Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 7

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 delete. I deleted this as a CSD G8 broken redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Unnamed Lucknow IPL Team → Unnamed Lucknow IPL Team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I have become involved in a bit of a mess of redirects to and from Draft space that could do with clearing up. Seems this page has been at various of

I've CSDed some of the mainspace to draft redirects, which have now been deleted so hopefully this will all be a lot less messy soon!Spike 'em (talk) 16:59, 7 January 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.

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 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Guangzhou İkiz Kuleler → Guangzhou Twin Towers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per

• Delete per nom. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.
  talk page 20:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• English Church, Balestrand  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete
   ] 

• Delete. Typo no more likely than any number of others. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:31, 14 January 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.

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. -- Aervanath (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Well Effect → Barnum effect  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target article doesn't mention the well effect, and it's not clear from the content of the article that was replaced with a redirect why it would point there. Based on looking at the website it linked to, it's just an organisation and isn't clearly relevant to the barnum effect. The only feasible link I can think of is defamatory (barnum effect is associated with gullibility, trickery, etc). Xurizuri (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment looking at the edit history of the redirect, it was originally about the website, a health website, and not the Barnum effect. There is a different topic at Wells effect that this could be a typo for. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert and CSD
    db-advert}} it -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • This was created as a redirect in 2005 to
      WP:G11 does not apply. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Agree with Tavix, clearly not G11 both because of the older redirect and because it was changed back to a redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since reversion to the article is undesirable and an AfD would certainly result in deletion or redirection, but there does not seem to be a useful/appropriate redirect target. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: this is a former promotional article which should have been deleted a long time ago. Veverve (talk) 15:05, 14 January 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.

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 00:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Currency/new → Template:Currency  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary old relic redirect. Gonnym (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 15:06, 14 January 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.