This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 9, 2020.
Division algorithm for integers
Template:R from slang term
Paris of the South
- 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. There's definite consensus that the current redirect target is ambiguous and hence not the correct choice. "Paris of the X" has been specifically shown as a highly used cliché for many locations, and there are certainly plenty of general mentions of multiple places being "Paris of the South", so a disambiguation page seems to be the most helpful option for readers. I will draft a disambiguation page based on some of the suggestions here, and explicitly encourage others to improve it. If someone wishes to create a general article talking about, or listing places, involving "Paris of the X", that also seems to be encouraged here. ~
mazca
talk
12:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
This nickname is neither unique to Asheville nor mentioned in the article. Google does give hits for Asheville, but also for
Buenos Aires,
Nice,
Barcelona and
New Orleans, the latter the only mention in article body text I can find (at
List of city nicknames in Louisiana, it is the title of a reference at Buenos Aires). I'm torn between deletion and a
List of cities nicknamed Paris of the South. Given the lack of article space mentions I'm not certain a dab page is best, but I'm not opposed if people prefer that option.
Thryduulf (
talk)
18:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Disambiguate per above. --
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
08:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- A disambiguation page should probably list
Carrboro, North Carolina ("The Paris of the Piedmont"), perhaps in a see also. --
BDD (
talk)
14:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Given
Paris of the Prairies,
Paris of the Piedmont,
Paris of the Middle East,
Paris of the plains,
Paris of the East (disambiguation),
Paris of the West (disambiguation),
Paris of the North (disambiguation),
Little Paris,
Paris of the Antilles,
Paris of the Caribbean,
Paris of the Tropics,
Paris of the Lesser Antilles,
Paris of the Savonia,
Paris of Appalachia, and others we should probably have an article listing them all somewhere.
Thryduulf (
talk)
11:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, while it may be possible to write a proper article on this term, or at least a set index article, based on the responses here it's not immediately clear what should be included in such a list, and I think it's unreasonable to expect the discussion's closer to take that on. signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:56, 19 June 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.
Nomographic function
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 17#Nomographic function
Lori Klausutis
- 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
Veracity of statements by Donald Trump#Joe Scarborough murder conspiracy theory. Wikipedia's coverage of this strange controversy has been quite fluid with several previously-suggested targets being deleted and/or having mentions removed. Later participation generally seems to conclude that this target has settled as the most helpful encyclopedic mention of her. ~
mazca
talk
12:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- False light libel BLP violation. This person and her death is unrelated to his resignation.
ConstantPlancks (
talk)
18:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned at target.
Crazy
Boy
826
16:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Just fyi, I made the redirect when there wuz still content naming her in the "Resignation" section. As it is currently the redirect makes no sense, since someone removed the info afterwards.
Kingoflettuce (
talk)
17:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- I'm sure I could and be justified in doing so since that's the consensus that was reached, albeit some time ago. Right now there is an ongoing re-discussion though, so I wouldn't want to be disruptive or anything. But certainly "Lora Klausutis", if not deserving of an article of her own, has much relevance to (Redacted) her former Congressman employer.
Kingoflettuce (
talk)
17:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- I did not invoke any consensus. The text has serious BLP concerns, among other things, suggesting the LP resigned due to a death when the resignation was announced a month before the death. Some text may be added on the subject. But, I can’t imagine that it would be added to that section anyhow, making the redirect invalid. And be careful. There isn’t the tiniest shred of evidence suggesting he killed her.
O3000 (
talk)
19:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- I'm simply making a factual statement that insinuations, if not straight-up accusations, have been made that Joe killed her. I'm not making any original claims and FYI, Trump wasn't the first to raise it either. You should be careful not to censor and gaslight
Kingoflettuce (
talk)
05:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
Useless redirect, hurtful and unnecessary. Speedy delete. --
Anvilaquarius (
talk)
17:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- The second article looks like the correct target -- assuming the article remains, and if so, her name remains in the article.
O3000 (
talk)
20:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - given this name has been in the news recently, the redirect should exist, and this is the most logical target for it. (
Donald Trump's Joe Scarborough Murder Conspiracy Theory, linked above, would be an even better target, but I've just nominated that one for deletion as a clear case of NOTNEWS.)
Robofish (
talk)
00:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: This name is a likely search term.
Joe Scarborough#Resignation is the best target. Donald Trump did not start this conspiracy theory. It has been around for almost 20 years, and Michael Moore also raised the issue. So redirecting to "Trump tweets" is not appropriate.--
Jack Upland (
talk)
01:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy delete Per BLP policy. Conspiracy theories or Trump tries could be a possible redirect, but surely surviving family deserve better treatment than being dragged into baseless conspiracy theories. --
Cantabwarrior (
talk)
02:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Since when was "surely surviving family deserve better treatment..." part of Wikipedia policy? We might as well scrub out all unsolved murder articles here, for starters. Let's not pretend that Joe Scarborough is of zero relevance here...
Kingoflettuce (
talk)
05:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- What's pathetic is your harping on what mighty Jimmy said ages ago (precisely!), disregarding whatever else has happened since then--and the fact that we're discussing a redirect here. She may not be notable enuf to warrant her own article (the AfD proves that much) but her name remains a likely and relevant search term that, as things stand, should redirect to Joe Scarborough's article.
Kingoflettuce (
talk)
07:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Her name is not part of this. Dragging her name through this is disgusting. It adds nothing. Nothing has happened that makes this person part of this. Nothing has changed that in 20 years. It's hackery.
ConstantPlancks (
talk)
18:08, 27 May 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.
Liberal theology
- 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
Religious liberalism, which links to the articles that would be covered in a dab as a broad concept article. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
11:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
This phrase, "liberal theology," does not refer exclusively to a left-leaning application of Christian theology and as such, should not redirect exclusively to "Liberal Christianity". This is quite a blatant case of christocentric bias.
ItsPugle (
talk)
21:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete or disambiguate. In any event, the current target cannot stand. Compare
Liberal Judaism (a DAB page),
Liberal Islam and
Liberal Catholic (a DAB page), and for all I know interpretations of other denominations or religions.
Narky Blert (
talk)
03:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete' or convert to a dab page per Narky Blert - multiple valid targets --
DannyS712 (
talk)
06:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
religious liberalism, which is necessarily tied to liberal theology.
Nyttend (
talk)
00:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
religious liberalism per
Nyttend.
Ltwin (
talk)
00:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Disambiguate as a valid search term, but with no agreed on target. For example, I immediately thought of
Liberation theology.
Jontesta (
talk)
17:34, 11 June 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.
Boiling Springs, Pennsylania
- 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)
Mdaniels5757 (
talk)
21:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
Delete this redirect. It is based on an implausible misspelling.
Ezhao02 (
talk)
21:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep; see
. What is to be gained by deleting this redirect
Ezhao02? —
J947
[cont]
21:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- @
J947: Is there a way to check if any articles link here? It's an unnecessary page if none do.
Ezhao02 (
talk)
21:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- People search this up more than they are linked here; links cause a relatively small portion of redirect pageviews. —
J947
[cont]
21:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- @
Ezhao02: There is: go to the redirect; in the menu on the left-hand panel, select under Tools "What links here". In this case, zero mainspace pages link to the redirect. In the same menu, click "Page information", and at the bottom "Pageview statistics". Change date type to monthly, and select a start date as far back as possible, and you'll see that the redirect has negligible page views (6 in the last year).
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
18:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep - It's 10 years old and it took me awhile to catch the error. This isn't ridiculous, isn't harmful, and may be occasionally helpful.
Hog Farm (
talk)
22:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per above, hence the creation of the misspelled redirect
Pennyslvania. --
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
08:18, 10 June 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.
Las Vegas/Climate
Pakistani Federation
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 17#Pakistani Federation
Music of the Gran Turismo series
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 18#Music of the Gran Turismo series
Majoritarian
- 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
Majoritarianism.
(non-admin closure)
Captain Galaxy (
talk)
19:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
Majoritarianism seems to be the most logical target.
Majority rule is just the institutional expression of a belief in majoritarianism. See definition of majoritarian per
Webster's and
Oxford Dictionaries. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk)
16:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget pe nom. --Stay safe,
◊PRAHLAD
balaji (
M•T•A•
C) This message was left at
17:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Majoritarianism as {{
R from adjective}}. (It's also {{
R from noun}}, but let's not overcomplicate.)
Narky Blert (
talk)
05:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Majoritarianism. I agree, but I thought of the noun first, although I suspect that the adjective gets more use. --
Bejnar (
talk)
05:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Do not retarget. To me, and probably to most other people who are not very familiar with philosophy, "majoritarian" simply describes a type of system for counting votes or electing representatives (like the ones used in parliamentary elections in the UK). This appears to be covered at the current target (but I'm not sure if
First-past-the-post voting is not relevant as well – that was the target of the redirect for the two and half years after the article that stood at this title got merged there). I don't believe that the the political philosophy of
Majoritarianism encompasses these topics (and the article itself goes at some length to emphasise the distinction). Disambiguation might be a good option, as the term is indeed also used as an adjective for the political philosophy, and additionally as a noun referring to a supporter of a majority party (the latter according to the OED). –
Uanfala (talk)
18:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Disambiguate per Uanfala. The definition from the
second external link the nom provided can actually also mean
majority rule, not only
majoritarianism. Disambig is the best option. --
Pandakekok9 (
talk)
08:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Majoritarianism per Narky Blert. Uanfala's points are well taken, but until we have such a disambiguation page, retargeting doesn't strike me as obviously harmful. --18:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
Positive and negative definite and semidefinite and indefinite
JudæoChristianity
- 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
20:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
Camel-case creation by Neelix without reason.
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
15:56, 9 June 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.
Negative semi-definite
- 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
Definite quadratic form.
(non-admin closure)
Captain Galaxy (
talk)
18:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
Disambiguate as done with
Positive semidefinite.
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
14:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- I don't see any reason why not to create the same disambiguation page as with
positive semidefinite. --
bender235 (
talk)
16:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget both (and also
positive semidefinite) to the same target as
semidefinite, that is
Definite quadratic form. Definite quadratic form is clearly (for mathematicians) the primary topic.
Definiteness of a matrix is a
WP:OR title, and essentially a content fork that must be merged into
Definite quadratic form, or, at least, renamed
Definite symmetric matrix. As far as I know, all articles that have "definite" or "semidefinite" in their title (for example
semi-definite kernel,
semidefinite bilinear form,
semidefinite programming) involve semidefinite quadratic forms or their matrices. This show that
Definite quadratic form is the primary topic. So, all adjective phrases ending with "definite" must have thistarget. I seems that
positive-definite function is a uniqe exception, and this can be solved by a hatnote.
D.Lazard (
talk)
17:07, 9 June 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.
Pion (publisher)
- 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)
Captain Galaxy (
talk)
15:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned at target.
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
14:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, if it's not mentionned, mention it.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
14:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep bearing in mind
WP:BURDEN (
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material
), I have added a sourced mention of Pion's association with SAGE at
SAGE Publishing#Acquisitions.
59.149.124.29 (
talk)
03:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Headbomb. Although it is nice if a redirected term is mentioned on the target page, this is not a hard requirement for a redirect per
WP:REDIR. Redirects like this one serve as anchor plates for links (f.e. from citations), they indicate a relation (in this case a former name or ownership relation) and help reverse lookup. I find it counter-productive to nominate such redirects for deletion. If someone want them to be mentioned on the target page they should just add it there. However, sometimes this is not practical, as the creator of the redirect may not have time for it (because he is working on something else like providing a citation) or may not have enough knowledge about a publisher topic to add a whole section, but (with the source in his hands) he might still know that the publisher relation and therefore that a redirect should exist. Content contribution and infrastructure work do not necessarily happen at the same time. Nominating such redirects for deletion is putting them on risk of being deleted accidently, and thereby a piece of knowledge provided by a contributor to be lost. That's a waste of our resources.
- --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
13:26, 15 June 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.
K-
- 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 (although k-short and k-long are not ambiguous with k-). --
JHunterJ (
talk)
11:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
May also refer to a
K− meson.
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
13:09, 9 June 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.
Rollout: The Game of the Risk-Takers
- 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
20:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
Subject not mentioned or explained at target, as it is simply an unrelated other game by the same company.
Fram (
talk)
12:40, 9 June 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.
8:46 (film)
- 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 restore article and AfD. Seems it's best to
WP:IAR and just preempt this RfD, restore the article, and AfD to decide the best course. There's enough concern about RfD deleting page history of content that might be notable. —
Bagumba (
talk)
07:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
This used to be a standalone article until
QuestFour changed it into a redirect citing "non-notable film that fails
WP:NFILM". There is currently no mention of this film or related term at the target. There are no incoming links to this redirect. Either this redirect should be deleted, or the target should have content related to the redirect title. —
Bagumba (
talk)
12:03, 9 June 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.
2020 coronavirus outbreak in Mexico,
- 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
20:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
Redirects with a sentence-final punctuation, delete.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
09:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Three uses is not enough as justification for the keeping of this redirect IMO. It could as well be just be the creator loading his redirect three times, as pageview by the same user is counted every time per the
tool's FAQ. If you consider that as a justification for keeping this redirect, I might as well program a bot that will create millions of redirects with a comma at the end of it, and say it's useful because I say so.
im temtem •
hOI!! •
fsfdfg • alt account of
pandakekok9
04:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- The redirect
Bhagyarekha ( TV series) is also under discussion today. It has
been read over 5200 times. So, if three times is too few, will you agree that 5200 is enough to justify retaining a redirect? Where, between 3 and 5200 do you draw your line.
- Redirects are very cheap to retain. We aren't going to run out of space for redirects. There is no real possibility that these two redirects would be needed for actual articles, about something else. So I continue to think even just three usages is enough to justify retention.
Geo Swan (
talk)
22:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- I also support deleting
2020 coronavirus outbreak in the United States., which only had 12 pageviews from creation to June 8. Such redirects are only unnecessary clutter. --
im temtem •
hOI!! •
fsfdfg • alt account of
pandakekok9
04:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
-
This redirect has been used three times, FWIW.
Geo Swan (
talk)
15:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- This is incredibly low compared to the other redirects. --
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
12:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete,
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
16:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, this thing, I'm not sure people will search this with a comma at the end, also, are there other "2020 coronavirus outbreak in X," redirects, that could be bundled with this one?, Regards,
SONIC
678,
18:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Only one other of the sort, which I added. Though it has a period instead of a comma, the same line of reasoning applies.
ComplexRational (
talk)
20:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - frivolous nomination.
Geo Swan (
talk)
19:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete (both) as malformed.
ComplexRational (
talk)
20:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Meh. Deleting this is straight-up useless. —
J947
[cont]
22:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
-
Geo Swan pointed out, "
This redirect has been used three times," and all of them are on May 2020. If it has routine views, then I would not nominate them for deletion. Deleting redirect is cheap, see
WP:RCOSTLY. --
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
12:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- In that same essay there is the section
Sending redirects to RFD is costly.
Soumya-8974, you might want to read that important section before citing that essay. —
J947
[cont]
18:34, 16 June 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.
2020 Bavaria coronavirus lockdown
Janta curfew
2020 virus
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 17#2020 virus
CCP coronavirus
- 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
Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Chinese biological weapon.
(non-admin closure)
Captain Galaxy (
talk)
10:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
See the RfD of
CCP virus.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
08:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Support retarget to
Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Chinese biological weapon, per my comment in the
said RfD. --
im temtem •
hOI!! •
fsfdfg • alt account of
pandakekok9
09:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
-
Soumya-8974, you tell us to see the previous rfd, yet there are two of them,
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_12#CCP_Virus closed as no consensus, and
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_25#CCP_Virus closed with the redirect target we have now. I am inclined to stick with the status quo. How about making an effort to explain yourself more fully?
Geo Swan (
talk)
13:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Well, I am talking about the RfD that closed as retarget to
Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Chinese biological weapon. --
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
08:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Either delete or retarget to
SARS-CoV-2. I've heard of it being referred to as the "CCP virus", but not the "CCP coronavirus". —
Tenryuu 🐲 (
💬 •
📝 )
20:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Chinese biological weapon for consistency with the retarget of
CCP virus at the more recent RFD from 25 May. At 73,000 Google Hits, it seems to be potential search term.
59.149.124.29 (
talk)
01:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic#Chinese biological weapon like what we do in
CCP virus. --
DRIZZLE (
talk)
06:34, 11 June 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.
Corona baby
- 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, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
See the RfD of
Condemic,
COVIDemic,
Coronababy, etc.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
08:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. We are not Urban Dictionary. --
im temtem •
hOI!! •
fsfdfg • alt account of
pandakekok9
09:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
-
Soumya-8974, please provide the actual wikilinks to previous discussions when you think they are adequate substitutes to explaining yourself fully here.
Geo Swan (
talk)
15:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, we cannot find any evidence that the redirects are really used on reliable sources. --
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
08:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all per nom and previous rationales. Regards,
SONIC
678
18:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom and previous discussions --
DannyS712 (
talk)
06:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per discussion above.
Captain Galaxy (
talk)
18:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete and close discussion.
OcelotCreeper (
talk)
18:26, 16 June 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.
Occhio
- 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
20:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned on the article. I suggest deletion.
Soumya-8974
talk
contribs
subpages
08:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Occhio is Italian for
eye. I don't see any connection between an occhio, or eye, to a violin or guitar. --
im temtem •
hOI!! •
fsfdfg • alt account of
pandakekok9
09:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. This meaning doesn't appear in either
wikt:occhio or
it:wiktionary:occhio, or on the Italian DAB page
it:Occhio, or in
it:Foro di risonanza (the Italian equivalent of
sound hole). Retargetting to
eye would fall foul of
WP:RFFL.
Narky Blert (
talk)
13:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete (as creator). I made this page to take it off
Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics/33. This is a real meaning of the word found in reference works, as you can see in the entry at the
Harvard Dictionary of Music. It must have appeared as a headword in at least one such work to be on the list. Ordinarily such music terminology is useful to have in other languages, because musical directions may appear in scores in several European languages. In this case, though, the usage seems rare enough that it's not even mentioned on Italian wiki pages Narky Blert cites. I'm pretty inclusionist but I don't see why it would need to be here.
Rigadoun
(talk)
18:35, 11 June 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.
Leo Niehorster
- 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 deleted by
Czar. It looks like the draft was taken to
AfD, which closed as delete earlier today. --
BDD (
talk)
18:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned in target, may be notable as there is a dewiki page
de:Leo Niehorster.
b
uidh
e
04:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- I created a draft article of him using Google Translate. I also added him to the list just in case the article won't be accepted.
im temtem •
hOI!! •
fsfdfg • alt account of
pandakekok9
05:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, This Leo Niehorster doesn't appear to be notable, and thus shouldn't be included at the target article. While doing a search for sources, I found some coverage of a different Leo Niehorster
[1], who is an art critic rather than a military historian. signed,
Rosguill
talk
20:25, 16 June 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.
Great Collapse (2020)
- 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. --
BDD (
talk)
18:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
Implausible search term. I haven't seen any major news source using this term to refer to the
coronavirus recession. The redirect also only had 7 pageviews from 12 May 2020.
im temtem •
hOI!! •
fsfdfg • alt account of
pandakekok9
04:00, 9 June 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.
Tropical Strom Yolanda (1992)
- 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. Unlikely typos for relatively obscure storms. ~
mazca
talk
12:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
reply
Several tropical storm related redirects with an improbable typo. Correctly spelled counterparts already exist for each one of these.
CycloneYoris
talk!
01:35, 9 June 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.
Derry Mensah
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 16#Derry Mensah