This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 10, 2021.
- 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 Overwrite, with the article at the (improperly) capitalized
Biological Data. Any merge discussions can happen at
WP:RM.
Jay
(talk)
08:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Biological Data exists as an article, but perhaps should be merged to
Bioinformatics (and this page target changed to
Bioinformatics. If not merged, that page should be moved here.
User:力 (powera,
π,
ν)
22:51, 10 December 2021 (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/2021 December 18#Wikipedia:PTR
- 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.
MBisanz
talk
04:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Propose deletion as an implausible misnomer or typo. Was
declined under
WP:R3 on the basis that it is an "alternative name" rather than a "misnomer/typo". But, per the
discussion and agreement with the creator the source used for this "alternative name" is unreliable and incorrect. The redirected term *is* a misnomer. And *not* an alternative name. This is otherwise an
WP:EASTEREGG. (The target article does not [and has no reason to] refer to the redirect term.)
Guliolopez (
talk)
20:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep as R3 decliner; does not look ambiguous between notable topics. Seems to be
a used shortening of the town's name, and even if it is a misnomer it does not look to be an implausible one. In regards to
this, an unreliable source for notability can still be a basis for a redirect, and it isn't often that an italicised phrase is misspelt. So I'm pretty sure it is an alternative name, if vaguely obscure. A lack of a mention in the target article isn't enough to delete either – most readers will be able to infer that if a phrase they search up leads them to a specific article that the phrase would refer to the article. Alternatively,
delete or possibly disambiguate?
A Wiktionary entry. —
J947 ‡
message ⁓
edits
21:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. I created the redirect, but I think now I should not have done as my source was that listicle which I understand has multiple factual errors.--
A bit iffy (
talk)
21:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
WP:XY. No appropriate term in English, and also can cause confusion.
2405:9800:BA31:F6:BC3F:ED78:C130:2209 (
talk)
07:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. Too vague to disambiguate, better to leave this as a red link and let the search engine handle it.
CycloneYoris
talk!
23:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per 2405:9800:BA31:F6. It's clearly
WP:XY.
2405:9800:BA31:F6:A1B4:3655:3EF1:C0A0 (
talk)
01:20, 18 December 2021 (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.
MBisanz
talk
04:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Apparently created as placeholder title, no actual relation to the target, ambiguous. Should be deleted.
Lennart97 (
talk)
18:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom, whose sixth studio album? If it said it was
Helena Paparizou's in some way, then it'd be more plausible, but since there's no indicator, we don't need this generic title here. Regards,
SONIC
678
23:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Hopelessly ambiguous. -
Eureka Lott
18:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Totally open to multiple interpretations.
Azuredivay (
talk)
15:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: without an artist's name, this could literally be redirected to any musical artist with six or more albums, so it serves no useful purpose.
Richard3120 (
talk)
21:02, 15 December 2021 (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.
(non-admin closure)
CycloneYoris
talk!
23:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old can be used instead, and the parser function {{#time:}} breaks the redirect.
Qwerfjkl
talk
18:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. As a soft redirect, it's still a better shortcut than clicking through to
WP:AFDO. If there is some technical reason why that is harmful, then altering the redirect is still better than deletion.
czar
19:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Godsy (
TALK
CONT)
19:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as a broken shortcut redirect that can't actually function as a redirect due to technical limitations in the mediawiki software, and which only gets updated when the page is edited or purged (at the moment it's pointing to the 14th instead of the 18th). If you need an automatically updating link to discussions from 8 days ago use [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/{{#time:Y F j|-8days}}]] to make a direct link instead. 0 incoming links that aren't related to this discussion, so it never seems to have been used anywhere and so deletion shouldn't break anything. On a procedural note this discussion should probably have been at
WP:RFD instead of here.
163.1.15.238 (
talk)
16:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Definitely should have been listed at RfD—did not notice that when I relisted this because I found this case so distractingly interesting. —
Godsy (
TALK
CONT)
03:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
reply
Retarget to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, although I wouldn't really object to just deleting it. This doesn't work as explained above, and the AFDOLD page adequately fulfills its intended function. Although this shortcut doesn't seem to be getting much use, retargeting it to the AFDOLD page would be nominally preferable as an alternative to deletion, I suppose. (A sidenote: couldn't this have just been left alone? Surely it wasn't doing any harm.)
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
04:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. I don't see why this is useful, but if Czar says he finds it useful it's not helpful for us to second-guess that. As I said above, this is essentially harmless, so any possible benefit is sufficient for me to !vote keep. This discussion was certainly not worth the not-insubstantial amount of time it consumed.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
00:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
Godsy (
TALK
CONT)
10:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is not a standard RfD entry. This was at
WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AFD8 and the discussions are from there until it was moved to RfD on 16:05, December 4, 2021. This can be closed on or after December 11.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jay
(talk)
18:45, 10 December 2021 (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.
Talk:Etymology of Islamabad, Pakistan
- 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 Created redirect in mainspace and tagging this as talk page of a redirect, as suggested..
Hog Farm
Talk
20:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Was going to tag this for R2 (redirects from the talk namespace to the mainspace are unlikely to be useful, and this is newly-created), but an error flags up that I'm only suppose to use {{
Db-r2}} in the mainspace, so here we go to RFD.
Hog Farm
Talk
17:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Oh Please do this?, and I Thankyou for looking into this👍🏼
2A00:23C5:8D98:E201:58A8:90AC:58EF:DB7B (
talk)
19:19, 10 December 2021 (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/2021 December 17#Simple englihs
- 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.
MBisanz
talk
04:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Norway is not mentioned. A similar redirect for Sweden has recently been deleted.
Geschichte (
talk)
09:43, 10 December 2021 (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/2021 December 19#Wolf (upcoming film)
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 19#Zana massacre
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 17#B.1.167
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 18#Dekera massacre
- 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. Ignoring the sockpuppet, there is one !vote agreeing to disambiguate and one !vote to restore. However, there is also some hesitation expressed about that disambiguation (not to mention that it was created by the sockpuppet). Therefore, I will accept the other option to restore without prejudice against AfD. --
Tavix (
talk)
18:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Dabify to
Draft:Regulatory law. In fact, the term Regulatory law can have two meanings:
delegated law or
administrative law. I am not a lawyer, but as far as it seems to me, the first meaning is more common. --
Northumber (
talk)
11:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A draft DAB needs to be created.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
06:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jay
(talk)
06:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Comment for closer: Nom has been blocked as a sock. Not sure if any action should be taken with this nomination.
CycloneYoris
talk!
00:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Restore article and maybe send to AfD: this had been an article from 2006 until the bold retargeting of four months ago. Whatever its merits (it was unsourced), this will need further discussion. As for the draft dab, I don't see any sources there (or mentions of the phrase in the linked articles), so we can't unquestioningly accept it. –
Uanfala (talk)
22:58, 25 December 2021 (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.
Library of Congress Authorities
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 18#Library of Congress Authorities
Meibomian gland dysfunction
- 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 as article. The article is now created, which is what the nom wanted in the first place.
Aervanath (
talk)
20:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Deleting this redirect allows for a red link on mebomian gland and dry eye articles. As this should have its own article, I'm proposing deleting this redirect. Also the section this redirect points to, does not exist on the article.
Neo139 (
talk)
02:06, 10 December 2021 (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/2021 December 17#Mudminnow
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 16#Zero-level projection
Simon Christopher Joseph Fraser, 15th Lord Lovat
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 16#Simon Christopher Joseph Fraser, 15th Lord Lovat