Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 7, 2022.

An American Revolution[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 13#An American Revolution

Romani people in Iceland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was deleted by Ponyo per G5. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Iceland / Andorra at the target, or of Romani people at Demographics of Iceland / Demographics of Andorra, Delete unless a justification can be provided.

Note that these redirect entries suggestion came up during the Romani people in Afghanistan RfD. Jay (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add information. this Council of Europe document (section II paragraph 13) states that, as of 2002, there were "no Roma living in Andorra, Iceland and Malta." Other google hits show that this is outdated (based on other hits I'd guess the first arrived circa 2010-2016), there are some notable Icelandic/Iceland-based researchers into Romani topics so I would be amazed if more detailed information about the local population were not available to those who spend more time looking. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until information can be added other than a statement that no Romani live in these locations. If the scope of the article is Romani diaspora, it does not need to exhaustively list places where Romani do not live. signed, Rosguill talk 21:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rosguill. I am in agreement regarding the scope of the article. -- Tavix (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:11, 7 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.

Serbo-Romanian[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Serbo-Romanian

History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism[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 22:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seem to be a former Christ myth theory OR article which was blanked and used as a redirect. I feel the redirect is not useful to anyone.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would be opposed to that because it obfuscates the namespaces. The history is article content, not talk page discussions. -- Tavix (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The former article at that title has very little to do with the current target. There were two sections, "Osiris-Dionysus" and "Mithras Sol Invictus", neither of which are even mentioned at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have a hard time believing such a lengthy name is likely to be a search term for anyone. Especially with all the variables involved - hyphens, slashes, commas, the use of "4th" instead of "fourth", etc. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form (preferably as is, least hassle), has to be kept for attribution. It was merged; compare [1] and [2]. Doesn't matter if it's not in the current article; previous revisions need to be attribution-compliant also. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only current revisions need attribution, and this is clearly noted in the disclaimer at the bottom of old revisions: This version of the page has been revised. Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains factual inaccuracies, vandalism, or material not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. -- Tavix (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to subpage or to new redirect (maybe History of the Christian religion?) All content on Wikipedia must comply with copyright, and that includes old revisions. The disclaimer is not an invitation to create copyvios (attribvios), any more than it's an invitation to engage in vandalism. Regarding Tavix' concern about using talkspace, things can be made quite clear here: Move to something like Talk:History of Christianity/merged content/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism, blank it, and replace with a link to this RfD. Then make a dummy edit to the article to clarify the new attribution. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Moved discussion to more visible log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:07, 7 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.

Howl around[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 Video feedback#"Howl-around" and Doctor Who title sequence. MBisanz talk 01:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what is going on with these redirects. The target article does not have the word "howl" anywhere in it, and the article referenced in the hatnote on the the target page, the article Audio feedback, has a variation of the word "howl" in it, but the phrase in that article is "howling sound". In the present state of both of these articles, it's not clear what the phrase "howl around" or variations is supposed to help the readers find ... considering whatever this subject is, it is not mentioned nor identified in either article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising that it isn't mentioned in the article considering that the Doctor Who title sequence was one of the most prominent uses of the technique where it was widely known as "howlaround" or "howl-around".
Considering I was the one who created the redirects I should have spotted and addressed that at the time.
Keep, as I've now updated the article to include this use; maybe the redirect should go to that subsection, or maybe not?
Ubcule (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:06, 7 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.

Acmegenesis[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 unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Term not mentioned at target article, nor anywhere else on Enwiki. A Google search does indicate that this is in fact a synonym for "orgasm", but since there's no mention anywhere, then I don't think readers would find this useful. CycloneYoris talk! 20:56, 7 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.

Fucks per minute[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 15#Fucks per minute

Mass formation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 1#Mass formation

Tianshu meat[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. MBisanz talk 01:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, zero results on GScholar. Internet search results suggest that this is the name of a dish in the game Genshin Impact. N.b. that Tianshu appears to mean either "gift from heaven" or "gibberish" depending on context; either way, it does not appear to be a name for Dongpo pork and should be deleted unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Many people just start to know Chinese cuisine (including dongpo pork) through the game Genshin Impact. They will search "Tianshu meat" instead of "Dongpo pork". Besides, there are several videos on youtube branded "Tianshu meat" that teach you how to cook dongpo pork, such as this.--Oxygen-dioxide (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit concerned that this could mistakenly lead readers to believe that Tianshu meat is a common or standard name for dongpo pork, when that does not appear to be the case. In the absence of information at the target about Tianshu meat in Genshin Impact (and based on an internet search, it does not appear to be WP:DUE to include any information about it at the target, as coverage of Tianshu meat seems limited to blogs and fandom wikis), I still think the redirect should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 14:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relist to add analogous redirect Fullmoon Egg
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all: no mention a the targets, no RS appears to support this use. Veverve (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. --Thesmp (talk) 19:05, 17 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.

Ulster Unionism[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) Heanor (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

retarget to Ulster loyalism. Heanor (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. In Northern Ireland, loyalism is only one type of unionism. The very first words of Ulster loyalism are "Ulster loyalism is a strand of Ulster unionism..." Note (a) "a strand of" implies a subset (b) the "Ulster unionism" wikilinks to Unionism in Ireland. See also CAIN Glossary entries "Unionist" and "Loyalist". (There is a separate argument to WP:SPLITOUT "Ulster unionism"/"Unionism in Northern Ireland" from "Unionism in Ireland", in which case all the listed redirects would point to the new subtopic page.) jnestorius(talk) 19:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per jnestorius. Loyalism is only one type of unionism.
Why didn't @Heanor read the first sentence of Ulster loyalism before proposing that all these pages be redirected there? That basic preparation would have taken only a few seconds, and avoided wasting the time of other editors and cluttering up page histories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • BrownHairedGirl, but in the lead of the Ulster loyalism is written that Ulster nationalism is part of the Ulster loyalism. And Ulster unionism is in a direct opposition to Ulster nationalism because one want independent Ulster and other not. --Heanor (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Heanor: You have shown very little understanding of this complex topic, and this page is not the place to give you a foundation course in the history of Ulster politics.
    The opening 8 words of the article Ulster loyalism (Ulster loyalism is a strand of Ulster unionism) should have shown you that your proposal is completely misguided. Now that you are aware of that basic error, please just withdraw this daft proposal. That will avoid wasting any more of the time of other editors. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per jnestorius. Loyalism is a subset of unionism, while unionism in Ireland covers the whole of this topic, alongside some discussion of unionism in the rest of Ireland. Warofdreams talk 20:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: completely misguided as well as factually incorrect. Please withdraw this proposal as quickly as possible, as per BrownHairedGirl. --RFBailey (talk) 23:46, 7 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.

Pet Fishsticks[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. Given the lack of participation and history of the page, we can treat this as deletion by PROD and a WP:REFUND may be requested. signed, Rosguill talk 22:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Seems to be an album by the subject of the target article; this redirect is a {{R with history}}. Steel1943 (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It's probably more of an EP than album and it's from 1983. It certainly existed, but it's most likely never going to meet WP:NALBUM to justify a stand-alone article. Something about it probably should be added to Steve Dahl#Music perhaps using this as a source. Just for reference, it was prodded for deletion by me in 2018, but got deprodded and converted to a redirect here. I don't remember the relevant discussion, but perhaps the intent was to add something about the record to "Steve Dahl" as part of the post-redirect cleanup and nobody just ever got around to doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The PROD alternative suggested was to redirect, not merge-and-redirect, and there was no post-redirect cleanup expected, except for a non-free image.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:12, 7 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.

Elf cat[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 24#Elf cat

Giorgi Tughushi[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 12:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry. In use on Khatuna Kalmakhelidze, Presidential Order of Excellence, Sozar Subari and Giorgi (name). Apparently a notable Georgian politician, but I could find no article in Georgian WP. Delete to encourage article creation. Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MB 16:03, 8 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.

Hayrullah Kefoğlu Anadolu Lisesi[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. MBisanz talk 01:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was redirected due to a lack of notability. The target article doesn't mention the school though and it's unlikely it ever will beyond just the name of the school, if even that. So it's pointless to have a redirect. Adamant1 (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and propose deletion. This was BLAR'd four years back as non-notable, we don't know what has changed. Jay (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable enough. --Thesmp (talk) 19:06, 17 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.

MOS:CAPTION[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12#MOS:CAPTION

"F" word[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 F word. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 09:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "F" word → Fuck  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • I think it should be redirected to F word. Q28 has 5K edits *ଘ(੭*ˊᵕˋ)੭* ੈ✩‧₊˚ 08:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should have a short statement that "the F-word" is sometimes used by someone who needs to tell someone that someone has said/written "fuck" but reluctance or circumstances prevent him from saying/writing the word himself. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anthony Appleyard I added a note on the dab page stating that it's often used as a euphemism, is that what you were thinking? --Bonoahx (talk) 10:16, 7 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.

Lists of Nintendo[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. ✗plicit 05:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A user hyperactively spammed a lot of articles, contrary to discussion and consensus and common sense, was deemed a sockpuppet, and was blocked for all this. Then, all those articles which had been copied from their source were idly redirected to the source. I'll cite WP:DENY and WP:R#DELETE #8, because these are totally useless and meaningless, there is no reason to expand them into an article, and are not even particularly valid search terms. Thank you!

Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 18:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Until now, none of the redirects were tagged: All {{Rfd}} tags have now been placed on all the redirects, and all appropriate {{Rfd2}} templates have been added to this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all All of these redirects are logical titles for their subjects and they all go to the section that has what the reader is looking for. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all These titles exactly describe the content to which they redirect, and are probably the most likely thing someone would search to find this content. Mlb96 (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All per above. THE Pizzaplayer!TALK TO MEE!! contribs 14:08, 7 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.

Ford Buick[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 Automotive industry in the United States#The Big Three automakers. MBisanz talk 01:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no connection between Ford and Buick apart from being competitors. Seems to be a case of WP:XY. The edit summary when this was created a week or two ago gives no clues as to what its intended purpose was. Suggest delete. A7V2 (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dislike retargeting to Automotive industry in the United States#The Big Three automakers though I think someone searching this is likely under the impression that a Buick is a model of Ford so may be better served by search. Also note the only link to this redirect is at List of Pawn Stars episodes where it is either an error (hard to tell without a citation) or referring to some custom made car with parts from a Ford and a Buick, so again not looking for the suggested target. If retargeted I think that particular link should be removed. A7V2 (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can indeed be found as a blue link at List of Pawn Stars episodes § Season 8 (2013) (episode #248), where it seems to be referring to some sort of one-off hybrid. It is a nonsensical link in that context and should be de-linked. However, I still see merit in this redirect overall. Havradim leaf a message 06:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ford Buick is now gone from Pawn Stars jnestorius(talk) 22:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:35, 7 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.

GM Card[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 WP:AFD. Consensus is that AfD is the correct venue for discussing the history of this page. (non-admin closure) eviolite (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to do with this one. It was initially created as an article, then at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GM Card it was closed as a redirect to GMAC (now a DAB) which was later moved to Ally Financial. It was later recreated as an article, and then redirected, this time to General Motors. It is not mentioned at General Motors or Ally Financial so I would prefer deletion, though perhaps it could be restored and sent back to AFD? A7V2 (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not mentioned at any of the above links, along with GM Flex Card, another phantom redirect. They do not appear to be notable in any real way. Havradim leaf a message 04:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and send to AfD. The concerns that led to the WP:BLAR really should been dealt with at AfD, and there does not seem to be a mention to point to currently. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and PROD. It seems very unlikely that this would be kept at AfD, but not so unlikely that I can justify a !vote of delete here (which I reserve only for cases where the pre-BLAR page would likely be SNOW deleted). I'd just as soon not waste editor-hours at AfD, so let's just PROD it and see if anyone challenges. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD. The standard for deleting content at RfD is whether it would be subject to speedy deletion if restored to an article, and this would not be. The reason PROD does not apply to redirects is that they are significantly less watched than articles, this is less likely to be the case with a former article but I'm not comfortable with restoring an article just to PROD it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If restored, I think it would be best to retarget GM Flex Card to this so it can share the same fate rather than require a separate RfD (which I was going to open when it looked like this was going to be deleted but have held off due to the change in direction of the discussion) if GM Card is deleted at AfD. A7V2 (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If this discussion were newer I'd just add it to this one, but as it's already overdue for closure that seems pointless. If this discussion is relisted again then it can and should be added at that point. If it isn't relisted and the outcome is something other than delete then I'd say go ahead and retarget unless someone objects (I don't). If you do retarget and someone does open an AfD then I recommend noting your action in that discussion for maximum transparency. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD. --Thesmp (talk) 13:49, 18 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.

Brothers and Sisters in Christ[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 14#Brothers and Sisters in Christ

The Death of the Moth[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 13#The Death of the Moth

Racer Chevrolet[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 13#Racer Chevrolet

Three centres/Five centres[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. MBisanz talk 01:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those sentences are way too vague to refer to anything precisely - many things have three, four or five centers (e.g. a place having phone centers, economical centers, administrative centers, rehabilitation centers) -, and even less to refer to this obscure book.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. These terms aren't explained in the article as being alternative names: "three centers" isn't even used in the article, while five centers is used once while explaining a term, but not as a term itself. A standard google search of the terms does not bring up any hits specific to the redirects' target (except the wikipedia article). These redirects seem unlikely to aid users in finding the article they could have been looking for. Grk1011 (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Three Centres and Five Centres to their pre-BLAR revisions. Retarget others to these accordingly. If / when these new targets are deleted, delete the redirects. Jay (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all these redirects, too vague. --Thesmp (talk) 19:03, 17 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_7&oldid=1074577964"