From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 21, 2023.

Élodie Chabrol

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was restore. MrsSnoozyTurtle, edit warring over whether or not something should be an article is disruptive. Per WP:BLAR, if someone disagrees with your blanking and redirect, the proper procedure is to nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply

no consensus to redirect, article subject meets GNG. the redirect discussion should occur at AfD. -- Turktimex3 ( talk) 21:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment pinging Onel5969 and MrsSnoozyTurtle to speak their opinions about the BLAR. If necessary, an AFD nomination shall happen since this redirect-and-restore-and-redirect is going to escalate into WP:EDITWAR. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:28ED:F39F:A2F7:5736 ( talk) 04:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep redirect. When I initially restored the redirect, the article was not close to passing GNG. After looking at the current sourcing, the academic has a weak h-Index of 14, there is no in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources, so if it is restored, it will just end up at AfD. Onel5969 TT me 16:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep redirect My take is also that the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG and that a redirect is helpful for navigation purposes. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning towards restore since this is not the venue to discuss the merits of an article, and per WP:BLAR, if there is disagreement about the notability it should be discussed at AFD, and just repeatedly BLARing is in my opinion disruptive. As to the redirect itself, it seems appropriate enough if there is consensus against the existence of the article. A7V2 ( talk) 23:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Restore: Whether or not this topic meets WP:GNG is in my view not a discussion for RfD per the 2021 RfC about BLARs. I think that this would best be discussed at AfD, where if consensus is to redirect, then it will remain in its current state; however, I don't personally view RfD as the place to discuss notability. Tartar Torte 00:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Restore per the above. If there is disagreement about whether a page should be an article or a redirect, then the correct course of action is to restore the article and discuss it on the talk page or at AfD. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Algebra I

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. I am willing to restore article versions of any of these into draft or userspace if anyone would like to take the lead on making an article like those described in the discussion. -- BDD ( talk) 01:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Both of these redirects Algebra I and Algebra II are {{ R with history}}s, but neither one of them is mentioned specifically in their target article. Yes, these titles refer to a specific courses that is taken at universities, but without mention in the target article, the current redirection situation is not helpful. Due to the existing histories of Algebra I and Algebra II, and to avoid deletion, it may be best to retarget these redirects to Algebra. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Changes made to nomination statement to accommodate the addition of Algebra 1, Algebra 2, and Algebra 3. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist due to adding Algebra 1, Algebra 2, and Algebra 3 to this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 19:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

@ A7V2, Mdewman6, Seberle, and Uanfala: Pinging current participants to let them know of the 3 new redirects have been added to the nomination in the event their votes need to be adjusted. (Thanks Uanfala for pointing out the existence of these redirects.) Steel1943 ( talk) 19:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Algebra 3, but retarget others to Mathematics education in the United States. There is no course called Algebra 3. Also, these course names are unique to the United States. Mast303 ( talk) 05:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The University of Warwick, which offers " Algebra 1" and " Algebra II", is not in the United States. — Kusma ( talk) 14:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. These terms are too generic to be useful search results, in addition to the above a quick search found that the University of Tasmania has an Algebra 2 module [2], Durham University (UK) offers Algebra II [3] and "algebra 1" seems to be an informal name for several different courses at different levels in the Indian education system. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    @Thryduulf: Algebra 1 is used most often in the United States. So we should redirect Algebra 1, 2, etc. to the corresponding sections of the article Mathematics education in the United States. Algebra 3 should be deleted because it is not a commonly used term. 01:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Mast303 ( talk) 01:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:ENGVAR complications have surfaced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 20:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete all. If these terms are kept at all, they should redirect to Mathematics education in the United States since this is by far the most common usage. (They can apparently also refer to the first part of a college abstract algebra course in some places.) Course titles, especially those recognized in only one country, don't seem like encyclopedia content to me. I am fine with deleting these terms. -- seberle ( talk) 12:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Katherine Agapay

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 Laguna Provincial Board#List of members. Jay 💬 12:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect from a person to a province makes no sense. It might as well redirect to Earth. Toddst1 ( talk) 19:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further discussion of the retarget and delete proposals.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC 678 19:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Tuesday Records

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. It already targets Greg Hambleton and is now mentioned there. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 18:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect representing a topic not named in the target article for any context as to why it redirects there. Bearcat ( talk) 18:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Greg Hambleton as he is the founder of the label. When I created the re-direct, I forgot to add content to his article to support the redirect. My apologies. I'll get on the job shortly and get it done. Karl Twist ( talk) 04:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Kremlin Palace

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 28#Kremlin Palace

Academy of Geneva

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 28#Academy of Geneva

The Marriage Market (film)

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 18:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Two films of this name have articles. Is there a primary topic? J947 edits 09:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Untied Plankton Pictures

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 28#Untied Plankton Pictures

Jew Gold

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 procedural close as redundant nomination; if the article is deleted, redirects to the deleted article are generally deleted as well. (non-admin closure)Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 07:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete recommended along with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jew gold Moops T 03:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Jewgold

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 essentially per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jew gold even though this redirect has a different target. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Deletion recommended along the same reasoning presented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jew gold Moops T 03:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep Once again, these redirects are minor spelling variants of the target, which if deleted will have these redirects speedy deleted per G8. – LaundryPizza03 ( d ) 04:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Oil (road)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 31#Oil (road)

Alternatives to asphalt

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Move without redirect to Alternatives to bitumen. signed, Rosguill talk 23:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Could potentially be ambiguous since "asphalt" could also refer to Asphalt concrete, and alternatives to that could include any material that can be used to make a road. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC) reply

This should be changed to "Alternatives to Bitumen" as the target itself is referencing Bitumen. Id also argue a move discussion is not needed as it is a result of the move in Bitumen. Garfie489 ( talk) 09:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Asphaltum oil wells

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 31#Asphaltum oil wells

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 21, 2023.

Élodie Chabrol

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was restore. MrsSnoozyTurtle, edit warring over whether or not something should be an article is disruptive. Per WP:BLAR, if someone disagrees with your blanking and redirect, the proper procedure is to nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply

no consensus to redirect, article subject meets GNG. the redirect discussion should occur at AfD. -- Turktimex3 ( talk) 21:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment pinging Onel5969 and MrsSnoozyTurtle to speak their opinions about the BLAR. If necessary, an AFD nomination shall happen since this redirect-and-restore-and-redirect is going to escalate into WP:EDITWAR. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:28ED:F39F:A2F7:5736 ( talk) 04:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep redirect. When I initially restored the redirect, the article was not close to passing GNG. After looking at the current sourcing, the academic has a weak h-Index of 14, there is no in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources, so if it is restored, it will just end up at AfD. Onel5969 TT me 16:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep redirect My take is also that the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG and that a redirect is helpful for navigation purposes. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning towards restore since this is not the venue to discuss the merits of an article, and per WP:BLAR, if there is disagreement about the notability it should be discussed at AFD, and just repeatedly BLARing is in my opinion disruptive. As to the redirect itself, it seems appropriate enough if there is consensus against the existence of the article. A7V2 ( talk) 23:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Restore: Whether or not this topic meets WP:GNG is in my view not a discussion for RfD per the 2021 RfC about BLARs. I think that this would best be discussed at AfD, where if consensus is to redirect, then it will remain in its current state; however, I don't personally view RfD as the place to discuss notability. Tartar Torte 00:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Restore per the above. If there is disagreement about whether a page should be an article or a redirect, then the correct course of action is to restore the article and discuss it on the talk page or at AfD. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Algebra I

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. I am willing to restore article versions of any of these into draft or userspace if anyone would like to take the lead on making an article like those described in the discussion. -- BDD ( talk) 01:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Both of these redirects Algebra I and Algebra II are {{ R with history}}s, but neither one of them is mentioned specifically in their target article. Yes, these titles refer to a specific courses that is taken at universities, but without mention in the target article, the current redirection situation is not helpful. Due to the existing histories of Algebra I and Algebra II, and to avoid deletion, it may be best to retarget these redirects to Algebra. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Changes made to nomination statement to accommodate the addition of Algebra 1, Algebra 2, and Algebra 3. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist due to adding Algebra 1, Algebra 2, and Algebra 3 to this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 19:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

@ A7V2, Mdewman6, Seberle, and Uanfala: Pinging current participants to let them know of the 3 new redirects have been added to the nomination in the event their votes need to be adjusted. (Thanks Uanfala for pointing out the existence of these redirects.) Steel1943 ( talk) 19:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Algebra 3, but retarget others to Mathematics education in the United States. There is no course called Algebra 3. Also, these course names are unique to the United States. Mast303 ( talk) 05:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The University of Warwick, which offers " Algebra 1" and " Algebra II", is not in the United States. — Kusma ( talk) 14:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. These terms are too generic to be useful search results, in addition to the above a quick search found that the University of Tasmania has an Algebra 2 module [2], Durham University (UK) offers Algebra II [3] and "algebra 1" seems to be an informal name for several different courses at different levels in the Indian education system. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply
    @Thryduulf: Algebra 1 is used most often in the United States. So we should redirect Algebra 1, 2, etc. to the corresponding sections of the article Mathematics education in the United States. Algebra 3 should be deleted because it is not a commonly used term. 01:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Mast303 ( talk) 01:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:ENGVAR complications have surfaced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 20:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete all. If these terms are kept at all, they should redirect to Mathematics education in the United States since this is by far the most common usage. (They can apparently also refer to the first part of a college abstract algebra course in some places.) Course titles, especially those recognized in only one country, don't seem like encyclopedia content to me. I am fine with deleting these terms. -- seberle ( talk) 12:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Katherine Agapay

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 Laguna Provincial Board#List of members. Jay 💬 12:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect from a person to a province makes no sense. It might as well redirect to Earth. Toddst1 ( talk) 19:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further discussion of the retarget and delete proposals.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC 678 19:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Tuesday Records

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. It already targets Greg Hambleton and is now mentioned there. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 18:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect representing a topic not named in the target article for any context as to why it redirects there. Bearcat ( talk) 18:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Greg Hambleton as he is the founder of the label. When I created the re-direct, I forgot to add content to his article to support the redirect. My apologies. I'll get on the job shortly and get it done. Karl Twist ( talk) 04:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Kremlin Palace

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 28#Kremlin Palace

Academy of Geneva

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 28#Academy of Geneva

The Marriage Market (film)

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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 18:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Two films of this name have articles. Is there a primary topic? J947 edits 09:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Untied Plankton Pictures

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 28#Untied Plankton Pictures

Jew Gold

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 procedural close as redundant nomination; if the article is deleted, redirects to the deleted article are generally deleted as well. (non-admin closure)Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 07:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete recommended along with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jew gold Moops T 03:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Jewgold

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 essentially per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jew gold even though this redirect has a different target. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Deletion recommended along the same reasoning presented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jew gold Moops T 03:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep Once again, these redirects are minor spelling variants of the target, which if deleted will have these redirects speedy deleted per G8. – LaundryPizza03 ( d ) 04:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Oil (road)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 31#Oil (road)

Alternatives to asphalt

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Move without redirect to Alternatives to bitumen. signed, Rosguill talk 23:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Could potentially be ambiguous since "asphalt" could also refer to Asphalt concrete, and alternatives to that could include any material that can be used to make a road. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC) reply

This should be changed to "Alternatives to Bitumen" as the target itself is referencing Bitumen. Id also argue a move discussion is not needed as it is a result of the move in Bitumen. Garfie489 ( talk) 09:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).

Asphaltum oil wells

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 31#Asphaltum oil wells


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook