Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 25, 2022.

Baroness Brightman[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 John Brightman, Baron Brightman. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no evidence for use of this title. FDent (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 25 March 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.

Three Powers Agreement[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#Three Powers Agreement

La Mega[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 2#La Mega

Sony Pictures Universe of Marvel Characters[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. Seems there are sources that show variations of this name to be a former working title of the target subject, so never mind. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem as though the target contains a list of characters, leaving here redirects possibly misleading and/or unhelpful. Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While this is true, the reason why these redirects were created was because the first two were, at different points, official names for what is now known as Sony's Spider-Man Universe. They are proper titles that people still associate with the franchise, and it is far more likely that anyone who searches those names does so with the intention of finding the franchise rather than a list of characters. Babspage (talk) 22:35, 25 March 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.

Free fuel[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 23:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biofuel is not free; has old history, but that history is worthless as it's ramblings about putting used cooking oil in your car's gas tank. Does not seem to be a reasonable synonym of the topic. Hog Farm Talk 21:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Was nominated for WP:CSD#G1 (validly in my view), but instead of being speedily deleted was redirected to its current target. I agree with the nom this redirect is not appropriate for its target, and is at best ambiguous. If the content in the page history is eligible for speedy deletion, then this page should therefore be deleted. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess since the content is "understandable" it is debatable whether it qualifies for G1. Nevertheless, clearly this would not survive a deletion discussion. Treat the blank and redirect as an expired PROD and soft delete in that case, if there is no appropriate redirect target. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps WP:CSD#G3 would apply as blatant misinformation, given that one cannot directly use oil to power a vehicle, as it must be chemically processed first, as described at Biofuel. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are cases where this is possible, as described at Vegetable oil fuel. So this would be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A10 except it was not recently created. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete people call solar power "free fuel", so it's not just used restaurant deepfryer oil. There's also free as in stolen, and free as in a disbursment or giveaway, that have happened to, such as support the economy, or a war effort. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an appropriate redirect.--Srleffler (talk) 23:43, 27 March 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.

You'll get your rent when you fix this damn door![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 23:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 3#Give me your rent and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 25#Give me rent; which this seems to be related to. Both of the others ended in definite consensus to delete; I don't see why this should be treated any different. Hog Farm Talk 21:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not a notable quote. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have a hard time believing anyone comes here searching specifically for that quote without already knowing what movie it's from. DonIago (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obscure quote. --Lenticel (talk) 06:51, 27 March 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.

Navy comm[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 23:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could also refer to Navy Command, amongst other subjects. However, "comm" could also be shorthand for "communication", etc. Deletion would probably be more helpful to allow search results to provide better results. Steel1943 (talk) 21:35, 25 March 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.

Unmentioned fictional creatures in King Kong (2005 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 23:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several fictional species of dinosaurs (and more?) that are not mentioned in the target article, leaving the readers to find nothing about these subjects. Also, the inclusion of these subjects on Wikipedia in their capacity (if I remember, a lot of these subjects were mentioned in the film for like a split second, then the film carried on) would potentially be considered a WP:NOTFANDOM violation. Steel1943 (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - It's never been entirely clear to me where the names for these creatures are originating (they certainly aren't named in the film itself). I question the canonicity of them for the film specifically, and I have a hard time believing that anyone's looking for information specifically about one of these creatures, or that we'll ever have enough content on one of them to make an article-level search for them especially worthwhile. I guess I should note that Skull Island does include some discussion of the creatures in this film, but that could always be found without the need for a redirect. DonIago (talk) 01:59, 26 March 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.

Kong references in King Kong (2005 film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 3#Kong references in King Kong (2005 film)

Eye for an eye(Fran Drescher)[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. Hog Farm Talk 20:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, and properly spaced variants (title spaced from disambiguator) do not exist. The subject of this redirect seems to refer to a song released by Fran Drescher in 2009, but even if it was included, this redirect would be problematic per precedence regarding such redirects due to the spacing issue. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 25 March 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.

Clearstor(e)y[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 2#Clearstor(e)y

Monomer(s)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#Monomer(s)

Warcraft(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. Hog Farm Talk 18:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB; the properly spaced title, Warcraft (Film), exists and is a redirect towards the same page as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 17:56, 25 March 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.

Zilla(1998 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. Hog Farm Talk 18:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful redirect, given that Zilla (1998 film) and Zilla (film), as well as "Zilla" not being an alternative/former title for the film. (The redirect Zilla (Godzilla) exists, which is why I'm stating the film.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 25 March 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.

Radical Feminism: Feminist Acitivism in Movement[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 (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misspelled title of a book by the author who's the subject of the target article, but the book isn't mentioned in that article, so this is (1) unlikely to provide much useful information to the reader who searches for it, and (2) given the misspelling, unlikely to be searched for much at all. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:55, 25 March 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.

Snake Farm Insurance[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 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to mainly be a meme and erstwhile insult, doesn't seem to be worth redirecting to the target. Hog Farm Talk 15:37, 25 March 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.

Pontastacus[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 converted to an article on the genus.. Jay (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the redirect page because Pontastacus is a currently accepted genus and not anymore a synonym of Astacus NotImportant-Biology (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ "WoRMS - World Register of Marine Species - Pontastacus Bott, 1950".
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.

Myles Ponsonby, 12th Earl of Bessborough[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. Hog Farm Talk 18:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myles Ponsonby, 12th Earl of Bessborough (2nd nomination) was to delete, not to redirect. Pilaz (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the idea of a redirect was never raised – I didn't think of it – and was thus not rejected. It does no harm, and it is a place-holder in a category. HandsomeFella (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If editors had wanted a redirect (a common outcome in AfD discussions, including in nobility-related discussions), they would have said so. You rushed to create a redirect 9 hours after the AfD closed. If you want to challenge the result of an AfD, WP:DRV is the place to go to. Pilaz (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "If editors had wanted a redirect"? I am an editor, and I wanted a redirect. I saw the PROD, but must have subconciously assumed that there would be one by some sort of default. When I realized that a redirect had not been left in its place, I created one. I didn't "rush", and there's no big mystery or conspiracy. Please assume good faith. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is creating this redirect a challenge to the AfD? HandsomeFella may agree that the topic is not notable, but it is still worthwhile to the community to redirect to the Earl topic for anyone looking for this person. Natg 19 (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the AfD. Veverve (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you elaborate, are you saying delete as non-notable? Jay (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is nothing precluding a redirect after an article is deleted. A search term may not be notable to have an standalone article, but a redirect to an article that mentions the topic is a perfectly fine choice. As I can see, Myles Ponsoby is mentioned at Earl of Bessborough, so this a reasonable redirect. Natg 19 (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mentioned in article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the target properly mentions the subject. The AfD participants neither rejected nor discussed about redirection. Jay (talk) 10:18, 1 April 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.

Untitled Neutral Milk Hotel 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 retarget to In the Aeroplane Over the Sea#Track listing. Basically just refined the current target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to think of any reason for this redirect. Nor able to think of any reason for it's creation, Do we need to be swamped by 'Unnamed songs by XXX' - There's already too many 'Unnamed albums by XXX' When did it become OK to ignore WP:CRYSTAL? Richhoncho (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • When did it become OK to not check what year an album was released, or look at its track listing, before invoking CRYSTAL? :P This is an album from 1998, the 10th track of which lacks a title and is generally referred to as "Untitled", "[Untitled]", or "(Untitled)" (or lowercase-u variants thereof). The only issue here is that there is also a more obscure untilted NMH song apparently included in an issue of Ptolemaic Terrascope, mentioned at Neutral Milk Hotel discography § Miscellaneous. I'm having trouble finding RS for that—concerning for a featured list!—but based on [1] (from that magazine, in the right timeframe, about NMH, but not mentioning an included record) and [2] (purporting to be the song) and various non-RS mentions (fan sites etc.) I'm pretty confident it's not a hoax. So refine to track list, with hatnote to Neutral Milk Hotel discography § Miscellaneous. If anyone can find a proper cite for the other "Untitled", that'd be stellar. I'll take a deeper dive later myself, if I can remember to. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine per Tamzin, as the nom seems to be based on a false premise (that it's an announced song that has no publicized name yet, rather than an established song that is literally untitled). eviolite (talk) 01:38, 2 April 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.

Jschlatt[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per REDYES. This could be its own article. There's currently a draft about it, but even if it gets rejected, I think this redirect should still be deleted. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 04:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@QuickQuokka: That really doesn't make any sense. If the draft gets accepted, then the redirect will be moved or something to make way for it. If it is rejected for notability concerns, then why should we have a red link when it's unlikely for an article to get created in the first place? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not per nom. As the draft says, he is more known for Minecraft. Dream SMP mentions him in reference to L'Manberg. It is not fair to redirect the topic to One True King only. Jay (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: Do you mean to !vote retarget then? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to Dream SMP per Jay's response. L33tm4n (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I meant delete. It is not fair to either topic. Jay (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jschlatt is a co-owner of OTK according to the article about it. The nominator didn't respond to my question as to why it would be good to have a redlink for an article that wouldn't likely be created from it.
    If Jschlatt wasn't a co-owner of OTK, then I could see why a retarget to Dream SMP (where he is also mentioned) would make sense, but it's pretty standard practice for redirects to be created from a business's owners. I don't follow the logic that because two targets could make sense for a redirect, then we should target neither of them. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Firstly, Jschlatt is more closely associated with OTK nowadays than DreamSMP (I think he fictitiously died in the smp?), so I oppose the notion to change the target to Dream SMP. I assume the nominator just wants the redirect to be a redlink, which doesn't make sense, when there are 2 related topics associated with the subject. As well, the nominator might be misunderstanding WP:REDYES, because that policy is about adding redlinks to articles for subjects that could have articles, not about deleting redirects. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 22:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are ways to delete the redirect speedily if his article is ever approved through AfC. No reason to delete it for that reason, and it is linked to the target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Jschlatt should be its own article. other youtubers of his notoriety have distinct articles, and it seems strange that he doesn't. 2603:6011:2DF0:8850:1978:7DE3:A2FE:3140 (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2024 (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.

Start point[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 Start Point. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This might also be reasonable to redirect to Starting Point (disambiguation). I'm not really sure that redirecting this to restriction point is going to provide the most utility to users. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an entry for Restriction point there. The dab page already disambiguated the two meanings, but by retargeting we are just saying there is no primary topic (i.e., shouldn't be a primary redirect to restriction point). Mdewman6 (talk) 20:21, 1 April 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.

TDEE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#TDEE

N,[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 25#N,

Shelby Harris (supercentenarian)[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 for now. If there is consensus to widen the scope of the article past 100 or a way has been found to mention him somewhere, feel free to restore it. As an aside, I would be interested in a record progression type list of oldest men. Perhaps one could be created, which would provide content to redirect to? -- Tavix (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harris is no longer mentioned at this list of American supercentenarians. It looks like this was originally an article, but was merged into the list article. But since he is no longer in the top 100 longest living supercentenarians, he has been removed. It seems unhelpful to have a redirect to a page that does not contain this person (either in prose or in the table). Natg 19 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelby Harris closed as "merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States" in 2015, with a comment that there was a "pretty strong consensus that this should not exist as a standalone article". Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget if mentioned somewhere, otherwise delete. I would have suggested mentioning them at Rock Island, Illinois#Notable people and retargetting there - it's clear from the references on the former article that he was notable person in the community, but that section determines notability solely on the basis of having a Wikipedia article. The article states he was "a native of Ayrshire, Indiana", I wouldn't object to redirecting to a sourced sentence there, but given how short that article is I'm unsure how DUE that mention would be? Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - apparently not worth mentioning in longevity-related articles anymore, and certainly a mention in a community article would be undue per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people, which flatly states To be included in a list of notable people, individuals must still meet the notability requirements per WP:PEOPLE.. eviolite (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Here is the old page that was merged into the list. The list now keeps track of only the top 100 oldest. I find it interesting that Shelby Harris was the 3rd oldest man in the world and was fully the oldest man in the United States at the time of his death, but now doesn't even merit an entry in the list. I kinda want to restore his article for that feat... he once was clearly notable, does notability really go away just because 100 more people out aged him? He used to be #1... this isn't a rhetorical question. Is notability once notability forever, or is being eclipsed grounds for being forgotten? Fieari (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. There are all sorts of other record holders, in sports, in wealth, and so forth, who we would keep despite the record once held being long surpassed. BD2412 T 00:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with this assessment. When the AFD occurred, there was already a section on Harris at the target. I can understand for whatever reason the list part of the article needs to be kept to some number of people, but why would semi-notable people be removed from the article entirely. I would support restoring the section and refining there. A7V2 (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the discussion after the first relist raises valid points for preserving content about this person and similar individuals somewhere, but given that there's been no movement to actually add that somewhere, and that any effort to do so would be a battle against prior consensuses to remove the content, I don't think we can hold up this discussion indefinitely. Content can be undeleted if necessary if consensus changes. signed, Rosguill talk 21:06, 17 April 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.

George C. Nield[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 Blue Origin NS-20. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the target article doesn't mention the person at all. He was associated with that office in the past, which can be discussed in a new article about him in the future. At the moment the redirect is just confusing readers. He is going to fly to space soon, which could lead to more material for an article. mfb (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget if mentioned somewhere, otherwise delete. I believe I was the one who created the redirect, which would indicated Nield was represented/mentioned in the article at the time. He played a rather seminal role in the entire creation and management of the (newly formed) NASA office of Commercial Space Transportation; is mentioned in many many reliable source articles in that role; and would clearly be worthy of an article if that info were to be collated and curated. Wikipedia has many articles on people of far less impact on the world. Nevertheless, if such info is not found, such that nothing on him is in Wikipedia, then probably should be deleted until such time as it is. N2e (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Blue Origin NS-20 which has a mention. Jay (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:11, 25 March 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.

Teleaid[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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created as a redirect to Maybach (a subsidiary of Mercedes-Benz) then retargeted a few months later on the basis that "The system is available in all Mercedes-Benzes, why should it redirect to Maybach". Not mentioned at either article and I don't think any is justified. There are mentions at Car phone and a few Mercedes models such as Mercedes-Benz W140 (note that this one includes it as the redlink TELEAID). Looking online it is possible that this topic is notable but in any case with no suitable target I think delete. A7V2 (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to helpline, many helplines (hotlines) are described as tel-aid, tele-aid, tel-aide, tele-aide, etc -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about this being appropriate. Searching this and related terms on Google gives me only hits for the Mercedes product (at least as far down as I bothered to look). I'm not convinced these terms are used generically. A7V2 (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Remove Benz from your search -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still didn't find any usage of this term generically, all were particular brand/company names, none of whom are mentioned at the suggested target. And there were other things too, such as a tv repair company [3] and a prison telephone [4]. A7V2 (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the current target is too broad, and there seems to be no other plausible target. Oppose the suggestion of Helpline, unless User:65 or someone else can show references of the term being used so. I too didn't find any with my searches. Jay (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:07, 25 March 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.

Audi Q6[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 20:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a perpetually "announced" model. Of course there is no mention at the target. Created in 2011, though there are sources saying this car will be made in 2018 [5] and now more recent ones like [6]. Delete unless mention can be added somewhere, possibly at Audi e-tron (2018) since I think that may be the model that the first article I've mentioned is referring to (indeed it is reference number 7 from that article). A7V2 (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of Audi vehicles per Andra Febrian and tag as {{R with possibilities}}. According to this source an Audi Q6 has been announced for the Chinese market. Bonoahx (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why would we retarget it there if there is no mention? "Will be announced" is a very clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. If and when mention is added to the list, or if if there is enough sourcing to justify an article then it can be recreated. Having these rumours around is all the more reason to delete since they make this a more likely search term, and someone searching this would then be taken to a list, they would then probably look through the list only to be disappointed and have wasted their time. A7V2 (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It does not help the reader. Jay (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify and restore to mainspace if/when the model is announced. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 05:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL. --Srleffler (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The redirect can be re-created once relevant content is added to any article, but until that moment, the redirect is unhelpful. I don't think I see a need for draftifying: there's no article history here, this has always been a redirect, and only preserving a redirect's history in draftspace doesn't seem worth the extra complexity. – Uanfala (talk) 20:31, 17 April 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_March_25&oldid=1219287370"