Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 30, 2024.

A. A. Abbott[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 7#A. A. Abbott

Greater Power[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 7#Greater Power

The higher power[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 7#The higher power

The greater power[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 7#The greater power

No chance in hell[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#No chance in hell

Falling from grace, I watch it all come apart[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 💬 06:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Linkin Park lyric not mentioned at the target song article. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that interpretation of wp:notburo here. This is moreso an issue with "R from lyrics" as a whole (of which there's give-or-take 200 total) that has been commented on throughout the years, but never fully dealt with. The way to find articles on Wikipedia is by searching for its name. We generally don't include lyrics on song pages; Genius and Google take care of that. This isn't an issue of "For the Longest Time" vs "The Longest Time", this is someone typing in a full lyric instead of the actual song title. If someone makes the conscious decision to type these 9 words instead of the actual song title, it can be inferred that something specific to the lyrics is being sought, which we don't have, so there's no reason to think this song is specialized and needs an unmentioned chorus lyric redirect above any other song. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone makes the conscious decision to type these 9 words instead of the actual song title, it can be inferred that something specific to the lyrics is being sought I'm not so sure about that. Not always do people know the name of the song they're looking for-- maybe the lyric that the title comes from doesn't stick in the mind as well as a different lyric does, or maybe the song is titled something that doesn't show up in the lyrics. In such a situation, these redirects are useful-- especially if they're either the first lyric of the song, the first lyric of the chorus, or simply just 'the most catchy lyric of the song' (yes I know that that one's subjective, but you get what I'm getting at, right?) I know for a fact that I've needed to look up a lyric in order to find a song hundreds of times. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done this countless times too...on a Google search. I'm not sure this is the role of an encyclopedia. Sounds more like the role of search engines and lyrics database websites. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not really the encyclopedia's job to collect parts of a song and try to piece what it was. Plus, most would just use google to do it anyways. Okmrman (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a lyrics database. Someone looking for this is probably looking for the lyrics, which aren’t in the article, and is more than likely just going to use Google instead. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my original comment above. Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Best football coach ever[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 23:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I undid an R3 deletion here since a 2012 redirect creation cannot possibly be considered recently created. But it's inappropriate for this to target a specific person, and there doesn't seem to be a List of football coaches considered the best to retarget it to. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

92309[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 23:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

92309 code covers multiple places (e.g., Baker, California). We usually do not have disambiguations for ZIP codes either (90210 seems to be an exception). Delete to avoid the confusion. Викидим (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 90210 is an exception because it is, quite famously, the ZIP code for Beverly Hills, and thus shows up quite often in media that takes place in Beverly Hills (the most well-known being Beverly Hills, 90210 (franchise)). 92309, AFAIK, has not reached that level of notability, and can be safely deleted. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Okmrman (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Kashvee Gautam[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 Withdrawn by nominator. Mentioned in the article in a list hidden by default. (non-admin closure) Викидим (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A cricketer not mentioned in the targeted article on the team. If notable, will get his own article, so WP:RFD#DELETE #10 applies Викидим (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Metro Mayor of the Liverpool City Region[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 06:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD#DELETE #2, #6 and #8: The main article has been moved to a different name, and this article including "Metro" rather than just "Mayor" on its own was the incorrect name for the article. It is necessary to delete the incorrect name article and retain the correct name article. The article was marked for deletion on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. UnicornSherbert (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As shown on the official website, "Metro Mayor" seems to be the actual title. I suggest this move should be reversed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When the link is opened, it says "Steve Rotheram, Mayor of the Liverpool City Region". Furthermore, the role may informally be referred to as "Metro Mayor" but (1) the role is referred formally without "Metro" and (2) no other "Metro Mayor" is referred to as such (including their websites and their Wikipedia article). It is simple that unless an order is made modifying the title under LDEDCA 2009 or under the LURA 2023 then it should remain as such in the article. UnicornSherbert (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From the link I gave, "Steve Rotheram was elected as the first Metro Mayor of the Liverpool City Region..." Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have already said "When the link is opened, it says "Steve Rotheram, Mayor of the Liverpool City Region". Furthermore, the role may informally be referred to as "Metro Mayor" but (1) the role is referred formally without "Metro" and (2) no other "Metro Mayor" is referred to as such (including their websites and their Wikipedia article). It is simple that unless an order is made modifying the title under LDEDCA 2009 or under the LURA 2023 then it should remain as such in the article". Your point therefore is irrelevant when taken with the facts. The title is mayor not metro mayor and there has not been an order made modifying the title. The title remains therefore and the article should not include the wrong title. UnicornSherbert (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not withstanding anything else this should be kept as a {{R from move}}. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Mayor of the Liverpool City Region is a Metro mayor ("Mayors who are directly elected to cover combined authorities or combined county authorities are informally known as metro mayors"). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The mayor's article should have the proper title. "Metro mayor" is how mayors are informally referred to. The article including "metro" was made in error and should be deleted. Warrior of zulu (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC) — Warrior of zulu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep, as an R from move. The nominator seems to misunderstand the reasons for deleting redirects. Just being incorrect doesn't require deletion; it can be tagged as {{R from incorrect name}} if needed. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Rawand Mustafa[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 per WP:CSD#G8. The target has been deleted as an expired PROD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No relation between the redirect and the target, an artefact of article creation (see the editor's name). Викидим (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on hold on, wait. That's not just an editor's name-- user:Kakamin Najar's main userpage is a redirect to this article. What!?
In any case, current target is the subject of a PROD that if successful will result in the speedy deletion of this redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
user:Rawand Mustafa drafted this article on their user page then moved it to mainspace, leaving a redirect behind. ~8 hours later they were renamed to user:Kakamin Najar and the userpage was automatically moved (without redirect) as part of that. Main user pages redirecting to the article namespace is confusing, so I'll convert it to a soft redirect (which is the least intrusive, least bitey solution). Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Aoomer[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 speedied under WP:G7.. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD#DELETE #2 and #8: This term is not explained or even mentioned in the target article. A quick Google search doesn't yield any sources supporting this meaning. Created with the rationale i said i was going to bed but then when i was lying in bed it occurred to me that i needed to make this redirect. thanks i'll be here all week, which doesn't help to dispel the impression that this may be one editor's private joke, either. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No good reason to keep it. Nerd271 (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obviously modelled on "Zoomer" for Generation Z, but that doesn't make it a good redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Maybe not a neologism: it appears as a four-year-old joke on reddit [1]. That doesn't justify its existence here, of course. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Timosoara Banatul Philharmonic[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 23:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unplausible redirect. I don't think that in English Wikipedia a Romanian-language redirect without diacritics, with the city name misspelled (should be Timișoara instead) and with a strange word order (the ro.wiki article's title is Filarmonica Banatul din Timișoara) is useful. Keeping this redirect is arbitrary. It has also served 1 person in the last 30 days. And 4 in the last 365 days. Super Ψ Dro 10:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:CLUSTERFUCK[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. However targetting to WP:Glossary#Trainwreck which was seen as a better target. Jay 💬 06:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unhelpful shortcut that does not help promote civil discussion in a collaborative spirit. It's pointing to a certain AfD where the term was used by the closer, but is being incorrectly cited in other AfDs as some sort of guideline or policy. The offensive nature of the term (which I came across at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports broadcasting contracts in Serbia) give statements that refer to it a strong accusatory tone that may seem to violate WP:CIVIL, even when none may have been intended. There's already WP:TRAINWRECK which is what most users of the redirect appear to actually be referring to. Paul_012 (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The link points to a closing summary by Premeditated Chaos that accurately reflects the closure of that discussion. I understand the nom's urge to seek deletion after seeing GiantSnowman and Anwegmann use the link at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports broadcasting contracts in Serbia, but that only proves that the link is getting some use. If this is not kept, then it should be at least retargeted to the glossary, so as to not create a bunch of redlinks in old AfDs where the term had meaning. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a keep, but would also be fine with a retarget to TRAINWRECK. It's a phrase which is used at AFDs, and the fact it's rude is not a reason to get rid of it per WP:NOTCENSORED, and see also WP:DICK etc. GiantSnowman 18:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, if the rudeness factor ISN'T a problem as per GiantSnowman and Red-tailed hawk, my Delete vote up there shifts to retarget to Wikipedia:Glossary#Trainwreck as an Avoided Double Redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCENSORED is about encyclopedic content. It has nothing to do with whether editors can or should use vulgar language, which is directly covered by WP:Civility. And WP:DICK has been deprecated since 2014, when the page was renamed to WP:Don't be a jerk following discussion on Meta. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, given my early mention of WP:UPPERCASE ("Actually read the articles you link to, don't just assume from the title that it supports your argument"), people would... y'know, keep UPPERCASE in mind in this very discussion, lol. I'm also guilty of that, given I, too, never actually followed WP:DICK to find the quite clear "don't use this" message. Given WP:CIVILITY is indeed an issue here, my vote will remain at Delete. Will thus un-bold the "retarget" in my second comment. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Okmrman (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget to TRAINWRECK per Lunamann. A redirect being offensive to some people is never a reason to delete on it's own, and no other relevant rationale for deletion has been provided. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to WP:TRAINWRECK as this is what the term is understood to mean. Peter L Griffin (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Isnotreal[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this for user:InTheAstronomy32, who tried to PROD it earlier. I will not vote. Reason given was "Implausible search term. "Isnotreal" appears to be a play on the name Israel and has no relation with criticism of Israel." StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Is the criticism of Israel here that... it's not real...? I've heard of antisemites denying the holocaust, but denying the existence of the current, physical country of Israel is a new one. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many years ago (I've just looked it up, it was August 2005) someone (an IP it turns out) nominated the Israel article for deletion with the rationale Nation does not follow the laws of the body that granted it soveriegnity, as such it is a non-soveriegn nation and does not officially exist. It attracted two speedy keep !votes in the four minutes it was open before the AfD page was speedily deleted as a "Troll page" (none of that by me so I don't know how I found out about it), but denying the existence of the country isn't completely new. None of this has any bearing on the redirect though. Thryduulf (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose if you don't recognize the state of Israel as a political entity, it's "not real". I don't think anyone's denying that that physical area doesn't exist, just that they'd like to call it something else. Anyway, delete. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of the recent discussions about micronations where some editors were asserting that even entities that have some physical presence were "not real" or "fictional" because they were unrecognised. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This (and Itsnotreal, which is currently a redlink) is a hashtag/epithet used by (pro-)Palestinian commenters to signal that they disagree with the legitimacy (not de facto existence) of the Israeli state and/or government (it's not always clear which). It's trivial to verify this is not something made up, and it's not trolling or something like that. Is it prominent enough to make a useful search term here though? Well it's prominent enough that the answer is not obviously "no", but it's not prominent enough that the answer is obviously "yes". This one is going to take more research, but as it's 4am here that's not going to happen right now. Thryduulf (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its use is generally bad faith or misguided, and it lacks the prominence to be a useful term, particularly for the page at hand. FortunateSons (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is unlikely to be useful as a search term for "criticism of Israel". Marokwitz (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...probably - Maybe it is useful as a search term for "criticism of Israel" for the TikTok/X etc. folks. It's not obvious to me how we could tell without leaving the redirect there for a while and looking at how many times it gets hit. It's had 102 pageviews (30 days) most of which probably have nothing to do with search and are just editors looking. There are many redirects and the pageview counts vary wildly including 0 hits in 30 days. Given that the actual article has 9,949 pageviews (30 days), it's unclear that deleting the redirect would have much impact. It does raise the wider question though as to whether mapping article titles to hashtags makes sense given that we don't really know what an ever growing set of things tagged with a hashtag encompasses (unless it has secondary source coverage I guess and that doesn't appear to be the case here). Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless mention is added. Creating a redirect to explain a hashtag could be helpful, but only if there's some actual explanation at the target. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Contract barrel[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 per G8 as the target was deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Contract barrel" is a gun barrel specification. Nothing to do with Baral. We have no article on contract barrels yet, so WP:RFD#DELETE #5 Викидим (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delta Point[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Delta Point" is the name of an apartment block in Croydon, but it is also the name of an apartment block in Salford. Recommend deletion. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to avoid confusion. --Викидим (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not mentioned at Salford but is mentioned at Croydon though only briefly. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No inbound links, and if it does gain notability, I'd say that WP:REDYES would apply here. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 23:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment based on Google results, it's also the name of an office building in Pennsylvania, a light industrial/warehouse/office development in West Bromwich and a type of bodyboard (I'm not sure if it's a brand, a manufacturer or a style). On Wikipedia, a type of firearm sight manufactured by Leupold & Stevens is mentioned in a few places (never in-depth), the location of Delta, Louisiana, a publisher of early Apple Macintosh software (mentioned as "Delta Point" at Taste (software) and as "DeltaPoint" at MindWrite), a riverfront property in Vicksburg, Mississippi gets a passing mention at Craig Hart Neilsen and a consulting company mentioned in passing at Jeremy Miner. The Croydon, Louisiana, firearm sight and Mac software uses might merit a dab entry, but the others almost certainly don't. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Dulah, California[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9#Dulah, California

Colonia Ulpia Traiana[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Colonia Ulpia Traiana

Institute for Macedonian language "Krste Misirkov"[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 7#Institute for Macedonian language "Krste Misirkov"

NOTOC[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 07:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad WP:XNR. One of the three links is in mainspace at AVP, where it certainly refers to something different. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dallas Stars Ice Girls[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was closed as redirect after a 2021 AfD, but to this day there's no mention of "Ice Girls", or even "girls" at all at the target page, making this unhelpful for people that search for this topic only to find nothing for their search term on this 112 thousand byte page, i.e. a very very long scroll. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Everything happened per process. The AfD suggested to add a neutral mention at the target. The AfD closer tagged the redirect as R without mention. The RfD nom notified the authors of the target by listing this discussion at the talk page. One relist later, there is no away something is going to get added. I do not know enough about the target to fit in a one-liner about the cheerleaders. Jay 💬 07:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

China's under martial law[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 7#China's under martial law

Delta Xi Omega – Faulkner[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A social club not mentioned at the target article. Was involved in a 2005 AfD that closed as merge. No merge actually took place. The club existed as a passing mention with no real focus for a while, and then removed via a copyvio clear in 2015. Unmentioned since. The dash followed by the university name makes this unlikely in its own right. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:13, 22 March 2024 (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 00:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No content was actually merged, so there are no attribution issues. The AfD result not to keep the article suggests there is no use in retaining the history, which only contained an insignificant substub anyway. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rechecked and found no evidence of merge. Yaksha would have misunderstood that a merge had happened, before tagging and redirecting the page. I have now removed the merge tag. However, I don't understand why a university article does not have a mention of its social club. Jay 💬 07:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2024_March_30&oldid=1218001321"