Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 30, 2023.

Dedede Stone[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) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 14:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Dedede stone" is mentioned in the description of S1E8. signed, Rosguill talk 14:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @QuicoleJR: was it a miss from your side? Jay 💬 06:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying to both comments here: I used the find tool on my browser and came up with nothing. This seems to be an issue with said browser. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since it is mentioned at the current target. CycloneYoris talk! 14:42, 9 August 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).

Broom King (Kirby)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 9#Broom King (Kirby)

Elizabeth I, Queen of England, 1533-1603[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 23:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The last time I sought deletion for one of these as WP:OVERDAB was understandably closed as keep based on arguments there. This is very much OVERDAB though. There was no other Elizabeth I who was queen of England and no other Elizabeth I with those dates of life, so there is no need to have both in a redirect. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It cannot be used in a meaningful way in a sentence and it's a bit of an overkill. In terms of disambiguation, the ordinal number and the "Queen of England" bits are enough. The dates are not necessary. Keivan.fTalk 00:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. I believe it also uses the wrong type of dash for the dates anyway; should be an endash, not a hyphen. 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a plausible search term. Hut 8.5 19:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unneeded redirect. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:42, 1 August 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).

Diana of Althorp[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 23:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I get the idea behind this but it's just far too unlikely of a search term and shows zero usage in reliable sources [1]. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:27, 30 July 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).

King of the United Kingdom[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 Monarchy of the United Kingdom. Pinging Dylnuge for retargeting the redirects mentioned by Keivan.f since they volunteered to do so below. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retargeting these to Monarchy of the United Kingdom in line with other titles where there is an article about the office itself, such as King of Spain or President of the United States. There has been some edit warring on both redirects in the past over the appropriate target; the rationale for their current targets is that it is consistent with King of England and King of Scotland, but this ignores that there is no independent article about those historic offices. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 23:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have no strong feelings about this as long as everything remains consistent. Also, even though we do not have articles on the English and Scottish monarchies at the moment, King/Queen of England and King/Queen of Scotland (King/Queen of Scots) could be redirected to Monarchy of the United Kingdom#English monarchy and Monarchy of the United Kingdom#Scottish monarchy, respectively. I think this is something that users should consider when choosing the appropriate targets. Keivan.fTalk 00:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - changing the re-directs toward the "monarchy" page, as is done with others. Also, support @Keivan.f:'s idea about the English & Scottish monarchs re-directs. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I did not realise that this was going to be a controversial issue when I made the change years ago. Redirecting it to the article about the office makes the most sense to me for the following reasons:
    • If "King/Queen of the United Kingdom" was itself an article and not a redirect, my immediate thought would be it is an article about the office and not merely a list of its officeholders — actually, the list of monarchs itself would likely have been part of the article about the monarchy if either the former or the latter were much shorter, so I see the list of monarchs as secondary to the article about the monarchy;
    • I believe a typical user who is searching for the "King/Queen of the United Kingdom" would most likely be looking up who the current monarch is, or details about the office or role of the monarch itself. Someone looking for the list/timeline of monarchs would probably have appended "list of" or "previous" or a cardinal to the search term;
    • There is already a hatnote on Monarchy of the United Kingdom that links to the list of monarchs for users who wanted a list;
    • Consistency with the practice of similar articles for other countries per examples provided above, and especially for the Commonwealth realms whose monarch the British monarch shares (e.g. King of Australia, King of Canada); users outside the UK (probably) would want to expect a similar redirecting behaviour across all articles on the heads of states.
    I think Keivan.f's proposal is also worth considering. — Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 07:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Pizza1016. I also like Keivan.f's suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above arguments in favor. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking back in on this, I also support Keivan.f's suggested retargets for King/Queen of England/Scotland (and those sections also have hatnotes directing to the "List of" articles, so I think it fits with all of Pizza1016's points). I'm not super versed in RfD but imagine it's inappropriate to add to the list once discussion has started? If those retargetings remain uncontroversial I'd be happy to make them once this closes. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 04:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support because of consistency. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 21:31, 4 August 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).

KAuCN2[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. Consensus to keep per the discussion below as {{R from misspelling}} and {{R unprintworthy}}. (non-admin closure) estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no known compound with formula KAuCN2, only KAu(CN)2. This is an erroneous formula, and so I believe the redirect is useless. I propose to delete this redirect. Plantman (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Searching on Google Scholar I was able to find some apparent mentions of it. (eg. [2], [3]) Are these erroneous?
Regardless, even if KAuCN2 does exist it is not potassium dicyanoaurate so this redirect is misleading to readers. Since no relevant content to retarget to appears to exist, it seems best to delete. – Scyrme (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a {{R from misspelling}} and {{R unprintworthy}} -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalent - I think I created this back in 2011 only to make it easier to find without remembering the parentheses. As search engines have evolved since then, I don't think it is as useful now so I don't mind it being deleted. Also NaAuCN2 on the same grounds. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, redirects don't have to be "correct" or exact synonyms, they can be typos, common mis-spellings, etc. In short, anything that someone is likely to type when looking for a page is a useful redirect, and it seems like typing a complex chemical formula without all the punctuation is entirely likely. Lithopsian (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects from typos and misspellings are only warranted when they are helpful and unambiguous, not when they are misleading and possibly ambiguous (see the uses I found earlier). The brackets in a chemical formula aren't punctuation, they're notation. It's like omitting the brackets from a mathematical expression in which they are not redundant. It changes the meaning entirely, and this change is misleading to readers. A redirect that misinforms readers by suggesting the wrong chemical formula is not helpful. – Scyrme (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thinking about it some more, I don't think typos are a valid comparison to begin with. A typo doesn't change the meaning of the word, it only affects the presentation; it's a purely orthographic difference, not a semantic one. Omitting the brackets from a formula introduces a semantic difference. – Scyrme (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is currently no known chemical compound formulated as KAuCN2, but this formula still codes for an entirely different compound than KAU(CN)2. This is why I started the RfD. Plantman (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a {{R from misspelling}}, KAuCN2 can be a typo, as someone might forget to put the parentheses. Keres🌕Luna edits! 21:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This is a case where we can compare against the "properly" spelled redirect here (pageviews in 2022). Signs point to a reasonable {{R from misspelling}}. However, it may be ambiguous since it's technically possible to write out potassium gold cyanamide (CN22- is the cyanamide dianion) as a valid molecular formula. I do not find any uses of "gold cyanamides" (or other combinations) through searches, and that's not surprising since my chemical intuition says that a cyanamide dianion would be incredibly reactive and susceptible to oxidation. Caveat is I'm not an inorganic chemist and can't assess any potential ligand complexes off-hand. The two articles mentioned by Scyrme above are typos missing parentheses by my skimming. I lean keep here since this alternate formula seems to be a fictional/theoretical molecule as far as I can tell. ― Synpath 18:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This page has several other redirects that seem like less useful misspellings at a glance: C2AuKN2, KAu(CN2) and NaAu(CN2). The first is technically the molecular formula, but split up in an unlikely way, the second and third are unlikely typos with a misplaced right parenthesis. The third is also the sodium salt, and is only indirectly mentioned in the text (dissolving sodium cyanide). ― Synpath 18:38, 1 August 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).

Earth orbit[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. Per the discussion below. (non-admin closure) estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Earth orbit" should be a disambiguation page between Earth's orbit and Earth-centered orbit. This proposition is supported by previous discussions in Talk:Earth_orbit and redirect's editing history [4]. fgnievinski (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate as suggested. These seem as likely as one another to be what a reader would be looking for, which would make this a case of WP:TWODABS. – Scyrme (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per nom, also add the galactic orbit of the Solar System, as the Earth's orbit about the galaxy -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a DAB page as recommended above. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:52, 1 August 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).

Anastasia Adama[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 Lee Adama. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:20, 30 July 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).

Black LGBT Community[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 Black gay pride. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Black" is not synonymous with "African-American"; there are multiple Black LGBT communities in every continent except Antarctica. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:22, 30 July 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).

Stolen election conspiracy theories[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7#Stolen election conspiracy theories

Election denial[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 14:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of these redirects should be deleted There is no specific conspiracy theory of "Election denial" mentioned on Conspiracy theory page (the current subheadings no longer exist). A redirect to any page about Trump's claims (which seems to be the reason for this redirect) would be too U.S.-centric. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No significant discussion of 'election denial' as a general topic in the target, and questions regarding the legitimacy of an election may frequently not involve conspiracy theories at all. The world exists beyond the narrow confines of U.S. discourse around the last presidential election, and Wikipedia should too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Or create a list article on such and election repudiation, as has happened over several elections in Belarus, and claims by Russia in Ukraine elections, Zimbabwe, Brazil etc -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if this is kept as a redirect, it should point to Electoral fraud -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      (reiterating previous comment in other deletion request) The only conspiracy theory explicitly mentioned there is the so-called voting pencil conspiracy theory, which is pretty niche and of its time, even for British politics watchers. Although it definitely could be expanded to include other notable conspiracy theories. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:19, 1 August 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).

Pervasive Developmental Disorder - Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS)[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 14:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this redirect should be deleted. The title combines an unusual hyphenation of the complete name of the diagnosis with an abbreviation in parentheses. Nothing links to it and it does not help readers find the article, as Pervasive Developmental Disorder - Not Otherwise Specified (without the abbreviation in parentheses) already exists. TempusTacet (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not a likely search term, no need for an unlikely term even longer and more convoluted than an existing redirect. Lithopsian (talk) 14:31, 31 July 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).

Judo at the 2021 Summer World University Games – Men's 60 kg[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 9#Judo at the 2021 Summer World University Games – Men's 60 kg

One Armed Bandits(Dukes)[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 💬 09:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect title without a space between the title and disambiguation. Delete per WP:RDAB. Valid redirect at One Armed Bandits (Dukes) so nothing is lost. Gonnym (talk) 07:53, 30 July 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).

Partially hydrogenated oil[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 6#Partially hydrogenated oil

Anglican cemetery[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 Category:Anglican cemeteries. Although the number of !votes are equal, retargetting to the category is ultimately more helpful to the reader. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Thus, this should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:41, 30 July 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 - Anglican[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 💬 05:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, unhelpful formatting; this should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A search for either term will reveal useful results. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. A smart kitten (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unhelpful formatting and an unlikely search term, the search results will be able to handle this if it is ever searched. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 12:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite the slightly odd formatting, Anglicanism is exactly what one would mean by "Christian - Anglican"; namely, it is the Anglican version of Christianity. Duckmather (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Duckmather – not often used ≠ should be deleted. J947 † edits 00:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Duckmather. This is exactly how it could be listed in a hierarchical listing of religious denominations, just because Wikipedia doesn't typically format things this way doesn't mean nobody does. Thryduulf (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Duckmather and Thryduulf. A7V2 (talk) 01:43, 2 August 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).

Belarusian mythology[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 6#Belarusian mythology

Titanic Five[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 💬 05:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. What is this supposed to represent??? Seems like some sort of made-up neologism. Steel1943 (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • See [5] RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @RodRabelo7: Any way to get that added into the article with a reference? If so, it could potentially validate these redirects' existence. (Otherwise, readers won't know why they are redirected to the target article when searching these titles.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A reference using this term could easily be added to Titan submersible implosion § Fatalities, but if you want more than a mention in the title of a citation, I'm not sure incorporaing this exact phrase into the article text would be appropriate. It appears to have been coined by tabloid press, and I haven't been able find evidence of it being picked up more widely despite the relevant articles having been published over a month ago. – Scyrme (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ertrinken 14:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet) RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it appears to be WP:TOOSOON. This term seems to have popped up only in the past couple of days, and the only 2 sources that are notable aren't known for reliability according to WP:RSP. Let's wait until it has more widespread use. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I'm seeing reasonable articles in reasonable places using the term (e.g. [6] which used it in June) also [7] and many others. Doesn't meet the GNG, but perfectly reasonable redirect per CHEAP. Hobit (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it's certainly a term that was in use, and I don't really think we need reliable sources to support non-controversial redirect titles, just evidence that the term is in use. There's enough sources supporting use to keep anyway. Tag with {{R without mention}} if no mention is added (I wouldn't be too worried about rushing to add one, we don't need to state every alternative name for something, but if someone searches that alternative name they should still be taken to the right place). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Most people who search this term know what it refers to and don't require it explained. The others can work it out easily enough. J947 † edits 02:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP; they are possible search terms and readers who use these redirects will likely know what they mean. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:02, 2 August 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).

Epiphytum[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 02:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, partial title match, ambiguous with Bulbophyllum epiphytum (and likely other species which lack articles). Disambiguation pages for species epithets (partial title matches) aren't desirable per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tristis_(2nd_nomination). Plantdrew (talk) 01:05, 30 July 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_July_30&oldid=1169897901"