Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 22: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 17: Line 17:
*'''Comment''' [[WP:RFDHOWTO]] says that new nominations go to the top of the page. I moved the discussion accordingly. [[User:Nickps|Nickps]] ([[User talk:Nickps|talk]]) 18:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' [[WP:RFDHOWTO]] says that new nominations go to the top of the page. I moved the discussion accordingly. [[User:Nickps|Nickps]] ([[User talk:Nickps|talk]]) 18:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Clayoquot}} Deleting these redirects might also discourage the creation of more complete articles. Should an article about the climate of a given country not describe the effects of climate change in that country? [[User:Jarble|Jarble]] ([[User talk:Jarble|talk]]) 18:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
:{{reply to|Clayoquot}} Deleting these redirects might also discourage the creation of more complete articles. Should an article about the climate of a given country not describe the effects of climate change in that country? [[User:Jarble|Jarble]] ([[User talk:Jarble|talk]]) 18:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
::I agree that "Climate in country x" articles should describe the effects of climate change in that country. These redirects are not necessary to make those expansions happen. What these redirects do is leave no place to talk about the role of the country in ''causing'' climate change. [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|contribs]]) 18:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


====2021 Chinese FA Super Cup====
====2021 Chinese FA Super Cup====

Revision as of 18:31, 22 April 2024

April 22

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 22, 2024.

Climate change in Bahrain

We currently have many "Climate change in country x" titles that redirect to either "Geography of country x" or "Climate of country x". The style guide of WikiProject Climate change describe many aspects that should be in "Climate change in country x" articles that do not belong in articles about the climate or geography of country x. E.g. an article about climate change in a given country is supposed to discuss the greenhouse gas emissions that the country produces and the policies around emissions reductions in the country. The presence of these redirects discourages the creation of more complete articles so I propose that they be deleted. There are many other redirects following the pattern but I am starting with four of them to get community feedback before mass-nominating dozens. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:RFDHOWTO says that new nominations go to the top of the page. I moved the discussion accordingly. Nickps (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clayoquot: Deleting these redirects might also discourage the creation of more complete articles. Should an article about the climate of a given country not describe the effects of climate change in that country? Jarble (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Climate in country x" articles should describe the effects of climate change in that country. These redirects are not necessary to make those expansions happen. What these redirects do is leave no place to talk about the role of the country in causing climate change. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Chinese FA Super Cup

The subject never existed to begin with, similar to the 2022 edition in the same compeition.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IDontHaveSkype (talk • contribs) 10:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirect was not tagged for RfD, I have now done it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deplorable

Another confusing vocabulary word redirect. Not everything that is deplorable is part of Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables". We don't have deplore, so maybe a soft redirect to Wiktionary will have to do. Duckmather (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crosswiki to wiktionary per nom Okmrman (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
  • Delete I'm partial to the stance in the previous discussion that search results are adequate here and there does not need to be a DAB page for partial title matches. However, there are partial title matches so I don't think a soft redirect to Wiktionary is the best option. Though, I'm not really familiar with when it is best to use them. ― Synpath 06:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Combine a {{Wiktionary}} link with a “see also” section as well. Bwrs (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

📵

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I'm going to mark this for speedy deletion since there were suggestions in the original deletion discussion to redirect it to Etiquette in technology#Cell phone etiquette, which quickly got put down but someone still redirected it here anyways. I'm just gonna make this discussion to see if the discussion still holds up since it happened all the way back in 2015. Okmrman (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment previous discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 6#📵 Okmrman (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the time of that discussion in August 2015 this was a redirect to Mobile phones and driving safety, the present target was considered but rejected and it closed with a consensus to delete. The present iteration was created in February 2016, but as it has a different target (and things might have changed in 9 years) I've declined a G4 speedy deletion nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, disambig or write a broad concept article. There should be a disambig or broad concept article about prohibition/restriction and similar of mobile phone use. In addition to the current target, such is discussed (in various contexts) at Mobile phone jammer, Mobile phones in prisons, Mobile phones on aircraft, Mobile phone use in schools, Mobile phones and driving safety, Radio quiet zone and possibly others. In the absence of such a page, then we should target where the character is mentioned. There are three such pages but No symbol#Unicode and fonts is by far the most helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there are so many different ways to interpret this emoji, the majority of readers are going to be disappointed. Cremastra (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In what ways other than "no mobile phones" can you interpret this? Thryduulf (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mobile phone#Use. That section has subsections on the prohibition/restriction of mobile phones in various contexts, such as while driving, while walking and in schools. -- Tavix (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the main section, and most of the subsections, are about the opposite of "no mobile phones" I think this would be a very confusing target so I don't support this suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good thing; explaining where mobile phones are allowed is good context for establishing where mobile phones are not allowed. -- Tavix (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were to use this redirect I would be looking for information about where, why and/or how mobile phone use is prohibited or restricted, not information about where they aren't. I was confused about why you were suggesting a target that was the opposite of what the symbol means, having already read your rationale for suggesting it. Someone who doesn't have that context will likely be even more confused.
    I intend to draft something better (probably a broad concept page, but I'm not certain yet) but it'll likely be Monday or Tuesday before I get time. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I originally explained, the section I recommend does have information about where, why and/or how mobile phone use is prohibited or restricted. That section could be better formatted to suit those needs, as well as include other information and links to eg mobile phones in prison or mobile phones on aircraft. If you feel that section is confusing (I have no idea where you get that sense from), that is where I would suggest your efforts be spent. -- Tavix (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The section is not confusing in the context of the article. Arriving at that section when searching 📵 is what is confusing. Rearranging the article to account for one incoming redirect to it would not be an improvement. Thryduulf (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've drafted disambig/broad concept article hybrid at Restrictions on mobile phone use, it needs work but it's a better target than anything else we have. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you've taken the relevant concepts from Mobile phone#use and turned it into an outline form. To demonstrate that all it takes is a bit of rearranging and adding of sections to make it "less confusing", I present Mobile phone#Restrictions. A separate page is wholly unnecessary. -- Tavix (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 04:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to a better target, do not delete. An emoji is a valid search term. Gonnym (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 14:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Abd-al-Rahman I of the Umayyad Sultanate

Unique for Wikipedia. Not seen in the wild. Unlikely to be typed due to complexity.. Delete. Викидим (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 14:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Rhodes (murderer)

Since Walter Rhodes was not convicted of murder, the title of this page is misleading and an injustice. As there are multiple people by this name at Walter Rhodes, I am not sure if this page should simply be deleted or disambiguated differently. Gjs238 (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section is incompletely sourced, but currently reads: "Rhodes entered into a plea agreement for a reduced sentence of second degree murder in exchange for his testimony against Tafero and Jacobs.[4] At their trial, he testified that Jacobs fired first from the back seat, then Tafero took the gun from her and shot the two officers.[5] Rhodes later recanted his testimony on three occasions, in 1977, 1979 and 1982, stating that he shot the policemen, but ultimately reverted to his original testimony.[8]...Tafero and Jacobs were convicted of capital murder and were sentenced to death while Rhodes was sentenced to three life terms.
So it appears that he was convicted of murder, though he switched his plea a few times. Am I reading the references incorrectly? Wikishovel (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Rhodes was sentenced to three life terms." If that reference is correct, than it would seem that the redirect should remain in place and is accurate. Gjs238 (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added another RS for the three life terms: [1]. Wikishovel (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:←

Ambiguous with Wikipedia:Indentation § Outdenting due to {{outdent2}}. Dabifying this may also help stop people from using od2 in articles (see the infobox in [2]). Nickps (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Koung 64

implausible misspelling cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood and the United Kingdom and Ireland

Recently accepted at WP:AFC/R (here & here), but - as far as I can see - the target article only contains information about the United Kingdom, not Ireland. In addition, if Hollywood and the Republic of Ireland existed as an article, it would be unclear whether a reader was looking for information about Hollywood and the UK, or about Hollywood and Ireland. I'm therefore proposing deletion per WP:XY & WP:R#D2, as the inclusion of Ireland in these redirects (when it isn't mentioned at the target article) could cause confusion. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 10:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood and the Republic of Ireland

Recently accepted at WP:AFC/R, but - as far as I can see - the target page doesn't include any mention of Ireland. Proposing deletion per WP:R#D10/WP:REDLINK. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 10:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. A. Abbott

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add to target. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. The name today (according to a quick Google search) is more closely associated with Helen Blenkinsop, for which we don't have an article. While Samuel Spewack also used the name as a pseudonym and would warrant a disambiguating hatnote should an article exist on the primary topic, redirecting as-is is more likely to confuse readers. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blenkinsop is a recent user of the name (there's also the author of The Bazique-player's Hand-book, and various others). If you are prepared to write an article for her, then great. If not, don't destroy a valid redirect on that basis. (There also some other A. A. Abbotts.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Also the founder of this town: Kalkaska, Michigan. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • comment would this is better off as a set index? --Lenticel (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not yet been added to the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep adding a mention at the target is most appropriate here. Frank Anchor 20:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and others as ambiguous. I tried to see if I can add a mention to the current target, but did not find sources. The current target is also poorly sourced. Jay 💬 07:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oorum Unavum

Not mentioned at target. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. Page history didn't seem very useful either. DrowssapSMM 14:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD if not notable, was an article for 7 years before being single-handedly blanked by an IP a couple months ago. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or restore?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Trotskij

Delete per WP:RFD#D8. This appears to be the spelling of Trotsky's name in various North Germanic languages and this spelling isn't used in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - appears to be the spelling of his name in Danish and Norwegian, neither of which are particularly relevant. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the target does mention the transliteration in the Notes. There is also Leo Trotskij from 2005. Jay 💬 07:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't noticed that before, but it appears to just be this uncited bit here: "also transliterated Lyev, Trotski, Trotskij, Trockij and Trotzky." I've seen no evidence that Trotskij is a valid English transliteration, rather than the transliteration into the languages that have been identified here. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a {{cn}} but you are free to remove the mention. Jay 💬 04:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easing function

Without a mention of "easing", making this already not a great target, there's also no mention of a "function" at the target either. While the page admittedly talks about an "ease-in" and an "ease-out", this is not necessarily an "easing function" and several other topics deal with "easing" as well. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easing function is a common term in computer graphics, see [3] [4]. Maybe there's a better redirect target, or a new article is warranted, but this was the best I could find. 11wx (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackahuahua

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Dog breed redirected at a 2008 AfD, seemingly been unmentioned at the target for over a decade. It's misleading to maintain breed redirect for a dog type that holds zero information on Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could go to list of dog crossbreeds but that page doesn't mention it; however, it's only had 3 views in the past 30 days which probably includes me looking at it. I don't think this designer dog breed has much notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 1, 2003

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No information about this date at the target page, although contains some further unique history. Unlike Jan 2, this has been to RfD before, and closed as no consensus. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2, 2003

No information about this date at the target page, although contains some history. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyra Tierney

No discussion of a character called "Kyra Tierney" at the target article. Only mention on Wikipedia is at the disambig page for Tierney linking here, but the presence of a blue link implies we have content about this character, which we do not. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep. It seems "Kyra Tierney" is an actual character in the show, so it’s reasonable to expect someone searching the character's name on Wikipedia would be interested in that particular article. Slamforeman (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 French Open – Men's doubles

The events are currently a month away. It is the case of WP:TOOSOON

All these also redirects towards 2024 French Open#Events

PrinceofPunjabTALK 05:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @PrinceofPunjab, FYI, this isn't the correct format to use for a multi-RfD. I'll reformat the listing & tag the other redirects for you now. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 08:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reformatted nomination and tagged all nominated redirects :) ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 08:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though the sections are currently blank, they are all mentioned in the article. I don't see the harm in going ahead and establishing these redirects. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This doesn't fit the definition of WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTALBALL, as the events have indeed been confirmed and scheduled. These are useful redirects that can be expanded later on if/when the individual articles are notable enough to standalone. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10-year-old Ohio rape victim required to cross state lines to obtain abortion

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Nominating for deletion. The redirect is overly specific and too long and is therefore an unlikely search term. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nothing has changed since the discussion closed a year ago last week. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep per Thryduulf and WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close I didn't realise that their had already been a previous discussion on this redirect, I was kind of tired when I nominated it and forgot to check. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned anywhere in the article, but most importantly, not mentioned ANYWHERE on the Internet. If this was a news headline that could be hypothetically copied in, that'd be understandable(??) but still incredibly unlikely to be naturally searched. This is just, bits and pieces of the articles opening sentence and lead, but as a redirect. Restating the prose of the article, but as a redirect, makes these specific 14 words a novel and obscure synonym for the subject, (evidenced from no user on the Internet has said this ever with zero results outside of Wikipedia). It can't even be a synonym, it's a synopsis. It's unsearchable as a string of words that exists nowhere else, and a year later has STILL never been stated anywhere else on the Internet. The alternative redirect being: 10-year-old (the rest of the title) "from Ohio to Indiana" already exists and is the stylization that seemingly headlined in reports. I don't really like that redirect either, but at least the title benefits from existing, and can be copied into the search bar and/or can appear first when users start typing this in, if they happen to start their search with "ten-dash-year-dash-old" exactly. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects are not the way to promote very tenuous news reporting. See the NPR reporting in some detail on (probably?) this case, [5]. Essentially, we will most likely never get the facts straight (whatever the truth is, due to privacy concerns), so there is nothing of notability here for the article. Redirecting a headline of a single-source new story with no corroboration to our article where for this very reason the story cannot be published does not seem to be useful for anyone. --Викидим (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Okmrman (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a plausible search term, largely due to its length. Shocking to me that this was apparently discussed before and it didn't lead to a delete then... Sergecross73 msg me 22:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title is a variation of 10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion which I brought up at the previous RfD and suggested bundling. Either both would have been deleted, or neither, and there was support for keeping the latter as an actual headline, the reason I didn't vote the last time, and also because I probably expected the previous RfD to go for a second relist. Jay 💬 08:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - whilst is is very long and specific, it is likely that someone could look it up. Also WP:CHEAP. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirects may be cheap, but that doesn't mean we have to keep absurdly implausible ones like this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Nor does that mean that we need to delete them. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a novel and very obscure synonym for the subject, deleteable per WP:RDEL #8. The title is WP:SYNTH taken from pieces of the article's synopsis and extended in an unnatural fashion that is more of a Google-search random-selection of details and explanations, also appears nowhere on the entire Internet. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps not especially plausible but harmless and takes people where they clearly intend to go. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try this one more time. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: extremely implausible search term. DrowssapSMM 02:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinatown, Auckland

This redirect was added by an account who also added a Chinatown template to the Balmoral article, this was later reversed. Whilst Balmoral and Dominion Road especially has a large Chinese presence the area is still overwhelmingly European and I've never heard it known as Chinatown. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Universe (Benee song)

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 author request. ✗plicit 11:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 'Universe' was a song released by a very small artist with the same name and stylisation as New Zealand singer BENEE, however even though the song was never hers, when it was released, it appeared on her spotify artist page, making many people assume the song was hers and obviously why this article was made around that time. George (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect creator here, feel free to delete! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_22&oldid=1220259969"