< September 18
September 20 >

September 19

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 19, 2022.

Narrowing (computer science)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Narrowing (computer science)

Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal 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. ✗plicit 14:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of this name being used to designate thos organisation. I could not find a RS saying this organisation uses this name.
Therefore, this redirect should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt because of the hesitation to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:27, 19 September 2022 (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.

Orconectes hartfieldi

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 restored article and moved to Faxonius hartfieldi. Even though participants are split between deleting and restoring, they all agree on the fact that an article at the Faxonius title should exist. So, that's why I decided to go ahead and restored the stub that already existed at the previous title, without prejudice to nominating at AfD if deemed necessary. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faxonius hartfieldi was moved from genus Orconectes to Faxonius in 2017. Also the redirect page contains Categories which is just weird. As the redirect will take users to the wrong genus, it should be deleted. Then, hopefully the red link will prompt somebody into creating a species page that can contain the required Categories 86.17.100.205 (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another attempt at retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:26, 19 September 2022 (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.

Orconectes australis

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 restored articles. Without prejudice to nominating at AfD if needed. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally acepted practice that non-fossil taxa should generally be redlinked to encourage article creation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In this case, we can use the ((ill)) templates to link to matching articles in French and Portuguese, respectively. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These have a history as articles, but were turned into redirects. They were stubs no inline citations, but the respective French and Portuguese articles are stubs with no inline citations (and no information beyond what was in the English articles). I don't see any point to linking foreign language articles when the English article could just be restored. Plantdrew (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:21, 19 September 2022 (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.

Prime Minister of Guatemala

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Prime Minister of Guatemala

Bronn-Char (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Bronn-Char (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

Impact of Brexit

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 Brexit#Impact. ✗plicit 14:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is from a move and therefore gets a ton of page views (especially because it is linked to from certain places), but this is a WP:SURPRISE to me. I was expecting an article about how Brexit has impacted the UK, not how Brexit was predicted to have impacted the UK. I would love if there were an appropriate place to retarget to, but otherwise this should be deleted under WP:REDYES to encourage article creation. TartarTorte 13:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget, now that we have a section on Brexit's actual impacts. However, the hatnote should not be replaced because the link between "Impact of Brexit" and Brexit's predicted impact is too unintuitive to warrant a hatnote. A link to Predicted impact of Brexit can be integrated, however, if it is not already done. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2022 (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.

Todd Phelps

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 MCU disambiguator, delete full name. There's only been participation from one editor other than the nominator, but their suggestions appear to address the nominator's concerns. signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at redirect target, and not a notable character (only appeared in a small role in one TV episode, and not expected to appear again). InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 19 September 2022 (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:Foster (2023 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 restore page. ✗plicit 14:29, 26 September 2022 (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.

NPGP

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26#NPGP

Two-way selection system

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 delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this phrase in the target article. The redirect was created in 2011 a few minutes after the original article was created (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two-way_selection_system&oldid=441118250) - the topic is one of many student concerns that eventually led to the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. The phrase is not notable - for example Google search "Two-way selection system" has only 1,250 results, with no mention of China in the top ten results. DarylKayes (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2022 (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.

Even more "upcoming" no longer "upcoming"

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 is clear at this point that there is a consensus to delete "upcoming" redirects where there is no project by that name that is upcoming. Relisting has only solidified this consensus, and there is no reasonable prospect that further discussion will yield a different outcome. BD2412 T 02:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another 105 of these. Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#More "upcoming" no longer "upcoming", Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Target subjects no longer "upcoming", etc. These redirects have no significant edit history other than redirections, and do/should not have any incoming links from the "article" space. Steel1943 (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete, I don't mind. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is in regards to Sister (upcoming film) unless specified otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that both Sister (upcoming film) and Sister (Upcoming film) should be deleted. The film eventually came out under the name Music (2021 film), and the name had been changed before production. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Page views alone should not be the deciding factor in deletion discussions. These redirects are inherently inaccurate and misleading to readers, and it has been the long-standing consensus to delete these redirects regardless of page views and closeness to release date. FYI, Pinocchio came out four days ago, so of course you're going to see views in the past 30 days. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These redirects are not inherently misleading - indeed they are the exact opposite in many cases and being incorrect is not a justification to delete a redirect - we even have ((R from incorrect name)) that explains their utility. The purpose of redirects is to help people find the content they are looking for, and large numbers of page views are the most objective evidence that they are doing that it is possible. We routinely keep ((R from move)) redirects and being moved only four days ago is an extremely strong reason to keep. Consensus can, and evidently should change if it is has previously been used to justify actively harming the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that, then read the WP:NEWCSD requirements and craft a proposal at WT:CSD that meets all four of them. Nothing anybody has suggested so far has done anything other than clearly failed objective and/or uncontestable and commenters are strongly divided about whether it is frequent enough. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 05:56, 19 September 2022 (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.

Unreal Tournament (upcoming video game)

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. BD2412 T 02:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the subject of the redirect's target was cancelled, meaning the disambiguator or the redirect is erroneous to a point where it is not helpful. Also, a related redirect, Unreal Tournament (cancelled video game), exists and targets the same target. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:00, 19 September 2022 (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.

Upcoming film redirects targeting subject related to director or actor

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26#Upcoming film redirects targeting subject related to director or actor

Virginie-Occidentale

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. ✗plicit 00:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no special affinity between the French language and West Virginia. TartarTorte 00:43, 19 September 2022 (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.
More