This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 9, 2019.
AoTeAroa
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 18#AoTeAroa
Next Luxembourg general election
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 18#Next Luxembourg general election
Bad Karma (Miley Cyrus song)
Ibranovski
- 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. It has been explained on
CptViraj's
talk page why it was a
WP:BADNAC, which was acknowledged. The original discussion should have been closed as "delete" per
WP:RGUIDE, so I'll do so now. --
Tavix (
talk)
02:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Speedy renomination for a discussion closed as no consensus against
WP:BADNAC, listed
here. Original rationale, which still stands, is: Listed on the artist's section, but its listing remains unsourced, as are multiple other artists listed on this page.
Jalen D. Folf
(talk)
22:41, 9 July 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.
Спеціальна:Внесок/Sanya3
- 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
WP:CSD#R2.
Hut 8.5
06:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Appears to be a cross namespace redirect from article space to someone's Special:Contributions page.
Wugapodes
[thɑk]
[ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz]
22:32, 9 July 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.
Rodham,Hillary
- 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)
14:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Spacing error in already nonstandard title. —
the Man in Question
(in question)
22:20, 9 July 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.
Conspiracy (caesar)
Bd. Behring Anal
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was keep.
(non-admin closure)
Steel1943 (
talk)
18:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
None of the sources at the target use this title to refer to B.D. Behring. signed,
Rosguill
talk
17:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
reply
Does this mean something in India, or is it juvenile vandalism of a BLP? --
BDD (
talk)
20:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The editor who created it also created a bunch of other good redirects for Indian politicians from several different political parties, so I would lean toward assuming good faith here...but I still have no idea if this specific redirect is appropriate. signed,
Rosguill
talk
20:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I apologize for my insinuation when minimal work on my part would've uncovered the case:
Anal is an ethnic group (
Anāl Naga). I assume that means Behring is an ethnic Anal, but that doesn't make this a good redirect. --
BDD (
talk)
21:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Checked
"behring anal" -wikipedia and this definitely seems valid now. Interestingly, many say "Bd. Behring Anal" rather than B.D. Is this a common shorthand for first and middle initials in Indian English, or is "Bd." a usual abbreviation for a given name, equivalent to "Wm." for William? --
BDD (
talk)
18:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: At the very least, to allow for BDD's question to be answered if anyone knows the answer
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Tavix (
talk)
22:09, 9 July 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.
Differences of sexual development
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was keep.
(non-admin closure)
Steel1943 (
talk)
17:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Vague search term, differences is not a synonym for disorders in this context. A reader searching with this term could potentially be looking for comparisons in sexual development across sexes or cultures. Moreover, at its worst this redirect could encourage a reader to pathologize aspects of sexual development. signed,
Rosguill
talk
20:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Note I've added
Differences of sex development to this nomination.
Thryduulf (
talk)
13:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Disambig it's a plausible search term for the target, but also for
Puberty#Differences between male and female puberty,
Sex differences in humans (which has many sub-articles - see
template:Sex differences), other comparisons (cultures, species) that we don't have articles about I can immediately find and not implausibly for things like
Intersex,
Sexual characteristics,
Precocious puberty,
Delayed puberty,
Tanner scale and (at a push)
Sex-determination system,
Sexual dimorphism. There maybe more also. Only some of these are found by the search engine when using this search term, so deletion will be inferior for our readers than a dab page.
Thryduulf (
talk)
13:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
I support having a disambiguation page or just deleting. I agree the status quo is not tenable for the reasons given in the nomination.
Bondegezou (
talk) 15:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC) change to Keep as per
Trankuility et al.
Bondegezou (
talk)
12:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Yes, you could probably come up with some other things that this might be described this way, just like
Chronic fatigue syndrome doesn't just mean that you're tired all the time, even though that's what the individual words imply. However, it's the modern term for intersex conditions. It is used for hospital department names
[1]
[2]
[3], in sports regulations
[4], in news articles
[5]
[6]
[7], by medical profesionals
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11], and in legislation
[12]. As this terms doesn't actually get used (much? at all?) in the other contexts, a dab page is probably not needed.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
20:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Not vague at all.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
21:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per
WhatamIdoing (
talk ·
contribs). The term 'differences' is used within the intersex community, where many perceive 'disorders' as pathologising what can be viewed as a natural variance. Thus, the redirects and the original pages can be a contentious issue. I have no doubt that the 'differences' variation will be a popular search criterion, so we should definitely keep -
Alison
❤
19:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Alison, doesn't keeping this promote just that sort of pathologizing, by implying that the differences are disorders? --
BDD (
talk)
13:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Not in my opinion, given that the page itself says 'disorders'. I see it as an alternative to that phrase, not a synonym -
Alison
❤
23:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per
WhatamIdoing. The term differences of sex development is notable in sport where it is used in the title of contentious regulations that are the subject of worldwide media reporting (see
Caster Semenya), some academic disciplines, and in some human rights reports. The nominator is right to identify an association with pathologization of sex development and sexual development. This is a reason why intersex bodies were pathologized, and reason why
intersex medical interventions happen.
Trankuility (
talk)
20:31, 16 July 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.
Binilnillium
Long Thai name of Bangkok
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 17#Long Thai name of Bangkok
C29H32ClF3N2O3
- 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.
So
Why
19:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
C29H32ClF3N2O3 was created by mistake: formula of
Almorexant is …H31… not …H32Cl…. There is no molecule in enWiki with formula C29H32ClF3N2O3. I propose to delete it.
Gyimhu (
talk)
14:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Almorexant hydrochloride is, in fact, not mentioned at the article—not in those terms, at least.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
BDD (
talk)
19:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - as I understand it, our best practice is to link drug salt molecules to the information about the drug itself. Someone said it in one of these other discussions. Even if there is no information on the salt specifically at the target, the target is still useful information.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
18:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep drug salts, especially those in use can usefully have a redirect. Using indexing you can have more than one variant of a substance in a chembox, but I don't know about the drugbox.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
08:38, 14 July 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.
Tour security
Marital duel
- 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. --
Tavix (
talk)
22:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Arguably just a {{r from tpyo}}, but given that conceivably there could exist such a thing as a marital duel I'm not sure this should be kept. signed,
Rosguill
talk
18:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Comment seems to be an
actual type of trial by combat but I'm not sure if it's enough to be included in the article --
Lenticel (
talk)
03:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I wanted more information about Marital duels that I read somewhere else online, but there wasn't anything on Wikipedia, so I gave a redirect to closest related topic.
Nesnad (
talk)
16:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Really marital duels, like between spouses? I can't see the above Google Books page in my country. I could imagine a martial duel, like instances of one-on-one combat as part of a larger battle or war, but
Martial duel is red, and that would be different than a trial by combat. --
BDD (
talk)
16:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as a genuine form of trial by combat. Not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, but
this page should tell you all you need to know about marital duels. (TL;DR version: the husband was handicapped in some way, either by having one arm bound up or having his mobility restricted, and husband and wife would slug it out.) ‑
Iridescent
16:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Wow! This definitely belongs in the article. --
BDD (
talk)
13:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I agree. If you or someone else talented would add a section about "Marital duels" that would be great. We already have an image in the article depicting one such duel. I came to Wikipedia for that information, so I am sure someone else would want to learn about that too.
Nesnad (
talk)
11:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Iridescent.
Thryduulf (
talk)
15:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I've added a sourced statement about it to the article. I guess I can access that page on Google Books after all. --
BDD (
talk)
20:55, 18 July 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.
Donald Trimp
Wikipedia:CIVILWAR
- 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. This is a mildly
WP:INVOLVED close since I offered some opinions, but consensus is quite clear that this is inappropriate, with the good-faith retarget suggestion also soundly rejected. --
BDD (
talk)
14:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
This seems an unlikely shortcut for this project discussion, and per
WP:RFD#D1 could unnecessarily obstruct searches since it is a common term. Weakly suggest retarget to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, which is the most likely place for editors to find Wikipedia resources for maintaining civil war topics.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
15:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force per nom. Regards
So
Why
15:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Retarget to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force per nom and
SoWhy.
I JethroBT
drop me a line
15:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to Military history or even
Civil War for the reasons Ivan points out in the nomination. It also wouldn't be absurd to just delete. Civil War can apply to many possible civil wars (not just US as the preceding two users suggested) with FRAM unlikely to be what the user is looking for. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
15:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Agreed and I thought about that too but
WP:ACW is the only civil war related project or task force I found (on a quick search), so it makes more sense targeting this page for now. If and when there are more projects or task forces about civil wars, this can always be converted into a DAB page. Regards
So
Why
15:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Just to be clear (and difficult) I oppose retargeting to the American civil war task force. There are many civil wars besides the American one; a project-space shortcut should not pick and choose. The main MILHIST page is a better general resource for the numerous other civil wars we write about.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
15:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I also oppose; there are plenty of civil wars other than the American one - such as, for instance, the one currently ongoing in Syria.
Gimubrc (
talk)
17:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Again, valid points if this were a redirect in article space but there is no other civil war related page in Wikipedia-space than
WP:ACW. Targeting MILHIST's main page makes no sense because there is no mention of civil wars on it except for the link to the ACW taskforce. Someone looking for the taskforce on the American Civil War will be served by retargeting there but someone looking for a taskforce for another civil war will not be served by a redirect to MILHIST. Regards
So
Why
18:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I disagree, although this has become somewhat off-topic. Someone looking for information about writing about any war would find useful general information at MILHIST, including the American Civil War. If we were talking about something like
WP:WikiProject Civil War or
WP:CIVILWARTASKFORCE (redirects specifically indicating a wikiproject, I mean) then I would be more inclined to agree with you, but even in those cases I'd think an editor would find more useful information about writing about wars generally than writing specifically about the American Civil War. ACW probably has little useful information for someone writing about the
Second Islamic Civil War, for example.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
19:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - no need for a cross-space redirect.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
15:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- It's not cross-space and neither are any of the proposals.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
15:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Barkeep49 suggested a retarget to
Civil War, which would be a
cross-namespace redirect. Not wanting a cross-namespace redirect could simply be an opposition to that proposal, but that is not a rationale for deletion since it's not currently a cross-namespace redirect.
Beyond My Ken and
Gimubrc, could you please clarify your rationales? --
Tavix (
talk)
17:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I hesitate before suggesting it for precisely that reason but I will note that the CNR focuses on redirects from article space. It doesn't actually talk about from Project space to Article space and we do in fact allow redirects to article spaces in other instances (i.e. after a page move from Draft). I do agree that it's a reason to oppose that particular redirect suggestion but wanted to provide another alternative especially in light of the suggestions to target it to a US centric place. Best,
Barkeep49 (
talk)
17:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- It would be such a huge
WP:SURPRISE for readers, though. I couldn't support a CNR here. --
BDD (
talk)
18:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- This is a good point, and from comments below it seems MILHIST doesn't really want it. Nobody had created it until it was created very recently as a joke redirect to a serious discussion, and there seems to be widespread interest in removing it on that basis, so it seems "delete" is the right outcome here. Will leave for discussion, though, it's hardly unanimous.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
13:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
One for Martin, two for Martin!
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
13:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Wrong in its current form. Ambiguous for any other. --
Dweller (
talk) Become
old fashioned!
08:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- 'deleteorweak Retarget to Military history. Lets get over ourselves, I really do not think the average punter is going to be looking for "mymategotbannedgate" if they do a search for civil war. Also "civilwar" (one word) is a reasonable typo of "civil war".
Slatersteven (
talk)
11:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I will add that there is more the one civil war, so retargeting to any one seems like exceptionalism.
Slatersteven (
talk)
15:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I'm responding to the notification at WT:MILHIST. There have been huge numbers of civil wars over the years, so redirecting to the US Civil War is inappropriate. I don't think that anyone is likely to want to use WP:CIVILWAR as a quick route to WP:MILHIST. As for the current target, it's inappropriate: while the issue is important and is leading to very extensive discussion, it isn't a civil war tearing Wikipedia apart or similar.
Nick-D (
talk)
12:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Leave or delete - "CIVILWAR" (one word) is not to be confused with "civil war" which is a subject of military import. I would say once the issue to which it redirects is resolved, then simply delete it.
Cadar (
talk)
12:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget as a plausible and useful shortcut to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force. Much easier than typing out the whole thing.
Jonathunder (
talk)
14:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. The current target is obviously disruptive, but the proposed alternative of the American Civil War Task Force is implausible; I certainly can't imagine anyone typing
WP:CIVILWAR with the expectation of getting there. Not every combination of WP: and a bunch of capital letters needs to be blue. ‑
Iridescent
15:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - There is no plausible need for this redirect in Wikipedia name space.
Civil War covers article space needs well enough.--
agr (
talk)
18:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete this particular bit of POV pushing. No redirect is needed. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
19:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to MILHIST's Civil War taskforce as a more plausible redirect. —
A little blue Bori
v^_^v
Bori!
22:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete a redirect to Milhist ACW isn't needed (it already has
WP:ACW), and frankly, America's civil war isn't the only civil war, so this is inappropriate. The current redirect is also inappropriate as it isn't a term associated with the Fram discussion.
Peacemaker67 (
click to talk to me)
00:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Needlessly inflammatory and implausible. Oppose redirection per the above, such a redirect itself is implausible (no one at actual MILHIST has seen such a need for it, and they have a shorter redirect already), and also, equating the term "civil war" to "American Civil War" as if it is the only or default civil war is...ignorant, at best.
~Swarm~
{sting}
00:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete This isn't reflective of the ongoing discussion of this ban. It's not a war, it's a discussion.
Liz
Read!
Talk!
01:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Nobody up to now has thought to create this is a useful and needed redirect to civil war related topics, so I see no justification for keeping it. I guess it won't be long before someone creates a similarly pointless redirect to
WP:FRAMBAN from
WP:TOXICSHOCK or a myriad other clever names (
WP:MAHERSLAYER,
WP:HARASSINPARIS,
WP:CHIPOFFTHEOLDBLOCK,
WP:YOUVEBEENFRAMed etc etc) which would only serve to inflame rather than to help the situation.
Nick Moyes (
talk)
21:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete unacceptable as it is, and there's no good redirect target for it.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
00:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete The current target is not appropriate for this redirect per many above. I hesitate to support the proposed retargetting as the US civil war is far from the only civil war - see for example
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force which covers the period of the English civil wars.
Thryduulf (
talk)
15:57, 15 July 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.
Wikipedia:HOWMANYFRAMSCOULDASANFRANBANIFASANFRANCOULDBANFRAM?
- 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.
WP:SNOW --
Ed (
Edgar181)
17:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Implausible phrase to need a shortcut, there are already enough joke redirects to the target. —
xaosflux
Talk
15:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Struck so as not to hold up someone snow-closing this. I don't really care either way here; there's no policy against joke redirects to project space (c.f. all the discussions we had not too long ago about tongue-in-cheek redirects to
WP:ANI) but this one is obviously not going to survive. To summarize: meh.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
17:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. I'm all for jokes and fun but that one is neither. It's not something people will ever use, existing just to make some kind of point. Regards
So
Why
15:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - cute, but silly and unnecessary.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
15:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - That got a chuckle out of me today, but it lacks the concise punch of
WP:CANSANFRANBANFRAM (and more importantly, it takes too long to type out).--
WaltCip (
talk)
15:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as a shortcut that isn't short.
* Pppery *
it has begun...
16:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. I like a bit of levity too, but one gag redirect is enough, and I think too many would risk trivializing the whole affair.
Gimubrc (
talk)
16:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per above. The cathartic appeal previously observed in
WP:CANSANFRANBANFRAM is not found here. This one is just irreverent to all parties. —
the Man in Question
(in question)
17:19, 9 July 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.
Russell Road (Horse Racing)
- 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 --
JHunterJ (
talk)
12:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
A circular redirect to a DAB page with no incoming links. I propose deletion. (The qualifier is malformed; a correctly-qualified article would be
Russell Road (horse). If the redirect is deleted, then the entry should be removed from the DAB page per
WP:DDD.)
Narky Blert (
talk)
13:46, 9 July 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.
Russell Road (Salinas)
Intouchable (disambiguation)
- 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 --
JHunterJ (
talk)
12:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Unused disambiguation redirect. The only two closely named items are
Intouchable and
The Intouchables, neither of which have hatnotes that reference this. Also an implausible search term with (disambiguation) —
Bagumba (
talk)
11:19, 9 July 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.
PBS Special Programs
- 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.
WP:CSD#R3 —
Bagumba (
talk)
16:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Misleading redirect that is not discussed in the target article. –
Lord Bolingbroke (
talk)
10:45, 2 July 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.
Il Talismino
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 17#Il Talismino
C16H15N5O7S
- 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 criteria
G7 (creator requests deletion) and/or
R3 (clearly created in error).
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
15:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
I created
C16H15N5O7S by mistake: formula of
Cefixime is
C16H15N5O7S2. There is no molecule in enWiki (more exactly: in my list of 15295 formulas extracted from chemical infoboxes of enWiki) with formula C16H15N5O7S. I am sorry.
Gyimhu (
talk)
08:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Gyimhu, if you're the creator and only contributor to any page and you want it deleted, there's no need for a formal process: you can just slap {{
db-g7}} on it. –
Uanfala (talk)
10:02, 9 July 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.
Puebla City¿
- 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.
G3 doesn't quite fit; I used
G6.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
15:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Unused redirect created in the midst of a move war. Delete it.
Dicklyon (
talk)
06:13, 9 July 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.
Air pollution in Iran
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 17#Air pollution in Iran
Portal:Utah Church
- 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)
14:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Delete Some could consider this offensive, and given that it was created by a user indef blocked for making offensive edits and there is no
Utah Church redirect in the article space, there is certainly no need for one in the portal space.
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
04:46, 9 July 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.
C6H4(OH)
- 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.
G7 or
R3.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
15:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
C6H4(OH) was created by mistake: formula of
Catechol is
C6H4(OH)2. There is no molecule in enWiki (more exactly: in my list of 15282 formulas extracted from chemical infoboxes of enWiki) with formula C6H4(OH), nor C6H5O. I propose to delete it.
Gyimhu (
talk)
04:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. It's an incorrect/improper chemical formula. --
Ed (
Edgar181)
- 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.
Portal:Teahouse
- 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,
WP:G7. --
BDD (
talk)
18:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Delete User is very unlikely to think the Teahouse is a Portal, or to come to the Portalspace looking for it.
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
04:02, 9 July 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.
Clubman
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was disambiguate (by moving the subsequently created disambiguation page to
Clubman) --
JHunterJ (
talk)
12:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Delete this redirect. It makes it too difficult to find articles about "Clubman" or similar to "Clubman".
Doctorx0079 (
talk)
02:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. A sound rationale. —
the Man in Question
(in question)
03:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I suggest that we replace it with a disambiguation page.
GTHO (
talk)
06:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I don't think any of the potential referents are straightforward enough to merit a DAB. —
the Man in Question
(in question)
07:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Disambiguate or create a
set index article. The nominator is right that this redirect makes it unreasonably difficult to search for titles containing the word "clubman" and we have
many such titles.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits)
16:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Does
Clubmans actually meet
WP:NCPLURAL? --
BDD (
talk)
18:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- No it doesn't, so needs fixing anyway, initiated RM
Talk:Clubmans, whatever happens to the current redirect the Clubman car racing class is less notable than the motorbike Clubman class.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
10:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- That's a good catch,
BDD. Hmm. —
the Man in Question
(in question)
18:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I'm a bit worried at the simultaneous RfD and RM, but we'll see how that goes. --
BDD (
talk)
18:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Disambiguate I can find at least one other article this would be a valid redirect too (the one that comes up first on a google search for "clubman").
Slatersteven (
talk)
09:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Move
Clubman (disambiguation) to
Clubman. The required disambiguation page already exists.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
14:59, 13 July 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.