This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 17, 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 delete. --
Tavix (
talk)
23:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
1. It is very implausible that someone would misspell “English” as “englihs”. 2. There is no corresponding redirect for “
Englihs”. 3. The creator of the redirect has been gone for six years. 4. Less than a hundred page views in over a decade. 5. One page view in the previous thirty days.
The Tips of
Apmh
16:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoris
talk!
23:47, 17 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 24#Fascism in Thailand
- 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)
00:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned in the target or any other article. Appears to be a very rarely-used term for a German Shepherd/Chow Chow crossbreed. –
Arms & Hearts (
talk)
14:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete unless or until that word is used and defined somewhere in a Wikipedia article.
Softlavender (
talk)
23:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- I have added it at
List of dog crossbreeds#Gerchowder.
Jay
(talk)
15:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- @
Jay: I'm not necessarily opposed to retargeting this there, but would be more comfortable with that solution if a better source could be found. The book cited at the moment is self-published and seems to contain content copied from Wikipedia, so is a possible
WP:REFLOOP. –
Arms & Hearts (
talk)
18:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, I did see that it was self-published, but did not know that it references Wikipedia. Where did you see that? For the section in the book which I have cited, it does say the reference is Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed., 2004.
Jay
(talk)
19:12, 24 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 disambiguate.
This and
Wikipedia:Newsletters should probably redirect to the same target. —
GMX🎄
(on the go!)
15:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Added the previous RfD to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jay
(talk)
13:27, 17 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.
✗
plicit
13:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Looking at the page history, the redirect originally pointed to the "Lineage B.1.617" section of the
Variants of SARS-CoV-2 article (note the misspelling), but now points to the main article on variants without specifying any section.
However, the "B.1.167" variant (if it exists) is a different variant from B.1.617, and is not mentioned in the article. I'd say this redirect should either be deleted (as it wrongly suggests the article has information on a variant called "B.1.167"), or retargeted to
SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.617 while noting it is a redirect from an incorrect spelling.
Beefaloe (formerly SpursySituation) (
talk)
08:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jay
(talk)
08:43, 17 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.
Artists pointing to lists of number-one hits/albums
- 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
Node (rapper) and
Kunz (musician), keep
Behm (singer) as article, delete all the rest.
Delete as per
WP:RFD#DELETE condition 10. It makes no sense to have these artists redirect to lists of number-one singles/albums, as these destination pages contain no detailed information about the artists themselves. They should be deleted to encourage article creation. ―
Ætoms
talk
14:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget
Node (rapper) to
Node (singer) and
Kunz (musician) to
Kunz (singer)-yes, some of their singles and/or albums, "Super Mario" and Förschi respectively, appear on the pages of their respective targets, so it doesn't make sense to have these terms redirect to the chart articles. I'm not sure about the others yet, as while there is no detailed information about them on the targets, a bunch of them seem to be getting A LOT of pageviews, and some might even have links in other articles (I haven't checked through all of them, but it might be worth considering). Regards,
SONIC
678
05:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jay
(talk)
06:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Note that a draft has been created at
Behm (singer).
Jay
(talk)
05:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget those that Sonic identified, accept draft of
Behm (singer), and Delete the rest per
WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. Once deleted, redlinks can be inserted into these lists to show that articles should be created on these artists. By definition, anyone appearing on these lists are notable per
WP:NMUSICIAN criterion #2. I would also surmise that they would most likely be mentioned in multiple articles/lists/discographies of other artists, so search results would be more beneficial than a redirect until an article gets created. --
Tavix (
talk)
16:15, 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.
✗
plicit
13:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Not a phrase used as a target, nor does it appear to have been an official classification within South African apartheid jurisprudence. Could equally refer to
Racial segregation (which is the current target of the similar
Whites only). I think that deletion to allow for internal search results may be the way to go here. signed,
Rosguill
talk
21:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jay
(talk)
06:31, 17 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 24#Draft:Candyman
Darul Huda Islamic University and DHIU
- 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. Note that during the course of this discussion, the target article was changed, first to
Darul Huda Islamic University (DHIU) and then to
Darul Huda Islamic University. That seems to be in line with the consensus here, but further disagreements on the name of the article can be handled at
WP:RM. --
Tavix (
talk)
23:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
The institution is legally registered as the
Darul Huda Islamic Academy. Leading universities in India refer to the institution as "Darul Huda Islamic Academy" and "Darul Huda Islamia Academy". No university in India has used the term Islamic University to refer to this institution. Since 2009 the institution has been promoting the keyword University.
Sabeelul hidaya (
talk)
04:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep and move/rename article to the current name. The institution is clearly called Darul Huda Islamic University, as attested by its official website:
[1]. I don't know what the motivation of the filer is, but it clearly isn't encyclopedic accuracy or neutrality.
Softlavender (
talk)
00:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Darul Huda is not a university! Because ..
- When it was registered under the Society Act in 1989, it was named the Darul Huda Islamic Academy.
- Darul Huda has been promoting the term university since 2009.
- Even when it registered as an NGO in 2019, the name was given as Darul Huda Islamic Academy. NGO Reg ID is
KL/2018/0211502 and Registration date is 12-03-2019
- UGC has not yet recognized Darul Huda even as a Deemed University.
- Leading universities in India refer to the institution as “
Darul Huda Islamic Academy” and “
Darul Huda Islamia Academy”. No university in India has used the term “University” to refer to this institution.
- When
Maulana Azad National Urdu University approved the Madrasa course of Darul Huda in the 2019-20 academic year, it was referred to as the
Darul Huda Islamic Academy.
Sabeelul hidaya (
talk)
08:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Even if those things were true, none of it would matter. What matters is their official name, which is very clear. There are also many Book references to it:
[2]. --
Softlavender (
talk)
10:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The major writers are alumni of Darul Huda. They are trying to build a new brand as a university. I'll share more evidences with you if needed.
1,
Sabeelul hidaya (
talk)
11:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Your allegations about "branding" don't matter, Sabeelul hidaya. What matters is the institution's actual name, which is very clear and not in dispute.
Softlavender (
talk)
23:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- @
Softlavender:
- If they have actually changed their name, why not change their legal name and their registered name as an NGO?
- Why don't leading universities mention Darul Huda as an university on their websites?
Sabeelul hidaya (
talk)
03:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- @
Shhhnotsoloud: Any reason?
Sabeelul hidaya (
talk)
06:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- It is the name of the institution, and therefore it must be searchable under that name on Wikipedia.
Softlavender (
talk)
06:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- @
Softlavender: If yes. Can you answer the above questions that answered to your vote??
Sabeelul hidaya (
talk)
07:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Unnecessary. Please stop pushing your agenda here.
Softlavender (
talk)
08:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
- @
Softlavender:
- Wikipedia is not mine or yours. Keep in mind that we spend a lot of time in this discussion trying to make Wikipedia flawless. What is my agenda here, and what is the benefit to me?
- Why do you
praise these university-named institutions that denigrate public education?
-
They know that institutions that are not accredited by UGC should not be used as a university. Even UGC-accredited Deemed Universities have
no right to use the term University. Then how can Darul Huda, which is not even recognized as a primary school, use the word "university"? That’s why they didn’t change their real name.
Sabeelul hidaya (
talk)
10:46, 21 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.