Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by BDD (talk | contribs) at 14:49, 25 March 2020 (→D70F01.EXE: closing discussion, result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

March 15

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 15, 2020.

Vanity project

[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 03:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term "vanity project" can be applied to many different things beyond "star vehicle". Utopes (talk / cont) 22:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I’m mistaken a dab page titled Vanity project would need to link to articles actually called vanity project not a list of tings that could described as one. So I think that’s out.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2020 (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.

Provab Technosoft

[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 the discussion is broken. Nominator, please retry the nomination. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:34, 16 March 2020 (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.

Shobet

[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 03:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Shobet" is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, besides as a district in South Sudan, in which it would serve better as a redlink than a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:14, 15 March 2020 (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.

Noo Yawk English

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Noo Yawk English

Эсперанто

[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 03:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOE. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is neither Esperanto nor English — both use versions of the Roman alphabet rather the Cyrillic alphabet. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to Esperanto orthography, Esperanto can be written on Cyrillic script. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A claim which is unsourced. I suppose any language (including English) can be written in Cyrillic script in theory. I've never seen Esperanto written in Cyrillic script. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only obligatory authority over Esperanto is its creator's Fundamento de Esperanto which introduces the Esperanto alphabet on p. 1. It was wirtten in six languages. Please read the original English version, and note that even the original Russian version authoritatively stipulates that Roman letters be used, though the Russian is naturally written in Cyrillic letters. — Of course it is true that English, Esperanto, and any other language can be written using any of the world's writing systems. See here for an example by John DeFrancis of English written in eleven common scripts, including Chinese characters, though not in Deseret and Shavian which were both designed (and publicly used) for writing English. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2020 (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.

Ænglish

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Ænglish

YoȜ

[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 03:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not nominate Yoȝ, but the same name with a capital letter at the end is not something a reader is likely to give in or copy from somewhere else. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2020 (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.

30 "Hg

[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 Standard atmosphere (unit). (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly this number? Too random to be used. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2020 (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.

Slyvia (Wander Over Yonder)

[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 03:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as implausible misspelling. -Regards, SONIC678 20:23, 15 March 2020 (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.

D70F01.EXE

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. I can't even find anything on it on the Internet. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the lot Good grief, what next? Listing all WinNT .dlls? At least those turn up on the net somewhere... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this lot were in the article, it would be WP:TMI. Honestly - who is going to search in WP for any of these?
I suppose there's mild historical interest in the fact they hadn't discovered hexadecimal for file names, but so? Narky Blert (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question: If I would not already know what they are, people like me with an interest in the history of computing would search for them. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are the filenames of the official distribution archives of Novell DOS 7 updates, as issued by Novell for free distribution. They were once available on many FTP servers worldwide (and still can occasionally be found today at some sites). While the individual filenames are not mentioned in the target article for brevity, the updates are discussed in the article, and they are also discussed in some of the references. The purpose of these redirects is that people who run into these files somewhere in the net or on old storage media, or find them mentioned in older first- or third-party documentation (including books) and then use our search box to possibly find out more about them get redirected to the related information within Wikipedia. I do consider search box behaviour to be very important, even if these particular terms won't be entered very often (even better, if it still reliably pin-points to the relevant info). Besides people who may still actually use this operating system, this aids historical research (and also might help people to distinguish these files from malware). Obviously, these redirects are not essential, but they can be useful and they do not (and won't ever in the future) interfere with any other article/redirect names, therefore there is no reason to delete them: None of the valid reasons for deletion of redirects per WP:R#DELETE applies. So, per the catalog of reasons to keep redirects at WP:R#KEEP, they should not be deleted per #3 ("They aid searches") and #5 ("Someone finds them useful"). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Matthiaspaul's argument makes perfect sense for the internet at large but not for Wikipedia specifically. Not every single imaginable search term in the world needs this kind of linkage which, truth be told, doesn't tell them a damn thing about the .exe file anyway. In other words, it's not just that the thing isn't mentioned in the article, it's that there is nothing useful at all. There is no "related information". And if D70F06.EXE has no search results on the internet whatsoever, then what is it doing here in the first place? Drmies (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While in a quick Google search I did not find the D70F06.EXE file in particular, I can easily find various of the other files mentioned, f.e. try D70G15.EXE/ZIP - it's still available in many places and can be easily found with Google, which, as we all know, only shows a small fraction of what's actually out there.
Also, I wonder why you guys keep on repeating there would be no useful information on the updates at all in the article (apparently just because the OP erroneously stated so above) - this is not true. As I wrote above, the updates are discussed in the article, the only thing missing is that the filenames are not explicitly mentioned (but they are comprehensively and explicitly covered and mentioned with their full names in the references, including scripting examples and all such). It would be easy to incorporate a short parenthetical note after the word "update" like " (D70xyy.EXE" with x=language, yy=number)" into the text without causing any bloat or undue weight, if there would be a condition that the filenames had to be mentioned explicitly (although per our guideline WP:REDIR there is no such requirement for redirects, and the given rcats {{R to related topic}} and {{R from filename}} are accurately describing the relation).
These are excerpts from the article discussing these files: "Novell DOS 7 and Personal NetWare required several bug-fix releases (Novell DOS 7 and Personal NetWare required several bug-fix releases (D70xyy with x=language, yy=number) [...] Novell wound down further development on Novell DOS 7 in September 1994 and stopped maintenance in January 1996 after more than 15 updates. [...] Caldera UK officially released Caldera OpenDOS 7.01 on 3 February 1997, but this version was just Novell DOS 7 update 10 (as of December 1994) compiled only with the necessary adaptations to incorporate the new name in display messages as well as in environment variable and file names. It was missing a year's worth of patches which had been developed for the Novell DOS updates 11 (January 1995) to 15.2 (January 1996). This was due to parts of the Novell DOS sources having been lost at Novell meanwhile. Consequently, this version still reported an internal BDOS version of 7.2, identical to Novell DOS 7. The new suite also lacked the SETFIFO command, which had been added with one of the Novell DOS updates [...] Version 7.02 (now reporting itself as BDOS 7.3) incorporated improved BIOS and BDOS issues [...] adding many new boot and configuration options, integrating many compatibility enhancements, bug-fixes and optimizations for size and speed, and re-implementing all fixes of the missing Novell DOS updates. [...] The sources of the Novell patches for the external tools and drivers had meanwhile been found in Germany and could thus be retro-fitted into the system as well, so that DR-DOS 7.02 finally not only caught up with Novell DOS 7, but was a true step forward."
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have meanwhile added that phrase to the article (and the text excerpt above), so the file names are now actually mentioned in the article in a way which does not cause bloat or undue weight. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A quick scan revealed some WP:RS discussing these files in some way:
  • Klemens Mai, Dirk Larisch, H. Tronsdorf, M. Tronsdorf (1994): "Das große Buch zu Novell DOS 7". Data Becker, ISBN 3-8158-1030-2.
  • Kai Hamann, Michael Kolberg (1994): "Novell DOS 7 - Das Kompendium". Markt & Technik, ISBN 3-87791-556-6.
  • Michael Gerding, Björn Kibbel (1994): "Novell DOS 7 und Personal NetWare". Addison Wesley, ISBN 3-89319-758-3.
  • Frank Grieser, Andreas Winterer (1994): "Novell DOS 7 - Networking, Multitasking, Systemoptimierung". Addison Wesley, ISBN 3-89319-676-5.
  • Bert Ungerer: "DOS novellieren? - Novell DOS 7 fordert PC- und MS-DOS heraus". c't 03/1994.
  • Arne Schäpers: "Licht und Schatten - Ein kritischer Blick auf Novell DOS 7". c't 08/1994.
  • "Nachtrag zu Misch-DOS". c't 10/1995.
It's quite obvious that there are more sources, including English ones. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I understand Matthiaspaul's argument, however, I disagree that it is applicable to redirects. Given the state of the content on Wikipedia right now, there is no reason to have these - the content isn't there. It's hard to argue usefulness for redirects when the content the redirect is suppose to point to doesn't exist, and I can't see these being a search term. A registry of file shortcuts for DOS just isn't particularly helpful content. It's like having these in the index of a book, and then the page reference not mentioning the subject - the reader learns nothing about what the shortcut is whatsoever. And frankly, I believe that mentioning these shortcuts in the article would be WP:UNDUE. Hog Farm (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the above, I pointed out and even cited excerpts from the article actually discussing these updates, so your statement that the contents doesn't exist, is not true.
I would agree with your index example in general - but in the way you put it, it doesn't apply. In many cases an index is not only an index of fixed words (as in a dictionary), but of themes. A useful (non-dictionary type) book index often contains multiple entries for some contents, if it is known under multiple names. Not all these terms need to be mentioned at the target location. Sometimes you will just find related contents at the target page and the keywords listed in the index are not explicitly mentioned there at all. Some books distinguish between theses types of indexed information or even have multiple indexes. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary, this latter types of index is what we want to establish here.
Redirects are among the vehicles for this. They are used to establish various kinds of relations from a redirect's title to the target. Such relations can be of linguistical nature, but more often are of some semantical nature (ideally indicated by corresponding rcats).
Your argument that other articles don't have this kind of detailed "index" is not an argument to not have it in this article - I just happened to know these keywords so I could add them to this article, while for other articles I don't know them and they would have to be added by other contributors. Wikipedia is being worked on at multiple fronts depending on the availability and time of knowledgeable contributors. This leaves articles in vastly different states (unfortunately) and it would hardly be in the interest of the project to nuke all of the better articles and areas of infrastructure down to the level of the weaker spots just to have them all at a similar level.
Either way, I have meanwhile added a phrase to the article explicitly mentioning the file names. Fortunately, it could be done in a way which did not cause bloat or undue weight, thereby addressing your argument.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With the file nomenclature now added to the article, I think the redirects can be kept. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only way these would be useful is in some kind of index where I would be able to see each of these file extensions and their purposes. Simply having the file nomenclature doesn't help. Per Drmies, if I am searching specifically, for D70F06.EXE, then I am going to want specific information on D70F06.EXE, but I would reach a dead end at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2020 (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.

Parentboard

[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 speedy deleted per G4 by Cabayi. -- Tavix (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not an alternative name, see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_10#Parentboard. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its been tagged.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2020 (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.

Marcus McClure

[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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that this is an alternative name for the subject. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 15 March 2020 (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.

Joseph Tempest

[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 as unopposed. -- Tavix (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually an alternative name for the target. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 15 March 2020 (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.

Dittmar HD 153 Motor-Move

[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 03:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion as it is an implausible typo Petebutt (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently the name I suggested it should be changed to already exists so this redirect is pointless. OcelotCreeper (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote now because you said that. OcelotCreeper (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2020 (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.

Talk:49 (disambiguation)

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. signed, Rosguill talk 03:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Unnecessary redirect Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2020 (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.

Kasam (1998 film)

[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 speedy deleted per G6 as an "artifact of double page move from Kasam (film) to Kasam (1988 film)" by Cryptic. -- Tavix (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a 1998 film. This was maybe a typo. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per the spirit of WP:G7: I'm the one who made the typo while renaming the article earlier today. – Uanfala (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close because it qualifies as WP:R3 and the fact that the user who moved this page wants to delete the redirect. (I closed this as a Speedy delete early but it was reverted because the page wasn’t deleted yet. I meant to speedy close, but I’m not going to take further action.) PorkchopGMX 00:48, 16 March 2020 (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.

Easy (Frank Ocean song)

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Easy" is not mentioned at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2020 (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.

R2-A6

[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 03:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This droid is not mentioned at the target article, and keeping this redirect would be misleading and unhelpful - redirects should point to answers, not puzzles. Hog Farm (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 08:49, 15 March 2020 (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.

Time elemental

[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 Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters except for Slime creature which will be retargeted to Slime. No prejudice against speedy individual renomination or disambiguation if there is other prominent usage, but nothing specific was brought up in this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overly vague redirect. Could refer to any number of monsters in any number of games. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 08:48, 15 March 2020 (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.

Giant mantis

[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 Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters except for Giant marine spider, which will be retargeted to Colossendeis. No prejudice against speedy individual renomination if someone would like to make a case for any in particular. -- Tavix (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overly vague redirect. Could refer to real life or a fictional monster. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 08:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Axebeak and Axe beak – These are plausible search terms for animals. We don't have a clear target to point them at, but I'd bet that the average person searching these terms would rather see internal search results than our article about monsters in AD&D. signed, Rosguill talk 03:43, 25 March 2020 (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.

LetterATopics/Aaron

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a helpful redirect, this isn't how we make redirects. Was a little blurb made back on 1-30-2001 LetterATopics/Aaron. This serves no purpose, but it's literally the oldest Wikipedia article I've run into, so maybe there's a rule against deleting it or something. Hog Farm (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Wow, if we can go off of the date at the Wikipedia article, this was created days after Wikipedia started. Hog Farm (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Well, this is rather interesting, but then 'being rather interesting' doesn't make something necessarily worth keeping either, hah. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G8: Subpage of a deleted or non-existent page.Polyamorph (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an interesting {{R with old history}}. It's absolutely fascinating in my view, and it has pageviews that make me expect there are links pointing here. Subpages are disabled in mainspace now, and anyhow K5 overrules G8 (This criterion excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia). If anyone's interested, its the 513th page ever made. Edit: Actually the 561st. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 22:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 08:46, 15 March 2020 (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.

Harvest home action

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source is a vague term that could refer to anything, and an unfortunate easter egg since the target article refers to a Nazi massacre. buidhe 08:43, 15 March 2020 (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.

Space Launch System Solid Rocket Booster

[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 Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster. signed, Rosguill talk 03:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be greatly explained on the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster, as it is a derivative of the Space Shuttle SRB. Retarget to Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:41, 15 March 2020 (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.

Space launch system

[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 withdrawn per opposition. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many people will assume that there will be an article about launch vehicle on the other side of the redirect. Delete per WP:XY. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:35, 15 March 2020 (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.

Longest Wikipedia Articles

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, recently-created CNRs. This is a case of WP:R#D6; cross-namespace redirects from the mainspace can be misleading. J947 (c), at 22:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 06:47, 15 March 2020 (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.

Queen's School of Computing

[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 Queen's University Faculty of Arts and Sciences#Computing. signed, Rosguill talk 03:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This department referred to the one at Queen's University at Kingston before it was redirected after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen's School of Computing. However, our article on the Canadian university does not currently mention a School of Computing. feminist (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2020 (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.

Autopsy (2006 film)

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No film is mentioned at the target article, and no film released in 2006 is mentioned at the dab page Autopsy (disambiguation). Delete unless suitable target can be found. Hog Farm (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 00:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_15&oldid=947305090"