Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 27

December 27

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 27, 2018.

Wikipedia:Cthulhu Mythos reference codes and bibliography

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. Deryck C. 16:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Cthulhu Mythos reference codes and bibliography → Cthulhu Mythos deities (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete Another cross namespace redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Would have been CSD R2 except it's a WP: prefix AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, what? If it weren't projectspace, it'd be main->main, which is clearly not an R2. This may be a cross-namespace redirect, but not one that really matters. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a more complex history here that isn't acknowledged above. This was merged at AfD, which happened but was kept(?) before being moved in 2016 to projectspace (as allowed for(ish) in the AfD close) and just recently the bibliography/references removed from the target article. There is a long history in this, and it's not clear to me that no content is being used, so I'd keep it as a harmless place for historical attribution. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Cthulhu Mythos reference codes and bibliography without leaving a redirect to retain the edit history. (In other words, delete but retain/move edit history elsewhere.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with this as well. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be opposed to this. The target has no mention of "reference codes" so a mainspace redirect of this nature seems a bit misleading to me. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Tavix: I suggested that title "on the fly" since it is the title without the "Wikipedia:" prefix. I’d be opposed to sending this to MfD with the content restored since the content was apparently article material, nor project namespace material. If this is to remain in the article namespace, do you have another title in mind? Steel1943 (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are a lot of sources that have been compiled and I would hate for all that research to go to waste. It makes sense to me as a WikiProject-like reference point that would have a meta-purpose for editors editing Cthulhu-related articles. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and send it to MfD if deletion is desired. I am not comfortable deleting this significant of content via RfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pinging Binksternet, who redirected the page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 23:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete implausible redirect. funplussmart (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: implausible — This is currently a redirect from Wikipedia space to Mainspace, so plausibility really has little to do with it. Additionally, as I noted above, there's history here that may need to be kept for attribution. Deletion is implausible. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move without redirect to mainspace. Perhaps Cthulhu Mythos references and bibliography? feminist (talk) 04:26, 4 January 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.

Iskandarouna

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. Deryck C. 16:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

this is a wrong redirect. The article this points to is not yet made, so it should be a red link Huldra (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This should be kept if the concern is if the target exists, because it does. Is the nominator stating that the redirect should be deleted because the redirect represents a separate subject, and is advocating WP:REDLINK deletion of this redirect? Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is used in: in Vassals_of_the_Kingdom_of_Jerusalem#Lordship_of_Scandalion (see "Scandalion, today's Iskandarouna")...I mistakenly thought that Iskandarouna was İskenderun...it isn't. Iskandarouna is in southern Lebanon, the article is not yet made, while İskenderun is in Turkey. Please delete the redir, and make Iskandarouna redlinked again, Huldra (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reason 10. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:45, 28 December 2018 (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.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

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 back to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Reasonable arguments have been made, and there has been no opposition. ~~As a matter of procedure, it's going to take me a minute to get everything cleaned up and moved, so please let me deal with it to avoid edit/move conflicts.~~(done) Primefac (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources → Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

After about 9 years after the page formerly at this title was moved to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, I think it is time to discuss this redirect. The issue with this redirect is that it has several subpages that are not directly related to the content at its target: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and its subpages, most archives. The reason the current setup is a bit problematic is for navigational purposes. Subpages have a functionality where if its parent page exists, a link to its parent page(s) will appear in the corner of the screen. Well, if a reader starts at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and clicks on the link for Wikipedia:Reliable sources, they get forwarded to its current target with no clean way to click on a link to return to where they came from. Another issue that has the potential to arise is if somehow the content at Wikipedia:Reliable sources (regardless of what is there, redirect or a page) gets moved with its subpages, then there might be some sort of mismatch. I had considered moving Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and its subpages back to Wikipedia:Reliable sources WP:BOLD-ly to remove the unprecedented oddness and technical problems for such a prominent page (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) to have a parent page that is a redirect, but then besides Wikipedia:Reliable sources being move-protected (I’m a non-admin, so this prevents me from performing a "round-robin move of the pages), after giving it some thought, performing such a move is definitely controversial. So, here are my thoughts on options of what can be done with the redirect to resolve these technical oddities:

Convert Wikipedia:Reliable sources into a landing page/disambiguation page/broad-concept page that includes links to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and other applicable page links (my 2nd preferred option)
Move Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (and its subpages) back to Wikipedia:Reliable sources (and applicable titles for subpages) in order to fix the parent page/subpage breaks (preferred option)
Move all of the subpages of "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" to subpages of "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources" to fix parent page/subpage break (least preferred option since it has the potential to break a lot)

...? Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It was moved with minimal RfC participation and should be moved back per WP:NOCON. wumbolo ^^^ 10:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The move fundamentally doesn't make sense either, the article serves as a full overview of reliable sources and how they work on enwiki, not just the tutorial for identifying them that the current title implies. And, while we're at it, any stragglers under other titles should be moved under the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/* hierarchy, since that's what consensus is currently using elsewhere. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 08:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have removed the RFD notice from the redirect as it is ruining the redirect. You will need to have the conversation without affecting functionality. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted, users of this redirect need to be aware of this discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Billinghurst: The deletion policy requires a notice be posted on pages currently undergoing a deletion discussion. This includes redirects, which are temporarily turned into soft redirects for the duration of the discussion. This is how we have always done things, and every other redirect currently listed at RFD follows this guideline. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:54, 30 December 2018 (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.

Blériot XIV

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per criterion G7 by Anthony Appleyard. Steel1943 (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blériot XIV → Blériot XIII (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect should be deleted--the Blériot XIV, unlike the Blériot XXIV, had no relationship with the XIII. Eventually the Blériot XIV deserves a proper article, but until then a redlink would be preferable to a misleading redirect. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete away. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or make it a proper article. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 18:20, 1 January 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.

London Shitland

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

London Shitland → London Midland (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Non-neutral term not mentioned at target. I would have G10'd this, but the service is defunct. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RFD#DELETE 3. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, since its existed since 2009 and was created by an established user I think it can avoid G10 but should still be deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet the WP:RNEUTRAL threshold of an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources ... should be kept even if non-neutral - eight Google hits and a few uses on Twitter per year. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, also fails WP:POVTITLE. ComplexRational (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was a name used surprisingly commonly by people, but not reliable sources. And it's clearly NPOV. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously. 344917661X (talk) 01:39, 2 January 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.

Negro slaves

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 Atlantic slave trade. Rough consensus that a redirect to Atlantic slave trade is preferable to deletion. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Negro slaves → Slavery in the United States (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Negro slave → Slavery in the United States (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unnecessary use of pejorative language for people of colour. It's extremely unlikely that anyone will search for this term, and that's reflected in the fact that this title was first created in only this week by an editor just banned for racist activism on Wikipedia. The fact that it's since been retargeted is not an argument in favour of keeping it. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also User_talk:JzG#Negro_slave(s) on some of the history behind the recreated link. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the comments at user talk:JzG#Negro slave(s). It is a plausible search term, and while the current target is not a perfect fit it's significantly closer than anything else I've been able to find. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is kept or not, the target seems poor, it should redirect to Atlantic slave trade: Eng. negro; Ptgs. negro; Sp. negro; Fr. nègre; Dtch. neger - that pretty much covers the transatlantic traders. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it's necessarily an implausible term, even though it's dated language which may be seen as offensive now, simply because someone might see the phrase in some historical book and not know what it means. However we don't have a clear target to point the reader to, as there isn't a general article about slavery of people of African origin. Atlantic slave trade covers the transport of slaves from Africa to the Americas, but what happened to them and their descendants afterwards is out of scope. Slavery in the United States is only about the use of African slaves in one particular region, it doesn't cover the Caribbean, South America, etc. I can't see any obviously better target except maybe Slavery, and that seems a bit unnecessary for a redirect. Hut 8.5 20:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget both to Atlantic slave trade where :black slave(s) target. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Hut 8.5 that there are several plausible subjects one could direct this title to and given the baggage of this term, it's better to delete it. And please no one cry censorship! There is no way we would have pejorative redirects using slang for women, ethnic minorities and Jewish people. This is an English Wikipedia and so we have to be conscientious of how the word is used in English, not Spanish and Portuguese. In present day, people only use "Negro" if they are trying to be archaic or offensive since the common terms are "black" or "African-American", not "Negro". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no way we would have pejorative redirects using slang for women, ethnic minorities and Jewish people. Completely wrong I'm afraid - we have articles and redirects for many such terms Slut, Pikey, Kike, Nigger, Yid, Paki (slur), etc, etc. If the words are likely search terms we do and should have redirects to the content we have about them - see WP:RNEUTRAL. People look things up on Wikipedia that they read in old documents, etc, not just what they hear in contemporary usage. Indeed if a term has fallen out of use then it is even more likely people will look it up to understand what was meant. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Atlantic slave trade. If Google Books is anything to go by, the term was also used to refer to Caribbean slaves in the early 1800s. —Xezbeth (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Atlantic slave trade. The term "negro" is a bit out of fashion, but hardly so racist as to be banned from Wikipedia. Atlantic slave trade does seem to be the appropriate target. - Donald Albury 22:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:XY. It can mean this, it can mean that. While the redirect black slave should obviously exist, "negro slave" is a pleonasm and can't be logically redirected to Negro or Atlantic slave trade, especially because of the equally appropriate target Slavery in the United States. I don't like the argument that the redirect's existence is "offensive", because (1) the phrase is used in scholarly research, albeit to mean many different things, and (2) there are no BLP concerns; WP:NOTCENSORED applies. I don't care if this leaves a red link on a racist editor's talk page. wumbolo ^^^ 09:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Atlantic slave trade as above. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:32, 3 January 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.

중국

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. There is clear consensus to delete this redirect. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not a particularly Korean topic. feminist (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as is from a non-English language unrelated to the target. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 23:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneeded redirect from korean text to chinese topic. If it were 中国 ("China") then I would say keep, but I doubt many people come to the english wikipedia looking for an article on china and type in the korean name --DannyS712 (talk) 04:27, 5 January 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.

Laces

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 Lace (disambiguation). There is clear consensus to redirect, but a toss-up as to where Laces should point to. The viewpoints presented are that it should be redirected to either Shoelaces or Lace (disambiguation), with one user being indifferent. Based on the arguments presented, I have come to the conclusion that there is adequate consensus to retarget Laces to Lace (disambiguation). Given the redirect's general nature, it is best to keep it general. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Current target is inadequate. Lace, Lace (disambiguation) or even Shoelaces would make more sense. Pointing to the singular term would be the best option. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Shoelaces with a hatnote similar to the one at Latsch. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Lace (disambiguation). My problem with directing it to shoelaces is that there is Laces (film). Furthermore, since (on qwerty keyboards, ew, everyone should use Dvorak), "s" is right next to "d", Laced (album) is also potentially more likely than shoelaces. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Lace (disambiguation) - Lace, Laces (flim) and shoelaces are all more likely than the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shoelaces or Lace (disambiguation). Per WP:USENGLISH I don't see how a municipality of 5,156 is primary in English, which is known as Latsch. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:47, 7 January 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.

Worms

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 4#Worms

ٮ

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 8#ٮ

The Powerpuff Girls (villain)

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. Deryck C. 16:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Powerpuff Girls (villain) → List of The Powerpuff Girls secondary characters#Villains of Townsville (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The Powerpuff Girls were never a singular villain as far as I know. This redirect is not only unnecessary, but inaccurate. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as implausible search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 23:36, 29 December 2018 (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.

Mrs. Keane

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Keane → List of The Powerpuff Girls secondary characters#Ms. Keane (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This fictional character is unmarried, and her name has never been Mrs. Keane. It has always been Ms. Keane or spelled-out as Miss Keane. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 03:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:29, 30 December 2018 (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.

Mojo-jojo

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. There is reasonable consensus to keep the redirect in this case. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mojo-jojo → List of The Powerpuff Girls secondary characters#Mojo Jojo (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This fictional character's name has never been hyphenated. His name is Mojo Jojo. This redirect does not need to exist. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CHEAP as a {{R from misspelling}}. That, and expecting all readers to know that this character’s name does not include a hyphen is almost the equivalent of a WP:NOTWIKIA problem. Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is reasonable to assume the name is hyphenated. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:58, 7 January 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.

Blossom (powerpuff girls)

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 soft delete. Deryck C. 16:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blossom (powerpuff girls) → List of The Powerpuff Girls secondary characters#Blossom (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unnecessary lowercase redirect. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as implausible: almost no page views in 87 days before being listed. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:36, 30 December 2018 (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.

Him (powerpuff girls)

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 soft delete. Deryck C. 16:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Him (powerpuff girls) → List of The Powerpuff Girls secondary characters#Him (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Totally unnecessary for a secondary character because there is already a Him (The Powerpuff Girls) redirect. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't care what you do with it, I made the redirect a long time ago. Besides this website isn't the right place to find information about that character anyway. The powerpuff girls wiki is, so it's best that they find that place instead. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2018 (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.

Bubbles - PowerPuff Girl

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbles - PowerPuff Girl → List of The Powerpuff Girls secondary characters#Bubbles (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirect is in a really peculiar format that doesn't fit. Very unlikely misspelling due to the hyphenated content of the name. Unnecessary redirect. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as implausible search term. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:33, 30 December 2018 (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.

Blossum (Powerpuff Girls)

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. Clearly, there should be a STEM-focused episode with a character named BLOSUM ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blossum (Powerpuff Girls) → List of The Powerpuff Girls secondary characters#Blossom (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Blossum (The Powerpuff Girls) → List of The Powerpuff Girls secondary characters#Blossom (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

An uncommon misspelling from what I've seen, this redirect is unnecessary. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added a similar redirect that was wrongly listed at AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:30, 30 December 2018 (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.

Powerpuff Girls wiki

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Powerpuff Girls wiki → The Powerpuff Girls (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
The Powerpuff Girls wiki → The Powerpuff Girls (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

I want to say...redundant wikilink? The Powerpuff Girls wiki is on Wikipedia. There are other fan-based wikis, but this wikilink does not even have worthy edit history to justify its existence. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The target is not about a Powerpuff Girls wiki. Steel1943 (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 23:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Powerpuff Boys

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Powerpuff Boys → The Powerpuff Girls (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

There were no Powerpuff Boys. In the series, their male counterparts are The Rowdyruff Boys. Unnecessary redirect. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the closest we have to this are the The Rowdyruff Boys but their no evidence that people call them the Powerpuff Boys.--67.68.28.220 (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:30, 30 December 2018 (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.

Powerpuff Girlz

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Powerpuff Girlz → The Powerpuff Girls (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unnecessary redirect. The series was never promoted with a "z" instead of the letter "s". I can't find any sources that merit this as a worthy redirect. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not Sheetz. Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 23:37, 29 December 2018 (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.

Powderpuff Girls

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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Powderpuff Girls → The Powerpuff Girls (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Powderpuff girls → The Powerpuff Girls (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unnecessary redirect. "Powderpuff" is a term used with regards to female American football in school. Though the series has alluded to this, the title has never been "Powderpuff Girls". Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The similarity between the names means that people have probably mistaken the name of the TV show, thinking that it's "Powderpuff". Powderpuff (sports) is not a good target, since anyone aware of powderpuff will know it's a girls' game: no reason to type girls at the end. Someone who types the full phrase, therefore, is likely looking for the TV show and merely mistyped or misremembered the name of the show. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete since this seems to be the name of a potentially-notable beauty and cosmetics company in London. Steel1943 (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Steel1943. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nyttend. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nyttend. If the company is actually notable (a two-minute google suggests they are not immediately obviously so) then the redirect can be overwritten by an article with a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 7 January 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.

Insect Inside (Powderpuff Girls episode)

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Insect Inside (Powderpuff Girls episode) → List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes#Season 1 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unnecessary redirect. "Powderpuff" is a term used with regards to female American football in school. Though the series has alluded to this, the title has never been "Powderpuff Girls". There are also redirects for Insect Inside and Insect Inside (Powerpuff Girls episode). Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:32, 30 December 2018 (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.