August 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 7, 2019.

House of Swabia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 20#House of Swabia

Toyota Yaris ONYX

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) ComplexRational (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a mention. Sheesh - it took me less than a minute to do a web search for a suitable reference and only a few more to add it to the article. Probably less effort than it took to create this discussion.  Stepho  talk  22:55, 7 August 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.

Vetlehamar

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. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target or its corresponding article on noWiki or nnWiki, no results in Google Maps. signed, Rosguill talk 22:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 7 August 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.

Italy 2026

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 18#Italy 2026

Uomo Qualunque Front

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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely and useless redirect, written half in English and half in Italian; it should be deleted. Wololoo (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 7 August 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.

Feynmanium Element 137

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) 16:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if element 137 had its own article or feynmanium was the official name, it is redundant to include two names in the title. Redirects like this constitute a Pandora's box (e.g. Fluorine Element 9 and Flerovium Element 114 do not, and should not exist). ComplexRational (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) (replying to both) My primary concern is that anyone who gets as far as typing "feynmanium" or any other element in the search bar will already find an article or a redirect to it (e.g. feynmanium already points readers to what they were looking for, and can be typed far quicker); a search for "element 137" (or similar redirects) alone will also satisfy readers. I still don't see how it's not redundant to define the topic twice in a single title. As far as setting a precedent, where would we draw the line between potentially useful redirects and redundant redirects that could be created ad infinitium?
  • As a side note, WP:ONLYESSAY is an argument to avoid here (unless I misunderstood a key point in your rationale). ComplexRational (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such thing as a "redundant redirect" - a redirect is either useful or it isn't, and that can only be judged on its own merits. Whether other similar redirects do or not exist is irrelevant. Not every element is unambiguously named (Gold and mercury come immediately to mind) and unnecessary disambiguation is never a bad thing. Also the search bar is only one of many methods people use to find Wikipedia content, search suggestions are not available for most of them and anyone who does look for this is going to be taken to the exact content they are looking for, and as someone has seen fit to create this redirect we can assume that they at least find it useful (WP:R#KEEP point 5). Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify "redundant", it means that a simpler, more plausible redirect exists. Checking pageviews, this redirect has exactly one hit between two days after redirection and this RfD, whereas "feynmanium"(typed first or linked from other articles) has 15 hits per day, strongly suggesting that "Feynmanium Element 137" doesn't serve a very important function as a redirect. I also would like to know, how else would this title (and not another redirect) be reached if not via searches - it has no incoming links outside XfD.
This also is not the standard way of disambiguating, per WP:AT and WP:NCDAB. If there was another "feynmanium" (I'm pretty sure there isn't), it would either be the WP:PTOPIC and Feynmanium (disambiguation) would exist, or it would not be and parenthetical disambiguation (not even in this redirect) would be the way to go. In that case, we would have Feynmanium (element) as the simplest disambiguator; we do not say Mercury element 80 or Mercury first planet. Once again, there is no precedent for this type of redirect, even in unnecessary disambiguation. ComplexRational (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 7 August 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.

466453

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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The former phone number for Google SMS Search, but it has been shut down a while ago and is not mentioned in the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google Assistant gives us the evidence that the domain 466453.com was used by Google. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 14:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 7 August 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.

Resident evil movies, games, and books

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 22#Resident evil movies, games, and books

Østen

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 convert to set-index article. Thanks to Eureka Lott for doing the work. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not equivalent. Østen is Norwegian for "east", whereas Øystein is a given name that means something along the lines of "good luck stone". signed, Rosguill talk 17:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 7 August 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.

Archimedes scientific achievements

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a search engine. Also redirects to ad-hoc Wikipedia sections are not useful redirects. Also punctuation failure. — the Man in Question (in question)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:17, 7 August 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.

Laura McAndrews

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 24#Laura McAndrews

GOOGL (NASDAQ)

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 Alphabet Inc.. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly used disambiguation ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Disambiguation? Invalid rationale. The nominator apparently didn't understand the purpose of the redirect. "GOOGL" is Google's NASDAQ symbol (see [7]), and we routinely link NASDAQ and other past and current stock market symbols to articles about the corresponding companies. (In cases where they are ambiguous for historical reasons they would need to be disambiguated, but this wouldn't be a reason for deletion either.)
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I do understand the purpose. GOOGL redirects to Alphabet Inc. already, as it should. GOOGL (NASDAQ) is pointless.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you meant the parenthetical disambiguation in the title. Well, I agree that this is a bit redundant now that the other redirect exists, however, users searching for the NASDAQ symbol might routinely specify the (NASDAQ) extension as many (if not most) similar redirects follow this convention because without the extension many of these symbols are ambiguous and their place is already occupied by disambiguation pages. When I created the original redirect I didn't want it to interfere with potential other uses which could somewhen in the future be disambiguated on a disambiguation page at GOOGL, whereas links meaning the NASDAQ symbol and going through GOOGL (NASDAQ) could still remain unchanged.
I still think it should be kept for completeness and stability reasons, but I agree that the target of the redirect can be changed to Alphabet Inc. now.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 7 August 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.

YouTubeCanDoBetter

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. No prejudice against recreation if it's to point to sourced content. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article at all. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:57, 7 August 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.

An acequia

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 applies to all redirects still listed at this point, so not A pillar. There is broad appetite for deletion here. I did note proposed alternatives for a few of these, but didn't see a clear course of action for any of them. No prejudice against recreating one or two. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCAN. Wikipedia redirects inappropriately beginning in indefinite articles. An enormous WP:Pandora's Box. I have not included any titles of works, famous quotes, words such as A frame, A fib, or A flat where the A is not an article, phrases whose acronyms use the article a in their first initial, etc. I have also left out any ones that I thought particularly likely to spark specific debate, some of which I'll probably end up listing in separate noms. All of the redirects above that did not begin as redirects (such as A frog or A jump point) were redirected without merging, and therefore none have consequential history. Many of these were created by the same user. I am sorry it is such a long list, I know some of you prefer shorter lists, but (unless I am much mistaken) none of these have previously gone through RfD and none of these were merged upon redirection (I have checked them all twice); and the issue at hand is the same for all of them. — the Man in Question (in question) 03:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I take back "all"; keep the ones where the A is not an indefinite article, like A number. Geolodus (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
W.r.t. the argument made by Tavix & Thryduulf, that these redirects are valuable to readers, I am not convinced that there is significant value lost by deletion. Nor am I convinced that individual redirects with a prepended indefinite article are the best way to address the issue of ensuring that readers find what they are looking for; I suggest that the question of prepended indefinite articles is better handled in search software by ensuring that the results include any targets which match the search string with an initial "a" or " an" removed. Looking at other "common noun" articles which do not have a redirect with a preceding indefinite article, this appears to be an issue which is already resolved - the target articles are invariably included in a search list as the first or second^ item listed. That is, we are saving readers a single click (assuming that the common noun is the intended target; which is not necessarily a safe assumption). c.f. A weasel (which also lists "wild weasel" and "weasel words"), A frock (which also lists "frock coat"), A camel (which also lists "camel case"). ^The sole instance that I found of the common noun not being listed first in search results is A dress, which lists The dress first. - Ryk72 talk 15:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Basically keep ones where they would likely be hyphenated like bring your A game AngusWOOF (barksniff) 05:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis. As stated above, though, A pillar is not on the list. — the Man in Question (in question) 17:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A (programming language) redirects to Assembly language, supporting AngusWOOF's proposal. Narky Blert (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would lean toward deleting the rest of the redirects as well, although I could see some of them being searched up by users ("A public library", "A girl", "A person" etc, though their view stats don't seem to be particularly high). –Sonicwave talk 05:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this discussion is starting to look like "WP:TRAINWRECK vs. WP:TNT", and hoping more discussion can clarify that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 7 August 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.

1000th millennium and others

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 no consensus. No consensus prior to the relist, and no further comments after the relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirects, unneeded. -- Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 21:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Just delete them if you deem them unneeded. Matthew Cenance (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MatthewCenance, none of the CSD apply to these redirects, nor does PROD apply for redirects. As such, this would be the only appropriate venue. (That said, delete per nom.) – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, I've changed my !vote to keep all. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 15:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 7 August 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.

Em engine

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 no consensus. No consensus prior to the most recent relist, and no additional comments after the relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deletion. EM Engine is not an established term for the RF resonant cavity thruster. Someone confused it with "EM Drive", which is an established term. The sites that can be found by searching EM Engine all use EmDrive or EM Drive. Heptor (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 7 August 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.

Thai peoples

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 Ethnic groups in Thailand which has emerged as a nice compromise option from the deadlock between Thai people and Tai peoples. Tai peoples is already prominently linked in the lede, and I'll add a ((confused)) hatnote to Thai people. -- Tavix (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In plural, this is more likely to be a typo meant to refer to the multiplicity of ethnic groups known as Tai peoples, of which Thai is one out of many. Originally redirected to Tai peoples by User:Saimdusan in 2008, retargeted to Thai people by User:Unreal7 in 2012. Paul_012 (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if consensus can be formed on a target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 7 August 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.

Fancy food

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 no consensus. No consensus prior to the relist, and no further comments after the relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's close enough semantically that I wouldn't nominate this for deletion in a vacuum, but there's possible confusion with the pet food brand Fancy Feast. signed, Rosguill talk 17:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 7 August 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.

Hannibal (2006)

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) 16:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


None of the subtitles for these redirects appear to actually be associated with the film. signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill What do all these notices saying the redirects I've added have "been reviewed" mean?

I suspect it means someone has complained about me correcting the title somewhere, so have asked for it to be checked, along with all the alternative titles.

I'm not entirely sure where I got all the alternative titles from but I suspect I got:

Danstarr69 (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I had no idea that these were from foreign language versions. That having been said, that means that they fall under WP:FORRED––because it's originally an English-language production, we don't need to have redirects for all the different translations. signed, Rosguill talk 21:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hannibal: The Fall of Carthage, retrieved 2019-07-19
  2. ^ "Hannibal: The Fall of Carthage". DocumentaryTube. Retrieved 2019-07-19.
  3. ^ Hannibal: The Fall of Carthage, retrieved 2019-07-19
  4. ^ "Jeffrey Slayter | Hannibal: The Fall of Carthage". Retrieved 2019-07-19.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 7 August 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.

ΜBTC

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 no consensus. No consensus prior to the most recent relist, and no further comments after the most recent relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "microbitcoin" (μBTC) subdivision of the Bitcoin. It is not a plausible typo for millibitcoin (mBTC) because it is a mixed-script redirect. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 06:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 7 August 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.

What wp is not

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 20#What wp is not

C13H8OF

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. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C13H8OF was created by mistake: formula of 4,4'-Difluorobenzophenone is C13H8F2O not …FO (or …OF). I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula C13H8OF. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 19:29, 7 August 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.

C3H6F2NO

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. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C3H6F2NO was created by mistake: there is no N in formula of 1,3-Difluoro-2-propanol. I have not found molecule in enWiki with formula C3H6F2NO. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 19:00, 7 August 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.

Bushinryu

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. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, fancrufty. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 7 August 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.

Let's Sing (video game series)

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. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The target article doesn't mention Let's Sing or its developer Voxler. signed, Rosguill talk 17:38, 7 August 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.

Rural Transit

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. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague to be useful (potentially may even be a notable topic in itself). signed, Rosguill talk 17:20, 7 August 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.

David Jacob (baseball)

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 via G7.. Has been deleted via G7. (non-admin closure) StrikerforceTalk 20:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Player has retired from professional baseball, per his profile on milb.com; IMO, no reason to keep this redirect, which is currently pointing to the last team for which he played. In hindsight, it was a stretch on my part to create it. StrikerforceTalk 16:31, 7 August 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.