Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 3, 2022.

Msi (computing)[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 MSI. WP:SNOW retarget as an incomplete disambiguation. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly retarget to MSI#Computing, but also ambiguous with Micro-Star_International, which is not in that section. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:47, 3 February 2022 (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.

Esta e a Nossa Patrai Bem Amada[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 20:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typos, no incoming links, and all results in Google are a result of the creation of these Wikipedia redirects. Second one was already attempted to be speedily deleted in 2010, with the nominator calling it "absurd". · • SUM1 • · (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...Sure enough, and the only place I can find this misspelling on third party search engines is ... the nominated redirects. I'll just sit this one out. Steel1943 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2022 (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.

May Kinetal massacres[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. Normally I would consider a situation like this, where the nominator and only participant was CU-blocked, to be no quorum for deletion, but as the initial editor was also a blocked sock and the nomination statement's argumentss are valid, I'm going to go ahead and delete. signed, Rosguill talk 20:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect points to deleted content. It's a leftover after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/15 February 2021 Addi Geba massacre was determined "Delete". The redirect pointed to a section [1] listing the four now-deleted articles. Platonk (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2022 (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.

Fog Version[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 10#Fog Version

Khalid Abdel-Gabar[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. I will also delete Khalid Abdel Gabar for the same reason. -- Tavix (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RFD#DELETE #1. See this as my basis for this request. I was the creator of the redirects that were deleted there and my reason for this current RfD is almost identical as well with what I linked. Engr. Smitty Werben 13:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as this case is not identical at all with your case. None of the reasons mentioned in the old case fit this new one. I further do not see any points from WP:RFD#DELETE. I don't want to exaggerate so no offense but this reminds me of WP:POINT. BiggySmoov (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete so the redlinks would encourage article creation. The self-redirects at the target are misleading. There is mention at the 2022 match article, and which is not available at the target. Jay (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, these sorts of circular redirects are confusing for readers. signed, Rosguill talk 20:15, 10 February 2022 (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.

Introduction to DNA[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 20:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics and DNA are two separate pages. For this reason, the nominated redirect is misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom (and per WP:REDLINK) in case someone wants to make a more DNA-specific version. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Introduction to X" series of titles are either titles of books or papers, or non-technical articles for technical subjects categorized at Category:Articles with separate introductions. Delete as misleading as this is only a redirect, and so that we get to know DNA does not have an Intro article. Jay (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2022 (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.

Non-Hausdorff[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 Hausdorff space#Examples of Hausdorff and non-Hausdorff spaces. (non-admin closure) Heanor (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This link is misleading, as it redirects to "non-Hausdorff manifold", but any reader encountering "non-Hausdorff" will interpret this to mean a "non-Hausdorff topological space", which in general has nothing to do with a manifold. Furthermore, a non-Hausdorff space is just a space that is not Hausdorff; there is no need to have a redirect of "non-Hausdorff" to Hausdorff space either, just for being the negation of that concept. Also note that no page currectly links to the redirect.PatrickR2 (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom — I think the chance of this redirect causing actual confusion for more than a few seconds is minimal, but even that small potential harm outweighs the redirect's negligible benefit. --Trovatore (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Hausdorff space as Template:R from antonym. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would also be OK. --Trovatore (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respectfully disagree with this retarget. Looking at examples of it seems that in many of these cases, at least in mathematics, both the concept and its antonym are useful concepts in their own right (example, "anisotropic quadratic form" versus "isotropic quadratic form"). But in this case "non-Hausdorff" is just a convenient adjectival form for saying "not Hausdorff", i.e., purely the negation of "Hausdorff". This is not a concept that merits a link in itself. Otherwise, with that same logic any concept "A" would have a corresponding redirect from its negation "non-A", which is unnecessary cluttering and makes little sense. If someone wants to mention that a certain space is not Hausdorff, they can say something like "space X is not Hausdorff" without having to link via non-Hausdorff. Remember also that in this particular case no one is currently using non-Hausdorff as a link. PatrickR2 (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mx. Granger: I can understand your suggestion coming from an outsider, but note that both Trovatore and myself have advanced degrees in mathematics, and for mathematicians an economy of thought and expression (Occam's razor) is important. Absolutely no personal disrespect meant. (And I apologize if you do have a degree in mathematics.) PatrickR2 (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't feel redirects need to be kept quite so tidy. There are lots of redirects that don't serve any real purpose, but are also not worth the trouble to delete. (If I'm honest, I've created not a few of them myself.) The original target was arguably slightly misleading and conceivably worth deleting; the proposed retarget would not be (but would have negligible positive value).
        So basically my view is I'm OK with either deleting or retargeting, and I've already spent more time on this one than it's worth, so I won't be commenting further. --Trovatore (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • For what it's worth, I do have a degree in mathematics. I think a retarget to Hausdorff space makes sense, because as you said, non-Hausdorff purely means "not Hausdorff". The article Hausdorff space provides exactly the information a reader needs in order to understand what non-Hausdorff means. Similarly, Non-commutative redirects to Commutative property —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Mx. Granger: I understand what you are saying. If non-Hausdorff was already redirecting to "Hausdorff", I would not have bothered to remove it. In this case, it points to something we all agree is incorrect, namely "non-Hausdorff manifold", and this has to go. Retargeting it to "Hausdorff" amounts to deleting the incorrect redirect and introducing a new redirect to its negation (that nobody is using right now anyway). What I am saying is that last introduction is not necessary (if someone introduces it in the future for a specific purpose, they can do it at that time). Otherwise, staying in the field of topology, why not gratuitously introduce redirects for "non-compact", "non-connected", "non-locally connected", "non-regular", "non-completely regular", "non-collectionwise normal", "non-paracompact", "non-metacompact", etc, etc, etc, just in case? (rhethorical question of course) But I will go with whatever the consensus ends up being. PatrickR2 (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Note that in this case, non-Hausdorff spaces are described in the article. (On that note, I have just created a couple redirects in the spirit of Non-metrizable space.) ~~~~
          User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)           22:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to Hausdorff_space#Examples of Hausdorff and non-Hausdorff spaces - a useful search term. My suggestion is directly meaningful. Loew Galitz (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the current and proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Hausdorff space per Mx. Granger; no strong feelings about whether targeting the subsection (as suggested by Loew Galitz) is better. —JBL (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, Rename and Delete As others have mentioned, "non-Hausdorff" without further qualification usually refers to a space. In this sense, the current redirect is usually misleading. To fix this, the existing redirect needs to be retargeted. Then, to clarify the meaning and prevent misleading in the opposite sense, the redirect should be renamed to "non-Hausdorff space". Finally, because it is not used and not currently needed, it should be deleted. This way, should it be revived, it'll be revived with a good name, with the right target. --RainerBlome (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)However, so this is where pointing[reply]
  • This comment doesn't make any sense to me. If you think we should delete the redirect, why would we retarget it first? And what is the point of renaming a redirect rather than creating a new one? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:02, 12 February 2022 (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.

JimmyHere[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 per WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (creator) I made it as an inside joke to where JimmyHere looks like doogal a month ago so I could post it on the discord, the jokes run its course, delete Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 16:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly surprised it lasted that long, I've stopped making disruptive redirects now. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 16:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Creator requests deletion, with no other user making significant contributions to the page. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2022 (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.

Ningla A-Na[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 10#Ningla A-Na

History of The Church of Jesus Christ[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 Church of Jesus Christ. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vague, not a clear topic. Redirecting to anything would imply the target was founded by Jesus Christ, that it would be the assembly (church, ekklesia in Greek) Jesus Christ created, and thus would be POV. Even claiming that Christianity was founded by Jesus Christ is POV on top of being POV against every Christian denomination which believes in the One true church and other Abrahamic religions.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mx. Granger: good idea of retarget. @Laurel Lodged and A7V2: what do you think of this retarget proposal? Veverve (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this being the right option. While it is preferable, I don't think it's true that since there is no primary topic for "Church of Jesus Christ" that we automatically assume that there can't be one for this. The two articles specifically about the histories of Churches by this name aren't even linked on Church of Jesus Christ. A7V2 (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another relist attempt as there is no support for the status quo.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget as suggested There are quite a few congregation (and groups of congregations) calllinng themselves "Church of Jesus Christ" , those listed on the disam page are not all of them, and other need to be added. ` DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above, note that there is also the rather awkward dab History of the Church which I'm not sure if it is appropriate. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:32, 4 February 2022 (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.

Return to launch site[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 10#Return to launch site

Mambo Kingz[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 10#Mambo Kingz

DJ Luian[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 10#DJ Luian

Benignity[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 20:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect, because it leads to an article which describes exactly the opposite term. This can also be discussed at the Benign tumor talk page. Instead, Benign should redirect to Benign tumor. —CrafterNova [ TALK ]  [ CONT ] 09:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've added Benignity, which targets the same article, and in my opinion should also be retargeted somewhere else. Something to note is that this redirect was previously a DAB page, but was scrapped and redirected by Ajpolino to its current target last October. CycloneYoris talk! 10:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The disambiguation page Benign (disambiguation) still exists. The former version of Benignity was a dictionary definition of the word, so I redirected it to the encyclopedia topic I thought readers searching for it would actually be seeking. The basic problem is that "benign" and "benignity" are not encyclopedic topics, they're words that mean "not harmful to your health". Redirecting them instead to benign tumor is probably better, and indeed if I Google "benign" I get about a 50:50 mix of dictionary definitions and articles about benign tumors (that said, if I search Pubmed for "benign" most of the results have nothing to do with cancer...). Ajpolino (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I went ahead and tagged Benign, since it wasn't initially tagged. Regards, SONIC678 21:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to dab page. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move dab page to Benign over the redirect. I'm unsure currently about Benignity as it's entry at the dab just takes people to the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move the dab page to Benign per User:Thryduulf. Retarget Benignity to the dab page, and edit the dab page so the first listing points to Malignancy as that article explains the definition of benign in a medical context. I've also edited the dab page to provide a definition of the word "benign" and a Wiktionary link. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to wikt. That disambiguation page is invalid: there's only one entry that is not a partial title match (WP:PTM). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The medical sense of benign is not a partial title match, and it is covered in the Malignancy article, so the page Benign needs to point readers to that article in some way. So I don't think a soft redirect to Wiktionary will work. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll change to keep. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{r from antonym}}s. The current target describes the distinction between benign and malignant, and as Shhhnotsoloud points out, the disambiguation page doesn't meet our standards. - Eureka Lott 00:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As Benign (disambiguation) has been trimmed to have only one entry, and is an invalid disambiguation now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now that the disambiguation page is invalid and presumably will be deleted, I think the only reasonable option is to keep both as redirects to Malignancy, which discusses the medical meaning of benign. In the target article, we should bold the first use of benign for clarity per MOS:BOLD. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:31, 3 February 2022 (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.

Lovejoy (Band)[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 20:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually keep redirects with miscapitalized disambiguation. There's no reason this is any different. Page history isn't useful or necessary for attribution. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated recreation of Lovejoy (band) despite consensus for context wizzito | say hello! 03:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unncessary caps. lower-case band is already a redirect and can handle the ANI message. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 23:48, 3 February 2022 (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.

Mike Hart (outfieldr, born 1951)[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. As an erroneous page move to an unlikely misspelling, that lasted for less than 2 days. Jay (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling while moving article. Delete as implausible search term. CSD disputed. Bison X (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a redirect resulting from a page move error (and the creator requests deletion). Mdewman6 (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not for Plutonical's contesting of the R3, this could just be a G7 speedy. @Plutonical, the plausibility of someone missing a key isn't really what's meant by "implausible typo". Most typos are "plausible" in some trivial way, inasmuch as the average typist could easily make them. The question is if they're plausible as search terms. If you look at Quarry 62136 and ignore the vandalism-type R3s, you'll see a lot, like John. J. Slocum and Orchard Towers murders (disambiguation)), that are plausible typos for someone to make, but not plausible typos to have a redirect from. To be honest, the CSD should probably be re-worded to say "unusual" instead of "implausible". Anyways, this should be deleted. There is no particularly greater affinity for "outfielder → "outfieldr" than there is for "otfielder", "oufielder", "outielder", etc. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thank you for clarifying. Delete per Tamzin. I agree that the criteria should be changed, and maybe the word "Typo" removed altogether, since that usually refers to a typing mistake rather than a misnomer (which is also covered). ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 03:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't have qualified for G7, because of the page move provision, but would have qualified for G6 (page obviously created in error), except now it is clearly not uncontroversial. It also didn't originally qualify for R3, again because it was the result of a page move. That said, I agree that "implausible typo" is poorly understood. It should be "implausible misspelling". Typo implies, well, a typing mistake, rather than a spelling mistake, which is what is intended. Otherwise we would have redirects for every possible missing letter, every "s" replaced by a "a" or a "d", etc. and the only implausible typo would be replacing a "q" with an "m" or something. Perhaps this merits an RfC on the CSD page? We seem to struggle with this here at RfD, with some users wanting to keep any redirect that contains any spelling mistake and others wanting to delete most everything, so maybe it merits clarification.Mdewman6 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps more important than the CSD criterion, we really should consider adding a separate entry regarding "typos" at WP:RFD#DELETE. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • RFC opened at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Remove "Typo" from R3. Pinging participants @Bison X, Tamzin, and Mdewman6: as relevant to the topic ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 03:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFC is now at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#Remove "Typo" from Reword R3. Jay (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, two days as an article title is enough time for old links to develop (K4). As such, I'm wary of deleting – and keeping this redirect around doesn't exactly harm anything. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I very much doubt this low-traffic article got any outside links pointing to the misspelled title it was at for only two days. Therefore, I do not see any benefit to keeping the redirect. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's an unlikely typo in the disambiguator when the correctly spelled version exists. In addition, Outfieldr doesn't exist, and shouldn't. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely typo that should have been cleaned up from housekeeping. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Wikipedia should be intentional: we should not keep pages in Wikipedia that are here only because someone made an unintentional error here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2022 (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.

Brain Sucker[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 10#Brain Sucker

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_3&oldid=1072189789"