Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 14

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Remember My Sacrifice (album) → Kevin Gates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This doesn't appear to actually be the name of a Kevin Gates album. Before it was converted to a redirect, the article claimed that Remember My Sacrifice was Kevin Gates's debut (without sources), which would appear to be incorrect. I would suggest deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, likely to be a hoax 212.213.64.153 (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google search doesn't turn up much, probable hoax. PC78 (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• C15H18IN3O2 → Iodocyanopindolol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

C15H18IN3O2 was created by mistake. It is formula of an other compound with the same name. I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula C₁₅H₁₈IN₃O₂. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom 212.213.64.153 (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2019 (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) 16:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• United Kingdom government (2017–present) → Second May ministry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• United Kingdom government (2017-present) → Second May ministry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• United Kingdom government (2016–present) → May ministry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• United Kingdom government (2016-present) → May ministry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Outdated. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as inaccurate. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 22:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or turn into a disambiguation page for omnishambles, clusterfuck and catastrophe. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of British governments#Ministries which lists all the administrations since 2017. Thryduulf (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Better to create anchors for 2016 and 2017 if these are to be kept. --BDD (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Go ahead, they'll be useful regardless of what happens with this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the previous discussion, where I argued then that it was premature to nominate these redirects. That time has now passed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Anything with "-present" in its title is inaccurate as "present" changes over time. JIP | Talk 11:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all per Thryduulf. These obviously shouldn't point at their current targets, but I don't see a reason why they can't point at such a list page where one exists.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:05, 23 August 2019 (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pen and ink → Pen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Pen and Ink → Pen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:XY since Ink is a separate article. (Note: Pen and ink is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget, since it's a common phrase—perhaps to Calligraphy. Retarget to Drawing. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget, but certainly not there - writing or manuscript would be better. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Drawing. The term "pen and ink" normally refers to a type of drawing e.g. [1][2] rather than calligraphy or writing. Pen-and-ink drawing however is redirected to pen which is unsatisfactory. An alternative is to revert back to its original content before someone redirected it (I think the redirect to pen is wrong-headed) because "pen and ink" is an established term in drawing. It should not be deleted either way. Hzh (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes! Agreed. Also compare Pen-and-ink drawing. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Drawing per Hzh --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to drawing per above comments._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to drawing with a hatnote to calligraphy and no prejudice against the creation of an article. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm surprising myself, but I don't see a problem with this. Pens use ink, and ink is easily linked in the first sentence. Drawing may be a common thing to do with an ink pen, but so is all sorts of writing. Retargeting more specific redirects like Pen-and-ink drawing is correct, but I don't think we should change these. --BDD (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BDD. I agree that retargeting to drawing neglects writing in a major way, so that solution is undesirable. Pen is a better article because it details how ink is used in the context of pens. To address WP:XY, I don't think Ink covers ink in the context of pens as well. That is: ink is integral to pens, but not vice versa. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am persuaded by Tavix: this is not a WP:XY situation. Ink is not supplemental to a pen; you can't have a (working) pen without ink.—Ketil Trout (^<><!) — Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 30 August 2019 (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. MBisanz ^talk 18:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Images of Saddam Hussein → Saddam Hussein  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Images of Bianca Jackson → Bianca Jackson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Images of Kanniyakumari → Kanyakumari district  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Images of Kanyakumari → Kanyakumari district  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Images of Rachel Corrie → Rachel Corrie  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Images of Saskatoon → Saskatoon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Images of test cards → Test card  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Pictures of Jhelum → Jhelum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not within the scope of the purpose of redirects, and a Pandora's Box. The first is an old redirect to Wikipedia:List of images/People/Saddam Hussein (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of images). — the Man in Question (in question) 23:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not an image gallery. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Since there are a few articles with actual titles like these, e.g., Depictions of Muhammad, I think there's a real danger here of misleading readers. If I thought we had a whole article about images of Saddam Hussein, I'd be fascinated, then disappointed when I was just taken to his article instead. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• It may be necessary to keep Images of test cards and Images of Rachel Corrie per WP:RFD#KEEP criteria #1 as these were both merged into the target articles. Happy to delete the rest per nom, some of them were started off as mainspace galleries but it would have been better to just delete them per WP:NOTGALLERY rather than redirecting. PC78 (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  None of the original content in either of those two articles is found in the mergeto articles. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Does that matter? It's part of the article history in any case. PC78 (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, fair-use concerns would not apply to content not found in an article. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep those that are redirects from merges per PC78 and any others where the article does contain multiple images of the subject as they will take people to content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you sure about that, though, given that we do have articles about depictions of subjects? We have no redirects beginning with "Facts about", even though there is an incredibly high number of articles that contain facts about their subjects. --BDD (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I see no problem with "Facts about..." redirects if the target does contain facts about the given search term. Where we have articles about depictions of a subject, e.g. Depictions of Muhammed, they contain either images of the subject or encyclopaedic content about why there are none, so everybody is satisfied. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per BDD, including those that PC78 singled out due to there no longer being any type of gallery at the target articles. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but change to crosswiki redirects to Wikimedia Commons. That's where searchers will find what they are looking for. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the commons page of the redirect's subject, as they contain exactly what the redirect says. 212.213.64.153 (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. BDD is right that these are misleading. Turning them into crosswiki redirects is not helpful enough for the expense of having them.—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 21:49, 30 August 2019 (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 Per discussion. MBisanz ^talk 18:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Xbox compatible → List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Xbox 360 compatibility → List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete - overly vague redirect that could refer to any Xbox console or device. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Zxcvbnm: The more I look at the articles List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360 and List of backward compatible games for Xbox One, the more I think they should be merged and create a new article called List of backward compatible Xbox series games. Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: I'm not feeling it - it could cause confusion. I'd rather keep each gen on its own separate list than mix gens together._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Zxcvbnm: I get it ... but the concern may be resolvable with a chart. I may attempt some sort of draft for it soon. (Didn't mean to tangent this discussion, but yeah, if such a page existed, it may resolve the ambiguity issue with this redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would have to agree with Zxcvbnm on this one as a merged list would cause confusion and possibly be WP:TOOBIG. While both the Xbox 360 and Xbox One are using software emulation to achieve backwards compatibility the method in which compatibility is achieved is handled differently between the two. The method used on Xbox 360 is notable because some emulated games on the list have glitches or technical issues that can be problematic that was reported on by reliable sources. Original Xbox games that are backwards compatible on Xbox One are not affected by the same issues. Plus there are over 300 original Xbox games that are backwards compatible with the Xbox 360 while only 40 are backwards compatible on the Xbox One. This is a very small overlap and List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360 handles this overlap well by tagging those titles that are also compatible with Xbox One for system link purposes for titles that support that feature. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 18:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternate proposal - How about create a disambiguation page at List of backward compatible Xbox series games with a links to List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360 and List of backward compatible games for Xbox One with the two redirects pointing to the disambiguation page. This way it allows the reader to chose the list they are looking for based on the platform they are using. We can re-evaluate this when Project Scarlet is released. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 18:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• My problem with this is that the title seems awfully specific for a "disambiguation" page._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Xbox, where the compatibility of Xbox consoles are mentioned in multiple places, including Xbox#Comparison (row entitled "Backward compatibility"), Xbox#Future, and Xbox#Games. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget to Xbox per Tavix. Presumably any user searching this term would be aware of the Xbox and wouldn't have trouble getting to the main article, but there is relevant content there. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Clerk comment: Tavix, Do you want both titles to go to Xbox, or just Xbox compatible? It is unclear whether Tavix wants his argument to apply to Xbox 360 compatibility. Deryck C. 15:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's ambiguous. It could be Xbox 360 games being compatible with other Xbox consoles or other Xbox games being compatible with the Xbox 360. I gave it another look and I see a hatnote at the target, so I don't think it's a big deal either way. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the fist one. This is a vague term that as far as I can see doesn't refer to any proper subtopic covered at Xbox (and as pointed out by BDD, users who want that article can easily get there anyway). It's a bit easier to imagine readers using this phrase when looking for lists of Xbox "compatible" games, and we've got two so far. I think this an WP:XY situation where it's best to leave the job to the search engine. – Uanfala (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Xbox 360 compatibility. The existing hatnote is adequate to deal with the ambiguity. Weak retarget Xbox compatible to Xbox. It's an ambiguous but well-used term. Retargeting it to the franchise overview article may be the best solution.—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 21:49, 30 August 2019 (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 Evil. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad (ethics) → Good and evil  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Evil, since it has a separate article. —2001:16A2:50DC:C700:BD6A:7C55:E0B1:EFB1 (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget, makes sense as Evil has more specific information about the topic. 85.76.4.170 (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Evil per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:09, 14 August 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Boss Matsumoto → Kill Bill: Volume 1#Chapter 3: The Origin of O-Ren  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, and not mentioned at List of Kill Bill characters. Steel1943 (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Kill Bill Volume 1 and 2 → Kill Bill: Volume 1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:XY, considering that Kill Bill: Volume 2 exists, and there is currently no series article (though there previously was one at Kill Bill.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, misleading redirect 85.76.4.170 (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 1974 South Australian Tennis Championships - Doubles → 1974 South Pacific Championships – Doubles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• 1974 South Australian Tennis Championships – Doubles → 1974 South Pacific Championships – Doubles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These redirects point to the wrong tournament (1974 South Pacific Championships) as a result of a move, and should be deleted until data for the doubles can be found for the right tournament (1974 South Australian Tennis Championships), at which time they can be recreated. Calbow (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom 193.210.225.196 (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Go!!GO!GO!Go!!(GO!GO!7188 album) → Go!!GO!GO!Go!!  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary dab, missing a space. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, might even be useful otherwise, but with the missing space, it's not really worth keeping. 194.137.1.189 (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Currently linked from two mainspace articles. PC78 (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Now has 0 mainspace links. Steel1943 (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2019 (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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Who is an Arab → Arab identity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Who Is an Arab? → Arab identity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I am relisting these separated out from the lengthy discussion we had ten days ago, where an editor asked that these redirects receive special discussion. I have included the original nomination rationale plus a specific word on these redirects:

Wikipedia is not a search engine. Wikipedia is not Yahoo Answers. Some question phrases are probably valid redirects, because the questions themselves are notable and have a life of their own, such as "Why is the sky blue?" or "What is the meaning of life?" I have not included any of those here (though I have included some gratuitous variants). Just because something is a common question, that does not mean it should be a Wikipedia redirect. For example, there should not be a redirect "How many ounces are in a pound?" (and there is not), even though that is the tenth most commonly asked question on Google; this is the job of search engines, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not need to offer question-style titles to the question-asking crowd any more than it needs to start offering peanuts and soda to the snack-seeking crowd; question-askers should go to Google, and snack-seekers should go to the convenience store.

Compare: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#What is wikipedia, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7 (see §24–75), Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 1#What is islam, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 8#What is a museum.

Specific: This was deleted in 2009. Who is English? does not exist for English national identity; Who is Canadian? does not exist for Canadian identity; Who is Palestinian? does not exist for Palestinian identity; Who is Scottish? does not exist for Scottish national identity; Who is Serbian? does not exist for Serbian national identity; Who is Taiwanese? does not exist for Taiwanese identity; there is no Who is American?, Who is Romani?, Who is European?, etc. Who is a Jew? exists only because it is the name of a page. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per not a search engine. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and permanently WP:SALT to prevent recreation per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This one looks benign. Many of the other national identity articles cited are more about national culture. Arab identity shows the question of "Who is an Arab?" to be both less clear-cut and encyclopedic in its own right, very much like Who is a Jew? --BDD (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable question and plausible search term. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, I'd like to point out that the reasoning behind Who is Palestinian? does not exist for Palestinian identity; is pretty simple, Palestinian is a nationality while Arab is an ethnicity. Many Palestinians are Arabs, so they'd factor into this question already. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's not a plausible search string, and we apparently have no other redirects of this form. Who is a Jew is a translation of a Hebrew phrase that's the standard Hebrew name of that concept, but I've glanced over Arab identity quickly without seeing any indication that Arabic commonly refers to the question of Arab identity with a phrase that translates to "Who is an Arab". If I've missed it, please point me to the spot where this Arabic phrase is mentioned. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Unless there's a notable book with this title, this isn't really helpful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both and tag with {{avoided double redirect}}. I just created Who is an Arab? as a {{R with possibilities}}, which has the correct capitalisation and punctuation, parallel to Who is a Jew?. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a search engine. We don't have articles such as Who is a Finn?, Who is a Swede?, Who is a German? or Who is a Russian? either. JIP | Talk 14:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Harmless, gets readers where they want to be. As for a lack of a distinct phrase, that isn't that important in this case, since the natural framing of the central issue for Arab identity would be commonly expressed as "Who is an Arab?" I would also support analogous redirects where we have encyclopedic content about the nuances of group identification. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:50, 26 August 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Z Foundation (Transformers) → The Transformers (Marvel Comics)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect to an article that doesn't mention this. No incoming links from articles. Needless disambiguation as the article Z Foundation doesn't exist. Delete. JIP | Talk 12:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, not an useful redirect 194.137.1.189 (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless redirect. This unsourced, in-universe stub was prodded in 2010 and it would have been better to delete rather than redirect. PC78 (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dhoom 3 (TBA) → Dhoom 3  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer TBA. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, outdated and now inaccurate redirect. 85.76.4.36 (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The film was released six years ago. It's hardly "TBA" any more. JIP | Talk 12:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The redirect has some history so I've requested a history merge with the article. PC78 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now done so delete per nom and above, remaining page history is trivial. PC78 (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obsolete.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:12, 21 August 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• C27H43O2 → HU-308  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

C27H43O2 was created by mistake: formula of HU-308 is …O3 not …O2. I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula C₂₇H₄₃O₂. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Hughesdarren (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• C16H25N2O → 4-HO-DPT  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

C12H18SNO2 was created by mistake: formula of 4-HO-DPT is …H24… not …H25…. I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula C₁₆H₂₅N₂O. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. 85.76.4.36 (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• CO16Rh6 → Hexadecacarbonylhexarhodium  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

CO16Rh6 was created by mistake: formula of Hexadecacarbonylhexarhodium is C16O16Rh6. I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula CO16Rh6. I propose to delete it. (C16O16Rh6 is in the list of redirs to create by bot so I didn't create it manually.) Gyimhu (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 85.76.4.36 (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Hughesdarren (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2019 (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. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Already (song) → Already  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Despite having song in the title, it points to a dab page which only lists two albums (no songs), and neither album actually has a song named "Already". Wug·a·po·des​ 07:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, misleading redirect 85.76.4.36 (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There were songs on the dab page because someone removed them because they were not charting songs, I have restored one of the three as it did chart on a genre chart. DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment could be a valid {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} since the dab page now lists multiple WP:DABMENTION songs by this name. None of them have more than a bare line item in the discography, though. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn Thanks DanTheMusicMan2 for updating the DAB page. Unless anyone thinks it should be retargeted somewhere I think this has been resolved. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now - I'd argue it would be helpful, per WP:DABMENTION, as a {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2019 (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) 16:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Serguthy → Grimorium Verum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The term "Serguthy" doesn't appear in the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This page has been already nominated for speedy deletion for being a blatant hoax, but was then redirected to Grimorium Verum since Serguthy apparently appears in the work. Nothing in the Grimorium Verum's page supports this claim, though. 194.137.1.189 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2019 (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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7. I created this redirect in error. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• C20H16F3NO3S2 → GW501516  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

C12H18SNO2 was created by mistake: formula of GW501516 is C21H18… not C20H16…. I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula C20H16F3NO3S2. I propose to delete it. (C21H18F3NO3S2 is in the list of redirs to create by bot so I didn't create it manually.) Gyimhu (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pichpich (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ditto Hughesdarren (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2019 (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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7. I created this redirect in error. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• CH5N4O2 → Guanidine nitrate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

CH5N4O2 was created by mistake: formula of Guanidine nitrate is CH6N4O3. I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula CH₅N₄O₂. I propose to delete it. (CH6N4O3 is in the list of redirs to create by bot so I didn't create it manually.) Gyimhu (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pichpich (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ditto. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2019 (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.