Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 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 no consensus. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wacky Wars → Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/My Royal Young  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention in the MRY LTA page of anything related to this so this should either be explained on the MRY LTA page, be created as a new LTA page or deleted 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ​ Wacky Wars was originally considered a seperate LTA, but a sockpuppet investigation conducted by Ivanvector confirmed Wacky Wars as a sockpuppet of My Royal Young. That is why it redirects there now and should stay at the current target. Naleksuh (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Naleksuh. Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DENY. MRY is an attention-seeker, and there was never a page at this location that anyone would be looking for, nor any useful information to add to the LTA page that would make this redirect useful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Ivanvector: Don't see how that rationale applies to deleting this redirect. You could propose the LTA target page for deletion then flag the redirect for G8 if it passes. Naleksuh (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Naleksuh: MRY created the Wacky Wars persona for no other reason than to get attention, but ultimately that persona was not significantly different from the behaviour we already expect from them. There is nothing about Wacky Wars that would be worthwhile to add to the LTA page - it would not provide any useful new information to any investigations into their behaviour, it would only give more attention. With no information about Wacky Wars at MRY's LTA page, this redirect also serves no purpose other than to give the perpetrator more attention. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Don't give anything else for MRY. SMB99thx my edits 06:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If SPIs and LTA reports constitute attention or troll feeding, the horse is far out of the barn in this case, and beyond that, we might want to rethink our whole approach towards trolls and vandals! It would be neater if this alias were mentioned, but this is not mainspace, and we can ask more of editors using it. I think it communicates fairly clearly that these are the same user. --BDD (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2020 (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. --BDD (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Academic School → Platonic Academy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. Is this really a term used to refer to it? Paul_012 (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A simple Google Books search for Plato with "Academic School" finds numerous scholarly hits referring to Plato's Academy. I didn't investigate them all to see what the general capitalization was—Google presented the first few with "school" not capitalized, but the originals should be checked, since in some cases that could be an artifact of digitization and indexing. In any case, it looks like it might be treated as a proper name—and unqualified, that name seems unlikely to refer to other notable institutions. So my first impression is that it's an alternative name for Plato's Academy—along with "Platonic Academy", the current article title, and "Plato's school", as shown on this ngram, in which many of the hits for "Academic School" are probably not references to Plato's Academy, although I would say that a number of them probably are—the overall trend looks similar with or without case-sensitivity. The lead probably should give these alternative names—they aren't confusing and don't require extended discussion. But I'd defer to our Greek experts, in case they have any definite opinions. P Aculeius (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A hatnote to Academy might be worth adding if the primary topic is still Plato's. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:47, 17 October 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Crybully → Victim playing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A neologism not mentioned in target article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Searching for just rarr on Google shows it could be an acronym that refers to various things and may imply a disambig page should be here instead. The arrow is indeed one of the things this term refers to, but are there any others? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 17:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not aware of any articles here other than Rarr — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, should we have more? Even if we don't right now? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 18:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is currently no better target than the page that disambiguates right arrow. (Note that Larr redirects to ←). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are no other suitable targets that currently exist. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2020 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Enforced disappearance of Mushtaq Mahar → Sindh Police#19 October 2020  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The incident of IG's kidnapping has not been confirmed by any media outlet or independent source yet, so an alleged incident which involves politics and is POV pushing, doesn't deserve to have a redirect. USaamo ^(t@lk) 16:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let us have a big smiley :)) here

1) The section written is close paraphrasing of almost five news articles that includes one editorial plus at least two different journalist reporters of Pakistan's most prominent English language daily Dawn's online editions.

2) While, it's true that, Pakistani deep state is little better than Chinese in showcasing unreal Media freedom so news in part are blacked out from Pakistani media so Pakistani audience won't know and won't understand and end up promoting only Armed force's narratives as per example of above user's contention.

3) Still if story of mass leave applications of senior Sindh police officials was not true then inquiry against what has been initiated by Chief of Pakistani Armed forces? And why all the Sindh top police officials wanted to go on privilege leave same time? Were they called in for a training or holiday tour to Beijing or Riyadh or Ankara? Or were they planning to help out Kabul or were they Planning to visit US to aid in presidential campaigns? :)) And what Pakistani senators spoke openly in Pakistani senate is available on Youtube only needs to be translated from Urdu to English language! And not the least, leave applications were available on official twitter handles of many concerned police officials now how all the incidences can be untrue? How smoke is there in the Karachi Sindh and Pakistani air without fire?

4) In any case, what is reported by Pakistani news agencies and TV Channels and spoken in Pakistan's parliament is not my personal POV. IF any Pakistani politics has PoV angles those are taken fairly taken note of as per Wikimedia's encyclopedic traditions.

5) Here is https://tribune.com.pk/story/2269720/unprecedented-1 ::an article titled Unprecedented in Pakistani daily Express Tribune, Is this independent or not, Should it be taken note of or not in the article section?

6) Even the journalist who reported the news first too was subsequently enforced to disappear and then released. Here are two news Whether those should be taken note of or not?

https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/pakistan/pakistan-journalist-goes-missing-in-karachi-1.74787441

https://theprint.in/world/geo-news-journalist-who-released-footage-of-pakistan-opposition-leaders-arrest-missing/530253/

Best luck to wishes of soft censors.

Just for information and record Wikipedia has got an entire article on issue of military and ISI tradition of Enforced disappearances in Pakistan May be supporters of Pakistani deep state would wish to begin Article for Deletion process for that article

The rest is for Wikipedian community to decide about.

Bookku (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know well about all the article links presented above but the disappearance of IG is described as an alleged event. It involves politics and was alleged by a political opponent of government whose credibility itself is questionable since she's convicted on corruption and not been able to give testimony before any court in famous Calibri font matter. Among the concerned authorities, neither the provincial government nor the police had any say on it. The POV with regard to that section is another thing but here I contested the need of this redirect. Since the event itself is not confirmed yet and involves much of politics, so how could we have a redirect for it and it's too early for it I believe. USaamo ^(t@lk) 17:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot see how or why it needs to be deleted, it must be an article on its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:1F29:159:9D25:94AD:CE12:5169 (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A debate about the content of the section needs to take place at the article's Talk page rather than here. In the meantime, with the content of the section as it currently stands, the redirect is entirely justified. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud: the POV with regard to the content is another thing but here I contested the need of this redirect. Since the event itself is not confirmed yet and is only alleged by political opponents whose credibility is also questionable and involves much of politics, so how could we have a redirect for it and it's too early for it I believe. USaamo ^(t@lk) 17:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@USaamo: It's true that its tough to define and certify, who is credible, reliable and independent in Pakistan? It's equally true that to prove any thing in Pakistan is equally tough! No doubt political events can be political and politicians can take mileage out of even non political events.

The basic point is, was event of Sindh top police brass openly and publicly attempting to go on mass leave on 19th October 2020 untrue? (Or whether police behavior to ask for Mass leave was political?) To the minimum Governor of Sindh admits on TV channel he asked for a politicians arrest to happen (While constitutionally propriety Governor's premature interference leads to different sets of questions), then that Pakistani ranger's deputies called upon at Inspector Generals home in person, in midnight ordeal the fellow was taken / went to ranger's Karachi HQ, then an order comes and a political arrest follows, but next day order giving official and his colleagues go on mass leave.

Here is link of former Former IG Police, Akhtar Hassan Khan participating in a panel discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yJe3Iu8sS4 What happened on 18th and 19 was a series of blunders that included an offense of non cognizable nature where in the politicians arrest should have followed a court warrant and police officials were legally not allowed to conduct arrest without warrant and that what (illegitimate arrest without warrant) they were coerced into. And again there is a recent prehistory of undermining of provincial authority in provincial policing Ref: https://www.dawn.com/news/1537202 And some one appointed in background of this prehistory would not have been in position to take a publicly understandable unconstitutional coercion easily.

Now regarding Sindh police some notable thing has happened, rightly enough If some one does not want to believe in reporting of Pakistani or Indian media but here is a news article of aljazeera usually admissible as independent to Muslim umma https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/21/pakistan-army-to-probe-opposition-claims-of-pressuring-police Now the wording used by sources of aljazeera uses wording

"...A senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the matter, confirmed the incident to Al Jazeera, saying soldiers from the paramilitary Pakistan Rangers were sent to the police chief’s home after he initially refused to arrest the politician....“At 4am [on Monday], when [the intelligence agencies] got quite frustrated that they would not be able to [arrest Safdar], they went in with about nine paramilitary Rangers vehicles to the inspector general’s house to force him to come to a meeting with the [intelligence services] sector commander, to insist that he should authorise [the arrest],”...“There was no manhandling, to my knowledge, but it is disrespectful, to say the least, to send the Rangers to his house [and] to then force and coerce him.”

Is the event encyclopedicly notable? yes. Is it covered by source like aljazeera ? yes. Then why keep Wikipedian readers in blind by not covering it?

One of the issue in these cases is of translation: The word 'agwa karna' can mean just some one is 'lead into' to a serious description of Abduct/Kidnap/Highjack but since a state agency itself doing it usually term came into vogue is enforced disappearance, But if we take note of one meaning suggested by this online dictionary word "Commandeered into" would fit the bill better then I have no issues.

I am quite okay if some one wants to rephrase wording to "alleged enforced disappearance of Mushtaq Mahar" or "alleged illegitimate commandeering of Mushtaq Mahar" I am okay with it.

But certainly it's difficult for any sensible wikipedian to agree to push Pakistan army's narrative that nothing happened or Pakistan prime minister's assertion that what happened was just a 'Joke'.

And if at all Wikipedian's would accept Pakistani prime minister's assertion that what happened was a joke then, if Wikipedia section or redirect heading would look like "On and of joke on Mushtaq Mahar" and that would be a bigger joke IMHO :)) I suppose and hope that most Wikipedians won't like to participate in such jokes besides joking about the same.

Thanks Bookku (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku: first of all I'm not here on behalf of Pakistani government or establishment the way you are trying to project me over this nomination. We're here to build an encyclopedia and for better of it I nominated it for deletion. I'm opposing this redirect for some reasons as I told above that it's an alleged event, involves politics and it's too early to have it. Secondly about what you just said above is partially what I said that it's an alleged event and cannot be projected as a confirmed happening and is too early to say when the main stakeholders are yet to come up with their say on it and an inquiry is also undergoing. Moreover the arrest of Capt. (r) Safdar was not political but later events allegedly made it so. He was to be arrested for breach of Quaid's mausoleum's sanctity about which there's an act which prohibits political activity which he did there and was confirmed by Sindh Government as well. We can say that haste was done in his arrest and proper procedure may not be followed but it cannot be entirely made political on that basis. Politics definitely was done by his wife and he came in limelight otherwise he has no role other than the husband of Maryam Nawaz, so it was political gain for them. On the basis of all these points I believe this redirect should be deleted because it is giving credibility to the event by having on Wikipedia when there's so much problematic with regard to the event itself. I'm not talking about the content of that section here but the redirect specifically. USaamo ^(t@lk) 21:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@USaamo:

1) In a way all allegations are claims put forth by some one. Lot of information and knowledge remains dependent on claims (I can give many valid examples)

2) IMHO In encyclopedia we are not here to judge whose/which claim is correct and true and whose is not or whose claim is motivated and whose is not or all the claims can be proved or not. If one becomes too strict on proofs of claims huge amount of information related religions will be needed to be deleted also many other information like US and Pakistan aided afghan rebels time to time where are the proofs. There were certain allegations against Turkey. Turkey banned Wikipedia for some years but Wikipedians refused to be censored.

3) What Wikipedia looks for is notability.

4) Keep PDM politics aside for a moment, Think President of USA or CIA wants New York police to arrest a common alleged criminal but Head of New York police refuse to budge, they will be expected to take steps as per official protocol. And would not be expected to exasperate to a level that Head of New York police and entire top police officials of New York will submit mass leave applications. And if events to take that rout then related news becomes notable.

4) In USA if any thing like that happens white washing will be too tough for President/Chief of Armed force or CIA head too. But if same thing happens in China even any inquiry will not get instituted and in Russia or Pakistan even if any inquiry gets instituted it is going to bury any negative aspects of the hegemonic authorities with much ease is plain simple truth.

5) Now let us come back to Inspector General Mushtaq Mahar. Consider opposite possibility if he was under pressure from provincial bosses to not to arrest Captain Safdar but arrest takes place then IG Mushtaq Mahar and his other police colleagues have no reason to ask for mass leave.

6) That means certainly it was undue pressure of Federal forces caused enough strife in Sindh Police that they asked for Mass leave.

7) Irrespective of strife of IG plus Sindh police was emotional or politically induced by other political colors News of strife remains notable.

8) As encyclopedia editors we can very well deliberate how to phrase and rephrase, but we are not suppose to deny notability of a notable incidence.

9) Intention is not to personalize but any expectations to deny notability of a notable incidence becomes doubtful and comes under scanner as possible attempt to soft censorship IMHO.

10) On information and knowledge front I am an inclusionist. Personally I do not believe deleting some or all side is neutral but rather I believe including all sides is neutral.

I suppose by now I have put forward my side in enough ways on this discussion board. Thanks for healthy discussions. Rest I leave to Wikipedian common wisdom.

Bookku (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku: I've said this multiple times that I'm not objecting the content. Though content also needs to be on point but that's another debate. Here I've asserted in clearest possible terms that this redirect is needless and undue.

As to notability the event actually is of Capt(r) Safdar's arrest of which this so called incident allegedly is part. Even if it is notable, it is that arrest, not this alleged incident. IG as per stories here is being called and forced to arrest a person which I believe is not up to the definition of his enforced disappearance. If it is so than many other incidents of calling and forcing public office holders by authorities will also be coming under which I believe is not the case.

As to police you're making wrong comparisons. Tell me a single police in third world countries specifically where it is not been used by authorities or politicians for personal gains. Police is very much part of all these things.

About provincial government influencing police let me tell you that an IG is directly under CM. There has been incidents in past where police directly fired upon people on the behest of provincial governments like 2010 Abbottabad police killings and 2014 Model Town incident in Lahore. Wikipedia is full of police brutality articles where police has been used in such a way. So police being used for personal job is nothing new or rare to be notable enough for a separate article or redirect.

To my surprise here I don't know why Indian editors are so active as to it while Pakistani editors don't see it worth to comment. Rest let's wait for a couple of neutral Wikipedians to come and give their view in light of our discussion about what to be done with it. Thanks and Regards! USaamo ^(t@lk) 03:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@USaamo:

First it is absolutely unfair on your part to presume antecedents of other editors and/or phishing to compromise privacy of other editors. My online self declared description is 'as student of South Asian studies". You can not presume less or more than that.

In a previous incidence on talk page of article Lahore some one asked my opinion presuming me Pakistani and now you presume me some thing else What right do any one has to presume any thing than self declared? Some one gave me a barnstar for doing good work on Pakistan related article will you presume him / her to be Indian ?

Second: It is logically fallacious and funny to say that who ever is complaining about duress over Inspector General of Police Mushtaq Mahar automatically becomes Indian. Here is news article in Pakistan daily times https://dailytimes.com.pk/679993/ig-sindh-mushtaq-mahar-other-officers-seek-leave-in-protest-over-fir-against-capt-safdar/ are they Indian? Some one wrote for alJazeera can you presume him to be Indian? Some Pakistani news reporters speak to Indian Channels and some Indians reporters speak to Pakistani Channels does that change their nationality? Here is a news report of Pakistani members of civil society making petition before Pakistan's Supreme court to restrain Federal government from interfering Sindh's provincial autonomy and undue kidnapping of IG https://tribune.com.pk/story/2270132/sc-moved-against-sindh-police-chiefs-kidnapping From these civil society members to news agency reporters to fifty or so officials asked for mass leave to express their displeasure about mistreatment given to the IG and IG himself are they all Indians? It's true that like one China Indians would want all Pakistan to become India again at some point of time and you seem to eager to help Indians in by contemplating Identities then are you an Indian agent?,and I am not at all alleging so.

I do have articles taking note of Muslim culture and also criticism Which identity you would want enforce on me and why? What right do you have?

I do not agree censoring of titles like one criticism title was merged in anti sentiment thing in one India related article. I do not agree multiple instances of soft censoring of Pakistan related articles either.

2) Whatever happened about Pakistan provincial police forces up til now whether previous encyclopedic note or not, mass application of leave by top ranks of Sindh Police amounts to be unique globally rare and hence notable (Please do read this hundreds of times again)

3) I already said I am ready to deliberate rephrasing of Redirect title but have no encyclopedic reason to agree over deletion.

Bookku (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Shhhnotsoloud. This is a content dispute that needs to be sorted out on the talk page or another appropriate forum, not the WP:COATRACK of an RfD. I've already tagged the redirect with {{R from non-neutral name}}; it's obviously of some value as long as the event remains described at the target article, though I take no position on whether the description is appropriate. --BDD (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Molag bal → The Elder Scrolls  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Molag Bal is one of the deities in the game series. But there's no relevant content about him in the target article. Conceivably, if someone in the future creates Deities in the Elder Scrolls, the redirect could then be retargeted. Currently though, there are a few scattered mentions of him in individual articles, and these are better accessible through the search engine.
The redirect was briefly retargeted to User:Hindduking earlier today, presumably because it is a sock of the blocked User:Molag Bal. But this redirect is inappropriate per WP:CNR. I'm also requesting for Molag Bal to be un-salted (User:Acalamari?) – full creation protection made sense whe then title was protected in 2008, but not now, when intermediate levels of protection are available. – Uanfala (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not mentioned in target article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:50, 25 October 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Gstatic.com → Google  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as confusing. The website http://www.gstatic.com does not currently exist. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Weak Keep: It's actually Google-related. Why it appears as a non-existent page is because it's not meant to be typed in from the address bar. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 18:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ambiguous --Devokewater (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• New Hampshire (motto) → Live Free or Die  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"New Hampshire" is not a motto. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This redirect seems to be going backwards. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 17:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: I created it as a redirect back in 2003 because someone had created a redlink to it in an article. I have no objection to deletion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always interesting what one remembers. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• John Derek (disambiguation) → John Derrick  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Only one John Derek, so what's there to disambiguate? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Maybe there once were other John Dereks, but Special:PrefixIndex/John Derek only lists the one at present, so this is a weird redirect. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to John Derrick. This started life as a redirect to that disambiguation page, presumably because it is a plausible misspelling for the three people with that name and/or the similar John Derricke. That still seems like a useful function today. Thryduulf (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "John Derek" is not ambiguous. A redirect to John Derrick has no utility because John Derek already has a similar names hatnote to that page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Jay Prince → Mura Masa  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Suggest deleting. I considered trying to de-redirect it into an article, but I don't think the sourcing is available. The term is mentioned in the target, but in passing (Jay Prince was on one track Mura Masa produced). I think it's more confusing than anything to have it redirect there. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While others have raised the issue, I've never had or seen a significant problem with the practice of redirecting names to where they are mentioned on other articles before or until they have an article of their own. It is mentioned at the Mura Masa article that he is a vocalist, and it could be a possible search term. In my opinion, having some information about a singer available at the article of another is more beneficial than not having anything on them at all. Ss112 06:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He is mentioned once in the target article as having been a featured artist on an EP the subject of the article also collaborated on. A likely search term, I will agree, but I think we should delete to encourage article creation if Jay Prince is sufficiently independently notable. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 17:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: One of the reasons I brought this redirect here instead of creating the article myself is that, unfortunately, I don't think there's sourcing available at the moment to justify an article. (I love Jay Prince, and so wanted there to be an article, but even though he's music-notable in my view I don't think he's yet wiki-notable.) And so, if the subject is sadly destined to remain article-less for the next while, I thought keeping the redirect was actually less helpful—because confusing/misleading—than simply having nothing at all. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The use of Search gives better results. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2020 (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. No prejudice against anyone who wants to try an article. --BDD (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Corn off the cob → Sweet corn  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Technically speaking, this is just the opposite of Corn on the cob, or corn kernels removed from the cob. Maybe I just had a really weird background, but I've also eaten my fair share of Field corn, so this feels like a overly restrictive target too me. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we can resolve the ambiguity by retargeting this to Corn kernel. - Eureka Lott 15:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or create an article on the real thing). My searches suggest that corn off the cob is the name for various corn-based dishes—obviously made (in part) from corn kernels, but a distinct thing. Corn kernel and sweet corn both seem too distantly related to be helpful targets. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, disambig might be appropriate. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Current target obviously not correct. I am not convinced this term is widespread enough to be notable at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, disambiguation seems inappropriate given the terms obscurity. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:54, 31 October 2020 (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.