Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 30

< May 29

May 31 >

May 30

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 30, 2022.

Horse racer

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 7#Horse racer

Real vampires

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 9#Real vampires

Cum bowl

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. Jay (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cum bowl → UConn–UMass football rivalry (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
CUM bowl → UConn–UMass football rivalry (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There appears to be some usage of this moniker on Reddit, but it's not at the target and it's not clear to me that it rises to the level of a search term we need a redirect for. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There has been usage of the term on Reddit, Twitter, and other social media platforms, but no coverage of the term in reliable sources. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dump the cum from the bowl. Cbl62 (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlikely synonym at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:12, 31 May 2022 (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.

Torengos

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 Procter & Gamble brands#Discontinued brands. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Torengos → Procter & Gamble (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Product not mentioned at all in the target article. Looking up Torengos on Google I get a similar product to Pringles but they're triangular tortilla chips instead of potato crisps, and were released in late 2001. Before 2015, when this page was redirected, it was a short summary about this product. Revert back or delete? Colgatepony234 (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert and send to AfD per WP:BLAR --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of Procter & Gamble brands#Discontinued brands where it is mentioned. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Colgatepony234: can this be closed with IP61's suggested target? Jay (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as it's mentioned in the list of discontinued brands. Colgatepony234 (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2022 (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.

Violoneux

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 Le violoneux. Although 4meter4's vote said "Keep as a redirect" and it was the "Keep" that received further support, I understand it was a retarget to Le violoneux they all meant. Jay (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not mentioned in the target article's body; there is a site in the "External links" section named "Violoneux.fr", but it is a web site (not a fiddle) and it's in French. Apparently, this word means "fiddler" in French. For the aforementioned reason, this redirect is a WP:FORRED issue since the target does not have affinity to the French language. Steel1943 (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RLOTE. Also, 'violoneux' only more or less designates the second meaning of 'fiddle': 'violoneux' means either 'a violin player of a village participating in its ceremonies', or 'a bad violin player', or 'a person who plays folk or popular music on their violin and has not learned violin in a conventional way'; see fr:Violoneux and the Larousse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veverve (talk • contribs) 10:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as either a redirect to the opera Le violoneux or as a disambiguation page linking to the opera and to Fiddle. Violoneux is the French equivalent to the English language term fiddler.4meter4 (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Veverve. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the keep argument compelling, it's not clear that the opera is ever referred to without "Le". As for Fiddle, I think that it qualifies as a common word or concept and is thus an inappropriate non-English redirect. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as discuseed by 4meter4, above. Tim riley talk 08:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per 4meter4. PianoDan (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 4meter4. There's not much to add. Even if it weren't a common-enough French term, this would still be appropriate as a redirect to the opera. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:21, 1 June 2022 (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.

St. Rose of Lima Parish in Chula Vista

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 churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego#South County. Jay (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Rose of Lima Parish in Chula Vista → Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There is no information of this subject either at the current target or at Chula Vista, California: without a mention a reader can learn nothing about it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned at List of churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego#South County, albeit with little info. Also, this was a result of a WP:BLAR, though the article had had no sources since 2009. eviolite (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the list mentioned by eviolite and tag {{R to list entry}}. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 00:26, 31 May 2022 (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.

Template:POTD/2022-11-20

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) Q28 (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:POTD/2022-11-20 → Template:POTD/2023-06-01 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I just moved the potd page to make it on a more appropriate date . This page should be removed as there may be new potds in the future. Q28 (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2022 (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.

Diphosphorus trisulfide

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 to pre-redirect revision. If there are no improvements such as the references provided by SpinningSpark, this can be taken to AfD. Jay (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diphosphorus trisulfide → Phosphorus sulfides (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No mention of any P
₂S
₃ (the formula used on the page before being redirected) at the target. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 11:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a real compound, though certainly not a common phosphorus sulfide. The stub that was WP:BLARed was unsourced and pretty much just linked the name with its molar mass, but it's plausible it could be expanded. So either add a sourced mention to its current target, or restore the stub and send to Afd to either improve and expand or WP:TNT and WP:REDYES it to encourage creation of a more complete article. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restore article. This seems to be a highly unstable, difficult to study substance, but we can at least write about some of the attempts to research it [1][2] and this [3] on pp. 5-6 discusses a theoretically stable 2D crystal version of the chemical. SpinningSpark 20:22, 4 June 2022 (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.

Dendrobaena veneta

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 9#Dendrobaena veneta

Big Bang Theory

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 move DAB to title (counting retarget-to-DAB !votes that way per WP:MALPLACED). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bang Theory → The Big Bang Theory (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 21 § Big Bang Theory – Housekeeping keep

Ngrams shows that prior to the release of the TV show this capitalization had about half the uses of the more common "Big Bang theory". Given the frequent use of this capitalization for the theory, the clear primary topic by long term significance for "Big Bang Theory" is the theory, and the redirect should be retargeted there. BilledMammal (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a check of "Big Bang Theory" on Google scholar shows that many of the references are specific to the TV show, rather than the scientific theory. I'm not sure that results prior to the release of the TV show are relevant now. Praemonitus (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the retarget to Big Bang theory per nom. Veverve (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom and long-term significance. In general, we should not distinguish redirects by capitalization alone except in clear-cut cases, to avoid confusing readers who are likely to assume that searching won't be case-sensitive. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Praemonitus's comment. A majority of users searching the all uppercase are seeking the show, and redirects should be setup to help the most users reach the desired content more quickly. Lowercase versions Big Bang theory and Big bang theory appropriately target Big Bang. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SMALLDETAILS. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SMALLDETAILS doesn't apply here - per ngrams, this capitalization is frequently used to refer to the theory and doesn't have a distinct meaning. BilledMammal (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget: Primary long-term signifigance is the scientific theory. --Spekkios (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the ambiguity of the title, it should point to a disambiguation page. Retarget to Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) or move the latter to overwrite the redirect. – McDutchie (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that we have disambiguation in the discussion, I have added the previous RfD. Also, I have listed the RfD on the talk page of Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) which had extensive RfC and RM discussions on the topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 20:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the disambiguation page. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this title is going to refer to the disambiguation page then Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) should be moved to this tile, as redirecting to it would result in a WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page. This really is one of those cases where you can make reasonable arguments either way, from what I can tell the TV show appears to be the primary topic on the web and in traditional news media, in books it's a bit more split with some mentions of the scientific theory and in academic literature there's a significant amount of mentions of both. There's also the various concerns about WP:RECENTISM and what have you to consider. On the overall balance I think disambiguation is probably the way to go as an inherently ambiguous search term. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong move to dab per the IP above, at this point it's become clear that it's unclear what the primary topic is, which makes disambiguation the best compromise. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:56, 11 June 2022 (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.

Letter of protest

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. Unsurprisingly, this attracted the exact same participants as the last time this was nominated. While consensus can change, do not expect it to change in three days—it takes much longer than that. It's time to drop the matter. As for the "recursive" link, that can be resolved by unlinking it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Letter of protest → Diplomatic correspondence (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Letter of Protest → Diplomatic correspondence (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Letters of protest → Diplomatic correspondence (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Letters of Protest → Diplomatic correspondence (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 25 § Letter of protest – no consensus

Delete. Lemma as such only mentioned once (in a recursive link included in a parenthetic phrase). Hildeoc (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refine all to Diplomatic correspondence#Notes for now, or disambiguate. The current target article was at the first redirect for quite some time, so should be preserved, and the current target is the only case where this specific term is used. However, I agree the current target does not fully capture the broader concept. Protest just mentions that letters are a form of protest. Google search, in the U.S. anyway, indicates this is a term used in the context of Trademarks, but I can't find anything about that on enwiki. So I could also envision a dab page with links for these various contexts. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all to protest. Letters of protest appear outside of diplomatic correspondence, for instance with political correspondence, contractual disputes, etc -- 65.92.247.17 (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But what exact sense would that make, considering the reader expects to be provided with information on the specific subject denoted by the lemma in question (instead of the general concept of protest as such)? Hildeoc (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Writing a letter to an entity because one is miffed about something is an extremely general idea that doesn't really go anywhere, in my opinion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:05, 30 May 2022 (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.

Heart 103.5

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. Jay (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heart 103.5 → Heart Sussex (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I'm unsure where this should go. Someone attempted to retarget to Heart Sussex, but neither this nor DWKX are high-affinity targets for the name "Heart 103.5". I wonder if deletion is merited. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: apparently, it is another radio station, but I found nothing on it appart from this logo; no mention at the target. Veverve (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to DWKX#2007:_Heart_FM where the name of this radio station is mentioned several times. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is only mentioned once and without any source given. Veverve (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or disambiguate. DWKX was at this title for a few months when this was its name. (reference: https://radioinfo.asia/news/k-lite-returns-manila/) 86.141.247.208 (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. DWKX has been established above and in its article as a cromulent entry. I was a bit surprised by this in my digging, but Heart Sussex does brand with a frequency. Their official website shows both 102.4 and 103.5 in its logo, so I don't think "Heart 103.5" is a stretch. I did also see some hits for a Greek radio station, which is the one with the logo Veverve posted. However nothing matches at List of radio stations in Greece so I'm at a dead end there (FWIW, it is slightly different: "Heart FM 103,5"). -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:01, 6 June 2022 (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.

Nation of China

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. Jay (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nation of China → China (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirect to Chinese people, based off of precedent from other '_ nation' redirects like Irish nation, Nation of Pakistan or Pakistani nation. BTW, I plan to propose merging Zhonghua minzu into Chinese people#Zhonghua minzu (the "Chinese nation"). Balkovec (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Comment: Chinese nation redirects to Zhonghua minzu. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Setindexify to Han people, Chinese people, Zhonghua minzu, Tianxia (All Under Heaven) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate - This terminology seems as if it can refer to multiple different things, none of them with a solid leg over the other necessarily. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DABify or Setindexify per above, the expression can refer to many things. Preference for setindexifying. Veverve (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Chinese people. Although nation can refer to a country, it's primarily a reference to a people (see Nation#Etymology and terminology.) Han is too narrow, Tanxia is too wide, and Zhonghua minzu is tagged for merging anyway. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow for consideration of late retarget suggestion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:12, 30 May 2022 (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.

La Nueva

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. Jay (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

La Nueva → La Nueva Provincia (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

La Nueva can mean things from WDCN-LD,Branded as La Nueva to La nueva Francia,an Argentinian film.Just like La Mega,I think La Nueva should be dabified. Danubeball (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: La nueva Francia, and any other titled work beginning with "La Nueva..." (La Nueva Cuba, La Nueva España, La Nueva cigarra, etc.) are partial title matches, and so likely do not need disambiguating ('La nueva' simply means "The new" in Spanish). La Nueva Provincia seems to have rebranded to simply La Nueva, which was my original impetus for creating the redirect (that article should perhaps be moved to La Nueva or La Nueva (newspaper)). Few other entities on English Wikipedia seem to be titled with an unqualified "La Nueva": radio stations like La Nueva 87.7, WODA#La Nueva 94, KQQK#La Nueva "Z" and WIRA all seem to be primarily qualified with the FM/AM frequency or other brand on official websites and branding, raising the issue of which name, if any, should be a primary topic. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DABify per nom and Animalparty. Veverve (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Nueva and add "La Nueva" (The New) values there; alternately directly dabify -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate per nom. AKK700 22:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A disambig draft will help in closing this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move La Nueva Provincia over redirect. I started creating the disambiguation before realizing that the stations are PTMs too. Translating so it makes more sense, "The New 100" would make sense as branding for a new radio station at that frequency, but "The New" without the frequency would not make sense—it's missing the subject. I'm happy to be proven wrong if someone can find branding for any (or all?) of these that drop the frequency, but as for now I have concluded that the Argentine newspaper to be the only valid subject identified. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow for consideration of a late Keep argument
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:05, 30 May 2022 (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.

Fascist 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 speedily deleted per G5 by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fascist war → World War II (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There are plenty of wars involving Fascist states or organizations that are not limited to WWII; this redirect is unnecessarily presumptive and specific. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 03:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is generic enough that it seems best to just let people search. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as can't see a suitable target. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 20:59, 30 May 2022 (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.

New Tretyakov Gallery

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 without prejudice to recreation as an article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Tretyakov Gallery → Tretyakov Gallery (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Proposing deletion. New Tretyakov Gallery is a separate building located at a different location than the Tretyakov Gallery. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 19:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the New Tretyakov Gallery is administratively part of the Tretyakov Gallery and we have a section in that article on the New Tretyakov Gallery - Tretyakov Gallery#Gallery of modern art. We also have a single line stub article on the Central House of Artists, Moscow, which existed as an art gallery and venue before becoming part of the Tretyakov Gallery in 1985, at which point it was shared between the artists' union and the Tretyakov, where it housed the gallery's 20th century art collections. It was named the New Tretyakov Gallery in 2015, and the artists' union moved out in 2019, leaving it entirely in the hands of the Tretyakov. Until the New Tretyakov Gallery redirect is turned into an article along the lines of ru:Новая Третьяковка (which I have been mulling over doing) then the redirect should remain to the Tretyakov Gallery article as a valid search term giving useful information on the topic. Spokoyni (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately none of the wonderful description by Spokoyni is part of the target or of Central House of Artists, Moscow. The target has mention of the subject as an image caption, and this alone is not helpful to the reader. Delete unless there is mention at the target. Also, why should there be separate articles for Central House of Artists and the New Tretyakov Gallery, if they are the same, and is a case of renaming? Jay (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreeing with Jay that Spokoyni's description is wonderful and the redirect is not very useful at the moment. However, I think WP:REDLINK deletion is best due to ru:Новая Третьяковка proving that an article on the topic is doable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:09, 6 June 2022 (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.

Edgelord

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 6#Edgelord