Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 18

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 move Portal:Queen (band) to Portal:Queen. kingboyk (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Portal:Queen → Portal:Queen (band)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A confusing redirect given Portal:Queens regnant, Portal:Monarchy, Portal:Royalty exist as well. Turning to a dab is not helpful as many or all of the targets are under discussion for deletion or will soon be nominated for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig. A likely search term, and as long as there are currently multiple relevant portals a dab page makes sense. Iff all the target portals are deleted (which seems unlikely) then this can be deleted as G8. If all but one are deleted then it can just be boldly redirected to that portal. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC) (see below for updated recommendation. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]

It's almost a random word. There are also portals for Portal:Queen Elizabeth II and likely more. Let search do it's job. Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also Portal:Queens is a DAB page. Legacypac (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't put it more succinctly than Legacypac - "let search do its job".  — Scott • talk 23:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I'm not entirely convinced by the usefulness of a portal disambiguation in this case. Deryck C. 19:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per suggestions below. Deryck C. 16:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Portal:Queen (band) to Portal:Queen and hatnote to Portal:Monarchy. Portals on general things are plural, so "Portal:Queen" could only be a proper name. This is probably moot because the band Portal is at MfD, but just in case... -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and hatnote per Tavix, that's a better solution than disambiguation. I've taken a quick look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Music Portals by Moxy (where the band's portal is part of a group nomination) and I can see any of keep, delete or no consensus being the outcome so it may or may not be moot. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and add hatnote per Tavix and Thryduulf. Makes sense to me. - Paul^T+/_C 21:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold The MfD is ongoing with conversation at least somewhat active, and while I'm willing to close this discussion, I'd rather not enact the consensus here until that MfD has closed. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've noted the existence of this RfD and that it depends on the outcome of the MfD at the latter's listing at ANRFC. If this RfD is relisted before the MfD is closed, please update the link at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Music Portals by Moxy. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 20 May 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.

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. Redirect over a decade ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demon Beast (Kirby series), no evidence content was merged. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dinosaur Army (Kirby) → List of Kirby characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in any article including the target. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom unless a mention is added somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 19 May 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.

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 Discussion moved to Talk:Bombalai Hill since this is a move request. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Mount Bombalai → Bombalai Hill  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Need to delete the redirect for maintenance move to Mount Bombalai since a large number of source use "Mount Bombalai" than "Bombalai Hill" since 1960s. Night Lantern^halo? 08:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per Wikipedia:G6. You can just use the template {{db-move}}; there's no need to discuss this here as the page move seems uncontroversial. Geolodus (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geolodus: Thanks, already request before, but User:Jo-Jo Eumerus asking me to make a request here. Night Lantern^halo? 11:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my mistake. Geolodus (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close. What you're trying to do is move a page. If G6 has been declined you should take it to WP:RM. PC78 (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, I was thinking that the G6 was simply attempting to get rid of an unneeded redirect. If you need to make place for a move, then it's a valid G6 - tag it {{Db-move}}. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G6 only applies if it's clearly non-controversial. I know nothing about the subject but it's not clear that this is the case: [1], [2] PC78 (talk) 12:27, 18 May 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.

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 02:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fightful → Dirt sheet  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. StaticVapor message me! 18:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fightful is a wrestling news website that is possibly notable (it's used as a reference in a lot of articles). It may or may not be a dirt sheet, but even if it is this redirect is the equivalent of redirecting OK! to Gossip magazine - a specific magazine title redirecting to the article about the genre of magazine where is not listed is almost never going to be helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 19 May 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.

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 02:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pure Wrestling Assosiation → List of independent wrestling promotions in Canada  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target, and on top of that, appears to be an unlikely misspelling. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There appears to be a content dispute at the target about whether to include this and other promotions, but while it isn't listed there it isn't a good redirect. As for the misspelling, if there was an article about this association then it seems a plausible enough mistake to me, but it's worth noting that Assosiation has always been a red link but there are at least half a dozen instances currently in mainspace that I'm about to fix. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is correct that it is a misspelling, I screwed that up. I am very suprised though that Pure Wrestling Association is not mentioned on the list. It really should be. It's a wrestling promotion that has been around for at least 10 years.★Trekker (talk) 19:23, 19 May 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.