Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 15

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

April 15

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 15, 2020.

Moon River (TV series)

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 two to The Return of Iljimae, delete one. signed, Rosguill talk 20:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While there was a TV series called Moon River broadcast by ABS-CBN in the Philippines, and Moon River (TV series) centered on this TV series, it was redirected here after it was pointed out its subject might not have been notable enough, and it's no longer mentioned in the list.

Also, this...is a bit ambiguous, as it could refer to stuff like The Return of Iljimae (alternatively titled Moon River in its native South Korea) or this 2015 Taiwanese TV show I found on IMDb. As such, I'm thinking we could 1) disambiguate Moon River (TV series) and retarget Moon River (TV Series) there, 2) retarget the first two to The Return of Iljimae, 3) find a better target for both of them, or 4) delete them if none of these work (and I definitely suggest deleting the third unless a justification can be provided, as it was left over from a 2009 move done "for specifical procedure reasons"). Regards, SONIC678 23:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Women (song2)

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another instance of "2" at the end, which was done to distinguish this song from another one with the title "Women," and moved back in 2009 to the correct title. Not sure how useful this redirect is now, especially since Women lists multiple songs with that title. Regards, SONIC678 23:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pedal-cart

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 23#Pedal-cart

Template:0-7110-0554-0

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 23#Template:0-7110-0554-0

Template:0-7110-0553-2

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 23#Template:0-7110-0553-2

Template:0-905878-06-X

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 23#Template:0-905878-06-X

Unit redirects

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. These redirects were picked up in a mass deletion for a user globally locked for long term abuse. Anyone in good standing may recreate. -- Tavix (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term for the unit of measurement for radiance Utopes (talk / cont) 20:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete – These are unlikely terms per nom, and they do not seem to be listed under SI derived unit, which I would have considered the most suitable target. —Quondum 21:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Keep - Having a compound unit redirect to the article that provides information on the quantity that unit measures makes sense. Redirects are cheap. It's not even clear to me what problem the nom is trying to solve with this proposal.--Srleffler (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respectfully disagree. For every unit, there are many different quantities that it can be used to measure (often of different kinds), making such a redirect specific to an arbitrarily selected quantity. Secondly, quantities can be measured in any unit system, so such a redirect loses specificity about the system they are part of. An article like SI derived units, on the other hand, lists multiple quantities per unit that it can be used to measure and is specific to the relevant unit system, thus being suited on both counts, the only issue being that the unit is not yet listed there. If the redirect is merited as a compound unit, then an entry at SI derived unit should be created. (pinging Srleffler) —Quondum 14:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you can come up with any other physical quantity that is measured in watts per steradian per square metre then I'll agree. As far as I can see, this unit is pretty specific to radiance. The fact that other unit systems exist is irrelevant. This unit is the SI unit of radiance. SI derived unit provides no useful information about this unit whatsoever, other than that it is the SI unit of radiance. Redirecting to Radiance provides the user the same information, and without the difficulty of searching through all the irrelevant material at SI derived unit in hopes of finding what they need. I agree with you in general, but I think your argument fails for this particular unit.--Srleffler (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uh-oh – now I have a challenge to meet  . How about energy flux density? (W/m2 – since SI rules do not permit rad and sr to be considered significant.) Disallowing the gaming of unit semantics, a realistic quantity is irradiance per solid angle of the sky in view, which is basically the irradiance equivalent to the radiance case, but nevertheless a distinct quantity Damn. I see they're conflated under the term 'radiance'. I give up. Nevertheless, dropping my purist hat for a moment, I will concede that in the looking-for-information context, the keep option might be more helpful in most instances because of the hunting factor in the table. So I guess I should say retarget/keep ... —Quondum 01:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Srleffler: I assume by "Oppose" you mean "Keep" (at Redirects for discussion)? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See also #Tesla-metre below. Certes (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both target articles specifically mention that these are the appropriate SI units for the topic, and I don't think they're ambiguous (are they?). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

UFC Ultimate Fight Night

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 23#UFC Ultimate Fight Night

Drinking in Fiji

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 redirect to various culture and cuisine articles. I see a strong consensus to retarget the final four redirects, and a weak consensus to retarget the first three. signed, Rosguill talk 20:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, kava is one beverage that gets consumed in these countries... – Uanfala (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Viram Deo

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) Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Deo" is not mentioned anywhere at the target page Utopes (talk / cont) 22:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Covidiot

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 23#Covidiot

Planck molar mass

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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another day, another batch of original Planck units not mentioned at the target. I suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Best of Eurovision

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 20:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The programme was never called Best of Eurovision; this name was likely (mistakenly) taken from the title of this article. There are no hits on Google for a programme called Best of Eurovision, other than this Wikipedia page. As Best of Eurovision is not an alternative name for the programme which is actually called Die Grand Prix Hitliste, the redirect should be deleted. ― Ætoms [talk]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

(a)fternoon EP

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 21:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The “EP” at the end seems unlikely. I've created (a)fternoon now. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lists of Commandants of Cadets of the United States (disambiguation)

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 21:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target is not a disambiguation page, it is a list of lists, which does not disambiguate the term "Lists of Commandants of Cadets of the United States" because that phrase is not ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cuna de lobos (upcoming TV series)

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 21:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Cuna de lobos series has already been released, so why would it still be "upcoming?" Also, compared to its target, it gets very few page views. Regards, SONIC678 16:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as obsolete. It can always be recreated if another new series is planned. Narky Blert (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect from move. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 01:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per K4, this has high views from old links. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 01:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The target is no longer "upcoming"; for that reason, this redirect is now misleading. Page views can't fix an erroneously-titled redirect. And deleting such redirects has years of precedence on WP:RFD. Deleting redirects such as these really should be considered WP:G6. Steel1943 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • So it's kind of misleading... and what? This is very unlikely to be searched up and it transports readers to the place where they would want to go anyway. External links from slightly outdated, fairly-trafficked web pages will be broken with next to none gain. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 03:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...And searchers of these terms would de facto assume their targets are "upcoming" since it is part of the disambiguator, which they are not. That's the reason why there has been continuous precedence to delete redirects like these. If you want one of the "D" reasons for why this should be deleted, see D2 and D5, both of which apply. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Barely anyone will search this up in the normal fashion; the views are produced from links – and if anyone does search this up, they're likely to skim through the lead and notice "oh, it's no longer upcoming". Do we really want to inconvienience a lot of readers for very little gain? If we're arguing via policy then a preface to the deletion reasons is: You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):. K4 and K5 apply in leaps and bounds, rendering arguable interpretations of D2 and D5 invalid. — J947 [cont] 23:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading, this is not an upcoming TV series. -- Tavix (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 16:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

War of the Ninepenny Kings

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 for some, delete others. I see a consensus to delete #1 and #4, and no consensus for #2, #3, or #5. However, as no one has suggested keeping #5, I'm going to go ahead and implement the suggested redirect as preferable to simply keeping it, with no prejudice against further discussion or renomination. signed, Rosguill talk 21:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see a clear consensus for 4/5 of these, but given the minimal discussion I'm opting to relist on behalf of the remaining one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion could be warranted, as there is still no consensus as to which redirects should be retargeted and which should be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 16:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2984/New speak

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo in the unlinked old R from subpage. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

20th century/Maternal death rates

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 22#20th century/Maternal death rates

Military of Wake Island

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 22#Military of Wake Island

Chomskybot

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 21:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not mentioned nontrivially in any article. An article about it was deleted by AfD in 2014. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2014 AfD is actually Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chomskybot (2nd nomination) not the 2006 one linked above, whose result was keep. Andrewa (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and investigate why reference to Chomskybot has been removed from the article(s) concerned. The AFD result was keep [1] but that's in 2006 so something peculiar is going on here. Andrewa (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies did it in 2015, along with several others that they deemed to be linkspam. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's easily "investigated": it was mentioned in the article with a link to http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl this], which delivers some great internet fun for geeks and linguists (guilty as charged) but has no verifiable relevance in the world at large. So, Andrewa, that AfD was from 2006 and those AfDs don't have a lot of currency anymore; I doubt that that one would have closed as "keep" today. Note that the only "keep" argument in there is essentially this: "This is a decent article about reasonably well-known, well-documented script that has been around for over a decade, and widely adapted to other purposes"--there is no evidence anywhere in the AfD that there is notability, and nothing in the deleted article, which you can read with your admin glasses. So that's why I removed it from an already terrible article. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The main problem here seems to be that it's difficult to find RSS in the cloud of blogs and the like that reference this and other parody generators. Does a Mental Floss article on Chomskybot count? Probably borderline. Andrewa (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So for clarity's sake: delete--it's not mentioned in the article for a very good reason: there is not independent sourcing whatsoever to prove that this little thing on the internet matters at all. Drmies (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you have looked for sources with negative results, and that I'll find these results in the correct AfD, is that also correct? Andrewa (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this were andrewpedia, I'd flag this as R with possibilities as Chomskybot is so famous that I'm sure the sources are there, but finding them is not easy and I don't have time to do it before this closes, and nobody else seems interested. Of course I'll go with the consensus here. Agree that the deleted article was woeful. Hopefully this discussion will be helpful when an article is (inevitably IMO) created. Andrewa (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't really have anything to add to the above arguments. Deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

.aaa

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 List of Internet top-level domains#aaa. signed, Rosguill talk 21:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The TLD is not mentioned at the target. Maybe an anchored link to the list entry at List of Internet top-level domains#Brand top-level domains would be better? Either that or add it to the article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Test equipment (disambiguation)

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 WP:SNOW, target is not a disambiguation page -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Test equipment" is a broad term and the target is an article about test equipment, and the different types of test equipment. The target does not perform a disambiguation-like function because all the topics linked from the article are not known solely (or even partially) as "test equipment". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cranial fossa (disambiguation)

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 WP:SNOW, target is not a disambiguation page -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target article is not a disambiguation page ("cranial fossa" is not ambiguous); it is an article that describes the 3 cranial fossae. The article does not really perform a disambiguation-like function because the subtopics listed in the article are all WP:partial title matches. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Encylopedia

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. signed, Rosguill talk 21:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories#Redirect request: Encylopedia Dramatica, Encylopaedia Dramatica that these are not plausible redirects. Also Encylopedia Judeica and Encylopedia britannica are incorrect in multiple ways. Peter James (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I concur. --Bsherr (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fairly weak delete, while I can see someone forgetting the first "C," I don't know how plausible of a misspelling that is, also adding Sotheby's Wine Encylopedia, 1911 Encylopedia, Jewish Encylopedia, and some more here.
  • Keep - though I may be missing something. (I don't understand the general rationale for deleting redirects, since other things being equal having these redirects seems a Pareto improvement over not having them.) In the particular case which brought me here (Encylopédistes -> Encylopédie) I wrote the redirect in order to use it in André-François Deslandes. Dsp13 (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC) Haha strike that, I didn't see that all these (including the one I had created) are missing a 'c'between the 'y' and the 'l'.Dsp13 (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unhelpful misspellings, clutter. Narky Blert (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most, since these titles are generally implausible. Almost all of these began either as a redirect for a page that was moved immediately (e.g. Encylopedia of Art, moved to the right spelling just eight minutes after creation) or began as a redirect to the right spelling and therefore wouldn't have any intentional links. Only two exceptions: Illustrated Encylopedia Of Aircraft should be kept, because the article was at that title for almost a year — it's highly likely to have links, e.g. from old versions of Wikipedia articles. Encylopedia can make a good typo redirect. It's different from all the "Encylopedia of X" titles, because getting one word right except for a letter is much more likely than getting multiple words right except for a single letter. Nyttend backup (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How are these implausible? I’m generally confused by that argument. They look like alternate spellings to me? Given, I’m the worlds worst speller, but I’m really baffled as to what I’m missing. I have no problem changing my vote if people can point this out, but these seem like normal redirects that I’d use. Addendum: I’d written the above before I realized they were missing a C. Still keep. If it took me 10 minutes of looking at them trying to figure out the issue, they’re not implausible misspellings. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; these are perfectly plausible misspellings. (I didn't notice the misspellings for a while either) Very nice views for some of these. — J947 [cont] 22:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Just click on "links" for the first entry, and you'll see that people mistype this word with some frequency. Searching for "encylopedia" in all namespaces yields 14,000 hits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The argument in my last sentence was disproven by the Encylopedia Britannica statistics. I don't care if it seems plausible or not — if lots of people are using a set of redirects, and if they show up thousands of times in text, they're plausible. No objection to renomination of individual items that both seem implausible and that get minimal usage. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: it's a common misspelling of a difficult word. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sheer number of redirects is evidence that it's a commonly misspelled word. -- Tavix (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Corticosteroid receptor (disambiguation)

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 21:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target article is not a disambiguation page ("Corticosteroid receptor" is not ambiguous); it is an article that describes the different types of corticosteroid receptors. The article does not really perform a disambiguation-like function because the subtopics listed in the article are all WP:partial title matches. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Superior alveolar nerves (disambiguation)

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 21:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The target article is not a disambiguation page ("alveolar nerve" is not ambiguous); it is an article that describes the different types of alveolar nerve. The article does not really perform a disambiguation-like function because the subtopics listed in the article are all WP:partial title matches. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Uw-innapropiate1

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 21:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved in November 2019 due to a misspelling. A Template:Uw-innappropriate3 was cut-and-paste moved by the creator and is tagged for speedy deletion per T3. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Scandal (fragrance)

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 23#Scandal (fragrance)

CutiePie

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 22#CutiePie

Template:Uw-bdp

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 21:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vague title for a redirect, as {{subst:uw-biog1}} also mentions recently deceased persons. Merged as a result of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 May 25#Template:Uw-bdp. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fifteen (American/Japanese Release)

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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These used to redirect to the title 15 (album) (specifically referring to the Buckcherry album), except that term now redirects to the disambiguation page 15 because of more albums with that title, rendering these titles ambiguous (the American/Japanese release of what?). Regards, SONIC678 05:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

IComparing talian Fascism and German Nazism

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 21:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a questionably plausible search term, especially "IComparing talian." While I can see someone forgetting the first I of "Italian," it might potentially cause confusion with something called Talian. SRegards, ONIC678 05:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Anisul Haque

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 Anisul Huq. signed, Rosguill talk 21:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Anisul Huq. Not necessarily means a Bangladeshi businessman. Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 05:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_15&oldid=952733589"