Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 25

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

January 25

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 25, 2019.

Ruh roh

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) feminist (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirects that suffer from

WP:XY ambiguity. While Scooby-Doo does say "Ruh roh", so does the earlier character of Astro from The Jetsons, on whom Scooby-Doo's mannerisms are based. If a reader has really been reduced to searching for cartoon characters by onomatopoeia,, then Wikipedia shouldn't assume that they know which one they want. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep. I think this is adequately addressed at Scooby-Doo (character)#Personality. Astro doesn't have his own article, but there is a link in the aforementioned section should that be the character sought. -- Tavix (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix; I think there's sufficient context in that section. I'll add that for someone who doesn't know where "ruh roh" is from or what it implies, it would indeed be helpful to understand the context they are (sadly!) missing. That context is Scooby, not Astro, so the current target makes sense. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:55, 1 February 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.

Soda (drink)

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of the discussion was Retarget all to Soda#Food and drink (speedy), considering that the nominator has essentially withdrawn their delete vote, and all other participants commented for this as well, so might as well go ahead and get this done. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per

WP:XY of Soft drink or Soda water (→ Carbonated water), both listed at the DAB at Soda#Food and drink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.204.175 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Also redirect Soda drink to the same target. ComplexRational (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And redirect Soda drink to the same target.
Talk: Contribs) 23:48, 25 January 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.

Trump pee tape

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. I think the previously discussed redirects are sufficiently different from this title that there's no need or even necessarily desire to (re)create them following this discussion.

I'll be changing the section to

Trump–Russia_dossier#Kompromat_and_blackmail:_Trump. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

G4. 93 (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

If
Trump pee tape stands due to new information, I would think that all the previously deleted redirects should be recreated, unless that would require a deletion review first. 93 (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Not necessarily. Many of the specific terms or phrases addressed in that discussion (i.e., variations of "golden showergate") do not seem to appear as terms used for any purpose in the real world. bd2412 T 18:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Golden shower gate" has appeared "right in the headlines" of two IB Times articles. 93 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still many orders of magnitude less common than "pee tape". bd2412 T 20:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for the target, I would agree with BDD that
Trump–Russia dossier#Kompromat and blackmail: Trump makes more sense. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:15, 26 January 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.

Equation of State (Cosmology)

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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per

WP:RDAB: capitalized disambiguator. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like there's a policy discussion going on here, so we can do with an extra week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:30, 25 January 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.

™ Redirects

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirects with "TM" are undoubtedly

WP:COSTLY if created for every company and product many companies and products with a Wikipedia article. Note: these are only ones created before July 2013; later creations will come in a subsequent nom. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete: kill them all, very unlikely, very unnecessary. Lithopsian (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator's rationale is faulty because these are not created for every company and product with a Wikipedia article. Despite several of them existing for over a decade, they have not encouraged
    WP:MASSCREATION of TM redirects (which would require a consensus to create systematically). I don't see how the few that exist are harmful. -- Tavix (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • WP:MASSCREATION applies only to Bots. It is clear that human editors are capable of creating, many, many, many of these. There is no way for editors to monitor them (delete when the trademark is abandoned? What if the same trademark has many fields of use? Or belongs to one product in the US, but a different product in another jurisdiction?) And the contrary question is, what is the value of having them? (other than WP:ILIKEALLREDIRECTS) UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Why have you already deleted some, RHaworth? The discussion is not yet closed and you've voted in it. Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchyte: See this revision of this page. Steel1943 (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All that says is "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations". It has nothing to say on their use in page titles. 94.21.204.175 (talk) 02:17, 30 January 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.

Department of Transport (Victoria, Australia)

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 nomination withdrawn pending outcome of RfC at
(non-admin closure) Triptothecottage (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Background: The

Department of Transport (Victoria, 2019–)
was created it turned out there were dozens of redirects to and from variations on the title.

This one,

Department of Transport (Victoria, Australia), is now not linked from mainspace, provides no useful disambiguation, and merely adds to the confusion. Triptothecottage (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

  • There’s no logical reason Department of Transport (Victoria) couldn’t a disambiguation for any such entities, which is why deleting this redirect makes sense. Realistically, however, there is little to no prospect of such disambiguation being required: any related government entity in North America would doubtless be named the Department of Transportation, but as per the policy
    WP:NATURALDIS, that would be a natural disambiguation. Moreover, relatively few places listed at Victoria
    have government jurisdictions attached.
I’d add that is is extremely common practice for articles about Victoria, Australia to forego further disambiguation when none is necessary, even when it might be plausible by your standards: e.g.
WP:TITLE
applied in this precise context.
I’d also like to note that Steel1943 has edited Victoria during this discussion to make Victoria, BC appear more prominently, which I think is inappropriate given the basis of his arguments here. The layout of the dab page is not germane to this RfD discussion, but I do not believe Victoria, BC – a metropolitan area, population 350,000 – is self-evidently as significant a topic as Victoria, Australia – a sovereign polity of 6 million people – simply because it is North American. Triptothecottage (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did edit Victoria because it's blatantly not clear which one has more primary than the other per pageviews and had absolutely nothing to do with where either one is located, considering that I did not make that claim in my edit (which interesting enough seemed to be disregarded as I even made mention of the pageviews in my aforementioned edit.) Either way, your previous comment seems to be a total
strawman/red herring given Victoria is not directly related to the fate of this nominated redirect, and in fact, none of your aforementioned comment has yet to disputed, in even the least, my "Keep as a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}" comment. Steel1943 (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Not a straw man or a red herring – I was not critiquing your argument for keeping this redirect on the basis of your character or trying to distract from the topic at hand. I was merely observing your logic here is thus: There are other places called Victoria that might have a DOT, and one of them, Victoria BC, is particularly signficant, and therefore this disambiguation might be useful. There was no urgent need to refactor
POINTy
behaviour in an attempt to strengthen the second premise of your argument.
I won’t press the issue any further though, and I will instead say that I did show it was common practice to apply the article title precision policy to Victoria articles by foregoing additional disambiguation when none is needed. That is a direct response to your “R from unnecessary dab” argument – just because we can and because a template exists for the situation doesn’t mean we should in this case.
However, my continuing position is that this redirect is not useful, potentially confusing, and should thus be deleted. Every other bridge can be crossed if and when we ever come to it. Triptothecottage (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Triptothecottage: Thank you for your clarification, and my apologies on the misunderstanding. Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DABCONCEPT
begins "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article", but we're fully past proposing disambiguation here!
To try to be of some help to the poor closer of this admittedly legalistic rant, the redirect in question should be kept as things stand, but it's far from clear to me that the target page should not be changed. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The situation, in a nutshell, is that there have been several entities in Victoria that have, for discrete periods, exercised governmental authority over transportation. There is nothing ambiguous here. There is merely a chronology. bd2412 T 17:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic, though, is something like
    Victoria (Australia)#Transport, but perhaps they should be, and that could be a natural target. And aren't SIAs and CONCEPTDAB articles different things? --BDD (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: It’s occurred to me that the presence of Transport for Victoria is probably clouding the issue here. If that was not there, it would clearly not be a concept dab, especially with the addition of the 1992–96 Department of Transport: it’d be a plain and simple name disambiguation.

Making this a concept dab is a complete misunderstanding of the topic. There are dozens of agencies which have or had responsibility for transport in Victoria, and the vast majority don’t belong in an article by this title. A Department is a specific type of government agency. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can a complete article be written on all agencies that "have or had responsibility for transport in Victoria" without mentioning these three? bd2412 T 04:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
Bd2412: If I was writing Transport in Victoria#Governance or History of transport in Victoria, sure, I'd mention them, among dozens of others. As I said, I'm more than happy to remove Transport for Victoria as I wouldn't propose including Department of Infrastructure or Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources. I don't see what this has to do with anything on a redirect policy basis and especially not for the redirect in question. There are/were three distinct entities in Victoria which share the name "Department of Transport", which need to be individually disambiguated from each other and from other agencies across the world which also share the name. For that reason, Department of Transport (Victoria) could conceivably refer to any of these three agencies. But it wouldn't plausibly refer to other sub-departmental agencies. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
A disambiguation page is merely a navigational device that we use when there is no other option for navigation. In this case, the relationship between the topic allows for navigation to be accomplished through the article covering all three topics at their next higher level of abstraction. bd2412 T 14:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a
surprising and ridiculous outcome, directing a reader looking for something called the “Department of Transport” in a Victorian context to an article linking to dozens of agencies, only three of which have actually been known as the Department of Transport. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Given the variety of names that jurisdictions give to their agencies, don't you think that a person searching for the "Department of Transport" in "Victoria" is interested in finding out about the department in Victoria that is responsible for transport, even if the name of that department happens to be something like "Department of Infrastructure" or "Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources"? bd2412 T 04:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point in one sense, but I don't think it's a useful argument because it doesn't work in reverse: that is, we don't assume that someone looking for "Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources]] is looking for all departments that at some point had charge of those things. There's also plenty of subject matter very close to this where we don't make that assumption - for example, Public Transport Victoria (someone could be looking for Transport in Melbourne#Public transport) or Victorian Railways (someone could be looking for Rail transport in Victoria).
But is any of this germane to this RFD about
Department of Transport (Victoria, Australia)? Yes, there's a big mess to be sorted out here, but perhaps we can refocus on this one redirect that provides nothing useful to the shemozzle. Triptothecottage (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Why would it need to work in reverse? The phrase "Department of Transport" is a basic generic combination, and consistent with other jurisdictions (Department of Transport (Western Australia), Department of Transport (South Africa); and numerous "Ministry of Transport" or "Department of Transportation" titles). In short, a reader looking for information about the department with authority over transportation is unlikely to know or even care what the specific variations in this department's formal title are or have been, particularly where departments have been temporarily merged under lengthy titles; they are going to want to know about how the jurisdiction in question governs transport. We need to inform them, for example, that "[i]n Australia, following an election, it's common for the incoming government to rearrange the departments" (if this can be cited to a source). Where is the single page that readers can go to in order to be informed of this tendency for the department with authority over this area to be renamed and reorganized, and to see just how this has transpired over the years? bd2412 T 14:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

Ministry of Transport and Department of transportation both acting as high-level articles describing the same concept, with a failed merge in the middle of last year. Is the best next step to take to draft an RFC with a broader scope to get consensus on how to treat this topic? Would any of you be able to help with that? Obviously that would involve withdrawing this nom. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:16, 28 January 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.

Media of the Australia

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 per
Media of Australia now that I have deleted the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete the redirect, because it is not a term that would exist in normal text, and causes the "Infobox newspaper" (which seems to be the only thing "using" it) to display "Media of the Australia" instead of the correct "Media of Australia". See Template_talk:Infobox_newspaper#Media_of_the_Australia Mitch Ames (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Being the person who created the redirect and looking at my contribs around that date, I can't see any reason why I created it. Nat965 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible ("the Australia" is not used). ComplexRational (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible search term.
    Talk: Contribs) 21:43, 25 January 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.

Rise of Medieval Infantry over Cavalry

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 4#Rise of Medieval Infantry over Cavalry

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, that is how you write out 10^60, a British decillion, But no, no one is going to type that many zeros and commas into any search box, anywhere. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:51, 25 January 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.

Egg Gang

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.
Flooded w/them 100s 11:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

No mention of "Egg Gang" in article it redirects to, which is at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/@world record egg). Redirect was originally a dup which was then deleted under A10. CoolSkittle (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That is the name of the Instagram account which is what the page is about.  Nixinova  T  C  04:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because it's a joke. WP does not catalog memes. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia. Ben5218 (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The AfD for the target article was closed to "no consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's mentioned in a reference, and an obvious enough connection. It would probably be good to mention it in the body. Unlike the delete voters (with respect), this is not a comment on the target article itself, which I likely would've voted to delete. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reasonably synonymous. As long as the article exists, this should as well. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:42, 28 January 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.

Ascending chain

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) 17:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of term in target article. PamD 10:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:43, 25 January 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.

MAS 78

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 6#MAS 78

Pre$cription For Power

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 4#Pre$cription For Power

American Studies Journal

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 6#American Studies Journal

Hidden Fences

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. Killiondude (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Years later I still do not understand why this gaffe, that was clearly just a simple mistake when reading nominations, is being redirected here as if it’s a real thing. It’s kind of racist. Hidden Fences is not a real movie—it doesn’t exist! Hidden Figures is a movie, Fences is a completely unrelated movie yet my previous attempts to compromise by distinguishing the two were removed without explanation. Can we please just delete this already? People know “Hidden Fences” is not the movie. Trillfendi (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • High-profile gaffes may make likely search terms. See Adele Dazeem (RfD). We could debate at length the role of racism in the original gaffe, but I don't at all think that keeping this would be racist on our part. Apparently, someone made a play of Hidden Fences, though the playwright is not currently notable. I'm not saying keep or delete at this point—just "not so fast". --BDD (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this really depends on whether the gaffe [1] [2] was discussed in either of the film's articles or the
    WP:XY and you might as well redirect to Pet fence which talks about invisible fences. Tobi (over at Draft:Tobi (musician)) has a song called Hidden Fences. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a common flub of the movie's name, not even just by Michael Keaton at the Globes. [3] Nohomersryan (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think we're left with this being
    WP:XY with Fences. Note that there's also mention of an art exhibit by this name at Genevieve Gaignard. Search results should work here. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per BDD. (I was neutral until I saw their comment.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:43, 6 February 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.

Auto accessories

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 Automotive aftermarket. --BDD (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Redirects to category space are strongly discouraged, and these redirects would be better targeted at a mainspace article such as Automotive aftermarket, since the category is nowhere near comprehensive and thus not that useful as a list. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CCC
seems to be happening, so allowing more time to ensure this is the current consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:59, 25 January 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.

Shoot The Pyramid

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. Not an overwhelming discussion or anything, but the tainted creation and lack of mention at the target page lead me to find for the delete voters. --BDD (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

created by now blocked account

WP:ANI. For the redirect, the target article Stargate (pinball) had no context of Shoot The Pyramid, so i nominated the redirect to deletion. Matthew hk (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should note that, since I'm involved here, I think it's fine to keep per my comment above. Not likely to refer to anything else, and it seems reasonable to add a note about it to the target. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:55, 25 January 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.

Lewis' law

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. Robert McClenon, you may proceed with acceptance. Do include a hatnote for the journalist. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph to which this redirect points has been deleted, leaving this as a redirect to nowhere. The "law" is nowhere mentioned in the current text of the article, so that the redirect is misleading.

This redirect interferes with acceptance of

Draft:Lewis' law, which is unrelated. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Request redirect be deleted.

@
Draft:Lewis' law... Steel1943 (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
User:Steel1943 - capitalization corrected - isn't case sensitivity annoying? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Growthandform: It doesn't matter that there is inconsistency elsewhere between Lewis, Lewis' and Lewis's, or what the most popular form is elsewhere. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style which we use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The real question is whether the sense referring to Helen Lewis is sufficiently
    notable for an entry in the article, then a redirect is inappropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'm saying it is notable, and that disambiguation will be available in due course with the hatnote I propose above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under the condition that
    Draft:Lewis' law and adds a hatnote to Helen Lewis (journalist) on that article. This appears to be a good-faith request and I see no good reason to object to it. feminist (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:51, 25 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_25&oldid=1138582583"