at DigiBLAST last month which was unilaterally redirected without discussion. It doesn't have amazing sourcing, but it wouldn't fall under the speedy deletion criteria. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD per '74, together with these and any other redirects. The username of the principal contributor to DigiBLAST (currently blocked per WP:COI/WP:PAID) fills me with little confidence. Narky Blert (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Narky Blert: The second attempt at an article was written after I wrote my comment, that slightly complicates an AFD! Also I highly doubt this is paid editing, I can't imagine anyone paying for an article on an obsolete games console from 2005 and being happy with an article that describes it as a "miserable failure" with "poor quality" accessories. Seems more likely to be a fan of obsolete games consoles. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 05:05, 7 September 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.

Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastes Paracelsus[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 04:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all experienced with RfD's, but I believe that this redirect to Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim's (Paracelsus') uncommon middle name 'Aureolus' should be deleted: it makes it unreasonably difficult for users to find people properly named Aureolus, such as Aureolus, Aureolus of Aragon, or Petrus Aureolus (now reachable at Aureolus, Petrus). Paracelsus is duly listed at Aureolus (disambiguation), so on the off chance that someone would be searching for him under that name they only need to follow the DAB link in the hatnotes of the other Aureolus pages. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree with the nomination argument. Searching for "Aureolus" immediately brings the Roman commander page which I suppose is a reasonable primary topic. What then is the search query that Paracelsus currently pollutes and that would be enhanced by purging him?
However, I see another possible argument. The target page gives "Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim" as the full name, so the redirect is omitting the "von Hohenheim". Do we "autocomplete" last names based on reasonably unambiguous first names? I would have thought we do not, but the first example I searched for is Paul Adrien Maurice which does redirect to Paul Dirac, so... TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 15:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yesterday, typing in "Aureolus" would show the redirect under discussion directly after Aureolus (the primary topic) but would suggest neither Petrus Aureolus nor Aureolus (disambiguation). However, creating the redirect Aureolus, Petrus for some reason now makes it also show Aureolus (disambiguation) and show our Paracelsus redirect as the last option. I think I've learned here that sometimes it actually works better to create a redirect than to delete one. As for your other possible argument, wouldn't that be better solved by moving it? Perhaps Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim Paracelsus? Or maybe just Aureolus Paracelsus is better (Aureolus is a middle name anyways, and Paracelsus the most recognizable part of his name)? I'm still asking rather than withdrawing because I'm inexperienced with this and would appreciate other editors' comments. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:13, 6 September 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.

Keys to power[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, internet and GScholar results don't suggest that this phrase is primarily associated with the current target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I couldn't even find this phrase mentioned in the book. There are a bunch of other things it could refer to, but I'm not really sure there's a suitable primary target (then again, I could be wrong...). Regards, SONIC678 23:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague, seems to be a partial title match to a few "X Keys to Power" books. --Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as this was prominently featured in this YouTube video, which for me is the first search result. It's not unreasonable someone would want to read the book that video is based on and look for "keys to power" to find it. No objection to disambiguation if other appropriate targets are found, but I do think this redirect in its current form is helpful to the occasional reader. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:13, 6 September 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.

Taliban offensive[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 Taliban insurgency. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RECENTISM, it doesn't seem appropriate to have this go to the most recent Taliban offensive just because it's the one currently in the news. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There isn't a list article that would be an obvious place to retarget. Ideally, there would be one including each conflict listed in row conflicts of {{Taliban}}, though Taliban#History gives reasonable coverage of every significant Taliban offensive with links to the appropriate articles (including 2021), so retargeting there could be a possibility. I would not recommend deletion (at least not yet) because the redirect averages over 50 views per day in the last week and that number will only increase as long as the 2021 offensive remains in the news (the WP:RECENTISM argument can be revisited later if necessary). ComplexRational (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This redirect has exceeded 100 pageviews per day. This RfD breaks the redirect and is disruptive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create SIA article per nom. also, a good faith nomination discussion is not disruptive, maybe some people who go to this redirect will comment on this discussion which is kinda the point. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create SIA per Elli or retarget to Taliban insurgency with hatnote {{redirect|Taliban offensive|the ongoing offensive|2021 Taliban offensive|offensives prior to the ISAF invasion of Afghanistan|Taliban#History}} as a compromise between recentism concerns and what people are likely searching for. As to SmokeyJoe's point, I've been wondering for a while if {{subst:rfd}} should include some sort of "above-the-fold" option for high-visibility redirects, where the redirect would appear above the RfD tag in soft-redirect format. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see a reason that the RfD template couldn't format the redirect to look a bit better in all circumstances. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to SIA per Elli and Tamzin. CycloneYoris talk! 01:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Taliban insurgency. I did some searching and couldn't find a disambiguation page or SIA analogous to what's being proposed here. The closest thing I could find was Spring offensive, which isn't well suited to anything but disambiguation. At least in the short term, Taliban insurgency has multiple links right at the top to the 2021 offensive, and when that's further in the rear-view mirror, we'll still be sending readers to the main page for the military history of the Taliban. I don't see specific suggestions for other topics that would be included in a disambiguation page or SIA. The only obvious candidates I could find were two actions listed at Taliban insurgency#2015, and if we're considering a SIA that only links to two articles, we should really consider just redirecting to the broader topic. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:11, 6 September 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.

Pia (entertainer, born 1974)[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 22:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Neither of these two entertainers seem to be mononymously known as Pia, and we don't use the format "first name, occupation, year of birth" without a person's last name, as argued at previous discussions, including the TRAINWRECKed one where the redirects were previously listed. Delete them unless someone can provide a justification. Regards, SONIC678 17:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Additionally these are implausible as search terms, it is unlikely for someone to search using year of birth. -- Tavix (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that either is known by the mononym. Narky Blert (talk) 12:01, 12 September 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.

UC Berkeley Extension[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. Speedy delete as CSD R2 Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a redirect under this title pointing at University of California, Berkeley. Someone removed the redirect and wrote an article under this title, but the article was later moved to the draft namespace and this title then became a redirect to the draft namespace. This redirect should either be deleted per WP:R2 or retargeted to University of California, Berkeley if it is a plausible search term. Stefan2 (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was me because I am creating a new article. I anticipate it to be finished within a day or two and will be submitting it via AFC. This is why it is in drafts now. If there is such a way that you can keep the redirect and the draft until it is approved, feel free to set it up as I wouldn't know how to do that, but please do not delete my draft. Chrisfilip (talk) 18:34, 6 September 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.

Sheuneen Ta[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 13:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything relevant from the DAB page, and the revision history leaves me no wiser. A footballer called Sheuneen Ta is mentioned in 2002 UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship squads. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 12:47, 6 September 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.

A. Peters[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 13:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. Peters could of course refer to a lot of people, and I see no evidence that the current target is justified. Lennart97 (talk) 11:27, 6 September 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.

Greco-Roman Rugby[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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 13:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I can't find any real references to this term online. It's not mentioned in the article. MClay1 (talk) 10:25, 6 September 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:GQ[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 22:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GQ is not an abbreviation for Equatorial Guinea that I am aware of. Editor who created this redirect then went to this WikiProject and added it as an WikiProject abbreviation which seems backwards to me. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 06:33, 6 September 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.

German officers[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 00:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The German military history expands a much greater timeframe than simply this one incarnation. Too narrow of a target. Hog Farm Talk 06:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not fully up to speed on the rules, but could it redirect to Military of Germany (disambiguation) page? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 06:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. "Officers" is not exclusively military. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Winston (talk) 12:31, 8 September 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.

Dodo Bin Khafef Soomro III[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. In a discussion on my talk page, TrangaBellam clarified that they were arguing for the redirect to be kept. signed, Rosguill talk 22:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected unilaterally to a page that no longer mentions this person, allegedly one of its rulers. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - He might have existed but not mentioned as an important ruler by Ahmad Hasan Dani. Nothing to write in a standalone article and even his existence is doubtful.
  • Lari, Suhail Zaheer (1994). "The Sumras". A History of Sindh. Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press. pp. 50, 52. ISBN 0195775015. writes,

    Muhammad Tur was succeeded by Gunero II (c. AD 1254-1258), followed by Duda III (c. AD 1258-1273) and Tai (c. AD 1273-1283).

    Historians do not agree regarding the names or the period of Sumra rule over Sindh.

    TrangaBellam (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @TrangaBellam: it's not immediately apparent what course of action you're suggesting here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 06:30, 6 September 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.

John S. Slocum[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 Fort Slocum (Washington, D.C.). (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 02:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect name is "John S. Slocum" whereas the discoverer's name according to the source listed in our article is "John L. Slocum", making it an implausible typo. The only reason I didn't nominate this under criterion 3 for speedy deletion is that it stipulates "recent", whereas this was created in 2009. Exacerbating this, John S. Slocum was a Union Army colonel who may be notable enough to warrant their own article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • For what it's worth, the redirect "John L. Slocum" does not exist, so this redirect could be moved there. However, the redirect at "John S. Slocum" left in the wake of the move should still be removed. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Fort Slocum (Washington, D.C.), as the Union colonel John S. Slocum is the fort's namesake. A (very) brief bio and picture of Slocum are included there. We redirect NN individuals who had US Navy ships named after them to the ship article, so I guess it would make sense to redirect this term to the fort pending a creation of an article about him. Hog Farm Talk 14:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The correct John L. Slocum has been created. We note that the middle initial in the article was corrected by an IP on June 28. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But none of those articles come up in the first page of 20 search results, due to the other more prominent individuals with that last name. For anyone who happens to use the middle initial when entering the name, it would be better to point to the single place that has the most information and then link as much as possible to these other relevant articles, until someone wants to create a stub. Regardless of outcome here, though, it seems like a dab at John Slocum (disambiguation) with appropriate hatnotes targeting it is needed. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Long term, I think a stub is the best solution, but maybe we should consider whether the regiment article would be a better target than the fort article? But I don't think deletion is best given my above comment. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They do if you type "John S. Slocum" (with the quotes). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, the regiment article isn't coming up for me with the quotes. In any case, most searchers are not going to use advanced search strategies like that. Better to send them somewhere with some content that has links to other content. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about the regiment article, as the name mentioned there is "Colonel Slocum" and "John Slocum". The fort article too mentions "Colonel John Slocum", and would not have turned up in the search results if it was not for the photo caption. Jay (Talk) 17:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 06:27, 6 September 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.

Space Frontier[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 Space Frontier Foundation. signed, Rosguill talk 04:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing for deletion. Reasons: (1) There's no evidence that this term is used to mean Space Western. When this was an article, there was only one obscure source that used it that way, and that's now seven years further out of date. (2) It results in the clutter of a hatnote on the Space Western page and provides some legitimacy to the phrase, which isn't otherwise used. (3) All the reasons given the last time this was proposed for deletion, back when it was an article. There was a clear majority for deleting. How that was translated to a redirect isn't at all clear to me. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 06:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Space Frontier Foundation for now. I agree with the nom that there certainly appeared to be a consensus for deletion in the AfD, but the closer erred on the side of WP:ATD. An option to consider is for someone to open a deletion review and cite this RfD discussion indicating that we don't really know what to do with it as a redirect, and argue that there was previous consensus for deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:07, 17 September 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.

Packing House Corner, Delaware[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 13#Packing House Corner, Delaware

Ryan Jensen (baseball, born 1998)[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 13:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete? Wrong date. The player was born in 1997, and a redirect already exists for that. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:13, 6 September 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.

Ulagam Sutrum Valiban (2019 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. ✗plicit 13:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was never the film's title, just a rumour. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unless there is some proof that this rumour was discussed by reliable sources, there is no reason to have a confusing redirect. ―Susmuffin Talk 04:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned at target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:57, 7 September 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 X Factor (British series 16)[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 The X Factor (British TV series)#Cancellation. signed, Rosguill talk 02:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This show has been axed, and series 16 will not be made. Launchballer 01:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It is doubtful that someone would search for a non-existent iteration of a cancelled television program. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In case people are wondering where is season 16! Chrisfilip (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine to #Cancellation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine, received nearly a thousand page views over the last year, so people obviously are searching for information on the cancelled series. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:41, 7 September 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_September_6&oldid=1046109998"