Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 6, 2023.

Giorgio Marincola (Rome Metro)[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. Strong argument from keep !voters about it being a former name with a lot of coverage. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 21:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The metro station was never named like that. It was only a proposed name, never officially adopted. See Porta Metronia (Rome Metro) for more context. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 21:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - highly plausible search term given it was proposed as a name for this station (and it seems like this received a lot of coverage), and it is explained in the article. A7V2 (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A7V2. Highly plausible search term, and it's also mentioned at target. CycloneYoris talk! 02:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added this bit about the proposed name at Giorgio Marincola as well. Jay 💬 12:53, 14 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).

2023 in radio[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 💬 03:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the relatively high pageviews, this does not seem like a redirect that brings anyone to the content they may be expecting, which would be a list like 2022 in radio — but the only attempts at "starting" that have so far been disruptively replacing the redirect with a nearly-blank list with no actual serious attempt to add any content. (Most of this has been by IPs, who would be automatically barred by doing this if this were to revert to a redlink.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not helpful. And there are not enough content to justify a full article. It should be deleted until more sources arrive to make this page into an article. Carpimaps (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Carpimaps. Better to delete now and to re-create at a later date as explained above. CycloneYoris talk! 02:26, 14 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).

Reprod. Biomed. Online[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 💬 03:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should redirect to Reproductive BioMedicine Online, but it doesn't exist, so delete. A redirect to a giant publisher with a portfolio of thousands of journals isn't helpful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:54, 6 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).

Anti-nigger vote[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 💬 03:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from 2007 that includes a racial slur. I don't understand how this would be a useful redirect. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created that redirect, but feel free to delete it if you think it's inappropriate: GCarty (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any legitimate tie in between this term and the article in question? Absent external sourcing suggesting this link, Delete Springee (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I assume this is a reference to the infamous Atwater quote but as it's not a direct quote and involves a very racist term it should be deleted. TartarTorte 18:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems to meet both WP:R#DELETE criteria 3 and 8, as it is both a "novel or very obscure synonym" that's unlikely to be useful, and likely to be offensive. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term seems to be created by the editor and doesn't show any significant results on a simple google search. No WP:WEIGHT at all. EXTREMELY poor judgement on their end, at best. This possibly crosses a line or two. DN (talk) 23:47, 6 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).

Wikipedia:ROLLBACKVECTOR22[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 SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) Aaron Liu (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and way too lengthy shortcut. There already is another shortcut so I see no reason for this one Aaron Liu (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and see if there will be increase in usage. Other shortcuts are cryptic and hard to remember. This having the word "rollback" in it helps. Jay 💬 14:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One with VECTOR at the start would help and as ROLLBACK isn’t a very common word it is unlikely to be searched. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of the target is the RFC for the rollback. Until the world of enwiki changed last month, I didn't even know that the skin I was using all these years was called "Vector". Jay 💬 17:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jay. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:15, 6 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).

Infinity Pool[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 14#Infinity Pool

Curved yellow fruit[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 💬 05:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I first made this redirect back in 2018 back when I was my old bizarre redirect making self, when I saw a picture of a sign in a store advertising bananas that said "Curved yellow fruit 40¢". It has went through two redirect discussions in the past, back in 2018, one of which was no consensus, and the one after was speedy keep. It was deleted in March 2019 as part of the mass deletion of my 260 I think bizarre redirects, but was brought back in May 2019. Honestly, this one should've stayed deleted instead of being brought back two months later. Colgatepony234 (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I was the original creator of this redirect before someone else brought it back... is this eligible for me to G7? Colgatepony234 (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since this survived previous discussions and another editor thought it worth reviving, this doesn't meet the WP:G7 criteria. - Eureka Lott 05:23, 6 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_6&oldid=1139380705"