Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 5

March 5

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 5, 2021.

Template:Editing Template:Russian Civil War

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 per WP:CSD#G6 - clearly created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Editing Template:Russian Civil War → Template:Russian Civil War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible redirect, moved two minutes after creation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since this was clearly created in error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2021 (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.

Editing Template:USCongRep/CO/107

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 per WP:CSD#G6 - redirects created when fixing pages created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editing Template:USCongRep/CO/107 → Template:USCongRep/CO/107  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Editing Template:USCongRep/IN/48 → Template:USCongRep/IN/48  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible XNRs; moved from these titles within 30 minutes after creation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since these were clearly created in error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2021 (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.

Editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Ghana/Parliament of Ghana/Members of the 3rd Parliament of the 4th Republic of Ghana/Contest

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 per WP:CSD#G6 - fixing pages created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible XNR. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - my mistake, I should have tagged it with WP:R2 when I moved to page. --John B123 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @John B123: G6 is the most relevant criterion for pages created in error and redirects created when moving pages created at the wrong title/in the wrong namespace to where they should be. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since these were clearly created in error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2021 (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.

Editing Le Tour de Chant d'Édith Piaf a l'Olympia - No. 2

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 per WP:CSD#G6 - created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect, resulted from a move but only kept at this title for two minutes. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK to delete. This looks to have been an error on my part. Cbl62 (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this was clearly created in error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:44, 6 March 2021 (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.

Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More: Revision history

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 per WP:CSD#G6 - clearly created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More: Revision history → The Long Tail (book)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • 2013 Critics' Choice Television Awards: Revision history → 3rd Critics' Choice Television Awards  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These redirects don't make a lot of sense. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More: Revision history. I intended to create this redirect page on 18 January 2014 as Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More (without "Revision history"). "Revision history" was an accidental typo.--Neo-Jay (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neo-Jay Please note that per WP:MOVEREDIRECT, it is discouraged to move redirects with no significant page history. It would be preferred to just create the intended redirect and leave this one at RfD. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since these were clearly created in error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2021 (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.

Redwood Lodge, California

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. Hog Farm Talk 23:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redwood Lodge, California → Redwood Lodge  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The Redwood Lodge of the target article is in New Mexico and not California, but I can't work out if there's something odd about the page history or not. If not, then delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is supposed to be targeting Redwood Lodge, Mendocino County, California, which was deleted on the 1st of Feb after being prodded. The page that was at Redwood Lodge (Gallup, New Mexico) was then moved to Redwood Lodge as the disambiguation was unnecessary. Since we no longer have an article on the California location this should be deleted. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This would make sense if Redwood Lodge were actually in California, but with the current state, the redirect is useless. JIP | Talk 16:55, 6 March 2021 (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.

Locker room talk

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 12#Locker room talk

One-ring fraud

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 to encourage article creation. Deryck C. 09:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One-ring fraud → Phone fraud  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not currently mentioned at target, but multiple similar explanations are at Telephone numbers in the Dominican Republic#One-ring scam 809 calls, Area code 268#One Ring Scam, and Area code 284#One ring scam. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • My first thought is that we should have some content about this at a central location, either the redirect or a section at the current target would seem best. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage creation of an article on this subject. Deletion also has the added benefit of revealing search terms to make the area code articles easier to find. -- Tavix (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2021 (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.

Join-calculus (programming language)

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 and restore paragraph that was removed. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Join-calculus appears to be notable. The Join-calculus programming language is not. Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The target article has had a long-standing paragraph on the language [1]. I don't know if it is notable, but there's a fair number of results on a web search for "join calculus language", which suggest the topic is at least noteworthy. In the absence of any argument to the contrary, I'd imagine the default action would be to restore this paragraph, and – if need be – trim it down to a list entry to match the rest of the content of the section. – Uanfala (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and (partially) restore the paragraph. The language need not be notable to be suitable for inclusion, simply noteworthy and verifiable, and I think Uanfala makes a good case that it is noteworthy-enough for a mention. Perhaps a good compromise would be to cut down on it a bit to make it fit better. -- Tavix (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2021 (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.

Embarrassed naked female

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. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Embarrassed naked female → Sexual fetishism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Embarrassed nude female → Sexual fetishism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Implausible redirect, not mentioned at the target. gnu57 22:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I've added Embarrassed nude female to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article (at nude) without prejudice and retarget the naked redirect there. These are absolutely plausible search terms, getting 508 (naked) and 360 (nude) views last year. There was an effectively unsourced (the only reference is to Urban Dictionary) stub at Embarrassed nude female that was redirected by Ironholds without discussion. There is also an unsourced draft at User:ENF - Embarrassed Nude Female/sandbox. I'd be frankly astonished if there wasn't sources available to improve these, but finding them is going to require filtering out the massive number of porn and erotic story hits (the latter are also common on a books search) (which gives another indication of the plausibility of the search terms). I'll leave a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography as I guess people there will have more knowledge of how to find useful sources. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the subject is notable, this is the kind of topic that would need a fully fleshed-out and well-referenced article to support that. Until then, deletion is the right call. -- Tavix (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Tavix. I can't fathom restoring a stub that existed for about 1 day in 2009 and was sourced only to Urban Dictionary would be useful, especially for a topic like this. If this is notable, it can be recreated of course, but what existed in 2009 does not seem useful for building an article. Hog Farm Talk 03:51, 18 March 2021 (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.

Trending topic

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. signed, Rosguill talk 00:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current target now has a main article, Twitter trends; however, I'm not sure how unambiguous this term is. Creating the corresponding titles with a "(Twitter)" disambiguator as redirects there and retargeting these to Trend might be a better option. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, nothing at Trend suggest that it should go there. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I do agree with the nominator that the current topic is suboptimal, while a lot of results are related to twitter there are other websites that show up regularly when you search for this phrase (e.g. Google Trends, Weibo, Facebook ...). There's also the Trend analysis article, which might be a suitable place to shove a section related to social media trends? Not sure. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Search returns 333 mentions in Enwiki of "trending topic", and 51 of "trending topic" less "Twitter", so on that basis I think it's safe to assume that the majority of mentions of the term are about Twitter. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2021 (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.

Australasian relations

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 12#Australasian relations

Lil Bit (disambiguation)

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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 12:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a disambiguation page and as such is no help to navigation. There are other redirects commencing Lil Bit redirecting to the target. Richhoncho (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2021 (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.

AIMBot

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) 02:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • AIMBot → Chatbot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Looking at the page history, "AIM" is an abbreviation of "AOL Instant Messenger". While there is a short mention of the messenger in the section Chatbot#Malicious use, to which this could be refined, "AIMBot" on its own is not mentioned at the target nor anywhere else and could cause unnecessary confusion with an aimbot. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, while dated, it's definitely a way people referred to chatbots at one point. The capitalization is not likely to be used by someone looking for Aimbot. signed, Rosguill talk 01:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: AIM_(software)#Chat_robots may be a better target than Chatbot. I also don't oppose deletion though - I agree that the capitalization is unlikely for aimbot, but I'm not sure that people used this spelling (capitalized Bot, no space between AIM and Bot) all that much for AIM chat bots either. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2021 (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.

Inquisitor (Warhammer 40,000)

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 Inquisitor (disambiguation). N.b., Of the topics mentioned in this discussion, only the novel is not (currently) listed there. --BDD (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inquisitor (Warhammer 40,000) → Warhammer 40,000  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There currently is no mention of inquisitors in the main warhmmer 40,000 article, and the obvious target for this redirect was deleted last year after an AfD nomination. There does however seem to be a tabletop game, video game, fan magazine and series of books which could be potential targets. Does anyone view one of these as a primary target or should it be disambiguted? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak redirect to Warhammer 40,000: Inquisitor – Martyr. I'm not super familiar with Warhammer 40k, but page views suggest that this video game is the most prominent example of the suggested potential targets. signed, Rosguill talk 21:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:19, 5 March 2021 (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.

Tolstoy writings

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 00:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful: Tolstoy leads to Leo Tolstoy from where a hatnote points to the dab page for other Tolstoys: "Xxx writings" redirects are not needed and not helpful, as they assume that there is one and only one "Xxx". A group of similar redirects have recently been created, not sure whether they should be "bundled" with this redirect or not: Wittgenstein works, Russell writings, Plato's writings, Works by Xenophon etc (and a dab page at Berners-Lee writings). PamD 07:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please view the previously existing groups "works by-" (9 members, not including "Plato"), "writings of (7 members), (or), by-" (1 previously existing member) all of which if similarly challenged are retained i am uniquepw (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
q.v. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=works%20by&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1&ns0=1 (1st 20 return 12 showing List of (compositions, paintings, works), 2nd 20 returns includes Stephen King bibliography (redirect from List of works by Stephen King), Isaac Asimov (redirect from List of Isaac Asimov works) et cetera i am uniquepw (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Works by Richard Harding Watt (a redirect) i am uniquepw (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
List of articles listing works by individuals, i am uniquepw (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fully follow this, but Stephen King, Isaac Asimov and Richard Harding Watt aren't ambiguous: Tolstoy is. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think on balance this is sufficiently ambiguous to cause confusion in some searchers who may have been looking for a different Tolstoy. My instinct is to delete but a retarget to the disambiguation page would be OK. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Shhhnotsoloud: typing in Tolstoy, I don't see any other individual listed. I've already made a disambiguation page of Berners-Lee writings, but their doesn't seem to be any other Tolstoy to disambiguate from.... i am uniquepw (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2021 (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.

Super mutant

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 12#Super mutant

Extremely minor Harry Potter characters with nonexistent sections

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. Hog Farm Talk 18:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects, unlike the Ogg one below, each had a {{R from section}} erroneously added to them by The Transhumanist in 2018, even though their respective (extremely minor) characters' sections on the target had long been removed. Not sure why we should keep these lying around either, so delete unless a justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 02:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All, and remove "Hippocrates Smethwyck" from the Hippocrates (disambiguation) dab page. Wikipedia appears to have no content at all about these characters, not even name drop. There's no point targeting these to a list where the character does not appear. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as confusing to our readers --Lenticel (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, there's no information about these characters, as it should be, given that they aren't notable in the least. —El Millo (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. None are mentioned in the target article. JIP | Talk 16:58, 6 March 2021 (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.

Ogg (Harry Potter character)

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. Hog Farm Talk 18:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the gamekeeper at Hogwarts during Arthur and Molly Weasley's time at the school, who used to have an article from late 2005 to late June 2006, until this was redirected to the current target after his description was merged there. Well, now he hasn't been mentioned for years since Bella Swan removed his section in July 2007, so I'm not sure if we still need to keep this lying around. Regards, SONIC678 02:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No coverage of this character anywhere. No point redirecting readers to a list where the character does not appear. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's no mention of the character in that list article. —El Millo (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the redirect is misleading to anyone who uses it. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:19, 7 March 2021 (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.

Unboundedness

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 Boundedness. This target is both a disambiguation page and a suggested retarget, so it seems to satisfy most of the ideas suggested here. Deryck C. 09:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unboundedness → Infinity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Unbounded → Bounded function  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These should point at the same target. "Unbounded" does not only refer to functions, but also to sets in general. I'm okay with redirecting them to Infinity, at which the first one currently points, but that does not mention the corresponding antonyms as listed at Boundedness, for which a reader is pretty likely to be actually looking (cf. redirects Unbounded function, Unbounded set etc.). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transform the noun into a dab page, and redirect the adjective there. D.Lazard (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Boundedness. In most cases the "bounded" and "unbounded" version of something don't have separate articles. Note, however, that Bounded operator and Unbounded operator is an exception; if we do end up deciding to have Unboundedness redirect to Boundedness, then remember to list "Unbounded operator" there. Adumbrativus (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:47, 5 March 2021 (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.

Battle of Zabadani

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 Al-Zabadani#Syrian Civil War. -- Tavix (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was moved by Greyshark09 in July 2015, but should have probably been disambiguated between the current target and Battle of Zabadani (2015). Alternatively, the page could be moved back here if it is the primary topic. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Al-Zabadani#Syrian Civil War which I think would work fairly well as a pseudo-dab / summarystlye coverage of the two battles that took place there. Looking at the page views I'm not seeing an overwhelming primary topic between the two battles. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2021 (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.

AB 2

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 16#AB 2

MO3 (rapper)

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 article to facilitate an AfD or a merge. I'll leave it to the participants in this discussion to carry that out. -- Tavix (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MO3 (rapper) previously had its own article, which was proposed for deletion for being non-notable and promotional. It was later changed to a redirect to Boosie Badazz, an entirely different person, and then to MO3, which is even less related, as it is a music file format and not a person in the first place. The article was recreated as Mo3 (rapper) and deleted almost instantly for being non-notable and promotional. There really is no place for the title to redirect to, least of all MO3. I propose to delete this. JIP | Talk 00:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The current target is unsuitable and there is no better target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article and send to AfD as a contested prod. RfD should be being used to delete article content. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question/Comment - the new article (Mo3 (rapper)) was deleted by the nom, User:JIP. JIP, was the article you deleted substantially the same as the pre-redirect version of the redirect in question? If they were the same, then I suppose delete (since the other two targets are definitely not useful). Otherwise restore article and send to AfD per Thryduulf. A7V2 (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @A7V2: the two are not substantially identical, and would be better merged. The first paragraph of the new article was very poorly worded (very promotional), but if sourceable and reworded would make a good addition. Likewise the career section of the new article, if sourceable, would be a good inclusion. The death section at the pre-redirect version is better worded. The final sentence of the new article was a BLP violation (an unsourced accusation that a named individual was identified as MO3's killer and had been arrested for that). Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Jenyire2 marked the article Mo3 (rapper) for speedy deletion one hour and twenty minutes after it had been created. I had a look at the article and saw that it was pretty much purely promotional and had no references whatsoever. Looking at the contents of the two articles, the only major differences appear to be that the new article was more promotional and had no references. JIP | Talk 16:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(replying to both) - in that case I would say restore the article and send to AfD. I'll leave whether sections of the deleted article should be merged in to others. A7V2 (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Redirect to Boosie_Badazz#Health where MO3 is mentioned, or "Restore article and send to AfD as a contested prod". --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:43, 5 March 2021 (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.

YouInsensitiveClod

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 18:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • YouInsensitiveClod → Slashdot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting on account of the redirect being a page from 2003 whose first edit suggests it may have been involved in a move (and is thus potentially even older)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:26, 5 March 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_5&oldid=1138583288"