From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 5

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 5, 2021.

Noldorin

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. Two relists later and no other votes have been made. Feel free to start a new discussion if you still feel like this page should be deleted, retargeted, disambiguated, or converted to a soft redirect. (non-admin closure) Aasim ( talk) 06:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply

This seems rather misleading to me, since the term in question is actually only indirectly mentioned within the linked section. Also, it will probably mislead in particular users seeking an article on the pertinent language (in analogy to Sindarin or Eldarin, for instance). Hildeoc ( talk) 16:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears ( talk) 23:28, 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.

Automated Dialogue Replacement

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 and refine to Dubbing (filmmaking)#ADR/post-sync. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I think this redirect should be deleted. Looking at the source for the target you can see that it explains Dubbing is confused for ADR and that it is not ADR, and that someone noticed that Automated Dialogue Replacement is, for some reason, redirected to the Dubbing page, and tagged it for clarification. This actually backs up what the target page says about it. I don't know why the redirect was made. It COULD also be re-targeted to another page on the subject matter. The thing is, it is not dubbing. Discuss? By wok! 20:24, 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.

DiCicco

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 22:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Disambiguate. Jessica DiCicco is the only person with this exact spelling of this surname, but the title could also refer to Dennis di Cicco or 3841 Dicicco, as well as a plausible misspelling for De Cicco v. Schweizer, the pasta brand De Cecco, the DeCicco Building, and any of the names at Di Cecco or De Cecco (surname). Possibly others I didn't come across. Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 19:28, 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.

Concussion substitute

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 set indexify. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete to encourage article creation. A general article for concussion substitutions in sports could be created, as it's used in many sports (cricket, football, rugby as a head injury replacement). Current setup of redirecting to cricket article is too specific Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 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.

Trump terrorist attack

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 for Trump insurrection and Trump coup attempt, and delete Trump terrorist attack, Attempted assassination of Nancy Pelosi, and Attempted assassination of Mike Pence. While recognizing that it is not a vote, I made a table to help keep all of the differing opinions somewhat more organized. I do note there are some nuance with these as some editors have labeled their recommendations as weak or strong:
Redirect Keep Neutral Delete
Trump terrorist attack 2 0 17
Trump insurrection 8 2 9
Trump coup attempt 8 2 9
Attempted assassination of Nancy Pelosi 0 0 19
Attempted assassination of Mike Pence 1 0 18

Participants are roughly split on Trump insurrection and Trump coup attempt. Personally, I found the "keep" arguments for those two a bit stronger, especially those that showed usage in reliable sources in order to meet WP:RNEUTRAL, but I don't think it's enough of a difference to call a full "keep". Finally, thank you to everyone for staying relatively civil in a evenly-divided discussion regarding recent political events. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply


Delete per WP:R#DELETE #3. These redirects are clearly intended to be inflammatory, are not established terms, and are possibly WP:BLP violations. Trump insurrection might be acceptable per WP:RNEUTRAL as it's arguably an established term. ―  Tartan357  Talk 02:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Thryduulf, that cannot be the sole reason for deletion, but WP:RNEUTRAL allows for non-neutral redirects that aren't established terms to be deleted if they meet WP:R#DELETE #3. These likely meet WP:R#DELETE #3 (which is where the "far too inflammatory" component is coming from), so the question is whether they are established terms, which would allow them to be kept per WP:RNEUTRAL. Some might be. ―  Tartan357  Talk 20:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep those starting with "Trump" as the search terms find plenty of independent uses of the terms in relation to this event (although there are a smattering of other uses for "terrorist attack" there is no consistency in what they are referring to and include hypothetical terrorist attacks against Trump so this event is primary.) These include some hits in reliable sources, so they clearly pass WP:RNEUTRAL and the usage stats show they are being used. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply
"stats show they are being used" – Hm... I don't think so. I failed to find a page with lower numbers than these three. For example, I compared them with rather obscure pages like Foosball and Nocturnal Vigilantism or Foosackly's – even these pages are roughly ten times more popular than the "Trump ..." redirects. — Chrisahn ( talk) 03:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Oiyarbepsy, are you sure about "Trump terrorist attack"? That one doesn't appear in any RS as far as I can tell, unlike the other two. Per WP:TERRORIST, the bar for us implying someone is a terrorist needs to be quite high. This phrase seems to suggest Trump himself committed an act of terrorism. ―  Tartan357  Talk 02:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC) reply
I be willing to consider deleting the Trump Terrorist one, but my quick search found a decent number of sources using it. I almost wonder if we need to split this one and relist. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 03:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Oiyarbepsy: I didn't find any relevant sources using the term "Trump terrorist attack". I found two opinion pieces using "Trump's terrorist attack": [5] may be a WP:RS, [6] (also published at [7]) probably isn't a WP:RS. Michael Moore used the term in a Facebook video, but it looks like no WP:RS picked it up. Did you find any other sources? — Chrisahn ( talk) 19:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • WP:TRUMPTRAINWRECK for me. I'm at keep to weak keep on "Trump insurrection", "Trump coup attempt", and "Attempted assassination of Nancy Pelosi Mike Pence", delete the others. None look like especially common alternate names, and none are clearly acceptable WP:NDESC terms. "Trump insurrection" and "Trump coup attempt" come closest, and probably wouldn't refer to anything else (though maybe Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election to the latter...). "Trump terrorist attacks" seems vague and inappropriate. "Attempted assassination of Mike Pence" seems fair when the rioters chanted "Hang Mike Pence", and with some reports that more concrete violence was planned. I don't doubt some of them had similar intentions regarding Pelosi, but the article content doesn't really support that. -- BDD ( talk) 22:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply
@ BDD: Did you mean to vote weak keep for "Attempted assassination of Mike Pence"? Your vote seems to contradict your explanation. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 11:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Yes, thank you. Corrected. -- BDD ( talk) 16:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep for some some, delete the others - The "Trump insurrection" and "Trump coup attempt" terms are not unreasonable search terms, even if they are inflammatory. The others, however, are much harder to defend.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep insurrection and coup attempt. Insurrection because it's directly relevant to the charges of impeachment and is getting a steady trickle of traffic every day (unlike the rest). Similarly on coup attempt (there's been plenty of discussion using that term) — but I agree with User:BDD that it would be better to redirect "Trump coup attempt" to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, given that the first paragraph of that article explicitly says it has "been described by some as an attempted coup d'état."
    Strong delete for the rest: "Trump terrorist attack" seems heavily opinion-based, no one has shown a basis for it in RS, low traffic indicates it's not being used, and the article doesn't once describe the storming as a terrorist act (the only mentions of "terrorist" are connected to a few of the insurrectionists being on terrorist watchlists). The "attempted assassination" ones likewise fail the reality check because there were no specific events that can be called assassination attempts, nor does the article mention any assassination attempts. (Assassination threats, yes, but that's different.) I'd go so far as to argue that the "attempted assassination" links are deceptive, because their existence implies that an attempt was made during the storming, and a searcher would likely be confused to not find any reference to it. –  The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 23:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all per nom, and per comments above. Avilich ( talk) 00:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the terrorist attack, and the two assassination ones as unlikely, no opinion on the others. Hog Farm Talk 18:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appears to be a consensus to delete the "Attempted assassination" redirects, but the others don't have a firm consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep insurrection and coup attempt (plausible search terms based on coverage), delete the others (implausible search terms based on coverage). Lennart97 ( talk) 19:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural comment – Can we split this? We're talking about five rather different redirects in one thread. This makes the discussion confusing, and it will be hard to tell when and if there is consensus for anything. I'd suggest three separate discussions: 1. "Trump terrorist attack"; 2. "Trump insurrection" and "Trump coup attempt"; 3. "Attempted assassination of ..." — Chrisahn ( talk) 19:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
    • At this late stage it would be more disruptive to split this nomination I think, especially as everybody has been doing a good job making their opinions clear. To my (involved) eyes there is a clear consensus regarding the "Attempted assassination" redirects, consensus (though not as strong) regarding "Trump insurrection" and "Trump coup attempt" but no consensus regarding "Trump terrorist attack". If I was closing now based on that I'd close the whole discussion, but make it clear that it was without prejudice to an individual nomination of "Trump terrorist attack" if anyone thinks that would likely lead to consensus (I'm uncertain). Thryduulf ( talk) 20:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Yeah, you're probably right that it's too late to fix this now. And I almost agree with your assessment of the current state of the debate. Except for "Trump terrorist attack": I just looked through the comments again, and I think there's consensus for deleting it. If I'm not mistaken, you're basically the only person who really !voted for keeping it. Sorry! — Chrisahn ( talk) 03:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Do you have any arguments for "Trump insurrection" and "Trump coup attempt" being "ridiculous", specifically? That would be helpful, as strong arguments in favour of those two have already been made in the discussion above, based on both pageviews and use in coverage. Lennart97 ( talk) 16:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply
@ BeanieFan11: That these redirects are not neutral is not problematic if they represent terms used to find the neutral content at the target (see WP:RNEUTRAL). In this case, there is plenty of evidence presented above that the redirects starting with "Trump" meet this requirement. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:13, 9 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.

Dragonspine Mountains

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 Faerûn, sort of an WP:NCRET. There's no consensus to consider the Genshin Impact usage when it's not mentioned, but the D&D (i.e., Forgotten Realms) mention is now at Faerûn. The status quo of treating this (only) as a D&D term continues. -- BDD ( talk) 15:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Dragonspine is also a mountainous region in Genshin Impact, so this redirect should be disambiguated. Aasim ( talk) 21:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC) reply

The Forgotten Realms version of "Dragonspine Mountains" now does appear in the Faerûn article. Seeing that the few pages that currently use the redirect refer to the Forgotten Realms version, I would tend to keep the original Dragonspine Mountains for the Forgotten Realms version, and rather use a hatnote and create new Dragonspine Mountains (Genshin Impact). Except if there is any evidence the Gensihn Impact version is more prominent in some way. Daranios ( talk) 12:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:19, 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.

Kung Fuzi

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. Never mind, it is a plausible misspelling of an alt name. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 18:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in target. Seems to be an attempt at humor. Onel5969 TT me 18:49, 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.

May 5, 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 retarget to Portal:Current events/2020 May 5. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I find it difficult to fathom that this is the only notable (or semi-notable) event which happened on this particular date. Onel5969 TT me 18:41, 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 Party Party (Netherlands)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#The Party Party (Netherlands)

Baraque

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. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Seems as likely to be a misspelling of Barque as Baroque, I think that deletion is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 17:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC) reply

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.

Rikuto

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. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned at the target, doesn't appear to be a transliteration of the Chinese name. Rikuto is also a Japanese given name, for which we have one notable entry Rikuto Hirose, and several more mentions in other articles. I think that deletion to allow for uninhibited search results is appropriate unless a justification for the current target can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:33, 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.

IDGAF (Calvin Goldspink song)

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 19:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Should be deleted. The song has no mention anywhere on the Wiki and the artist is only mentioned on a band page. -- Fyrael ( talk) 16:10, 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.

70/11/12

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 Pink Floyd bootleg recordings. signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Non-notable date and not mentioned in detail at the target, be it 12 November 1970 or 11 December 1970: there is no major event linked for either of these dates at the target. It originally pointed to Pink Floyd bootleg recordings, where it is listed as an alternative name of "Copenhagen Sequence", but that too does not have its own article or any other indication of notability, so there would be little information at that target as well. I propose deletion. ComplexRational ( talk) 15:05, 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.

12st street bart station

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 18:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Implausible redirect, and obviously the redirect " 12st" does not exist. Also, this redirect is useless, given the fact that it only had less than 100 pageviews between 2015 and 2020. Seventyfiveyears ( talk) 14:16, 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.

70-11

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 18:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

This is a redirect from a vote count in the Philippine parliament to a section of an article on the piece of legislation. I can find no sources at all referring to the vote by this name, and I think this redirect is more likely to confuse readers than to help them. Basically every result I find online is related to tyre sizing 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 14:10, 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.

TheRafaMarc15 mononym redirects

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 trainwrecked (and withdrawn). Feel free to renominate individually or in small groups. -- Tavix ( talk) 19:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC) reply

There have been a few discussions over the past few days about this user's single-name redirects to ambiguous or incorrect biographies, so I went looking for more. This set is single name redirects to people who are not known by a single name (most are first names but there are several surnames as well), as well as a few that would be more appropriate to retarget the individual who is known by that mononym (the "Ciara" and "Selena" redirects, possibly others). Ivanvector's squirrel ( trees/ nuts) 13:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC) reply

You're right about this, I hadn't looked at every entry carefully enough when I voted. Maybe split into three groups: first names with disambiguators (e.g. Julia (Filipina actress, born 1997)); just first names (e.g. Fely); and surnames {e.g. DeLisle)? It might also be wise to single out Joe (president), as this seems to be the only one not related to someone from the entertainment industry. Lennart97 ( talk) 14:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC) reply
I think we'd want it in smaller groups than that to be honest, probably no more than 4 or 5 to a group. some of these first name ones are fairly well used even though they look implausible. "Ari (singer)" has clocked up 20 page views in the week and a half it's been around for example, so it's clearly a search term people are using. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 14:52, 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 Green Planet

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 Green Planet. signed, Rosguill talk 18:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Retarget to disambiguation page Green Planet. The current target is based on an ET novelization sequel called E.T.: The Book of the Green Planet. There's an upcoming BBC nature documentary series with David Attenborough called The Green Planet (see [9], [10] and [11]), so the redirect to ET is no longer justified. Lennart97 ( talk) 11:58, 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.

Relation (OpenStreetMap)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#Relation (OpenStreetMap)

Ashurst (1802 cricketer)

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 List of English cricketers (1787–1825)#A. signed, Rosguill talk 18:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Not a useful XNR; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. Retarget to List of English cricketers (1787–1825)#A, where the person is mentioned, and where Ashurst (MCC cricketer) points at as well. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:30, 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.

Frederick Price (cricketer, born 1857)

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 18:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Not a useful XNR; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. Does not seem to have a mention on Wikipedia (though we do have Frederic Price (cricketer, born 1852) and Frederic Price (cricketer, born 1840)). Delete to encourage article creation, unless an appropriate target can be found. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:29, 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.

S. Taylor (cricketer)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#S. Taylor (cricketer)

L. G. Robertson

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 18:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Not a useful XNR; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. Apart from an unrelated search result at Melbourne Grammar School#Campuses, I could not find any mention on Wikipedia. Delete to encourage article creation, unless an appropriate target can be found. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:24, 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.

Comox people/temp

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 deleted under G6 - FASTILY 08:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Leftovers from page moves; no longer needed. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:16, 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.

Annam Tower

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#Annam Tower

Jugend

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#Jugend