Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 4, 2023.

World War II/Infobox[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 16#World War II/Infobox

Kang Zhan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 14#Kang Zhan

Testimonies about Effectiveness of Chinese Army[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 💬 16:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to there seemingly not being any testimonies in the target article, the wording of this redirect could be considered vague since the Chinese army is no exclusive to the target article's subject. (Also, Testimonies about Effectiveness of Chinese Army is a {{R with history}} that was an article fit a few months in 2005 prior to a WP:BLAR occurring.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Combat actions of the 8th and 4th Route Communist Armies[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 15#Combat actions of the 8th and 4th Route Communist Armies

Testimoines about combat actions of 8° and 4° Route Communist Armies and other units of chinese forces[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 💬 16:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the "Testimoines about combat actions of 8deg and 4deg Route Communist Armies" part of these redirects being accurate or not, but the "and other units of Chinese forces" part leaves the question "What units of Chinese forces?" since that question seems to be unanswered at the target, and in itself is vague anyways due to the use of the word "other". Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I think it's safe to delete these. See my comments above. Graham87 03:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Now ancient. There was a great deal of Empire of Japan-related material contributed in the early days - 2004/5 I suppose - from a pair of editors based in Peru and Panama, in a strongly Spanish-inflected form of English. It all needed a complete rewrite and referencing, by current standards. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Buddhism and other religions[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 11#Buddhism and other religions

North Street School[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. Move the former page to North Street School, Fielding. Jay 💬 16:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

North Street School is a very general name and there could be many schools with that name. Google's first results are a Greenwich, CT school anyway. PalauanReich (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate: I propose changing the redirect name to North Street School, Fielding, for the reasons above, as per the convention for New Zealand schools that share names with other schools in other countries. Paewiki (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Luoshanji[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 Luoshanji, disambiguate Kangzhou. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per point 8 of WP:R#DELETE and WP:RFOREIGN. Creator left an edit summary stating these are colloquial Chinese names for the targets. Redirects in a language other than English that point to articles not directly related with the language should be deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of Kangzhou at Administrative divisions of the Tang dynasty now, nor was there mention earlier when IP made the above comment or drafted the dab. Hence, the dab will not satisfy DABRED or DABMENTION. Jay 💬 18:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in fact there is a mention, you need to expand the collapse box in Administrative divisions of the Tang dynasty#Lingnan. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, thanks for confirming. I had searched more than once within the source of the article and had not found it. Perhaps there was a trailing space in my search text. I had first searched with "Kangzhou (Tang dynasty)" as it has to be a redlink in that article per DABRED. However I see it piped to Deqing County, Guangdong which does not have a mention of Kangzhou. So do we remove the piping and make it a redlink? Jay 💬 05:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the piping should be removed per WP:EASTEREGG. The links in the "Prefecture" column are a mix of actual links to ancient administrative divisions (we have a whole Category:Prefectures of the Tang dynasty) and piped links to the roughly-corresponding modern administrative divisions; the latter should really be in a separate column. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jay 💬 08:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Heavy metal in Islamic countries[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. signed, Rosguill talk 05:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The words "Islam" and "Islamic" are nowhere in the target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "heavy metal in Islamic countries" is likely a notable topic (a Google search reveals several decent sources, in addition to those cited within the old article). However, the stuff in the old AfDs is very much not my area of expertise, so perhaps we should send the old article to WP:AFD or WP:DRV instead? At the very least, we should bundle Heavy metal in Muslim majority countries, since I think that's the main focus of attention here. Duckmather (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "heavy metal in Islamic countries" could refer to uses of and/or contamination by heavy metals (such as copper or mercury) within the territory of Islamic countries, which isn't a topic we cover either. Duckmather (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Heavy metal in Muslim majority countries should be bundled here, as the target has mention of predominantly Muslim countries. I wonder if Steel1943 had looked for Muslim at the target, or only for Islam. If Steel1943 is fine with Duckmather's REDYES argument for deletion, he may modify the nomination rationale and bundle the other redirect. Otherwise that may be a separate nomination. Jay 💬 06:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay: I agree that the "Muslim" redirect(s) should not be bundled here because ... Regarding you stating: "I wonder if Steel1943 had looked for Muslim at the target, or only for Islam.": It cannot be assumed that all readers make an exclusive, synonymous connection between the words "Islamic" and "Muslim". In fact, I can tell you for a fact that I don't, and honestly have no interest to discover the connection between the two words. In other words, I don't see any issues with similarly-titled redirects that include the word "Muslim" instead of "Islamic", especially considering that the section this redirect targets has incoming redirects that contain the word "Muslim", but unless the article is updated somehow to even vaguely connect the two words in this section and/or do even a bare bones explanation of why "Islamic" can refer to this as well, the redirect can be considered unhelpful and potentially confusing in the article's current state. Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is a useful redirect. It's not linked from any other article, I don't think deleting will help in article creation. However someone may start up a Draft:Heavy metal in Islamic countries to see the potential. Jay 💬 05:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The target has a paragraph of relevant content, the redirect is an {{R from move}} for something that may one day be restored. If someone wants to recreate the article or challenge the ancient AfD result, they should by all means go ahead, but I don't think that should be bundled with the outcome of this RfD. – Uanfala (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Influences of other musical styles on Heavy Metal[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 14#Influences of other musical styles on Heavy Metal

Washington Law[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. signed, Rosguill talk 05:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential to get confused with Law of Washington (state) ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 14:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add hatnote per WP:DIFFCAPS. The law school is the more plausible target at this capitalization. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Disambiguate as proposed by anon, who notes that there are multiple law schools that this could refer to. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: My first though, as someone who is not American, was that Washington Law would be referring to the laws of the state of Washington. I don't think that the current target would be the expected result for a number of people who would search that term. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate mainly given the ambiguity with the Washington University in St. Louis School of Law [1]z. Given that we need a dab page anyway, Law of Washington (state) and Law of Washington, D.C. can also be added there, though I agree that if those had been the only two other entries this case would have been better handled by hatnotes per WP:DIFFCAPS. Note that Washington School of Law and Law of Washington are also both dabs. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate for the law of the State of Washington, and the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Federal Law; and the law school -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Washington law (uncapitalized law) redirects to Law_of_Washington_(state). Would a capitalized version of this cause additional confusion? Wozal (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One has to target the other if one of them is the dab page. I would have bundled Washington law to this discussion, but this is a recent redirect created by a participant after this RfD was created. @Hey man im josh: since your vote was disambiguate, did you want the capitalized title to be handled differently from the redirect you created? Jay 💬 15:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: Nope, handle them the same. I'm in favour of both the capitalized and uncapitalized versions pointing to the same place in this case. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig, but merge with the Law of Washington dab page which will become just a subset of this so it seems best to dab both titles on a single page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: So how does this work? Washington Law becomes the super dab page, and the current dabs Law of Washington and Washington School of Law become redirects to Washington Law? Jay 💬 15:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, one of the pages (I don't have a strong preference which one) disambiguates both/all terms and the other(s) redirect to it. I'm not sure about merging the law school dab in, but I don't object to that. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

EX Lup variable star[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 EX Lupi. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 17:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These two redirects about a type of pre-main-sequence star, of which EX Lupi is the prototype, should point to the same target. The former is obviously inappropriate, while the latter is a synonym not mentioned in the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a synonym per se - EXors are a sub-class of T Tauri star, which should be mentioned in T Tauri star. There's also EXor variable star, which is currently also a redirect - ideally that would be expanded into an article about the sub-class. The article on the specific star had not been written at the time the redirects were set up. For now, I would redirect all three (EX Lup variable star, EXor and EXor variable star) to EX Lupi, unless/until there's an article on the whole sub-class. Modest Genius talk 11:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Football at the 2022 Asian Games - Men's tournament[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. Editors advocating deletion present stronger arguments and have a numeric majority. signed, Rosguill talk 05:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The target article lacks any coverage of the men's football tournament of this event independent of the sport itself, thus this is not yet a redirect that is helpful to the reader. It should be created closer to the time. There does not seem to be any better target either – probably the best is the search results, which offer the reader a choice between the current target and Football at the Asian Games. J947 † edits 08:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Nine Regional (disambiguation)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 08:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is now, no mention of Nine Regional, in the redirect target. I think this redirect should be deleted. Regards, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 08:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Color Lines (Loop)[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 / retarget to The Loop (CTA)#Operations. There isn't a strong consensus between retargets, but a consensus against the status quo. (non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 17:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are a bit odd as they have two places they can target. One is the line itself, every one of which's article describes its path as going through the loop, or its current target. It is also possible that these are just implausible redirects and could be deleted instead of trying to find an appropriate target for them due to lack of usage. TartarTorte 19:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • None of these have mainspace links, and they receive few pageviews. However, redirects are cheap, and these could be conceivable search terms. If we were to keep these (as opposed to deleting them) I would suggest retargeting each page to the relevant line's "Route" (or equivalent section):

An anchor tag could possibly be added to the relevant portion of the Pink Line's station listing for greater clarity. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A single new target suggestion has come up following the relists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

We Will Not Reconcile[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) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 18:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While this phrase is apparently associated with the Syrian opposition based on internet search results, it's also a general phrase used in other contexts. Deletion seems appropriate unless a duly-sourced mention can be added to the target or elsewhere on Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 04:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • https://npasyria.com/en/90591/ this source was included in the article for some time. One of the rebel militias, HTS, codenamed the clashes with this name. I am not sure why this was removed, as NPA is widely considered an acceptable source. I'm adding it back in unless someone has a reasonable objection. 11:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAmericanWarlord (talk • contribs)
  • Keep as mention was added back per above. Jay 💬 07:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Braille Extended-A[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 💬 07:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia, not finding any helpful internet search results. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 04:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have no idea what that's all about. There is an Under-ConScript Unicode Registry "Braille Extended" Block that is mentioned at the target. "Braille Extended-A" has the format of a Unicode/character encoding block, but it is a non-existent one. Full disclosure: I am the contributor of the "Braille Extended" block to the UCSUR. VanIsaac, GHTV contWpWS 05:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Wilco (Star Wars)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 04:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Rosalind the rover[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 Rosalind the rover, Delete Franklin the rover, No consensus on Rosalind Franklin the rover. Jay 💬 06:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:PANDORA; we don't have redirects for English the language or Mercury the element nor do we need them. An anonymous username, not my real name 19:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Rosalind the rover, delete the other two. "Rosalind the rover" seems to have coverage as an alternate name ([2],[3],[4]); the other two don't. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rosalind the rover, delete the other two per Edward-Woodrow. Why has WP:PANDORA not been formally killed yet? Contrary to the misinformation it espouses, we judge redirects on their own merits not on whether our crystal ball predicts that other redirects that have some unspecified similarity with a different redirect might be created potentially using the other redirect as justification. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep all as they have had similar pageviews over time, which is a little over a view per month. I see why "Rosalind the rover" might be preferred (as User:An anonymous username, not my real name pointed out), but the pageviews suggest otherwise, and "Rosalind Franklin the rover" is also attested too (e.g. [5], [6]). Duckmather (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We seem to have consensus to delete Franklin the rover but could use more clarity on the other two.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Phillipe Aubert du Gaspé (son)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 05:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is someone's son: this isn't a good disambiguator. I suggest this is deleted, or retargeted to Aubert de Gaspé. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Phillipe Aubert du Gaspé may reasonably refer to the target or his father, who also has a Wikipedia article. Usage of "(son)" is more comparable to the Jr. suffix here. That being said, I'm not sure whether the disambiguator is plausible. Randi Moth (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 20:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If I recall correctly, the French (and by extension the Québécois) disambiguate in this regard by using fils, meaning son. Therefore this seems a particularly valid redirect – anyhow, there are plenty ways to disambiguate in such a fashion so the creation of these sorts of redirects should be encouraged in my opinion. J947 † edits 04:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, given that it looks like this article's title was for years incorrectly spelt (emphasis on looks), the justification for this redirect – also incorrectly spelt, seemingly – is lesser. Still, harmless. J947 † edits 04:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least, bypass the double redirect. Certes (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Everyone is someone's son, but when they have similar names, disambiguation is necessary! Keep unless this disambiguating style is against some MOS. Fix the double redirect per Certes. Jay 💬 06:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

When Quads Won't Leave[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. Jay 💬 06:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how this relates to the target, but it is not mentioned there. Onel5969 TT me 14:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... the only sources I found are this book from 2005 [7], which refers to When Quads Won't Leave as a "sitcom in the works" from John Callahan, these two web sources, [8],[9], which describe it as a half-hour program from the same, and an interview on a blog that identifies When Quads Won't Leave as an early title for John Callahan's Quads! [10]. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Vidyawati Agarwala[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While apparently a professor at the target university (see page history), they are not mentioned at the target article nor is there any indication that they should be. Originally created by an editor blocked for COI-editing, deletion seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 03:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The unsourced one-liner content in the page history needn't be accounted for. Jay 💬 06:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Childish Uncle[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, internet search just turns up videos by a seemingly unrelated YouTube account. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 03:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

1.06[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 💬 10:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More likely to refer to a software version than to the Capitol attack. Deletion seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 03:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I doubt anyone would actually be using this redirect for finding information on that date. - L'Mainerque - (Disturb my slumber) - 11:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I agree that this convention refers to a software version rather than this event in history. Colgatepony234 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to twelfth root of two. HotdogPi 18:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Way too ambiguous for this to be useful. Search results show endless possibilities; including the software version and even a racing car, where F1.06 targets. CycloneYoris talk! 09:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Genital sex[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 11#Genital sex

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_4&oldid=1150438268"