Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 28, 2023.

Mark and Avoid[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 9#Mark and Avoid

Vince McFadden and other people not mentioned at the same target[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 there was a comment about a possible merge that was never done, there didn't appear to be any content (outside of redirect related content) at any of the proposed articles and there was otherwise a clear delete consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first four of these were originally each one-sentence articles (unsourced) and when redirected they were mentioned, see [1] (since the section is "Current leadership" presumably they were removed once they were no-longer current). The Schoenheit redirect was created much later, and at the time it was created there was mention in the given section [2] but this whole section was removed around two years later in this edit [3]. Delete all I think. Especially the Schoenheit one, but any could be recreated if mention were added back and is justified. A7V2 (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've not been following developments with this church but WP:RS say that there was a sex scandal that led to the break up of the church" Nelson's Illustrated Guide to Religion James A. Beverley · 2009 "... the controversial sect founded by Victor P. Wierwille. In October 1986 prominent Way researcher John Schoenheit was fired for writing a paper on “Adultery and Fornication” in which he defended traditional Christian teaching." Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions John Ankerberg, ‎John Weldon · 1999 "They all agree that moral standards in the Way are consistent with Wierwille's theology . ... The paper was branded as “ slipshod research ” and " handling the Word deceitfully , " and Schoenheit was fired , along with others for their .." etc. Rather than worrying about the redirects, which don't seem of much importance, someone with some expertise in church articles should review what was deleted and why. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Softlavender (talk)
  • All were redirected with summary redirect to The Way International per merge agreement with main contributors, information already at that article but I could not find a merge agreement or who the main contributors were. Jay 💬 11:10, 10 March 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).

Christian Biblical Council[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 19#Christian Biblical Council

Torah-submission[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7#Torah-submission

Pharaoh in Islam[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7#Pharaoh in Islam

Cut & paste (music genre)[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 💬 10:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term is nowhere mentioned in the target article (and it should not lead to such list article at all) Solidest (talk) 21:07, 28 February 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).

Trance metal[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, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The object is not an aka and is not mentioned in the target article. Solidest (talk) 20:44, 28 February 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).

Elizabeth the Great[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7#Elizabeth the Great

Branches of Christianity[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7#Branches of Christianity

Music Channel[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 💬 10:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous term for which there are a lot of potential targets. Doesn't seem appropriate to target MTV Japan. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 28 February 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).

"Upcoming" no longer upcoming[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. There is no reasonable possibility that further discussion will overcome the substantial consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 00:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No longer upcoming. Steel1943 (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per WP:CRYSTAL. Veverve (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, how does that policy apply? J947 † edits 04:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel and Veverve. 176.88.82.7 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above, no longer upcoming so inaccurate and not useful. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please ensure they have no incoming links, just fixed a few Indagate (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indagate: I'm about to wholesale revert the IP editor since they have now added a few redirects that don't apply to my rationale, nor did they tag the redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: whoever moved the pages forgot to tag the old "upcoming film" page name for deletion as it had served its purpose. Mike Allen 16:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: No longer needed. IAmNMFlores (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Revival (upcoming film), Spawn (upcoming film), Justice League Dark (upcoming film), Army of the Dead (upcoming film), and Jonah Hex (upcoming film) as they are meant to represent subjects that have not been released yet. (I did not nominate these; these were added by 176.88.82.7. In fact, I will probably separate these from the nomination as my rationale doesn't apply to these.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that these are not upcoming. Striked since I want to keep them, thank you. 176.88.82.7 (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Spawn seems to be in development. Army of the Dead seems to be in development under a different name so probably worth keeping for now. Revival and Justice League Dark seem cancelled so seems deleting or moving to (cancelled film). Jonah Hex reboot not mentioned at target article or DC Extended Universe so not sure what's happened to it. Indagate (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, these nomiations have been removed from this section, so this no longer applies. Steel1943 (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not too clear on what just "N" is supposed to mean as a rationale, but that's beside the point — the issue here is that this is a leftover remnant of a page move that took place last year once the film's release date was confirmed, which means it's no longer "upcoming". Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment by Bearcat refers to Venus (upcoming film) unless stated otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Venus was the only one I originally commented on, given that I was the page mover (and thus the receiver of notification that it was up for RFD) in that instance but not in any of the others — but if the same issue applies to all of them equally, to the point that they've been merged into one discussion, then the same rationale applies to all of them. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all redirects that has had their film/game/series released prior to March 2023. (In case there are still redirects remaining that were accidently added for future films/games/series.) --Super Goku V (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Many of these nominations were added by 176.88.82.7; however, that user did not follow the instructions on WP:RFD and did not tag the redirects, notifiy the redirect creators, include the section redirect in {{Rfd2}} which the redirects target (when applicable), and in the special case of "upcoming redirects", did not check for incoming links in the article namespace prior to nominating the redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, since I have to do things in real life, I was unable to extract the comments on individual nominations that are bundled above in the listings prior to my nomination statement; if anyone feels up to extracting those comments and moving them here, explaining that they are meant for the redirect they were under unless otherwise stated, feel free to do so. I have to go attend matters in real life now, and this IP burnt more of my time cleaning up their edits than I expected to spend. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I didn't realize that this was your plan. Since I was the one who made the significant majority, I will refactor most of mine by deleting them. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments were removed in this edit. All comments removed were mine. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See #Other films are no longer upcoming for my nominations, and fix all incoming links. 176.88.82.7 (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a separate discussion and the links have not been fixed. (If you want to discuss this further, then discuss it there.) --Super Goku V (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand this: You are literally telling other editors to fix the mess you should have resolved before posting the nominations. I mean, the redirects in that discussion aren't even tagged yet, and we are now in a new day in UTC. Steel1943 (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question what about the redirect The Stranger (upcoming film)? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support deleting that as well if it is nominated. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CambridgeBayWeather: Added it a while back. 😉 Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UFILM. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep any that have received many views since becoming a redirect, which these titles are prone to do. In that case what has likely happened is another website has linked to a work-in-progress title whilst that was the title of the respective title, and not updated the link since our article was renamed. Readers clicking on that link will be inconvenienced by the respective redirect being deleted – this IMO outweighs any potential confusion as to the film or whatnot being or not being released. I will not go through to see which of these very many redirects this rationale does apply to. Because I'm lazy and don't want to. Delete other ones. J947 † edits 04:52, 28 Febalruary 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete them all IMNSHO Nothing "upcoming" should ever be allowed in mainspace. It should stsy in sandbox/draft until it has already come up. We actually have a rule about this WP:UPCOMING. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a common (albeit incorrect) interpretation that WP:NFF confers an instant notability freebie on all upcoming films the moment it's possible to source that principal photography has commenced on the production. That's not what NFF is actually saying, but editors have long interpreted it that way nonetheless to the point that there are literally hundreds or even thousands of articles about as yet unreleased films. You're correct that most upcoming films shouldn't have articles — NFF is for highly anticipated meganotables that get a ton of production coverage, like Marvel or Star Wars films, not just for every single film that enters the production pipeline at all — but as things currently stand, far too many upcoming films do have articles nonetheless, and some tightening up of the rules may be needed. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to merge all related nominations from this day.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all: All of them are unnecessary now and no longer appropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: These all links are otherwise eligible for CSD G6, housekeeping clean post move. Rickyurs (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: All of the nominated redirects should have no incoming links in the article space. I verified all of them and bypassed their incoming links prior to tagging them. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 5 March 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).

Nigerian fortune tellers[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. Although sending to AfD was considered an option, it was determined that nothing in the page history is usable. Jay 💬 14:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect. There are no fortune tellers from Nigeria mentioned at the target. This redirect was previously a stub which was BLARred in 2019. CycloneYoris talk! 07:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Best to vacate the title and let the search engine handle it.
Looking at the history, it seems to have been made to push a Christian POV against the practice. The earliest revision justifies distinguishing Nigerian fortune tellers from Western ones by noting that the former sell their services, but there are many who sell their services in the West (they even sell remote same-day readings and rituals on Etsy) so this distinction is unwarranted. There are certainly culturally-specific facets to the topic but I as I understand it these aspects extend to West Africa in general and aren't just a Nigerian phenomenon (eg. see Modern witch-hunts § Africa regarding "witch doctors", a term used by the blanked article as a synonym). – Scyrme (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AFD per WP:BLAR. --Lenticel (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there much point restoring it just to initiate a process which will most likely result in the same outcome? Keeping the article isn't a viable option here. – Scyrme (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and send to AFD might be mergeable. Drapetomanic (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The original article was a stub at an unecyclopedic title essentially consisting of a Christian polemic, relying largely on two unreliable sources, with the only reliable sources being an online dictionary definition for "fortune teller" (not even specifically Nigerian) and a news article about a single particular example of someone who was charged with fraud. (Old revision of Nigerian fortune tellers) Merging is not a viable option. – Scyrme (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't like The Guardian (Nigeria)? Drapetomanic (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you looked beyond the domain name at the article what was linked? It's a pastor's polemical opinion piece for the Ibru Ecumenical Centre's column in the Sunday Magazine preaching that "curses" will befall those who listen to fortune tellers. The article is very short; you can confirm for yourself that the article is not a reliable source, regardless of the quality of other work hosted by the publisher. – Scyrme (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK I guess nothing there is usable. I did add that fortune telling for profit is illegal in Nigeria to the main article. Drapetomanic (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A mention of Nigeria has been added to the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target also mentions Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, and New York in a similar context. Doesn't mean Saudi fortune tellers, New Zealander fortune tellers, and New Yorker fortune tellers warrant redirects; this is no different. If the suggested target were a List of Nigerian fortune tellers, then the redirect would be warranted, but it's a broad topic article, and one that largely doesn't focus on national matters outside a handful of examples regarding legality where the mention of Nigeria is brief. – Scyrme (talk) 16:59, 28 February 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).

Apocrypha (fiction)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 14#Apocrypha (fiction)

Microbear[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 16#Microbear

Street arab[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. Legoktm (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as confusing; they seem to only exist because of the title of a book briefly mentioned at the target. An anonymous username, not my real name 04:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They seem ok to me, non-neutral synonyms, see wikt:street Arab Drapetomanic (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Drapetomanic. My only objection would be that potentially it's confusing not having any mention (apart from the book title), but that isn't uncommon in redirects from non-neutral synonyms. A7V2 (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:59, 28 February 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).

Imal Liyanage (cricketer, born 1977)[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 send to AfD. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend delete. Can be confused for another cricketer of the same name & origin, born 1994, and if deleted can result in deletion/no need for this disambiguation page for only these 2 individuals. Per the redirect talk page (albeit w/ unsigned messages), he played 1 match for the target team but had no source as a WP:BLP &/or WP:NCRIC article previously; it seems rather unlikely anyone is trying to find Matara team this way. KatPro (mrow?) 21:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • In general terms, retain the redirect. Redirection in cases such as this is a reasonable WP:ATD. There were two sources - one an external link - on the article page before it was, quite correctly in my view, redirected; these clearly verify the person's existence and BLP isn't relevant here; they also verify that they played in 1 first-class and five List A matches - all at the "highest domestic level". It's entirely possible that there are non-English speaking sources that will cover the person - there are certainly cases where this has been true. In these sorts of cases we would generally prefer a redirect to a "List of... cricketers" article, but in this case one doesn't exist yet. Someone might get around to producing one - it's been known (there aren't a huge number of matches to deal with so this is certainly easier). Until then the redirect we have seems reasonable.
It might be reasonable, given that he's played internationally, to make Imal Liyanage (cricketer, born 1994) the primary target and use a hatnote for the other chap. I would imagine most people searching for the name will be looking for the bloke born in 1994 certainly, but I don't see why we'd delete it just now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If nothing else, having never done this sort of thing before, I promise my newbie editor brain grew 3 wrinkles this day. Thanks! KatPro (mrow?) 22:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article and send to AfD if desired. This is clearly an unsuitable redirect target as there is no mention of this person there and I'd say mention is unlikely to be justified (the only players mentioned are ones who played for the national team). Should have been PRODed or sent to AfD if the article failed GNG. A7V2 (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A preferred redirect target here would obviously be List of Matara Sports Club cricketers, but that would obviously need to be created. Looks like the article was BOLDly redirected in the last major purge of South Asian cricket articles before the WP:NSPORTS guidelines were updated. I'd always prefer redirects to be kept in situations like this, but it would be much easier with list articles. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article, which was redirected without discussion. Softlavender (talk) 09:48, 1 March 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).

"Drugs & Alcohol Today"[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. Salvio giuliano 10:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo/search term Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Extremely unlikely to be useful. WindTempos (talk • contribs) 16:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ay, it took me ages to realize it's from a version with quotation marks in the title. Yes, of course it can be deleted. (Drugs and Alcohol Today without quotes is fine, a former title apparently.) Tokenzero (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: This is not an "unlikely typo search". It was the original title of a Wikipedia article created by Teluobir in 2020 [4]. I moved the page to Drugs and Alcohol Today to remove the quotation marks. I'm fine with the redirect being deleted now, since no page links to it any longer. Softlavender (talk) 23:40, 28 February 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).

WaveLight[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 17#WaveLight

Star Life[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 16#Star Life

List of governors and lieutenant governors of Jammu and Kashmir[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. Salvio giuliano 14:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current target, List of governors of Jammu and Kashmir, omits List of lieutenant governors of Jammu and Kashmir. While a disambiguation page could exist here, I don't see the point. Per WP:XY, I might propose deletion instead. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:XY applies here. I would recommend a hatnote pointing to each article though. Carpimaps (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added hatnotes to each other. Jay 💬 07:58, 28 February 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).

Gavin Rothery (screenwriter)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to delete. This redirect only came into existence after a contentious page move. It is not otherwise used. Pageviews are zero. Chumpih t 06:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The subject is also a screenwriter and this is an R from move (albeit for 4 days). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PalauanReich (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless there is another screenwriter named Gavin Rothery. Softlavender (talk) 09:52, 1 March 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).

Aerosmith/ZZ Top Tour[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 11#Aerosmith/ZZ Top Tour

Kota Eberhardt[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. Salvio giuliano 10:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion (unless an article is created for this actor). It doesn't make sense to redirect to one of the films the actor has played in. This is really confusing. Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 01:13, 28 February 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_28&oldid=1145529831"