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.
✗plicit 23:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Both of these redirects were denied R3 for not being recent. Nothing links to either. Signed,
I Am Chaos (
talk) 22:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. It's an {{r from URL}}, which are routinely kept. Such redirects have obvious navigational benefit to our readers, and little downside. (The worst-case scenario, <number of articles with associated URLs> × <average number of URLs per such article>, is not nearly enough redirects to cause a maintenance downside. --
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 22:47, 5 January 2022 (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.
Google.com/chromebook
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.
✗plicit 23:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Both of these redirects were denied R3 for not being recent. Nothing links to either. Signed,
I Am Chaos (
talk) 22:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. It's an {{r from URL}}, which are routinely kept. Such redirects have obvious navigational benefit to our readers, and little downside. (The worst-case scenario, <number of articles with associated URLs> × <average number of URLs per such article>, is not nearly enough redirects to cause a maintenance downside. --
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 22:47, 5 January 2022 (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.
No mention of "Mysterious Apartment", or any other kind of apartment for that matter, at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk 21:18, 5 January 2022 (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.
Government telecommunications
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 23:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)reply
These terms aren't really equivalent or even particularly closely connected. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk 20:43, 5 January 2022 (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.
This redirect does not make sense, as there are actually articles on namebearers with the exact spelling (i. e. without the accent); cf. corresponding
search results.
Hildeoc (
talk) 18:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate. Looks like a {{surname}} dab page is called for.
Mdewman6 (
talk) 22:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Set-indexify (drafted) since there are multiple bearers of the surname. The current target is admittedly one of the more prominent among them
[1], but he does not seem to be referred to mononymously in the way that
Einstein or
Camus are, so he's not
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for the bare surname.
61.239.39.90 (
talk) 01:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Support conversion to set index --
Lenticel(
talk) 09:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate: multiple people with surname.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 09:49, 8 January 2022 (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.
Template:Prb
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 23:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Unused template redirect and not obvious what it means. It was used in a small number or articles, but I have changed them all to either {{portal bar}} or {{portal}} as appropriate. There was one article with {{prb}} in one section and {{portal}} in another section; it will be less likely to have multiple portal tranclusions without this redirect.
MB 15:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete --- I find nom's argument that people don't know what it does, and thus might duplicate, to be compelling. The function of {{prb}} is certainly not obvious. —
hike395 (
talk) 15:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
i've created this redirect to use it in some articles, but it seems that i forgot to use it, it's not useless as it described, it's just that i forgot to use it, if it does not serves the project's purposes please delete it Thank you.
—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (
talk) 15:51, 5 January 2022 (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.
Boris Gorlee
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 23:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Cricketer who is mentioned in multiple articles, including
this and
this. There is almost no information about him at the target article (other than that he was in the squad), so redirect provides little benefit. If he's notable enough, an article should be created, and if not, then a redlink until the point if/when he becomes notable is fine.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 14:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment I see he's just been named in the Dutch squad for their upcoming series against Afghanistan in Qatar in a few weeks time, so there's a fair chance he'll debut before the end of the month. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 15:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete to facilitate Search and encourage creation of an article.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 09:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete Per nom, doesn't seem to be a specific article to redirect him too anymore, plus he may well be notable enough for an article soon.
Rugbyfan22 (
talk) 21:26, 6 January 2022 (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. LizRead!Talk! 04:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - This was created as a redirect to the now deleted
BMW V Series, which was an article about a speculated new BMW model which was then redirected to
BMW, although no mention is at the target, nor is any warranted. See
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_28#BMW_V_Series -
Explicit closed that discussion as delete but determined that the hyphenated version had been mentioned too late to include so I have nominated it now.
A7V2 (
talk) 08:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment. No reason was given by the closing admin for not considering BMW V-Series. Jay(talk) 09:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Although not explicitly mentioned by the closing admin, the reason it was not considered was that despite, very late in the discussion, it being suggested that the hyphenated redirect could be bundled this did not actually happen - the redirect was not tagged and nobody else actually commented on it.
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - I have added the similar
BMW V series to this nomination. I don't think this should be controversial.
A7V2 (
talk) 07:33, 9 January 2022 (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.
Chairman mao
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.
Unnecessary redirect as
Chairman Mao already exists. Any attempt to type "Chairman Mao" in the search bar, regardless of the letter cases, will suggest "Chairman Mao", not "Chairman mao".
CentreLeftRight✉ 08:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. "Unnecessary" is not a reason to delete redirects and this is a harmless {{R from incorrect capitalisation}} - not every method of finding Wikipedia content (the internal search bar is only one of many) is case insensitive.
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:04, 5 January 2022 (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.
President Madagascar
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. LizRead!Talk! 04:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)reply
"President of Madagascar" is a plausible search term, but "President Madagascar" would denote a president with surname Madagascar, which as far as I know does not exist.
feminist (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep harmless. In the absence of any president with the surname Madagascar the current target takes people to the only plausible article they could be looking for, as it has been doing since 2013 without causing any problems whatsoever. If a president with the name "Madagascar" does get elected in the future this can be retargetted or disambiguated as appropriate, but until then there is no benefit to deletion.
Thryduulf (
talk) 11:07, 5 January 2022 (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.
President Ji
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.
Implausible search term. The Pooh is never referred to as "Ji".
feminist (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. Romanized Mandarin's usage of ⟨j⟩ to mean ~/ʒ/ and ⟨x⟩ to mean ~/ʃ/ is non-intuitive to most native English speakers, so it's conceivable that people could get the two mixed up in a name where one part starts with one and the other part starts with the other.
This Google search seems to bear that out; I note that Ji Xinping exists. --
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 08:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate as a
title and name dab, because there are multiple people who are correctly referred to as "President Ji" in English
[2]: people with surname Ji who are presidents of organisations, e.g.
Ji Jiafu,
Ji Xiangqi, and
Ji Baocheng. Correct spellings should take precedence over incorrect spellings. Compare
President Lee or
President Mason. FWIW this also seems to be an Indian English phrase roughly equivalent to
Mr. President (title) (see
-ji)
[3], but I don't think we have any target for that usage in Wikipedia.
61.239.39.90 (
talk) 09:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate as per the IP, there are multiple presidents with the surname Ji, so a DAB page is the most appropriate outcome.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 16:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Disambiguate, IP hit the nail on the head.
CPCEnjoyer (
talk) 19:04, 8 January 2022 (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.
President Gravel
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. LizRead!Talk! 04:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete was not a president or even close to being one.--
65.93.195.118 (
talk) 03:57, 9 January 2022 (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.
Nazrul research
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.
Not sure why this redirect is relevant. He was not a researcher or something, but a poet. ---CX Zoom(he/him)(let's talk|contribs) 16:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Nazrul Endowment as it provides funding for research into his life and work. Jay(talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 06:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Nazrul research is a narrow academic discipline (perhaps sub-field or specialization would be a better word), the study of
Kazi Nazrul Islam's works. The term is well recognized in Bangladeshi English. Major universities have centres or institutes devoted to Nazrul research, there are Nazrul chairs for professors engaged in it, there have been multiple journals on the topic, and people can get degrees in it.
[5] In the U.S. it may be better known as Nazrul studies.
[6] I'm not sure it rises to the level of a redirect with possibilities. Enough information must exist to write a broader
Bengali literature (academic discipline), but no one has done so yet. Retargeting to
Nazrul Endowment is not a good option because that's one organization among several, and probably not a
notable one, the existence of the article notwithstanding. --
Worldbruce (
talk) 19:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Do we have an article about any other organization article or section of an article that talks about this research? Do you think the Nazrul Endowment article should not exist? I see that you had contributed to it an year back. If someone knowledgeable can convert the Nazrul research redirect to a stub draft, that will be a better option. Jay(talk) 05:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply
There are no more than passing mentions of "Nazrul research" or "Nazrul studies" in Wikipedia. My contribution to
Nazrul Endowment consisted of correcting the name of a source, something I probably did without even reading the text. Reading it now, I strongly suspect the article should be deleted. For a start, it isn't an institution at all. The cited sources talk about a Nazrul Endowment Fund at Cal State Northridge, and a separate Nazrul Endowment Fund at University of Connecticut. They may have been established for the same purpose, but once created there's no indication that they have any administrative, financial, or operational connection with each other. Endowments, if large or unusual enough, sometimes merit a mention in a university article. But a university can have thousands of endowment funds; precious few are independently
notable. --
Worldbruce (
talk) 16:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply
You may want to tag Nazrul Endowment for deletion, but as along as we have that page, it's the best we seem to have on the redirect's subject. Jay(talk) 03:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Refine to § Legacy based on what Worldbruce has said. It would be great to have more information on scholarship about Nazrul, but this can do for now. --
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 05:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree with Tamzin's idea to add a Legacy section in Kazi Nazrul Islam's article with a few lines on the subject of Nazrul research & endowment, and then retarget it to the Legacy section. ---CX Zoom(he/him)(let's talk|contribs) 10:36, 14 January 2022 (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 (default to disambiguate). I find the following:
There is strong consensus against keeping the current target.
There is consensus against retargeting to Wet.
There is no consensus as to retargeting to Get Wet.
There is no consensus as to deletion due to most of the discussion being focused on retarget options.
There is insufficient discussion of retargeting to Wiktionary to gauge a consensus in that regard.
There is insufficient discussion of disambiguation to gauge a consensus in that regard.
It is mathematically impossible to close this RfD in a manner that follows the wishes of the majority of participants. All there is for me to do as closer is find the outcome that least goes against what people want. As almost half of editors favored targeting one of two DAB pages, and one of the two keep !voters went on to suggest a DAB at this title, I see DABbing at this title as the least harmful outcome. As such, I am creating a DAB, with no prejudice against any of the following next steps:
Request to merge the DAB with Get Wet
Request to move the DAB to Get wet (currently a redirect to Get Wet)
Possible case of
WP:SURPRISE with an NSFW current target, IMO equally refers to any other context in which something can become wet and thus should point to
Wet. Bringing here since my
bold redirection was challenged. signed, Rosguilltalk 15:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Get Wet, whch is a disambiguation. Add vaginal lubrication to the list entry. Wiktionary already has "getting wet" as a present participle.
AngusW🐶🐶F (
bark •
sniff) 21:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Retarget to
Wet, which is a disambiguation page, and add
Vaginal lubrication to that page. Second choice: delete. None of the articles listed at
Get Wet are plausible intended topics for a reader searching "Getting wet", because they're all names of albums, songs, or bands using roughly the exact phrase "get wet" without "-ing". —
Mx. Granger (
talk·contribs) 12:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. When people type "getting wet" into Wikipedia's search bar, probably most of them want to view our article about "vaginal lubrication". Name me other articles that people would want to go to instead? I can't come up with a single one. [Edited to strike and add: Rosguill has now mentioned that people who want to learn about the "process of things becoming wet" might want to search for "getting wet" as well. Fair enough] --
Distelfinck (
talk) 21:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Wetting,
Moisture, and the Wiktionary entry for
wetness all seem like plausible alternative intended target, and all are mentioned at the top of
Wet. You can get wet by falling into a puddle, this phrasing is not synonymous with vaginal lubrication. signed, Rosguilltalk 21:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)reply
But why would they include the "get" unless they're referring to the slang meaning? Surely they'd want
Wiktionary:get wet instead.
Mvolz (
talk) 12:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)reply
IDK about you, but growing up "getting wet" was a commonly described side effect of stepping into puddles and a plausible way to search for learning about the process of things becoming wet. I don't think that the sex-related term has primacy here, speaking as a native speaker from North America. signed, Rosguilltalk 20:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks, sounds like turning
Getting wet into a disambiguation page might be a good idead? --
Distelfinck (
talk) 20:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)reply
IMO targeting the existing dab at
Wet and adding some contextually relevant link to
Vaginal lubrication is a cleaner solution. Again, at least in my neck of the woods, there's no specific slang emphasis on the phrase "getting wet" as being more sexual: vaginal arousal is generally associated with wetness, not this specific two-word invocation thereof. Alternatively, if there's evidence that this term does have special significance in some dialects, soft redirect to Wiktionary should do the trick. signed, Rosguilltalk 04:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)reply
I think a disambiguation page for
Getting wet would be a much shorter page than the disambiguation page for
Wet is -- most things listed at
Wet are not relevant to users searching for "getting wet", e.g. "Wet (band)", "Wet (album)", "Wet Mountains", and we would copy only the very short list of things relevant from
Wet to
Getting wet. A
Getting wet disambiguation page would me much less overwhelming for users typing "getting wet" than the
Wet disambiguation page is. --
Distelfinck (
talk) 12:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep as reverter. If you google "getting wet" the first page of results is all about vaginal lubrication. It is synonymous with vaginal lubrication, unless perhaps you're not a native speaker of English. But then it's doing a disservice to non native speakers trying to find out what this phrase means to have them redirected to a massive disambiguation page. Having this phrase redirect to
Wet is actively harmful because as per
Distelfinck there's really no reason to search for this unless you're trying to find out what the slang term means.
Mvolz (
talk) 12:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
CycloneYoristalk! 06:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Retarget to the dab at
Get Wet, there is no primary topic for this phrase.
Thryduulf (
talk) 14:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose retarget to
Get Wet. For that option to work, there would need to be multiple entries that can be referred to as "getting wet". All entries are proper nouns so they cannot be conjugated like this. --
Tavix(
talk) 19:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay(talk) 04:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Tavix and
Godsy: I agree that retargeting to
Get Wet is not appropriate. What do you think of retargeting to
Wet as suggested by the nominator? —
Mx. Granger (
talk·contribs) 17:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per Novem Lingaue. Way too vague to be of any good use for anyone, and I also agree that retargeting to
Get Wet wouldn’t be helpful either.
CycloneYoristalk! 09:06, 12 January 2022 (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.
Hinduism in LATVIA
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. --
Aervanath (
talk) 20:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Hinduism is not mentioned at
Religion in Latvia. There is a table that ends at 145 people without Hinduism, so there would seem to be less than that in 2011. These are both creations by the same sock farm whose sources are slightly higher (with a later date), but within that range. --
Tavix(
talk) 17:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge the sourced content to the article and keep the redirects.
Thryduulf (
talk) 13:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay(talk) 04:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Pinging
Deb who had done a merge and redirect before, and
JJMC89 who had BLARred it without explanation. Jay(talk) 04:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete both as not mentioned at the target. Rescuing two short paragraphs of text referenced to dead links and written by socks known for copyright violations and POV? No thanks. –
Uanfala (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. If someone is looking for information on Hinduism in Latvia, this will show them the extent of our information on Hinduism in Latvia (namely, nothing worth mentioning). Sometimes a lack of information is itself significant. --
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 21:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I've always thought of redirects as pointers to relevant content and not as invitations for readers to draw conclusions from the absence of such content. If we change our approach and adopt the latter, then there'll be a very wide avenue for the creation of similarly useful redirects about the hundreds of other religious movements without a significant presence in the country. –
Uanfala (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
There are times when we have redirects as pointers to a lack of information, usually (but not always) that's an explicit lack of information -
Navy of Andorra comes to mind. In the absence of a specific lack of information it must be obvious though, e.g. if there is a set of things with e.g. three possible components and the article states that 100% of the components of $thing are something else. For example, if 99% of the population of a place are Religion1 and 1% are Relgion2 then it's reasonable to assume that 0% are Religion3.
Thryduulf (
talk) 17:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Navy of Andorra is different though, as the target has explicit content on the topic (even if that content is a single sentence declaring that the country has no navy). There's a big difference between absence of discussion and discussion of absence. –
Uanfala (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
My comment addresses exactly that.
Thryduulf (
talk) 18:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete: Hinduism is not mentioned anywhere on the target article (presumably the numbers for Hindus are in the 3% of "other faiths" listed there). So redirect does not help provide any information on the topic.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 16:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete ALL CAPS version, no opinion on normally capitalized version.
HotdogPi 18:59, 8 January 2022 (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 02:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)reply
It's unclear what this refers to as there is no mention of "Qirli" in this article. LizRead!Talk! 00:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. There was a mention there for two months, but that was a blatant hoax that got removed yesterday
[7]. I reckon the redirect creator hadn't checked the content they were redirecting to. I guess a reminder to all of us who look after the navigational infrastructure of dab pages and redirects : we need to make sure that what we're creating navigation for actually belongs on Wikipedia. –
Uanfala (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete
G3/
G10, trout creator. While respecting that the redirect's creator was not trying to engage in vandalism or BLPvios, this is still an extension of the vandalistic/BLP-violating content that was just removed from the article (which probably should be revdelled). --
Tamzincetacean needed (she/they) 00:47, 5 January 2022 (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.