< November 19
November 21 >

November 20

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 20, 2021.

Quondam

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. Thanks to the IP for the legwork. --BDD (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a Wiktionary soft redirect. This is simply a word, meaning 'former[ly]', but is redirecting to the bio of someone once nicknamed "Lord Quondam". Actually, it could redir internally to an anchor at List of Latin phrases (Q), if an entry for this term were added to that list. Regardless, it's highly probable that the average reader looking up "quondam" here is trying to find out what this term means, as they would with "quantum", not looking for an obscure bio that doesn't relate to the word but only to the longer phrase "Lord Quondam".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:22, 20 November 2021 (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.

Unofficial

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 soft redirect to Wikt: unofficial. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"unofficial" does not mean "person who is not an official" but rather "not officially established". The related sense of "official" is only described at the Official (disambiguation) page, so it might make sense to convert this into a Wiktionary redirect? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2021 (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.

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

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) CycloneYoris talk! 00:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is an all-caps redirect like this really necessary? We don't have all-caps redirects from most domain names and I'm unaware of an all-caps styling being common for this one. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:22, 20 November 2021 (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.

Kernel (Computer Science)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28#Kernel (Computer Science)

Sonic Riders 3: Sky Track

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. MBisanz talk 04:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this redirect was created-possibly a fan's idea for the name of Sonic Free Riders when that was in development? Plus, a Google search doesn't bring up anything relevant. Regards, SONIC678 17:28, 20 November 2021 (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.

This is the day which the Lord hath made or Anthem for Wedding of Princess Anne

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28#This is the day which the Lord hath made or Anthem for Wedding of Princess Anne

List of Wagle ki Duniya - Nayi Peedhi Naye Kissey Episodes

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. MBisanz talk 04:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect to the draft namespace and as such would normally be deleted per WP:R2. However, WP:DRAFTIFY suggests that you should only draftify an article if it was recently created or if an AfD discussion closes as draftify. This article has been around since June and I'm not sure if this is too old. Stefan2 (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2021 (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.

India at the 2022 Winter Olympics

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 procedural close. No longer a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Country has not qualified and unlikely to do so, and therefore this redirect is misleading. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2021 (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.

West Trenton Line (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 Procedural Close. Nomination withdrawn due to incorrect listing. (non-admin closure) snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 14:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

West Trenton Line (SEPTA) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as it is a running rail-line not a proposed, not-yet-started-construction on rail line of the same name. Proposal is to:

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.

Technoblade (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 delete. MBisanz talk 04:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some more redirects about mostly non-notable Youtubers that redirect to a page that doesn't really cover their full work. See FlyingKitty for another example. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all per G7 @Explicit? @98.179.127.59, if you find any more of these (I think I linked to a few at the previous discussion) then you can give me a list on my talk page, and I'll mass-tag them for G7. ― Qwerfjkltalk 12:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: Due to substantial edits made by others, these redirects no longer qualify for G7. ✗plicit 13:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@98.179.127.59 In that case, I'll just tag them for RfD. ― Qwerfjkltalk 13:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2021 (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.

Repubulique du Rwanda

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. As there is no justification for this misspelling. Jay (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misspell of French-language word. Sun8908 Talk 09:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:06, 20 November 2021 (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.

Sporting goods store

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. MBisanz talk 04:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target page does not mention stores, shops, retailers etc., which is assumed given the name of the redirect. I suggest retargeting to Category:Sporting goods retailers. Utfor (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:05, 20 November 2021 (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.

36.6

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. The number without a context (unit of temperature) is too ambiguous for the target of human body temperature. Jay (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is ambiguous. The human body temperature article is easy to find if that's what the searcher wants, but "36.6" (just a number, not a temperature) has many other potential meanings. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:03, 20 November 2021 (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.

Earl of Bute

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 both to Marquess of Bute#Earls of Bute (1703). Very little participation after three relists. Though I see there's consensus for retargeting both of them to the same target. A separate RfD can be opened for "The Earl of Bute" if someone is dissatisfied with this outcome. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's helpful to have these 2 redirects pointing to different places. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second choice: Retarget both to John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute. page views show he is the most read, though we don't know which name people sought him under, but the two redirects should go to the same place. PamD 10:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need consensus for "The Earl of Bute".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:02, 20 November 2021 (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.

Pipelinks

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. MBisanz talk 04:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name of an obscure company that briefly appears at target which could be easily mistaken with WP:PIPELINK. I propose deletion or a retarget to the aforementioned guideline as to not confuse readers. CycloneYoris talk! 23:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:02, 20 November 2021 (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.

Draft:Imran Ali

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) 22:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect title redirect —AFreshStart (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:00, 20 November 2021 (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.

Template:MCN

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 and retarget to Template:More citations needed, respectively (i.e., both will point to Template:More citations needed). Numerically, there was equal support for both this course of action and deleting/deprecating both shortcuts. Clearly there was no appetite for the status quo, and little support for targeting both to Template:Medical citation needed, but beyond that, this was tricky to call consensus on. I could've invoked WP:NCRET, and the outcome would've been the same.
Fortunately, transclusions have been dealt with during the course of discussion. My thanks to whoever helped make that happen. Notably, there are none in mainspace. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For some odd reason, Template:MCN points to Template:More citations needed, while Template:mcn points to Template:Medical citations needed. These two redirects probably should point to the same spot, given that the only difference between them is capitalization, which is confusing. I've noticed that the all-caps redirect only has less than five transclusions whereas the all-lowercase redirect has several hundred transclusions. Therefore, I propose that the all-uppercase redirect be retargeted to Template:Medical citation needed.

A small amount of cleanup will be needed to insert the appropriate templates where the the all-uppercase redirect is currently being used, though I believe that the extent of work (fixing less than five transclusions) would be so small as to not have a bearing on the decision to retarget the redirect. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 11:00, 20 November 2021 (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.

Rainbow Dash

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 Multiple retargets. Each redirect has been retargeted to their respective article and section as described in full detail by Pamzeis. Tamzin and Sonic678 if you can both help me out and add links to the current targets I would greatly appreciate it. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony has had five different "generations" since it started in the 1980s. The fourth generation, which My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic was produced during, is likely the most well-known one, but it certainly isn't the only one that people might look for. Many of the names of characters from that show have been taken from ponies from older generations.

Rainbow Dash, Scootaloo, Sweetie Belle, Pinkie Pie, Rarity, and Cheerilee (Her name is misspelled in the redirect to the Friendship Is Magic page. The redirect where her name is spelled correctly goes to List of My Little Pony Earth ponies.) have all been major characters during the third generation, which ran from 2003 to 2010, before having their names reused for the fourth. Spike and Applejack have both appeared in media for the first generation, which was in the 1980s, as well as the third and fourth generations. Fluttershy, one of the main characters in Friendship Is Magic, first appeared during the third generation as a relatively minor character, but that doesn't mean that readers may not try to search for information on the older version.

Overall, I believe that it would be more helpful to the reader to retarget these to the appropriate all-generations character lists (List of My Little Pony characters#Dragons for Spike; List of My Little Pony Earth ponies for Cheerilee, Pinkie Pie, and Applejack; List of mainline My Little Pony ponies#Pegasus ponies for Rainbow Dash, Fluttershy, and Scootaloo; and List of mainline My Little Pony ponies#Unicorn ponies for Sweetie Belle and Rarity). Doing this would be beneficial to both a reader who was looking for information about the older versions of the ponies as well as to a reader who was unaware of the ponies' appearances in earlier generations because they could learn a bit about them from the list.

As for Baby Bouncy, she only ever appeared during the first generation, so targeting her to the Friendship Is Magic list is illogical. She should definitely go to List of mainline My Little Pony ponies#Pegasus ponies. Evil Sith Lord (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 10:41, 20 November 2021 (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.

Balkan football stadia

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 & take to AfD. It's obvious that consensus is running to restore the articles and take to AfD, so I'm withdrawing the RfD and doing so. (non-admin closure) Ravenswing 11:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following a string of related RfDs and AfDs, where it was properly determined that a number of soccer stadium articles lacked reliable sources and should be redirected to the articles of the teams that played there, this was one of three articles redirect, and promptly reverted by an editor who maintains (contrary to WP:GEOFEAT, which holds the opposite) that these stadia are presumptively notable and that proper sourcing is not required. I'm seeking to affirm the redirect. Ravenswing 06:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The subject is notable. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. The user failed to do the BEFORE. Also replacing an article with a redirect should be taken to AfD. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As per WP:GEOFEAT, the definition of notability is that these stadiums must meet the GNG. They do not. The burden of proof is not on an editor who stipulates that reliable sources do not exist. It is on the editor who alleges that they do. Ravenswing 14:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As said, this is not the place to discuss GNG. If you believe the articles do not pass it, you should send them to AfD. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you claim that this isn't the proper venue to discuss the notability of a subject, you should not have based your opposition on notability. Ravenswing 11:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not appropriate. Turning articles to redirects and sending them to RfD is basically gaming the system. And the pages should have been articles anyway, because that was the last stable version of the page. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. There's no formal requirement to go through AfD if an article has no reliable sources and there is an obvious redirect target. The WP:BURDEN is for those seeking the inclusion of content. If you have access to such reliable sources, then again A) it should be trivial for you to prove so and B) there is nothing preventing you from writing an article based on such sources. Returning to the pre-redirect versions, however, would be returning to versions which breach WP:V. If anything, even if you can twist guidelines in a way that seems to suggest this wasn't by-the-letter of them, Ravenswing should still be praised for correctly applying WP:IAR, i.e. "if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it". Which was done quite correctly here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is. "If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input." Sending it to RfD was wrong. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, both WP:BURDEN (The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material) and WP:IAR (keeping these as no-reliable-source stubs does not improve the encyclopedia) apply. You are the editor seeking to restore material, well then you're the one that needs to cite reliable sources. As simple as that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which, of course, you aren't going to do. Your pointy behavior and obstructionism would be less objectionable -- and your demand for more input from "football editors" more understandable -- if you were actually making productive edits. Which you aren't: you've made all of FIVE [3] constructive edits in articlespace to football articles in the last year. You are not at all invested in improving these articles; you just don't want anyone touching them. (And, frankly, I fail to see -- and you have failed to articulate -- what the difference is in a discussion here as to the appropriateness of a redirect as opposed to a discussion at AfD as to the appropriateness of a redirect. Surely you're not insinuating that the editors here are nincompoops incapable of making a reasoned judgment.) Ravenswing 13:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is irrelevant how many edits I made and where, so please stop with personal attacks and discreditation. And again, the appropriateness of this debate is AfD, because that is what the policies say. I did not make them up. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You should go read WP:NOTBURO (specifically: A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.) instead of digging your heels in. If you don't address the principal issue here (which was that no reliable sources were present, and that the articles are so short that what little content there is is better put at the relevant targets), then you're just wasting everyone's time, including your own, since you're not going to convince anybody. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic conduct dispute. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(shrugs) You've attacked the number of soccer edits I make, and you've been free from the start of your filibustering in making personal and ad hominem attacks. WP:BOOMERANG. Ravenswing 05:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not attacked anything. And what you did is not a procerual mistake, but the wrong use of RfD altogether, trying to game the system. This is the place to discuss targets of redirects, while you want to change the articles into redirects, what has to be done for each article individually at some other place. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahem. This was not an attempt to "circumvent" anything, and your accusations are unfounded and uncivil. Quite aside from that there is obviously a lively discussion here, I had this quaint notion that Redirects For Discussion was a proper venue to have discussions about redirects, rather than filing at AfD when I neither sought -- nor believe to be appropriate -- deletion of these articles. Moreover, I'd have imagined that anyone seeking to learn my rationale for the redirects would -- astonishingly enough -- surf the links on the article to this discussion to find out. (Hey, look, I set it forth in the paragraph at the top!) Silly me. Ravenswing 13:03, 29 November 2021 (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.

Variable-Response Research Aircraft

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. MBisanz talk 04:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Term applied to one modified Ryan Navion aircraft, no mention of it in the target article. Redirect contained unreferenced article text up to 2008 when it was redirected. Term caused confusion at another article (see Talk:Aircraft flight control system). Request deletion. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 04:59, 20 November 2021 (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.

Classical supernova

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28#Classical supernova

37°C

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. Jay (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, while 37°C is a normal human body temperature, it is not synonymous with that topic. Deletion seems appropriate here. signed, Rosguill talk 16:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless someone proves me wrong that as a search term, body temperature is the only plausible meaning. Note that there are the similar, but more specific redirects 36.6, 98.6°F, and 98.6°. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the redirect in response to 98.6° and 98.6°F. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 23:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:08, 20 November 2021 (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.

Barbarians (2021 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 delete. MBisanz talk 04:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page with a circular mention and 4 incoming links. Delete to encourage article creation. Narky Blert (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:07, 20 November 2021 (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.

List of schools, colleges and universities

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28#List of schools, colleges and universities

More