Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 2
May 4 >

May 3[edit]

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

Kamila Khodjaeva[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 20:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect redirect. Kamila and Diana are two sisters, not one and the same person. Tvx1 23:46, 3 May 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.

🥲[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. Withdrawing my own nomination. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another redirect which needs a better target, since the current one is way too broad and unhelpful for readers. CycloneYoris talk! 23:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If a better target is found, then fine, but never delete. Gonnym (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: per my rationale above, I'm not even remotely suggesting deletion. Not sure why you seem to be implying that I have? CycloneYoris talk! 01:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you thought it was directed at you. There were a few recent RfDs where some editors voted to delete, so I'm just making sure whatever the outcome is, the emoji redirect isn't deleted. Gonnym (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Gratitude: The emoji generally seems to represent either being proud or being grateful. It seems that pride is more easily covered by gratefulness than vice-versa, but this is almost could be an XY to me. TartarTorte 12:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is an ambiguous facial expression that I really don't think we're going to find a better target for. signed, Rosguill talk 20:31, 14 May 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.

🐱‍🚀[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 16#🐱‍🚀

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor[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 20:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are the only pages named "House Speaker/Majority/Minority Leader (X)". No incoming links for Boehner or Cantor, one for Pelosi. WP:CHEAP notwithstanding, these redirects seem unnecessary unless each and every former position-holder also has a redirect with their title and name. These ones don't help readers searching for the current position-holders. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unlikely search term, if someone already knows the name and position of a person they can just go to the name. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:19, 12 May 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.

Campaign sorting[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. Appropriate explanation given, no need for RfD. signed, Rosguill talk 00:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "sorting" at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill Campaign sorting is a commonly misspelled term for campaign sortie, a political rally used in different dialects of English. Frequently used in election rallies and gatherings, hence a campaign sortie, or in this case of common error, a sorting. The redirect of an erroneous word is pointed to campaign rally to guide readers based on Wikipedia:Redirect pertaining to "likely misspellings". --Likhasik (talk) 22:28, 3 May 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.

History of institutions[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 19#History of institutions

Perrie Edwards (British singer)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 11#Perrie Edwards (British singer)

Hammer (substitution)[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 20:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what the disambiguator "(substitution)" is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The closest explanation I could find is that when you need a hammer and do not have one, you can use replacements (source). Veverve (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There was some content at his page that was BLARed about using different things in place of hammers and using hammers as substitutes for other tools, but it would not survive Afd. A redirect to Hammer is just confusing and a poor WP:ATD. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The history of this article does not need to be preserved. It's not encyclopedic and involves seemingly a set of other deleted (substitution) articles. TartarTorte 13:11, 6 May 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.

Felipe Daneluz[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 20:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is strongly related to the subject matter but this person has developed other video games covered on Wikipedia. I don't understand why it should redirect to this article specifically. There's an argument to be made here but I believe it's somewhat problematic. LBWP (talk) 15:11, 3 May 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.

Sonic Rift[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 20:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article or any other Wikipedia articles related to it. I haven't been able to find any information relating "Sonic Rift" to the subject through online searching. Have no idea what this is even referring to. LBWP (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. Veverve (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I did a Google search and apparently this was a fan comic: [1] As far as I can see, the person who created this redirect 10 years ago added one paragraph about the topic to this article: [2] and then immediately removed it.[3] BOZ (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This fan comic is 100% NOT NOTABLE (Especially since it is a FAN COMIC and it has NO SOURCES.) so it to be Deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzaplayer219 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if the findings above are correct (and I believe they are) then it does not deserve a mention in the current target, or probably any other I can think of. Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per rationale. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 15:51, 10 May 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.

Sonic drift 3[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 20:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article and misleading. The subject matter was never intended to be a sequel to Sonic Drift 2. The two games only share a tangential relation in franchise and genre. LBWP (talk) 15:11, 3 May 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.

😕[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 10#😕

Dharmapuri, Kerala Assembly constituency[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a mistake made by the editor while renaming the article. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:57, 3 May 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.

⋺[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. ✗plicit 12:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another wiktionary redirect targeting a blank page. My thoughts are the same as they were in the nomination below, unless wiktionary gets a proper entry this should be retargeted to something local or deleted. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and I'm not keen about non-standard Wiktionary entries either so I'd prefer not to link to them. -- Tavix (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – a definition has been added to the target, so it's now an ordinary Wiktionary entry. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per d:Q87524963. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liuxinyu970226: How does the existence of a wikidata item for this character show that these are useful redirects? Also I don't understand why you linked this redirect to the wikidata item. Given that this page is essentially a redirect telling people to go look on another project it would be better to link the wiktionary page directly? 192.76.8.70 (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:23, 3 May 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.

⋵[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. ✗plicit 12:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another mathematical symbol redirect that targets a blank wiktionary page. In my opinion one of three things needs to happen here: a) Wiktionary gets a proper page that actually explains what this symbol means b) we find some local content to point the redirect at or c) the redirect is deleted. Telling our readers to look at a page on a sister project that consists of nothing except a mangled version of the unicode character name and a message that someone needs to write a proper entry is worse than useless 192.76.8.70 (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and I'm not keen about non-standard Wiktionary entries either so I'd prefer not to link to them. -- Tavix (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – a definition has been added to the target, so it's now an ordinary Wiktionary entry. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:22, 3 May 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.

011000100110100101101110011000010111001001111001[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 12:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's Binary in binary. It had 10001 pageviews in the past 1011010 days, compared to 100001011100101011 for the target. A similar redirect 01000010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 was deleted in 11111011010. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete because it is a joke. I almost just deleted it myself, but it had been deleted and restored twice before, so it needs to just be dealt with this way. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obscure joke --Lenticel (talk) 07:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is clearly not "binary" in binary. Binary is just a number, and cannot spell anything. Rather, this is a binary encoding of a specific character encoding method, so is not the topic of the target. Rather it's EBCDC or ASCII or UNICODE or whatever, rendered in binary for "Binary" -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete clearly doesn't mark what encoding this is using, which would mean different things in different encoding methods -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and WP:SALT per the above. BD2412 T 02:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt and WP:DAFT per all above. This is a wonderful joke, but a terrible search term (it would be very hard for a casual reader to go convert in the letters of the word binary into the binary version of what seems to be UTF-8 and type each digit one by one without making any typos). However, this redirect title is freaky enough that it ought to get commemorated somewhere. Duckmather (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BJAODN was deleted, though there seem to be successor pages -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 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.

Floyd Parton[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 12:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is rather unhelpful due to lack of content and specific mention in the target article. It seems the subject of this redirect is once in the article, but not by their full name, but rather "Floyd Estel". The only information in the article regarding this subject is that they are a sibling of Dolly Parton and that they are deceased. There are more than 10 family members mentioned in the target article, but this is the only one which redirects here and the information in the target article is lacking information. In addition, this title was an article for about a month in 2007 that was WP:BLAR-ed to target its current target. Steel1943 (talk) 08:15, 3 May 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.

Political beliefs of Elvis Presley[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 11:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any such material about Elvis' political beliefs anywhere in the target article, leaving readers who search these terms left with finding nothing. However, the redirect Political beliefs of Elvis Presley was formerly an article that was apparently WP:BLAR-ed as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political beliefs of Elvis Presley in 2008. Steel1943 (talk) 06:59, 3 May 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.

U swivel nunchaku[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 11:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. There was an article at this title for 5 months in 2008, but then it was WP:BLAR-ed. Per the history of the redirect, seems the subject of this redirect was unnotable and/or a hoax. Steel1943 (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of mention at the target, unless a reliably sourced mention is made. Veverve (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:35, 4 May 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.

Outdoor products[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 11:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect can be misleading since there's several items/products that can be used outdoors that are not tools, such as ... outdoor decorations, light fixtures, etc. Steel1943 (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDYES and the target being misleading per nom. Also, some equipments can be used indoor, e.g. laboratory equipment. Veverve (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of content about outdoor products and outdoor product companies on enwiki, but no single target suitable for this term. Current target is clearly inappropriate (not all outdoor products are equipment, and not all equipment is used outdoors). If anything is to exist at this page, it should be a broad concept article. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Excessively ambiguous. A7V2 (talk) 01:38, 4 May 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.

Tools and equipment[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 11:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP:XY issue, but honestly not really sure with the way Equipment is currently written. Tool and Equipment are two separate articles, but the latter is ... currently a list of lists of the former's topic? So, with that, I'm not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: WP:XY indeed. Veverve (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per XY. I agree Equipment needs some help. Right now it's pretty much an incomplete category page rather than an article. But the XY issue is likely to persist regardless, because tools and equipment are not equivalent. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:21, 3 May 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.

Middle length staff[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 10#Middle length staff

Nagayari[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 11:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Per mentions of the redirect on Wikipedia, the "nagayari" seems to be some sort of polearm, but not clear what type of polearm it is. The closest subject in name and type I could find with an existing article on Wikipedia is Yari, but the phrase "nagayari" is not mentioned there either. Steel1943 (talk) 05:42, 3 May 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.

Math mode[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 TeX#math mode. ✗plicit 11:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well refer to TeX#math mode. 1234qwer1234qwer4 05:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on whether Mode (statistics) or TeX#math mode is the primary topic for "math mode". (Apparently a Google search prefers the latter and a DuckDuckGo search the former.) Whatever this redirect targets, however, the other should get hatnoted to to avoid a surprise. Duckmather (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck out my previous !vote. Upon further reflection, I realize that "math mode", when referring to TeX#math mode, is a coherent and grammatical phrase; however, "math mode", when referring to Mode (statistics), is merely throwing together the words "math" and "mode" together bag of words-style. Retarget to TeX#math mode and a hatnote to Mode (statistics) (again, still to avoid surprise). Duckmather (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to TeX#Math mode, which is clearly the primary topic in search engine results. Felix QW (talk) 15:14, 6 May 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:RFDC[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. ✗plicit 12:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting to reach WP:Closure requests i.e. "Requests for discussion closure". Very little use, and seems like WP:RFDO, WP:RFDCO, and WP:RFD/C are better shortcuts to the current target. Figured it would be worth considering the best target here. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The shortcut has been targeting where it currently does ever since the redirect was created in 2016, so there's a good chance of the shortcut being referenced in edit summaries. Also, it goes to where I would expect it to go in order to match WP:RFD/C since in most cases, shortcuts with slashes usually match the equivalent without a slash. Best action here would be to put a hatnote at the top of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes referencing Wikipedia:Closure requests and call it a day. Steel1943 (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am fine with keeping, just wanted to see what others thought. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:59, 3 May 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.

Andrew Anglin (American Journalist)[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) 09:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unhelpful redirect. Andrew Anglin is (as per his WP article) an American neo-Nazi, white supremacist, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, Holocaust denier, and editor of the website The Daily Stormer. "Journalist", even as a redirect, gives this neo-Nazi troll undue credit and professionalism. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Andrew Anglin as a useful search term. See WP:RNEUTRAL: the title of a redirect need not be accurate. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 08:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how useful this is as a search term, as I don't think anyone would be thinking of him as a journalist. Looking further, the original article under the "journalist" heading also seems to be created by a blocked/compromised user. QueenofBithynia (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with J947's retarget suggestion a distant second choice. Redirects are cheap, but this one has no claim to usefulness. No mainspace links, and readers using the search bar will have it after typing in "Andrew Anglin". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there aren't currently any other notable Andrews Anglin, so there's no need for a disambiguated title, and the current circumstances lend it undue prominence in search bar result. The spirit of RNEUTRAL is to allow for access of topics that could be commonly referred to by various contentious names, not to license unnecessary disambiguators that will only serve to confuse readers. signed, Rosguill talk 20:23, 14 May 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.

Talisa García[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 retarget. Restored the Talisa García article and retargeted the second redirect Talisa Garcia there. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this redirect serves any purpose. Yes the actress was on that show, but the article has almost no information on the actual actress. If I'm searching for information on the actress, being redirected there doesn't really help me. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe the redirect should be deleted, but there's WP:BEBOLD. Especially given her recent casting as the first trans actress in a Lucasfilm production, I would imagine someone could simply delete the redirect and start the bare bones of a new article for her without getting spanked. LibrarianDaemon (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objections to someone starting an article for her. She actually had an article at one point before being redirected [4]. If someone wants to recreate an article for her, go for it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This and numerous other articles needs to stay. This whole scheme of over-deletion and relegation to "Draft" spaces is mis-guided. Stubs should be left alone.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @14Jenna7Caesura: Striking your "keep" !vote, since you apparently voted twice. CycloneYoris talk! 09:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @14Jenna7Caesura I'm completely confused about your argument for keeping it. It's not a stub; if it was, I wouldn't have nominated. It's a redirect to a show that the actress was once on. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keeping the redirect increases chances of article creation because unregistered users can create a stub.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    14Jenna7Caesura That isn't really a valid reason to keep a redirect. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Delete.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore pre-BLAR version. The page was BLARd as a non-notable subject, and not because of problems in the page content. This RfD discussion suggests that she is notable and deserves her own article. Jay (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Everyone seems to be ignoring the second redirect, so relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article per Jay, without prejudice to AfD. signed, Rosguill talk 20:10, 14 May 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.

Software versions[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 11:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable software releases that are not mentioned in parent articles. No incoming links on enwiki or on Commons. Joofjoof (talk) 01:20, 3 May 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.

Redirects combining an ® with a parenthetical disambiguator[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 11:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous nomination of redirects containing trademark registration symbols, there was an absence of consensus to delete based on the possibility that editors would come across these names and symbols in the wild and copy/paste them into our search bar. However, the chance of an editor coming across a term with a registration symbol combined with a Wikipedia-style parenthetical disambiguator is substantially diminished. This set of redirects presents a much clearer case for deletion. BD2412 T 00:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. At the least, the combination of a trademark symbol and a disambiguator is implausible. Steel1943 (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I commented keep in the recent previous discussion, but (unless a compelling argument to the contrary emerges in this discussion) I find the reasoning about the combination with a parenthetical disambiguator to be convincing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't object to deleting these. I can't imagine how there would be several Roundup® we need to disambiguate. Invasive Spices (talk) 3 May 2022 (UTC)
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_May_3&oldid=1089666938"