This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 28, 2019.
- 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
19:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
Setting not mentioned in target article.
Steel1943 (
talk)
23:19, 28 December 2019 (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.
- 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. --
Tavix (
talk)
23:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
The disambiguation page at the target does not disambiguate "Big cocks". Perhaps
Human penis size?
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
18:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep while I suspect most of the searches will be
for the lulz, a DAB page is the best place to land for the serious ones.
Human penis size is listed there for those looking for that specifically.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
14:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, nothing defuses someone immaturely searching "big cocks" like a completely straight-faced disambiguation page with no cocks on it. Retargeting to an article on penis size doesn't seem necessary, given the disambiguation page does offer that link if someone was honestly looking for it; and any of the targets listed on the page could easily be mistakenly pluralised. This is probably a page that wouldn't need to exist if it wasn't a dirty phrase - none of the targets actually have independent pages - but I certainly think the present situation is optimal given all that. ~
mazca
talk
22:51, 5 January 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.
- 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
19:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
Delete, there isn't a settlement or even "other feature" with the name on the OS maps, however there is Concord House at
SP8806. There was a previous RFD at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 13#Hazeldean, Buckinghamshire for similar redirects and I assumed they had been deleted until I checked
List of places in Buckinghamshire. Vision of Britain also doesn't return anything for this, nor is it in the Domesday Book. While we have a low inclusion bar for redirects I don't think we can have them to a town that might contain many that are unverifiable names, that is to say the plain name "Concord" has no verifiable usage. Google or Books also does't bring up anything.
20th century maps do however show "Concord" but its quite possible that that only applies to a single building.
Crouch, Swale (
talk)
22:55, 28 December 2019 (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.
- 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
19:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
No relevant info at the current target (that's completely the wrong article), or the previous target (
English language: too broad to ever have anything relevant). Nothing relevant either at the two other potential targets:
Languages of South Sudan and
Education in South Sudan – they might both mention the status and use of English (and so would be suitable targets for a redirect like
English in South Sudan), but they don't have anything to say on the presumed variety of English that's peculiar to South Sudan. If such a variety exists, then it's probably best to have a
WP:REDLINK incentive for article creation. –
Uanfala (talk)
22:52, 28 December 2019 (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.
Redirects created by Sk1728
- 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. Neither target seems to have any relationship with the languages the redirects are in, leading to consensus that these both are inappropriate redirects per
WP:FORRED. ~
mazca
talk
22:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
No relationship with post-Soviet States.
49.146.12.240 (
talk)
16:19, 28 December 2019 (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.
Starship orbital prototype
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 5#Starship orbital prototype
- 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
Electron neutrino.
(non-admin closure)
Steel1943 (
talk)
16:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
Incorrect capitalisation, neutrino is not a proper noun. I don't think a redirect from the plural form is useful in this case anyway.
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
10:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget
Keep The redirect has existed for over 10 years. It is possible that there are external links that would be broken by deleting the redirect. Keeping it causes no damage to the encyclopedia. An article name shouldn't be a plural but there is no reason a redirect can't be a plural. There is no reason to delete it.
~ GB fan 13:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC) (Edited) Retarget to Electron neutrino.
~ GB fan
01:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
Weak keep only for the possibility of preserving links and 70 pageviews in the last year (not a lot, but I've seen far fewer). Redirects are cheap, but I'm not convinced that both incorrect capitalization and pluralization are useful in contrast to only one of them (which would be far more likely).
ComplexRational (
talk)
17:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Changing to weak retarget to
Electron neutrino or delete per Uanfala below and the rest of my comment above. I can't believe I overlooked electron neutrino.
Self-trout
ComplexRational (
talk)
00:12, 29 December 2019 (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.
- 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. Nobody's been able to spot any evidence that the current target is ever actually referred to by this name. ~
mazca
talk
15:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
The article doesn't mention, and I can find no source, that Timothy Gowers is known as "Bill". I suggest delete since Bill Gowers is potentially ambiguous with
Billy Gowers.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
10:26, 28 December 2019 (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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 5#Second party
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 5#First-party source
- 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. It's now been identified as to what language this actually came from, but regardless the consensus here is that this is an inappropriate foreign-language redirect as per
WP:FORRED ~
mazca
talk
15:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
this is clearly the official romanized Ариана Гранде Бутера.
49.146.12.240 (
talk)
03:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I'm not sure I understand the nom's statement, but
WP:FORRED would appear to apply nonetheless. signed,
Rosguill
talk
04:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
WP:FORRED. I don't understand how it is the "official romanized" name of a person whose full name is written in the Latin alphabet as
Ariana Grande-Butera. The "i" in "Ariana" is actually U+0131 LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS I, the Y is
U+00DD LATIN CAPITAL LETTER Y WITH ACUTEU+00FD LATIN SMALL LETTER Y WITH ACUTE. These are indeed used to transliterate Cyrillic letters, but this is an erroneous back-translation.
84.236.27.55 (
talk)
05:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. This is Ariana Grande's full name in
Latin-script Kazakh (see her article in
Kazakh Wikipedia, which still uses Cyrillic, and lists her name as what the nom gives). As she does not seem to have any ties to Kazakhstan,
WP:FORRED should apply.
Double sharp (
talk)
14:07, 28 December 2019 (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.