This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 21, 2022.
- 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 moot. An article has been written.
✗
plicit
01:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
reply
A redlink is more useful than a
WP:SELFRED that's only used on the target page (and on Lee's article, which has a separate link to the same section). ―
Tartan357
Talk
23:42, 21 May 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 keep.
✗
plicit
01:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
reply
Misleading. The article predominantly covers the game in question, not its creator.
LBWP (
talk)
23:30, 21 May 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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 29#Sonic Chrono Adventure
- 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
01:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
reply
Misleading, as both terms are not mentioned in their respective target articles. They do share similarities in that both are traditional Kirby games for home gaming consoles, with Kirby 64 following 1997's Kirby's Dream Land 3, but nothing in the articles indicates that these were meant to be direct sequels.
LBWP (
talk)
23:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
Veverve (
talk)
14:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom, the redirects don't even make sense. 64 doesn't even majorly take place in Dreamland, and there had been many games inbetween the release of 64 and Return. If anything, Return is a sequel to Kirby's Adventure, if you go by the European name. (Though, it also should not be called Kirtby's Adventure 2 either)
Captain
Galaxy
12:09, 23 May 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 keep.
(non-admin closure)
CycloneYoris
talk!
03:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
reply
The original Gold Derby Awards article was
deleted in 2020 because they were deemed non-notable. However, this redirect was quickly created after the article's deletion. Since
MOS:FILM#Accolades states that (generally) awards should be mentioned if they have a corresponding article, this allows the awards to be mentioned elsewhere despite lack of notability. I think people searching for "Gold Derby Awards" would reasonably be led to
Gold Derby, so the redirect does not need to exist, in my opinion.
RunningTiger123 (
talk)
18:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Corresponding page existed since 2016 in one for or another, so external pages linking to it is likely. Is a plausible search term and useful to have. The argument from
MOS:FILM#Accolades is incorrect since a redirect is not an article, so this page does already not qualify. If people add the awards to other articles despite that, the problem lies with those edits, not with the existence of the useful redirect. Regards
So
Why
09:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - The awards are discussed at length in the target, so of course this is a valid redirect. If there is some tangential issue perhaps the MOS could be clarified to say "(not including redirects)" or something like that.
A7V2 (
talk)
10:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
reply
- The target article discusses the awards at length, but it should probably be vastly trimmed; all of those sections are attributed to primary sources, so including such detailed analysis is probably undue.
RunningTiger123 (
talk)
15:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
reply
- As long as the target article discusses the awards at all, the redirect makes sense. And I don't see any reason why the target should not discuss the awards at all. Regards
So
Why
15:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
reply
- If it is undue or irrelevant (I'm not saying it is or isn't) then it should be removed, and then the redirect could be deleted. But given that it is discussed at the target, of course the redirect is suitable. Redirects are not content. They just lead to content.
A7V2 (
talk)
23:02, 22 May 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 keep.
Jay
(talk)
16:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
reply
This is a miscapitalization of a proper noun, and the redirect already exists at the proper capitalization at
Harvard Bus Tunnel. We don't need a redirect from a grammatical error when the same redirect without the grammatical error already exists. I attempted to CSD G6 this, but it appears there's some disagreement about whether or not this is noncontroversial (I personally think it is; deleting grammatical errors that serve no unique purpose shouldn't be controversial), but since it appears it is controversial, here we are.
Nick Boppel (
talk)
15:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose – The assertion that it's a proper noun is not supported, and it's in use by numerous Wikipedia articles that mention the
Harvard bus tunnel. Deleting it would break all those links. And even when the capitalization of a redirect is wrong, we generally leave them to make linking attempts work.
Dicklyon (
talk)
16:29, 21 May 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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 28#Ytterbium dodecaboride
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 30#Big Bang Theory
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 28#Taking
Barrier Islands of New Jersey
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 28#Barrier Islands of New Jersey