Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 15, 2023.

Sean Driscoll[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 💬 10:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination on behalf of Dogru144, who blanked the page claiming misleading redirect. Sean Driscoll was co-proprietor of the Glorious Food caterer; no relation to the song from the musical. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was looked to propose a deletion.Dogru144 (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His mention in the target article, which justified the redirect, was removed in Feb 2013. PamD 06:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 12:54, 20 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).

Tracy LaGondino[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. While MOS:GID concerns were raised, sources were provided that indicate that he might have been notable pre-transition, though a through discussion on the issue did not occur. Barring a definitive conclusion here of non-notability pre-transition, that is a matter better left for talk page discussion. Of course, if a conclusion is reached that he was not notable under the deadname, then the redirect can be deleted. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:GID: If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. He seems to only be notable as "the pregnant man", which was obviously post-transition. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 21:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As long as the name is mentioned in the target, which it currently is, then a redirect there continues to be helpful. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the name is mentioned in an article, I don't understand why MOS:GID would say there shouldn't be a corresponding redirect, although perhaps such a redirect should be tagged with {{R from incorrect name}} in order to discourage linking to it. Considering the vagaries of the human memory system, once in a while someone might find themselves able to recall a deadname (or the first few letters of it, using an autocomplete suggestion for the rest) without being able to recall the more notable name. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notice that the Wikipedia article and at least one of its cited sources use "Lagondino" (with lowercase 'g') rather than "LaGondino". There is no redirect at Tracy Lagondino. But one of the cited sources does indeed use "LaGondino", and I found both variations in other sources in a web search. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • My understanding is that the use of the name on the article would also be a violation of GID should the person not have been notable under that name. In this case, it might be better for WP:BLPN to determine if the deadname was considered to be notable, though I am currently of the believe that it was not. It seems that what happened was that this discussion predates the creation of GID by a bit over two years and the redirect predates GID by over a decade. In any case, the discussion there implies to me that GID is being violated, though obviously not intentionally, especially considering this comment: I've unbolded the name, given he wasn't really notable prior to transition... --Super Goku V (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Beatie (as LaGondino) had at least borderline notability as an LGBT rights activist in Hawaii pre-transition, judging by news stories that mention him: [1] [2] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also he was "a model and Miss Hawaii Teen USA pageant finalist" under that name (the quote is from the Wikipedia article). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And he was mentioned in a 1993 martial arts magazine, when he was around 19 years old: [3] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Name is mentioned at target, so no reason to delete. Should be tagged with {{R from incorrect name}} per BarrelProof. CycloneYoris talk! 21:58, 22 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).

Queensboro[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 Queensborough. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to retarget this to Queensborough, which is a disambiguation page, as I doubt the use of the term is dominated by the bridge. There are also other subjects with this spelling, and this also is a spelling variation of "Queensborough". The only article link I found to this redirect was in Thomas Charles Wright, which seems to have been intended to link to Queenborough (no 's'). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget I was the one who originally created the redirect, though I don't remember the circumstances behind it since it's been 14 years. I agree with your reasoning to retarget. — Umofomia (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. Unnecessarily disambiguating seems less bad than mis-identifying a primary target. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. In fact, "Queensboro" could also refer to Queensboro Plaza or, in some older publications, the borough of Queens itself. Epicgenius (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:43, 20 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).

Question types[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exams are not the only subject that deal with the concept of Question. Also, Question type does not exist and never has. Steel1943 (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Jay's comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 18:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the broad perspective provided by Scyrme and Thryduulf. However, if there is an article where the multiple classifications can be added, Question would be a prime candidate. Jay 💬 10:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As someone who writes quizzes on occasion, my first thoughts were things like multiple choice vs single answer questions and that isn't covered at Jay's suggested target. Questionnaire construction#Types of questions is more complete but doesn't really cover things from an exam perspective, e.g. essay question. Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. After reading Scyrme's comment below and thinking a bit more, I've come to the conclusion that this is just too vague for anything that exists at the moment - we have semantic differences (e.g. open vs closed), differences in answer type (e.g. essay, multiple choice), differences in purpose (e.g. security, exams, quizzes, following an arrest, checking for concussion, questioning one's faith, etc), domain (e.g. law vs fact), ones you can and can't ask (for legal, taboo, etc reasons) and others (e.g. rhetorical, leading, awkward, stupid). Probably others too (Betteridge's law of headlines and Just asking questions may be relevant in some way). Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too vague. Semantic classification isn't the only approach to identifying types of question. A "security question" is a type of question, identified by how the question is used, for example. This example also wouldn't fall under the types identified by Thryduulf. Targeting the category wouldn't work because the category description explicitly excludes certain types of question for which the category is not intended, yet which a reader might still be interested in. Types of question does not exist either. Perhaps a list article could be created at Types of question, as that would be ideal target, in which case red links would encourage the creation of one. – Scyrme (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of the ambiguity between the questionnaire/exam meaning and the use in linguistics. – Uanfala (talk) 20:20, 16 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).

Midyear Exam[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 Speedy Delete (WP:G7). (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 18:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. "Midyear investigation" is mentioned in the target article, but not this redirect. Could potentially be confused with subjects at Exam. Steel1943 (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Definitely unclear, and as it is not mentioned in the target article, it serves no real purpose. - Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:04, 15 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).

Final Honour 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 retarget to Undergraduate education at the University of Oxford#Teaching and learning. (non-admin closure) EpicPupper (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 15 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).

Kamangar[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. By moving Kamangar (disambiguation) to the base title. Jay 💬 10:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Onel5969 TT me 17:26, 15 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).

Suzanne Carlson[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 17:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. ★Trekker (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to aid in search. No other suitable target. Jay 💬 10:25, 23 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).

Template:Infobox prime ministerial spouse[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 17:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox prime ministerial spouse}} previously redirected to {{Infobox officeholder}} before it was redirected to {{Infobox person}} following a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom because it is not an official position in the UK. Other countries also have prime ministers, so the template isn't just for the UK, but I'm not aware of any other countries that have such an official position either (though my knowledge on it is limited). The redirects don't seem particularly useful and could be confusing, so I would recommend deletion, but if they're kept, they should at least all point to the same target. MClay1 (talk) 11:47, 15 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).

YOU-CAN-SPAM Act of 2003[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 22#YOU-CAN-SPAM Act of 2003

Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible[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 💬 10:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY for Biblical inerrancy and Biblical infallibility. The capital letters also make this redirect quite unhelpful. I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While I agree that a section title which refers to both mitigates the XY issue, I think the case suggests a proper noun, such as an article with that exact title. In-fact, there's an a article by P. D. Feinberg, published in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2010, using this exact phrase with this case as its title, cited and referred to on a number of pages. Given it appears to often be referrenced by others, it seems plausible someone would be looking for that particular article. In light of that, I'd say delete it to allow uninhibited searching for someone looking for a title not a concept. (Second choice: retarget per TartarTorte; current target is obviously unhelpful. I think Compassionate727's concerns could be addressed by amending the section. If the distinction really is rarely made that fact should be discussed in that section if it's not already; the lead shouldn't be the only place that mentions that.) – Scyrme (talk) 23:25, 15 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).

Al-Ġazawāt[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 22#Al-Ġazawāt

Anagenic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 22#Anagenic

Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 22#Mary, Queen of the United Kingdom

Rock n roll Rishi[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 08:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a common nickname. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Implausible. Searching this I only get 4 results on Google, one of which is this redirect. The most notable results is a single YouTube short from October 2022; surprisingly, it has 5 million views. One of the four is a page that appears to be bot-generated and quotes the title of that video. The last of the 4 is an irrelevant partial match on Facebook ("Let's rock n roll" followed by someone's name). This isn't even a minor meme, it's literally just 1 video. Despite the number of views the short has the phrase clearly isn't widely used, not even as a joke. Anyone who does search this probably wants to find the short, not a serious Wikipedia article about Sunak. – Scyrme (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sunak is never called "Rock n roll Rishi". Only has 1 page view in the last month. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously. Estar8806 (talk) 01:44, 18 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).

Europe (country)[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 United States of Europe per general consensus. (non-admin closure) 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 19:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, misleading. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget to United States of Europe?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to United States of Europe. Usage stats suggest that it seems to get used surprisingly frequently, for whatever reason. Seems cheap. Can't see any factors that might make it costly. Not much risk of a Pandora's box; even if someone decided to create similar redirects pointing to United States of Africa, for example, it's not like there are that many continents. – Scyrme (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • And those similar redirects would be helpful. J947 † edits 05:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Scyrme. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 15 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).

Supper, Lord's[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The wording makes this redirect quite unhelpful. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is evidently related to Wikipedia:Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, which encourages editors to create many redirects in this form. Seems to be a stale project. Honestly, seems misguided to me. These kind of indexing tricks are only relevant to printed publications, not websites where navigation is done by using hyperlinks and search engines. Redirects like this are costly (on multiple grounds), and not at all plausible in my opinion - why would anyone search a index listing from a print publication like this in its exact wording on an online encyclopedia? It's not like they could copy and paste it straight from the page into the search bar. Curiously, some of the links on that page are piped to their normally-phrased equivalents, so perhaps creating the redirects with commas wasn't even intended; some editors might've simply misunderstood the plan. – Scyrme (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:CHEAP: Such a format might be found in the index of a scanned printed book covering the subject. Tiny Particle (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:17, 15 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).

Mass, Sacrifice of the[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The wording makes this redirect quite unhelpful. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is another Catholic Encyclopedia title, phrased to aid in alphabetical indexing in the original print edition; such indexing tricks are not relevant to Wikipedia, where navigation is achieved by hyperlinks and a search engine. The unusual phrasing, comma, and capital S make it unlikely to be helpful, especially as compared to Sacrifice of the Mass. – Scyrme (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is an unambiguous redirect to the best of my knowledge (if I am incorrect of the lack of ambiguity of the term "Sacrifice of the Mass" please disregard my !vote). While it almost assuredly was for the index of the Catholic Encyclopedia to allow their readers to search by Mass (type of), this isn't causing any problems and is ultimately cheap. TartarTorte 02:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are they cheap? I think several arguments at WP:COSTLY apply here including the "Relevant factors" (particularly as many have been sent to RfD), WP:UNNATURAL, and WP:PANDORA. – Scyrme (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it could go either way with cheap or costly and neither interpretation of the redirect is invalid. I would argue as this is existing from the Catholic Encyclopedia it shouldn't open WP:PANDORA's box unless others use this format for things that did not already exist within the Catholic Encyclopedia. I wouldn't necessarily encourage their creation going forward, but RfD closed as keep is not inherently an endorsement of the entire format, and my !vote is not meant to be that. There are other CE redirects like this one that are a bit odd or implausible that do probably need to be deleted. With regards to unnatural, I think this is an odd, but not completely unnatural construction. I do understand the costly arguments that can be applied here, but also my argument is specific to this redirect and not all CE redirects in the index style. TartarTorte 17:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why treat the Catholic Encyclopedia differently to other print publication that index entries like this? I think the box has already been at least partly opened (see #Supper, Lord's which relates to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology). – Scyrme (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Tartar JASpencer (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per WP:CHEAP: Such a format might be found in the index of a scanned printed book covering the subject.Tiny Particle (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per mom reasoning with mitigation by Tiny Particle. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: This could go either way with WP:CHEAP and WP:COSTLY, but I lean towards the costly side, as this isn't very plausible on Wikipedia. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 23:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Scyrme. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a plausible search term, wouldn't be referred to like this outside an index and redirects aren't index entries. The mere fact it exists in the index of the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't mean we need a redirect for it. Hut 8.5 19:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Scyrme and Hut. Jay 💬 10:16, 23 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).

Eucharist, as a Sacrifice[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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The wording makes this redirect quite unhelpful. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems implausible. I wasn't able to find any uses of this exact combination of comma and case. This particular combination of case and comma is unlikely to be related to an index to a print publication, so I'm not sure why it was created. Similar phrases (differing either in lacking the comma or using a different case) were all fragments of sentences, not titles. – Scyrme (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Creator) - Catholic Encyclopedia entries are likely to be recreated by someone else a few years down the line. These are cheap and keeping them around means they are likely to be directed to the best place. JASpencer (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this a Catholic Encyclopedia entry? As far as I know, the title is "Eucharist, Sacrifice of the", not this redirect. – Scyrme (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an entry in the CE's index. So not quite an article, but something likely to be recreated in a cleanup down the line. JASpencer (talk)
    A recreation of a deleted page after a discussion is a WP:G4 which should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per WP:CHEAP: Such a format might be found in the index of a scanned printed book covering the subject.Tiny Particle (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Scyrme. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a plausible search term, wouldn't be referred to like this outside an index and redirects aren't index entries. The mere fact it exists in the index of the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't mean we need a redirect for it. Hut 8.5 19:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Scyrme and Hut. Jay 💬 10:15, 23 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_15&oldid=1146741485"