This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 29, 2023.
Working memory(Autism)
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 Moved page Working memory(Autism) to Working memory (autism) without leaving a redirect. Clear snow consensus to delete. Moved to conforming redirect for a plausible search term; the parenthetical is needed to distinguish from the general Working memory article. wbm1058 (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this redirect should be deleted. The title is missing a whitespace & there is no reason to keep this title with parentheses as a redirect. Nothing links to it and it's not a term someone might search for. TempusTacet (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RDAB. Redirects without a space before the parenthesis are nothing unusual and are routinely deleted here. Duckmather (talk) 19:10, 29 July 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).
WApp
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 WAPP. signed, Rosguilltalk 23:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not attested in the WhatsApp article. I did a quick Google search but I only see the term show up on Urban Dictionary and an (non-WhatsApp-produced) app add-on. I advocate retargeting WApp to WAPP, a dab page, to where WhatsApp can be added if need be. Silcox (talk) 17:32, 29 July 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).
Jack Smith (footballer, born 1901)
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.
redir left behind after article move from incorrect name.(updated - fix my bad recollection) No mention as an alt name at redir target. Widefox; talk 16:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not, as far as I can tell, created as a result of a page-move. The edit summary when created says it was "his name on ENFA player search" - searching on [1] (I can't link to an exact search as I don't have an account, but you can search for "Smith" and "Bradford City") shows they do indeed list him as Jack. I have no idea how reliable that source is but presumably they based this on some old print sources, perhaps an official programme. Jack is (maybe not these days but certainly in the past) a common diminutive of John, so it seems likely enough that he was know as Jack. A7V2 (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ENFA is indeed a reliable source, and the player was known as both Jack and John. 'Jack' is not mentioned at the target page due to WP:MOSNICKNAME. So I agree this should be a keep. GiantSnowman 09:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nom withdrawn. I've changed the R tag to "From an alternative name". Hmm, then MOSNICKNAME gives us a problem if we want such nicknames listed on dabs (in this case Jack Smith) - as the alternative name is only allowed a dab entry if WP:DABMENTIONed at the target, specifically WP:MOSDABthe redirect could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term that is already in the article's lead section. For example:, so it seems we have a rule inconsistency. I've restored the entry at the dab. Widefox; talk 22:12, 30 July 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).
Hardened BSD
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 14:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hardened BSD cannot be targeted at any place as it's a separate operating system. Also, citation about this subject is very thin. So, it's best to just delete it rather than redirect to nowhere. Greatder (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Hardened BSD" is found nowhere in enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom with no prejudice in the creation of an article for this OS in the future should it meet en.wiki's notability guidelines. --Lenticel(talk) 03:42, 31 July 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).
Instrumental version
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. Jay 💬 04:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The instrumental version can also refer to instrumental music. I'm sure this is a better retarget to the page Instrumental. 176.33.242.229 (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't agree that "instrumental version can also refer to instrumental music"; "version" wouldn't generally be used for a song or album which was instrumental to begin with. Remix defines "remix" very broadly and includes "additional versions of a song for use as bonus tracks or for a B-side" (emphasis added). The article also explicitly mentions "instrumental" mixes and tracks a number of times. Instrumental, however, doesn't appear to include any discussion of instrumental music in the context of alternative versions of music which originally had vocals. – Scyrme (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to instrumental. The instrumental version is an instrumental. Point it there. The instrumental version can also be the original version, and vocals are added in covers and remixes, and beatbox/acapella versions. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 20:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides being vague/ambiguous, it could also be considered a WP:PTM for various musical performances or recordings. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to instrumental; second choice is deletion. Both per above. Veverve (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the talk pages of current and proposed targets. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:03, 29 July 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).
Draft:Papua Tengah
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. Jay 💬 03:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant draft that cannot possibly be used as a redirect. The redirect "Papua Tengah" already exists. Keivan.fTalk 03:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless. No relevant history. DrKay (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not useful. --Lenticel(talk) 00:12, 31 July 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).
Draft:Papua Selatan
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. Jay 💬 03:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant draft that cannot possibly be used as a redirect. The redirect "Papua Selatan" already exists. Keivan.fTalk 03:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless. No relevant history. DrKay (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not useful. --Lenticel(talk) 00:12, 31 July 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).
Draft:Joseph Biden Jr.
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. Jay 💬 03:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant draft that cannot serve as a plausible redirect. A proper redirect with the same title already exists. Keivan.fTalk 03:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless. No relevant history. DrKay (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DrKay. 〜Askarion✉ 13:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: these can certainly be deleted but there's no need to be so bitey. They're just a new editor's drafting of mainspace redirects – the corresponding redirect already existed in this case, but not in the other ones. Zackson C., in the future don't be afraid to make the redirects yourself without drafting them, or if you are very unsure about them then use redirects for creation. J947 † edits 23:56, 29 July 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).
Draft:Victoria Alexandra Alice Mary
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. Jay 💬 03:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant draft that cannot serve as a plausible redirect. Not to mention that a proper redirect with the subject's full name already exists. Keivan.fTalk 03:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless. No relevant history. DrKay (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not useful. --Lenticel(talk) 00:12, 31 July 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).
Draft:Victoria Adelaide Mary Louisa
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. Jay 💬 03:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant draft that cannot serve as a plausible redirect. Not to mention that a proper redirect with the subject's full name already exists. Keivan.fTalk 03:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless. No relevant history. DrKay (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not useful. --Lenticel(talk) 00:13, 31 July 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).
Draft:Camilla, Duchess of Edinburgh
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. Jay 💬 03:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure why I have to start this discussion because this useless draft could have easily been deleted under the G6 criteria for maintenance but here we go. This draft is simply not needed. The creator's rationale included this sentence: "If Camilla, verified as having the title "Duchedd of Edinburgh", expand this draft page to a redirect page." That redirect already exists, so in short there is no need to keep this draft as a redirect. It is totally redundant. Keivan.fTalk 03:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless. No relevant history. DrKay (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as she was Duchess of Edinburgh for only 17 months. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 30 July 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).