Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 19, 2022.

Glucose (song)[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. Jay 03:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Targets a redirect to another page which does not mention this song. Therefore also cats on this redirect are unverified. Richhoncho (talk) 23:31, 19 July 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.

Ostrich (golf)[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. Jay 02:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target, or, I think, anywhere on en.wp. This is a term for five under par which has been removed from the target article multiple times. Likely better to leave the reader on search results than have them scour the article futilely. Delete. J947 † edits 22:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted, the term has been removed from the article a number of times and the presence of the redirect might encourage more attempts to add it. It's never happened and most likely never will. Nigej (talk) 05:00, 20 July 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.

Red House (paris)[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bexleyheath isn't Paris, and there's no mention of Paris/paris at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite mysterious why the article was ever created at this title, as it seems to have been - time to delete the redirect. PamD 20:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, we do have an article about La Maison Rouge in Paris. That may be stretching things for this redirect, though. - Eureka Lott 22:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm at a loss with this one. At the time, I moved an existing article from what seemed a nonsense search term (it was before I had admin powers to delete the redirect). But, looking at the history, there's no sign that any article was ever moved, or that anything was added to the Red House, Bexleyheath article at that time (and, being 16 years and half a million edits ago, I can't recall it). Either something's been lost in the logs (I know there was a big loss of data sometime in the early 2006), or there's been a glitch somewhere. In any case, delete - this should never have existed. Grutness...wha? 03:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The closest connection that I can find is that one reviewer spent the night at one of the 10 closest hotels to the target en route to a holiday in Paris. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsensical. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:45, 23 July 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.

All Humankind[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 20:18, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason for this to exist. Even if it had a lowercase second word it wouldn't be justified, but in title-case it's referring to the name of a work, which absolutely doesn't exist. Certainly not at the specified target. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Humankind alone is a good search term, but this isn't. It's a partial title match to Destroy All Humankind. They Can't Be Regenerated. (a manga series) but it's not a useful search for that (although Destroy All Humankind might be), everything else is just sum of parts matches in the middle of phrases. I can't say for certain that a work of this title absolutely doesn't exist, but I can find no evidence that a notable one does. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 20 July 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.

Johnny Bashir[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, no meaningful results in an internet search. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:39, 19 July 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.

Local finiteness[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 Locally finite. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This can refer to other terms listed at Locally finite too. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:23, 19 July 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.

More grounding and punishment day videos, plus ungrounded ones[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 14:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just like the redirects discussed in the related discussion closed last week, these redirects may also need to be deleted since the section isn't mentioned on the article anymore (and was removed by consensus on the article's talk page). I'm open to being swayed otherwise, however, plus I did not nominate Grounded video or Grounded Videos since they're still getting good numbers of pageviews (and we should wait until at earliest 2023 to see where they're going). Regards, SONIC678 15:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Also, nominated Grounded video for speedy deletion due to the page with an s at the end getting deleted as part of the redirect discussion, but would it be better to place it as part of this discussion? Colgatepony234 (talk) 11:29, 20 July 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: TITLEABSENTBOLD[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 unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 14:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the same redirect as MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD with an extra space which is pointless. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:58, 19 July 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.

Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 26#Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions

Archbishop Ryan[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) Clovermoss (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't Archbishop Ryan therotically refer to more than one person? I don't know much about archbishops because that didn't really have anything to do with my religious upbringing, but there's likely more than one notable archbishop named Ryan at some point throughout history. It's a fairly common name. Clovermoss (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Clovermoss: This is accurate. I believe Dermot Ryan would be considered an "Archbishop Ryan" as well. Perhaps we make it a disambig? --Engineerchange (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Engineerchange: A disambiguation page would likely be useful. Thanks for confirming that there actually is more than one Archbishop Ryan. Since it's a common name, I wouldn't be surprised if there were more. Clovermoss (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Clovermoss: added a draft of a disambig to replace the redirect. --Engineerchange (talk) 02:20, 19 July 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_July_19&oldid=1100670134"