Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 24

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) 16:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Obristan above all → Papers, Please  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Obristan is an imaginary country from the game, but the target article doesn't mention it at all, and from my recollection of the game I don't know that this phrase is even something that shows up in the game. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Highly unlikely search target. No mention in target article. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lordtobi (✉) 18:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zYtUdV90C4 "obristan above all" appears in one of the endings to the game and on the topic of obristan it's a fictional country inside the game https://papersplease.fandom.com/wiki/Obristan just "obristan" redirects to papers please — Preceding unsigned comment added by An1alias (talk • contribs) 18:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I doubt even fans of the game would use this as a search term. James-the-Charizard (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:34, 25 June 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 redirect as requested, since "Radio Wave" is not ambiguous. The page move and change from non primary topic for "Radio Waves" to WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT will need its own WP:RM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Radio Wave (disambiguation) → Radio Waves  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Declined speedy by @Fabrictramp: who retargeted it. This disambiguation redirect is not required. "Radio Wave" (title case, singular) is not ambiguous and Radio Waves does not disambiguate the term. Note that Radio wave (disambiguation) (sentence case, singular) does not exist. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would move Radio Waves to Radio wave (disambiguation), and retarget Radio Waves and Radio Wave to Radio wave. The primary topic for any capitalization of the phrase should be the highly important topic, "Radio wave", with everything else being on a combined disambiguation page for both singular and plural uses. bd2412 T 17:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per BDD for exactly the reasons they give. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 27 June 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 restore and move to Draft:Scarlett Estevez without leaving a redirect. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Scarlett Estevez → Daddy's Home (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect currently redirects to Daddy's Home, but subject is arguably better known for Lucifer (TV series), and is now in the main cast of the TV series Bunk'd as well. A redirect with 3 different viable targets is a bad redirect, so this one should probably be deleted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A child actress who has been in a major Hollywood theatrical film (and its sequel), and two TV series could probably sustain an article of her own. Here is her IMDB page. bd2412 T 17:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, probably not (very likely will not meet WP:BASIC). In any case, that should be proven in WP:Draftspace first. In the meantime, this redirect is problematic. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Either restore the article or move it to draft space. A cursory Google search suggests that an article is viable. The redirect has no real value (wherever it is targeted) but no good will come from deleting the content we already have. PC78 (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be OK with that – restore the article, but move it to WP:Draftspace. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also agree with restoring to draft space. Her continuing role in the final season of Lucifer is likely to generate additional coverage in the time frame for resolving a draft. bd2412 T 04:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to draft space without leaving a redirect in mainspace. Viable as a draft though probably won't survive AFD. feminist (talk) 15:31, 1 July 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) 14:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you see yourself in a crowded room → Panic Switch  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete No evidence this lyric snippet was ever an alternative title for the song; also is missing the question mark. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could this be in criteria for speedy deletion? James-the-Charizard (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was going to suggest that this might be useful to someone who knew the song but not the title, but the actual lyric appears to be "When you see yourself in a crowded room". PC78 (talk) 23:00, 24 June 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.