This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 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 no consensus. signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
Unused redirect and I find there is no reason to create this redirect, only just match module name.
Hhkohh (
talk)
19:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I was considering saying keep because
redirects are cheap. However, I noticed that it is a cross-namespace redirect, and those are generally undesirable. ―
NK1406
talk•
contribs
02:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I just found
Module:RoundN thanks to this redirect. I was trying to learn how
Template:Round8 works; I saw {{#invoke:RoundN|main|columns=3}}, and I wanted to see what that does; so I went to
Template:RoundN, since I didn't know about modules. I wouldn't have found
Module:RoundN if it hadn't been for the redirect.
Joriki (
talk)
23:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Template: to Module: redirects are normally harmless and, per Joriki, often helpful. There isn't a need to routinely create such redirects, but equally there isn't a need to delete them either.
Thryduulf (
talk)
02:30, 15 February 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. signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
Not the common title. Probably refers to
militarism, in a similar matter that [insert country name] first refers to
nationalism.
Aasim (
talk)
03:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep every single one of the use of this exact term on Wikipedia (other than in the middle of sentences) is about North Korea, and in very nearly all of them it is used as a translation of "Songun". Google results at first glance don't include North Korea, but when you exclude first aid kits, first responders and first-person shooters it's clear that (other than more irrelevant mid-sentence results) there are only two contenders for primary topic - Songun, or militarism in the context of North Korea (i.e. Songun). After that comes a military policy card in
Civilization VI (not mentioned on en.wp that I can find, likely
WP:GAMECRUFT) and a military surplus store in Manchester (that is not notable). There is a single
Council on Foreign Relations blog post about how "the military-first policy in Northern Mozambique is bound to fail", but searching on Wikipedia for "Military First" and "Mozambique" finds exactly two relevant uses: the first is the title of a reference at
Reconnaissance General Bureau, a North Korean intelligence agency ("North Korean Civil-military Trends: Military-first Politics to a Point."); the second is at
Foreign relations of North Korea#Principles and practice - "...while Article 59 [of the North Korean constitution] says the country's armed forces will "carry out the military-first revolutionary line.".
Thryduulf (
talk)
03:55, 3 February 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. --
Tavix (
talk)
21:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
Hungerleider is German for pauper. It appears that this redirect was created as a redirect from another language to
Starveling, not realizing that that was a surname redirect to
Robin Starveling. As paupers have no special affinity for the German language, redirecting to
Pauperism would go against
WP:RLOTE, and this redirect should just be deleted. signed,
Rosguill
talk
18:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Hello, this redirect made sense before the content of
Starveling was deleted. Now this forwarding has no more meaning, because the links in the article
Starveling to
Hungerleider and peoples named "Straveling" and "Hungerleider" have also been deleted and is now itself a forwarding to
Robin Starveling. BR,
Asurnipal (
talk)
18:16, 10 February 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. --
Tavix (
talk)
21:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned at the target.
Draft:Secret Headquarters exists and establishes that this is a planned film produced by Paramount, but it has yet to be listed at any article in mainspace, and a mention at Paramount Pictures doesn't seem due. If a mention of the upcoming film is added to an article redirecting there would be appropriate, but until then this should probably be deleted. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:51, 10 February 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. signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
this girl isn't notable - she said she wanted to sue Gorilla Glue but doesn't even have a case. I've removed the content from teh article as it's entirely irrelevant and just another internet fad that will quickly fade, as is she.
CUPIDICAE💕
17:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. This woman has no lasting impact on the article. Per the woman herself, she has no plans to sue the manufacturers. The lawsuit would be the only thing to add and barring her going back on her words and bringing this to court, there's zero reason to include this. It also poses a fairly large BLP issue because of the amount of apparent misinformation going around. I'd say speedy delete but I don't think that there are any speedy criteria that would cover this, as I don't think that this was added maliciously.
ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79)
(。◕‿◕。)
09:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - textbook
WP:NOT.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
15:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete The incident isn’t mentioned at the article and based on other discussions it’s appears unlikely that it ever will be unless circumstances significantly change (ie she later does decides to sue).--
65.92.160.124 (
talk)
06:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete – isn't (and shouldn't be) mentioned in the article; per
WP:BLP this is not a valid redirect for the name of an individual. --
bonadea
contributions
talk
21:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Separate I typed "Tessica Brown" into wikipedia just to find out what this story was about. I agree that she isn't relevant to Gorilla Glue and doesn't belong in that article. But I'd have found a stand-alone stub useful. Wikipedia is a good starting point for news that the media has moved on from. Everyone is doing 'updates' at this point that assume I know more than I do.
Algr (
talk)
01:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Not mentioned at target article and consensus at the article talk page is that she should not be included due to
WP:BLP concerns.
86.23.109.101 (
talk)
13:50, 19 February 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. @
IN: It is completely usual that shortcuts are potentially ambiguous, so this redirect should be uncontroversial unless somebody thinks a different target is clearly more likely to be abbreviated like that.
(non-admin closure)
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
13:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
Because I found that the abbreviation of enjoy yourself is “EY”, so I create it. But I put it here to check if there are other articles where the abbreviation is also “EY”.
Alcremie (
talk)
16:41, 10 February 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.
Tempalte:West Santa Ana Branch
- 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 Speedy delete per
WP:CSD#G6 - obviously created in error.
Thryduulf (
talk)
17:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
This and
this. Speedy delete as
G6 as this redirect has a typo in template namespace and that it was unambiguously created in error. Seventyfiveyears (
talk)
16:36, 10 February 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. signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
Dispute over disambiguating with a link to
Variant of Concern 202012/01 or redirect to the current target. Discussion attempted at this redirect's Talk page with no participation. The new COVID variant seems to be the only new thing that could be the reference to 20 since the last consensus
here.
Jalen Folf
(talk)
21:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Disambig. Google results are showing a complete mix of uses for the COVID-19, the B1.1.7 varient, the second wave of the pandemic and a few other things that we probably don't have articles about (but I've not looked).
Thryduulf (
talk)
22:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Disambig. There is nothing officially titled "COVID-20" (with the possible exception of independent zombie survival game, more on this later), so disambiguation seems to be the appropriate path forward, as it allows the disambiguation page to indicate that the term itself is a misnomer, while providing links to both
COVID-19 and whatever variants identified in 2020 that make sense. In the event the independent game is considered notable enough to get an article
COVID-20 (game), the disambiguation page will be even more necessary.
Bakkster Man (
talk)
22:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Disambig per Thryduulf. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
00:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - too vague to be useful as a search term for any particular sub-topic. A reader using this as a search doesn't know what they're looking for, but they won't be disappointed by landing on the central COVID-19 article.
Ivanvector's squirrel (
trees/
nuts)
13:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - the redirect already takes readers to where they want to be, although neither of the possible dab links actually mentions the term "COVID-20". Sending readers and searchers to a dab page isn't helpful when we can send them directly to the relevant page, complete with links to individual variants if that's what they want to know about. Asking them to make a decision about two pages on essentially the same subject before they understand it is just confusing. The redirect target describes the disease COVID-19 while the suggested alternative target describes a virus variant, not the disease, although it would certainly be better if one or other article actually mentioned this particular term. It has been used formally by respectable scientific sources, so not just an invalid term as I thought at first. More generally, I don't get this obsession with creating dab pages with only
two entries, especially when one is just a sub-section of the other broken out more for organisational reasons than anything else. Redirect readers to somewhere relevant instead of dumping them into a classification system created to keep WP editors happy. If and when there is an article about a game, or anything else, called COVID-20, then we can worry about whether it is remotely as popular as the disease term. There is always the option of
COVID-20 (disambiguation) if we end up with multiple articles but still a
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
Lithopsian (
talk)
14:19, 5 February 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 no consensus. Neither the deletion rationale nor the keep !vote are particularly strong arguments, I see no reason to relist this. signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
Fk is short for fuck, and I'm put it here first to check if FK has any other meaning in Wikipedia.
Alcremie (
talk)
16:29, 10 February 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 retarget to
Number nine. Note that a discussion may be closed early after a relist if a consensus has been reached, which is the case here. Also, please don't retarget the redirect while the discussion is still going.
(non-admin closure) —
J947 ‡
message ⁓
edits
20:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
"No .9" is too ambiguous to redirect to
New Mexico No. 9, this should redirect to
9 (disambiguation).
Elliot321 (
talk |
contribs)
15:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
I agree, it should point to the disambiguation page. Whether or not the pepper should be included in that page is a whole other discussion.
Kehkou (
talk)
15:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
Retargeted page to
Number nine as per consensus.
Kehkou (
talk)
13:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Although all the comments choose to retarget, half of the retarget comments chose
9 (disambiguation) as the nominator proposes that target, while the other half chose to retarget to
Number nine.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (
talk)
16:27, 10 February 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. signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Addendum: I have carried out the requested history split for the three that were using their talk page as sandboxes and restored the talk page content. --
Tavix (
talk)
21:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
User talk pages are for communicating with a user, not reaching an article. If there is a CSD criterion that could apply, please tell me, as there are quite a few more of these redirects.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
14:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- The second redirect here was created by a spammer who would go on to write some kind of threat about hacking, so it can safely be deleted.
- The other 3 are from people using their talk pages as sandboxes, so the resulting pages (
Tom Griffith,
African-American representation in Hollywood and
Aglaia Koras) need a
WP:HISTSPLIT with the talk page content being moved back to the talk page and the article content staying where it is.
86.23.109.101 (
talk)
15:13, 10 February 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 February 19#Wikipedia:RFP
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 19#Voting in broward county
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 19#Electrical college
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 20#Ôzaru
- 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. Discussion suggests that this is likely an independently notable topic. Until such an article is drafted, there is a weak consensus that deletion is preferable to the existing redirect. signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
the name of the redirect is too broad for the redirect to the Spanish Black legend to be pertinent.
Veverve (
talk)
19:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Should be a separate article Reading the Spanish entry, the concept of Antiespaña is a political concept which belongs to the Spanish right, and it is explicitly stated that it is different from the
Black Legend (Spain) and
Hispanophobia. Hispanophobia is an undeniable fact (though honest differences exist about its extent and expression) the Black Legend is debatable but a large number of neutral academic historians believe it has a basis in fact. Antiespaña is primarily an identification of Spain with a specific ideological vision of what Spain should be, and then signalling any criticism of that idea, or even diversion from it, as "Anti-Spanish". It should not therefore redirect to either
Hispanophobia or
Black Legend (Spain).
Boynamedsue (
talk)
19:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Weak delete I just don't see a good place to point this.
WP:RLOTE is not an issue inasmuch as this is a Spanish term for one or more concepts associated with Spain, but we still need to ask what a reader searching this term on the English Wikipedia is looking for.
Hispanophobia is probably my best guess if I had to pick one, but following Boynamedsue's comments, I think
WP:REDLINK deletion is more called for. --
BDD (
talk)
17:03, 19 February 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. --
BDD (
talk)
16:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
This redirect is ambiguous. The actor also voice acted in other works like
Meta Runner, and I cannot find a good target that best exemplifies this actor's notable work.
Jalen Folf
(talk)
03:32, 10 February 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.
Hamilton, California (disambiguation)
- 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. Precisely which topics belong at the disambiguation page is beyond the scope of this discussion, and can be addressed by the usual procedures. --
BDD (
talk)
16:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
There is only one "Hamilton, California" at the dab page.
Hamilton City, California was formerly known as Hamilton, but there is a hatnote at
Hamilton, California pointing there, so this isn't needed.
Hog Farm
Talk
16:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
reply
- There are also 3 Hamilton High schools in California, but I probably wouldn't include them in a DAB page:
-
86.23.109.101 (
talk)
18:44, 26 January 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)
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
14:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
This is apparently a quote from George W Bush (
[1]), but isn't mentioned at the article except in a citation title. I would lean toward deletion, as this is an unlikely search term that may not be intended to find the current target. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep per 86.23. Doesn't seem a hugely likely search term, and if it were a shorter quote like "weird shit" or "some weird shit" I'd say it's too ambiguous, but it does seem like the full-sentence form is overwhelmingly associated with this instance. --
Tamzin (they/she) |
o toki tawa mi.
11:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per IP. This one keeps confusing me -- I keep thinking I already !voted and seeing I haven't. Regardless, as prior mentioned, this does seem quite strongly associated even if it's not the likeliest search.
- Just noticed I forgot to sign this...
Vaticidalprophet (
talk)
11:21, 12 February 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.