Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 26, 2022.

Barry David Sanders[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 23:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Sanders has no middle name. See this tweet. gobonobo + c 23:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This has existed since 2004 and as the twitter exchange you've linked to shows this was an error which appears/ed in reliable sources for a long time. So it seems a plausible search term. Redirects don't need to be correct. A7V2 (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag as {{R from incorrect name}} per A7V2. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from incorrect name}}. Some people believe that to be his name, so it's a possible search term and doesn't cause any harm to keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the tweet shows that we should not list the name in the article, but it actually establishes that we should have a redirect. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 14:01, 28 September 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 The Tropes[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 💬 12:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking feedback on where these titles (AllTheTropes/All The Tropes) should point; currently they point to a section of the target article that no longer exists, and the article doesn't mention ATT at all. If a Miraheze page existed, I'd probably redirect there since ATT is one of the most active wikis on that wiki farm, but there's just a draft currently: Draft:Miraheze. -- Arlo James Barnes 23:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist malfunctioned. Trying again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:35, 26 September 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.

Switch emu[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 Nintendo Switch emulation. Previously titled as Emulators of Nintendo Switch, which is now another redirect. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The target isn't an emu. Steel1943 (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. This redirect was created when Yuzu (emulator)—currently the only notable Switch emulator—was moved to Emulators of Nintendo Switch and expanded into an article about Switch emulation in general. That move was reverted but it sounds like the editor is considering writing a new article—and if that happens, we can recreate the redirect. However, I !voted weak delete because Yuzu, as the only notable Switch emulator, isn't a terrible target for this redirect. We could always keep it and retarget later. Just a thought. Woodroar (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC) Retarget to Emulators of Nintendo Switch now that the article's been created. Woodroar (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Keep and retarget to Emulators of Nintendo Switch (which exists as its own thing now). ostensibly singular silvia ASH (inquire within) 08:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC) "Emu" is short for "emulator", and is not intended to refer to the bird. As the editor who created the redirect, and who is spoken of above as the one who made the undiscussed change to the target page (now reverted). I might remake the general Switch emulation article as its own thing, as has been recommended to me after the reversal of the change, and if that is done, this can be retargeted. As it stands, I believe the current target is perfectly fine. However, I also don't really care if it's deleted. If it later needs to be recreated, then it can be. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 00:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "emu" in this sense doesn't refer to the bird, but a shortened version of the term "emulator", as Blankpopsicles explained. Hansen SebastianTalk 07:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Nintendo Switch emulation per above reasons. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:54, 30 September 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.

List of Graph Theory Problems[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 Graph theory#Problems. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, this article did not consist of a list of graph theory problems. It was a list of arc routing variants (which is a minuscule share of graph theory problems). Accordingly, I've merged the list to the arc routing article but now the title of the redirect makes little sense so it should be deleted. Pichpich (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • My gut feeling is that we probably should have something at this title - maybe a list, maybe a (redirect to a) list of lists, possibly a dab. However I don't have the subject knowledge to figure out whether we have the content to support that? Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Graph theory#Problems * Pppery * it has begun... 00:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Graph theory#Problems as it discusses exactly what someone searching this would be looking to find (well not exactly in list format). Potentially could be restored at some point if someone wanted to tidy it up and fill in the gaps (or perhaps start fresh) as it could be a notable topic. A7V2 (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per A7V2 and Pppery. I've also created the more-natural List of graph theory problems. Ovinus (talk) 22:39, 29 September 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.

30th Street Station (Philadelphia) (NJT station)[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 21:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The double disambiguator, especially formatted as such, makes this quite improbable. TartarTorte 21:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fundamentally confusing and implausible redirect. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not sure what's confusing about this, every NJT station has an article/redirect that contains the NJT station modifier. The double disambiguator is there because at the time of this article's creation (over 15 years ago??), the main 30th st station article also had "Philadelphia" in it. Frankly this seems like a waste of time. What problem is this effort solving exactly? I see the nominator seems to spend a lot of time nominating redirects for deletion. I can see a lot better uses of people's time than this.  —lensovet–talk – 05:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I agree with Lensovet that this is rather pointless, we're already here, and there is the minor risk someone will see this redirect and think it appropriate to create more like it. Ovinus (talk) 22:40, 29 September 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.

Iranian Revolution 2022[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 21:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

POV term not in wide use in RS, redirect caused by undiscussed page move, delete. I would have speedied this, but I know this is a controversial topic area. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. Too early to call this a "revolution". It's not even at the same scale as the 2009 and 2019 protests I think. But regardless of the scale, if this series of protests get squashed by the Islamic Republic, just like the previous ones, without any significant change ensuing from it (at least a reform of the dress code rules), then I don't see how this would be considered "a revolution" on any level.--
Ideophagous (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OP.
— Czello 20:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's not currently a revolution. The government of Iran has not changed, and nothing major enough has changed for it to be referred to as a revolution. While there are widespread protests, that's all that they are. TartarTorte 21:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least delete for now. Pichpich (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no revolution has occurred. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until reliable sources refer to these events as such. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no revolution occured yet. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 05:55, 27 September 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.

Moose (upcoming 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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back when the trailer was released, VampireKilla moved the target to its current title-while yes, the main character is named Moose, this seems to be a working title that's no longer the case. While working titles are plausible redirects, what makes this problematic is the "upcoming" after the title when it's already been released, and plus it doesn't seem to be searched as much after that huge number of pageviews in the year of its release. I'd say delete this unless someone can provide a justification or alternative course of action. Regards, SONIC678 18:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Pichpich (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We can just retarget Moose (film) to serve this redirect's purpose instead. Do any other films exist called Moose (or have an article?) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:22, 27 September 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.

The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara (film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 3#The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara (film)

Pseudo-Sonic[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 21:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A character from The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog. Not found anywhere on Wikipedia and has no reliable sources to include a mention. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the articles inclusion criteria is appearing in multiple video games. This character is from other media, and appeared in zero games (and is unlikely to, as the characters originating in other media rarely make it into any games. As such, it'll never have any business being mentioned in the target. Nor is it likely to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One other possibility could be to retarget to Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog#Main episodes since Pseudo Sonic minus the - is the title of one of the episodes in the show. Regardless, the current target is not the correct location for this.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that list is restricted to video game characters only, that article should be renamed as the title is misleading due to Sonic having long been a multimedia franchise with many characters who never appear in the games. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was formerly titled List of Sonic the Hedgehog video game characters 2A02:9B0:8022:2EFC:CD34:80D4:CD91:8044 (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the title I'd expect with the list's scope. Was there an explanation for the change? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article name was changed once all the other Sonic character lists (cartoon, comics, etc) were deleted/redirected for notability reasons and there were no other lists to disambiguate it from. And inclusion criteria were created at the remaining article to help keep all the non-noteworthy characters from flooding that list too. Sergecross73 msg me 01:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable character that isn't referenced in the list being redirected to, so a pretty worthless (potentially confusing) redirect. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 14:39, 28 September 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.

Crocbot[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 21:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the character on Wikipedia. No reliable sources to warrant a mention. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the articles inclusion criteria is appearing in multiple video games. This character is from other media, and appeared in zero games (and is unlikely to, as the characters originating in other media rarely make it into any games. As such, it'll never have any business being mentioned in the target. Nor is it likely to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the article is restricted to game characters only, "List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters" is an awful name for it since the franchise has long been known for its multimedia ventures. It should be renamed. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I’ll make a move discussion. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Here Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable character that isn't referenced in the list being redirected to, so a pretty worthless (potentially confusing) redirect. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 14:39, 28 September 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.

Auto-Automatons[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 21:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently some robots from the Archie sonic series. Couldn’t find anything about them on Wikipedia or any reliable sources. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the articles inclusion criteria is appearing in multiple video games. This character is from other media, and appeared in zero games (and is unlikely to, as the characters originating in other media rarely make it into any games. As such, it'll never have any business being mentioned in the target. Nor is it likely to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 17:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable character that isn't referenced in the list being redirected to, so a pretty worthless (potentially confusing) redirect. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 14:39, 28 September 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.

JRR Tolkien/Sindarin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 3#JRR Tolkien/Sindarin

Plessie[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 3#Plessie

Swoop (Mario)[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 21:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn’t find anything about a “Swoop” in the article, nor in any other article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 15:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete....no mention. I used to play Mario all the time and I've never heard of this character. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor recurring enemy that isn’t well known.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not mentioned. Jontesta (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable character that isn't referenced in the list being redirected to, so a pretty worthless (potentially confusing) redirect. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 14:42, 28 September 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.

Pom Pom (Mario)[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 21:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention anywhere as far as I know. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete....no mention. Seems less plausible for inclusion than Plessie. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak retarget or delete. Pom Pom is an extremely minor character first appearing in Super Mario 3D Land, though she is not listed there. She is listed as a playable character at Super Mario Party. If this is too obscure still, delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TNstingray (talk • contribs) 13:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable character that isn't referenced in the list being redirected to, so a pretty worthless (potentially confusing) redirect. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 14:42, 28 September 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.

Cyborg Wart[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 21:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing relating to a “cyborg wart” in article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - apparently a fake magazine from Super Paper Mario, but it is not mentioned there, either. Since it is a minor plot device/gag that is not mentioned anywhere, it serves little purpose ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above, minor trivia unlikely to ever be searched or mentioned in the target. Sergecross73 msg me 17:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it’s a fictional comic mentioned only mentioned once in passing by a single character in Super Paper Mario.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obscure fictional item per abovementioned findings. --Lenticel (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Jontesta (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable character that isn't referenced in the list being redirected to, so a pretty worthless (potentially confusing) redirect. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 14:43, 28 September 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.

Mouser (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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 21:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention anywhere. Only one mention in Super Mario Bros. 2 but it is small. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not covered to any significant extent and I don’t believe it the single mention on the Mario 2 page that it was replaced by a robot Birdo in the GBA port would be useful info for someone looking the character up.--67.70.24.37 (talk) 21:58, 26 September 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.

Upcoming film redirects targeting subject related to director or actor[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. Legoktm (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sympathy for the Devil (upcoming film) could equally point to Joel Kinnaman, who is also apparently slated to star in this film. The Bricklayer (upcoming film) could equally point to Nina Dobrev or Aaron Eckhart, who are apparently slated to appear in the film. Revolver (upcoming film) could equally point to Maya Hawke or Ethan Hawke, who are apparently slated to appear in the film. Does not make sense to point this redirect to only one of the various notable people who will be part of this subject. (Also, see Draft:The Bricklayer (upcoming film) or Draft:Revolver (upcoming film).) Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Redirect from film to director.
Paradoctor (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This comment refers to Revolver (upcoming film) and The Bricklayer (upcoming film), unless stated otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Paradoctor (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This comment refers to Sympathy for the Devil (upcoming film), unless stated otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paradoctor: If possible, please provide a guideline, essay, or previous discussion(s)that states this is precedence. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We redirect from creative works to their creators all the time. Unless the work is notable on its own, that's where I expect to find encyclopedic information about the work, as opposed to the narrow view from a production employee. Paradoctor (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paradoctor: Thanks for the explanation behind your rationale. As such, I just reviewed the verbiage of {{R from work}}, and since the template includes the verbiage "...or subject related to the work..., I believe there could be an equal claim that this template could be used for an actor slated to appear in the film. There's not really any evidence that I can see that proves the director of these subjects is what the reader is looking for when searching these terms; without this solidified connection, this redirect poses the WP:XY ambiguous issue I had stated in my initial rationale. (Also, I'm going to attempt to merge all of these discussions since I think repeating the same statement on all is a bit cumbersome for both of us.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    merge all of these discussions I'd appreciate that. Paradoctor (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done: Discussions merged together. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you.
    First, I didn't say that the director of these subjects is what the reader is looking for. I said that is where information about the work belongs and is expected to be found.
    there could be an equal claim Not at all. XY would apply among actors, sure. But the director is the unique, central role in a production. They are the author, they decide who works on the film, and they decide what the finished film looks like. Everyone else's contributions are subordinate to that.
    On a different tack, let's assume the film was released, but is not notable. Following your reasoning, we couldn't have any redirects from films to actors or directors. Paradoctor (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I follow your rationale, but there's still the issue of multiple choices of targets. Why not target, say, the production studio or producer, for example instead? Those could potentially be as closely connected to these subjects as the director. And even then, films have been notorious at times to change directors while in production. In addition, the aforementioned actors in my nomination statement also have their respective films mentioned in their filmographies, meaning the films are mentioned, but apparently not identified by more than just their name, in multiple articles. This is why I was hoping that either there was a policy/essay or precedence in place for this already; as far as I can tell, there's really no established place where these redirects should target, meaning the default resolution would be to delete them. Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Film producer: the director makes the creative decisions during the making of the production, the producer typically manages logistics and business operations Fine print aside, the director calls the shots about what the end result looks like.
    potentially be as closely connected to these subjects That's fine print. Edge cases exist, but they don't define the norm.
    change directors while in production Also fine print. A film can have several directors, so we decide on the merits of the case. The norm is one director, and AFAIK, this is the case with the three redirects under consideration.
    the default resolution As I pointed out before, that is not what in practice happens. I note that you didn't address my "different tack", either. The way I see it, what you are asking here for is a substantial policy discussion. Paradoctor (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "that is not what in practice happens" ... That's the problem, I don't see any information about what happens in practice anywhere. My "default resolution" is in regards to what usually occurs to redirects that are deemed ambiguous per WP:XY, such as the issue I see with these. Steel1943 (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943, strengthened by the fact that "upcoming" redirects are WP:COSTLY due to the maintenance burden associated with them when they go out of date. -- Tavix (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as no appropriate target. I am not convinced that the director's page is what readers are looking for, or should be looking for. Jay 💬 18:20, 4 October 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.

NPGP[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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did a search but could not see how this redirect and the target relates. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is an abbreviation of "North Pacific Garbage Patch", an alternative name for the target. I've added a sourced mention of that name to the lead (it was already used in a picture caption, but not introduced). The primary topic on Google is the National Poverty Graduation Programme (a programme of the Pakistani government), but we have absolutely no content on that at all. If we do get content about that (it seems notable at first glance) then this redirect can be retargetted there and a hatnote to the present target added but until then this is the most helpful target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Idoghor Melody: NPGP means North Pacific Garbage Patch, see for instance this Nature article which uses the acronym 41 times. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, who first described the patch, in 1988) explains at https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/podcast/mar18/nop14-ocean-garbage-patches.html that the North Pacific Garbage Patch is one of several other patches, there is another one in the South Pacific Ocean for instance. Syced (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the above comments have provided sufficient evidence that such term is used. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it is used and we don't have an alternate target for the search term. Hut 8.5 18:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "North Pacific Garbage Patch" is used quite a bit so I think we should keep the redirect from the acronym. Pichpich (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as initialism of an alternate name, now that it is in the article. Might also tag it as R from avoided double redirect to North Pacific Garbage Patch. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 06:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Keep, Keep, Keep, Keep, Keep, KEEP! - NPGP = North Pacific Garbage Patch, which has since became the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which in turn is only one of two "Pacific Garbage Patches" with the other being the South Pacific one. Hansen SebastianTalk 08:09, 27 September 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.

1.19.84[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 3#1.19.84

Lydia Winters[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 21:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not in target article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak retarget to Minecon, where she's mentioned twice. I say very weak because "on X date, Y said that Z would happen", when Z is an event that has since happened (or failed to happen), is bad writing and as such those mentions may well be removed someday. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 14:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - she apparently works for Mojang Studios, which created Minecraft. Her tweets (not RS quoting her tweets, the tweets themselves) are cited in the Minecon article but that does not create a logical basis to redirect there. If she is notable enough for mention at Mojang Studios or another article, that would be one thing, but that does not seem to be the case at this time. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 16:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 06:03, 27 September 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.

Netherite[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 List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and subatomic particles per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not in target article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget – Tamzin's suggestion is perfect. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:59, 26 September 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.

Mooshroom[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 List of fictional ungulates#Video games. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 16:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used or mentioned. It is tagged with r from page history but I can’t find anything relating to a merge. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:49, 26 September 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.

Glaucomflecken[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 3#Glaucomflecken

Sperrung[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 12:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FORRED and nom. This is a German word that according to Wiktionary generally means "blocking" or "closing off", but in the context of psychiatry is use to mean specifically "thought blocking". There appear no particular affinity between thought blocking and the German language, and the word was removed from the article in 2020 by Desertarun with the explanation "no need for foreign language translations or explanations thereof". The word does appear elsewhere on the English Wikipedia, but only in the title of German-language references but at least mostly in the general sense (e.g. blocking of websites, tunnels and railways), indeed it's worth noting that de:Sperrung is a disambiguation page (there appears to be no article about thought blocking on the German Wikipedia). Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I wondered if this was a word introduced by a German psychiatrist but it doesn't look like it and the German Wikipedia has a disambiguation page for the term. Hut 8.5 11:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looked like an attempt at a German dicdef. Desertarun (talk) 14:01, 26 September 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.

Stone, Marshalll[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 12:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from 2004 with typo in title (triple L). (Stone, Marshall exists and redirects to Marshall H. Stone.) Tea2min (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This seems pretty unlikely to help with navigation if misspelled, which is generally the purpose of Last name, First Name redirects. TartarTorte 18:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Implausible typo in this form. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 06:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 06:58, 27 September 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.

Template:Db-substub[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 12:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of policy. Sub stubs do not qualify for speedy deletion under criteria a1 because they are sub stubs - A1 if for articles where it is impossible to determine the intended topic. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's quite possible for a sub-stub to be eligible for A1 speedy deletion, although I'd have said A3 (no content) was more likely and A7 is likely not uncommon either. However, it is also possible to write a sub-stub that doesn't meet any speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete misleading. Ovinus (talk) 22:24, 29 September 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.

P500[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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 16:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to P-500 Bazalt. This is much better, as I requested for creating the redirect page P-500, which will redirect to that page. 176.88.86.128 (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:15, 26 September 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.

Delaware Valley River[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 21:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These terms are unused in parlance and are unlikely to be searched for. The Delaware Valley is a term referring to the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area. The Delaware River is a river that runs on the Eastern border of Pennsylvania dividing it from New Jersey and New York. TartarTorte 18:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Since the valley takes its name from the Delaware River running through it, these redirects do seem properly targeted, though I agree there utility is likely minimal. There is also Delaware River Valley which targets Delaware Valley, though you could make an argument it too should target Delaware River, since it discusses the Upper and Central valleys that are not included in the primary usage of "Delaware Valley" which refers specifically to the lower valley near Philly. It looks like hatnotes and links between these two related topics could use some enhancement. It may also be useful to open a discussion regarding Delaware River Valley at Rfd pending the outcome of this Rfd discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:11, 26 September 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.

Noitaton hsilop esrever[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. While a minority of editors argued that the existing redirect could be useful, the !vote differential is large enough (8 to 3) for me to close this in favor of deletion, given the absence of a basis for discounting deletion arguments. signed, Rosguill talk 21:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#Noitaton hsilop. CiaPan (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A sibling redirect reported at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_18#Noitaton Hsilop Esrever. --CiaPan (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And another one at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 24#Noitaton Hsilop esrever. --CiaPan (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the same arguments apply as to the twice-deleted Noitaton hsilop. If anything this is worse because it's less concise and writing "reverse" in reverse doesn't make sense as part of the joke; it's like a double negative. (Perhaps this discussion should be merged with one at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Noitaton Hsilop to keep everything in one place. Are there more redirects like this?) – Scyrme (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yez, it doesn't have to "make sense" as part of a joke, it doesn't have to be funny, we don't have to explain jokes (actually, we do not), it only must make sense as a potential search box input for the redirect to be valid per our guideline WP:REDIR. And that's what it does because as odd as it looks "noitaton hsilop esrever" and its variants are actually used in a few real-world publications (in a supposed-to-be humorous sense, yes, but, again, that's completely irrelevant). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the point stands: everything that applied to the other redirect applies to this one; the added text doesn't make it better. – Scyrme (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scyrme: I disagree that this should be merged into Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Noitaton Hsilop since the redirect nominated here is not solely capitalization mismatch since an extra word is included in the redirect's title. Too much of a WP:TRAINWRECK risk. Steel1943 (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You will find hits for it in Google and even in a few (printed) publications, so people occasionally run into the term (in upper- and lowercase variants) in the real world wondering what it is, then turning to Wikipedia and rightfully expecting to get an answer. If we don't have an entry point for it, we are doing them a disservice and leave them uneducated - this is against our goal to create an encyclopedia for everyone to use. Our normal procedure for misnomers like this is to create a redirect to the correct term and tag the redirect with the special rcat {{r from misnomer|correct term}} (as we already do), so that it cannot be confused with a "proper" term. The rcat allows for automatic bot correction of the term if someone would link to it. Per our criteria for redirects WP:REDIR, this redirect cannot cause any kind of confusion as we are explicitly telling users that this is not the official term. It will be only entered into the search box by people running into the term in the real world, and for them, it is clearing up the confusion they are under by pointing them to the correct term per guideline WP:R#KEEP #3 and #5. This is not weaking Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, but strenghening it, and by deleting the redirect, we would not improve Wikipedia in the slightest, but making it less reliable. Therefore, keep. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mattiaspaul's comprehensive reasoning in both discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These arguments are the same as those raised in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#Noitaton hsilop, and the same counterarguments apply.
    No-one is under the impression that "noitaton hsilop esrever" is a serious misnomer, "official term", or alternative name for this topic, so this a proposed solution to a fictional problem. All the hits are using it in the context of a joke, and joke redirects are a Pandora's box; redirecting jokes to related topics because it can be argued that the joke is common enough is a bad precedent. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or joke book; it is not the job of an encyclopaedia to clear up confusion about jokes. The phrase "noitaton hsilop esrever" does not appear at the target and is not a serious term relevant to that article. The redirect has no educational value because it's simply the phrase "reverse polish notation" backwards, not an actual topic which could have education value and therefore adds nothing to encyclopaedic coverage of the topic; the encyclopaedia is not weakened by its absence or strengthened by its presence. – Scyrme (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pandora's box is as irrelevant here as it always is - the existence or otherwise of one redirect has no bearing on whether another should or should not exist because precedent is not binding and we evaluate every redirect on its own merits. Wikipedia's job is to clear up confusion (that is one of the main reason people look things up in an encyclopaedia), and it doesn't matter if that confusion stems from a joke, an academic research paper, a headline in the gutter press or anywhere else. When someone comes across this, doesn't know what it means, and looks it up here they will be taken to the article that educates them that the reference is to "reverse Polish notation". That's educating them right there, especially if they don't know what reverse Polish notation (which is quite probable if they don't get the joke immediately). Everything that helps readers find the content they are looking for strengthens the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#Noitaton hsilop. Same issue/problem applies. Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is even less likely than noitaton hsilop as this doesn't even properly do the joke. It's reverse reverse polish notation, which should just be polish notation. These redirects are not helpful even in their current state and if the community cannot agree on whether the joke is to redirect to Polish Notation or Reverse Polish Notation than this joke, and therefore the redirect, is ambiguous under WP:XY. With regards to WP:REDIR, I can't find any of the arguments under Wikipedia:RPURPOSE that would justify the existence of this redirect. TartarTorte 20:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, we don't need a redirect here just because a few people have made a joke once. Highly implausible. eviolite (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless and funny on-topic joke used in the real world. —Kusma (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a stupid joke is not by itself reason for deletion, but when there is nothing more to it than the stupid joke, I don't think this serves an encyclopedic purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per previous discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too obscure and boring of a joke, not mentioned at the target article. People encountering the phrase in the wild should enjoy figuring out the meaning for themselves. Ovinus (talk) 03:45, 30 September 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.

Iraq scandal[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 04:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous scandals that could be labelled as "Iraq scandal". I think the inclusion criteria could be a bit hard to develop if DABified, but it's a possibility. I am also ok with deletion as this seems to be broadly unused. TartarTorte 02:39, 26 September 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.

The Silmarillion/Sindarin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 3#The Silmarillion/Sindarin

[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 War flag. Jay 💬 12:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. It's mentioned briefly at the end of a section in Hulk, but so briefly that I don't think a redirect to that page would be suitable. signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:09, 26 September 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.

Student Search Service[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 04:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SSS is a program of the College Board for high school students that "is an opt-in program that provides your contact information to colleges, exposing you to schools, scholarships, and opportunities — and filling your mailbox." It is not mentioned in the article, certainly not in the linked section, nor elsewhere on enwiki. MB 00:59, 26 September 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.

Mistapeo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 3#Mistapeo

Azerbaijan dictator[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 3#Azerbaijan dictator

France is bacon[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 04:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"France is bacon" is a mondegreen, but is not mentioned there. I don't really like Francis Bacon or Scientia potentia est either as neither give a sufficient explanation. MB 00:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added the longer version which was created 7 years ago with an edit summary or "per reddit". It is just a confusing. MB 00:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia (or Wikiquote). Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A classic. I don't see any RS coverage of it to justify a mention anywhere, though, so yeah, delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 13:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm seeing a couple of mentions of the meme (it apparently resurfaced enough in 2019 for them to take note) in sites like The Poke that are not unreliable, but are also hardly bastions of in-depth journalism and there is also a 2013 article in the Global Times reporting on a similar emergence on Weibo (although Global Times is deprecated for being a tabloid that publishes fake news and Chinese government propaganda, I strongly suspect this particular story is neither). However these don't establish sufficient notability for a mention imo. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:05, 26 September 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_September_26&oldid=1218749073"