Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 3

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 List of recurring The Simpsons characters#grimes. (non-admin closure) feminist ^{Wear a mask to protect everyone} 02:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Grimey → Homer's Enemy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Grimy → Homer's Enemy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. I understand the connection because Homer Simpson did call him "Grimey" a few times in the episode; but considering he was a one-time character (not to mention that the term "Grimey" doesn't appear anywhere in the article), such a redirect is a stretch. (I didn't notify the creator beacuse he hasn't been on Wikipedia since 2014.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed that Grimy also redirects to the episode so that should be added.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 03:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to List_of_recurring_The_Simpsons_characters#grimes. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 03:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both per J947. Plausible search term, should go there where the character is discussed in more detail. Smartyllama (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2020 (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 no consensus. Delete has a narrow advantage in the votes, but there's a nontrivial amount of keep comments with sound arguments. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Guugle → Google  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nonsensical and unlikely typo. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The "oo" is Google is rendered as /u:/ in IPA, and a fair amount of languages use "u" to represent it. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 20:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – One u might be a weak keep because it is the same sound, but even that seems unlikely. I don't see any plausible scenarios at all with two u's, however. ComplexRational (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Implausible misspelling. Narky Blert (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, implausible. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; has high views and your view of implausibility is simply inferior to actual usage. The pageviews demonstrate actual usage as does this list of commonly mistyped URLs for google.co.us (the .usk domain is very similar in that list). In the list of misspellings, guugle is 28th on the list. Before you say that's not high, consider the 29,000 pageviews Google gets in a day. You can sense off that that the 28th most common misspelling would be quite a helpful redirect indeed. Who cares about so-called clutter, this redirect posits the best we can do for our readers. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 03:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edited. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 19:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per J947. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 08:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Not massively plausible, but not so implausible this otherwise harmless redirect should be deleted. Plus, at any rate, it's getting a decent amount of usage. 95 hits in the past 30 days alone. And I can't imagine those 95 were trying to get anywhere else on Wikipedia. Thegreatluigi (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete O and U are not together on a keyboard, so this is probably a misspelling in a language that uses "uu" in many words; a correct spelling in a language other than English would probably be deleted. A commonly mistyped URL for google.com would be a reason to keep, but based on the ranking of google.co.us, 28th most common for that is not. Peter James (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It is also the 28th most common misspelling of google.com. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 16:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably not real statistics - other misspellings are in the same position, including "google" in 15th for both. Peter James (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, your view of implausibility is simply inferior to actual usage – the actual usage being in the form of the pageviews. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 21:18, 7 April 2020 (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 no consensus. Participants seem evenly split on this one. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Xbox SeX → Xbox Series X  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

... no. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I don't think anyone would actually type this. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can guarantee people will type it for certain pictures on the Internet that exist, but not here. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 20:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As evidenced in my edit summary in creating this redirect, the nickname "Xbox Sex" has been covered by reliable sources such as Kotaku. Will likely receive heavy usage given its prevalence in video gaming forums. feminist (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case we might as well create SeXbox and redirect it to the same place. There's no mention of these nicknames in the target article, and all the tweets the Kotaku article is quoting have less than 500 likes on them - I'd hardly call it "viral". – numbermaniac 08:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a valid search term per Feminist. I don't see the harm in keeping this. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 20:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Searching "Xbox SeX" on the internet yields nothing but the Kotaku article and lots of "unrelated material". I really wouldn't call it prevalent. – OfficialURL (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pikachu's Beach → Pokémon Red and Blue#Pokémon Yellow  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Suggest retarget to Pokémon Yellow; which is where this is from. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere. Formerly an article for a day in 2009, but has remained a redirect since then. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not mentored at the target article of the Pokemon Yellow article.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pogeyman → Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely; Pokémon doesn't sound like this when said aloud. TheAwesomeHwyh 14:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I doubt anyone would think the sylable "poke" is pronounced "poge." --Diriector_Doc┝^{Talk
  Contribs}━━━┥ 17:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon new information from User:TheAwesomeHwyh, I'd say that Pogeymanz is a satire parody and should not redirect to Pokémon. My vote has not changed, but my reasoning has. --Diriector_Doc┝^{Talk
    Contribs}━━━┥ 17:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah; not sure why I didn't add that in a comment earlier. I had found it right after I nominated this. I guess I just forgot about this nomination, haha. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it looks like Tvtropes mentions this as a webcomic. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and also disagree with the relisting because it seems clear to me that the opinion of deletion hasn't changed, but merely the reason why it should be deleted. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The webcomic mentioned above doesn't appear to be notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Trump crash → 2020 stock market crash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not finding this event known by this name in reliable sources. Hog Farm (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete rather politically motivated redirect. Not seen any sources refer to it as "Trump crash" aside from politically oriented social media posts, and even those almost never do so. Juxlos (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I thought I'd find some sources on Google, but after checking three pages of results on four variations of my search terms, I didn't find anything that explicitly pointed to THIS event. Most are from 2018-2019, with a few back in 2017 opining about the results of the 2020 election, but nothing explicitly tying the term to this recent stock market crash. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Changing to Speedy delete in the hopes of this not being used as some circular neologism that finds its way back here. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Underlined for clarity, hope you don't mind. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 20:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Locke Cole, though I don't see the need for it to be speedy. It could develop into a frequent phrase but it has not yet, kind of a case of CRYSTAL here. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 20:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ambiguous with Glossary of contract bridge terms#CRASH item 2. Narky Blert (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems like a a redirect with political bias. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This looks to be a clear-cut case. I agree. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2020 (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 speedy keep. Justification provided, withdrawing nomination _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Lifeguard Arena → Henderson Pavilion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

From an internet search, it seems that while there is an arena in Henderson named the Lifeguard Arena, it is not the same as the Henderson Pavilion. If my assessment is correct, then this redirect should point to San Antonio Rampage, the team that is projected to play there _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Rosguill: Lifeguard Arena is planned to be built on the site of Henderson Pavilion.^[1] SportsFan007 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks for the source. Withdrawing this nomination. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:30, 3 April 2020 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hashachar → Hashachar Ha'ole  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Partial title match, could also refer to Birkot hashachar among other things ("hashachar" השחר just means "the morning" in Hebrew). I think that this is an unlikely search term and would suggest deletion per WP:PTM. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This rediredct is ambiguous and inhibits the use of Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous. No full-title matches, so not suitable for a DAB page. Narky Blert (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous and also as an unnecessary Hebrew-word search item in the English Wikipedia. Yoninah (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2020 (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 disambiguate. Without including "simpleton", which consensus agrees should not be at the target, there appears to be enough entries to warrant a disambiguation page. While the Keep !voters address the presence of "simpleton" at the DAB page, the other potential entries are left majorly unaddressed. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Simp → Strongly interacting massive particle  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nowadays used as a short form of simpleton. I feel disambiguation is probably appropriate here. —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 17:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note While it is a clipping of simpleton that would be only two uses and hatnotes are usually preferable to a DAB in that situation. MarnetteD|Talk 18:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Simp" is not mentioned in the article Simpleton, and until it is there's no need to change anything. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The scientific usage is clearly primary over some obscure slang meaning. Narky Blert (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note From a quick google search, there are probably enough external sources to add a "Simp" section to the "Simpleton" article, elaborating on the historical and modern uses of the word. However, even if "Simpleton" were to be excluded, a disambiguation still would include Strongly interacting massive particle, SIMP J013656.5+093347, and Simp pair —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 18:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments above. The scientific usage seems to be primary topic over the slang. Hog Farm (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore dab: the strongly interacting massive particle looks like a fairly obscure hypothetical particle, and unless some novel discovery propels it into the mainstream, I don't see a convincing claim for a primary topic status. Most uses of "simp" on wikipedia are somewhat surprisingly for one of the orders of Pahang (as SIMP) and as an abbreviation for Simplified Chinese (the latter, though not very relevant for deciding primary topics, certainly makes for a useful dab entry which can also point to Simplified). Additional entries can be added for the SIMP method broached in a section of Topology optimization (this topic alone accounts for more uses of "SIMP" than the particle in the first couple of pages of results on google scholar). The various songs, fictional characters etc, mentioned here and there are probably not worth bothering about, but a see also entry for the Simpsons (the Simps) will make sense. The use of simp as a synonym for Simpleton is documented in dictionaries so doesn't need to be mentioned in the target article. – Uanfala (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore dab per Uanfala _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Three out of five entries on the dab page proposed for restoration are WP:PTMs. Two additional WP:DABMENTION entries that weren't on the dab page: List of Datuk titles#SIMP and The Simp at Al St. John filmography. Solitary Islands Marine Park (also not on the dab page) appears to fail WP:DABABBREV. Don't see anything else that would belong in the main body of the dab page (rather than the "See also" section). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction it seems the abbreviation SIMP is actually used for Solitary Islands Marine Park [1][2], so I went ahead and added it to that article. (Though there's always the possibility that it gets reverted.) 59.149.124.29 (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per above, though I don't think the link to simpleton is necessary when there is the link to Wiktionary (I hate how unobtrusive it is though). — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 03:52, 5 April 2020 (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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Planck electric displacement field → Planck units#Derived units  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A Google search shows that this phrase only exists at Wikipedia. No one will search for this phrase. Hence delete. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Pointless redirect (as per Mark Viking). This seems to be the synthesis of an overactive imagination: the phrase seem to the product of a pattern that has been extended rather than that it might be used in the real world. —Quondum 20:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not at all a plausible search term. Many of the entries in that table look dubious, too (technically likely correct things that somebody made up one day), but that's a different issue. XOR'easter (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The same as Planck electric induction, isn’t electric displacement field a physical quantity? Planck electric displacement field is really a derived Planck unit, thus can be in the list of Planck units#derived units and can be made a redirect. —- Ahri6279 (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Truth Be Told (Upcoming TV series) → Truth Be Told (2019 TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, the target page is no longer "upcoming". Gabbe (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also, the qualifier is malformed: "u" should be lowercase. Narky Blert (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Absolutely no benefit will be gained by deleting this redirect. It passes K4, being at this title for 2/3 of a month. During the time this qualifier was untrue, it got fair views – presumably from old links. Why delete this redirect? — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 19:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Target is no longer upcoming. There is plenty of precedence that can be found in the RfD archives about deleting redirects such as this one. Steel1943 (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• County Route 527A (%county% County, New Jersey) → County Route 527 (New Jersey)#CR 527A  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• County Route 524A (%county% County, New Jersey) → County Route 524 (New Jersey)#County Route 524A  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• County Route 536A (%county% County, New Jersey) → U.S. Route 322 in New Jersey  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These %search terms% seem %unlikely%, with "%county%" being used instead of "county" (and getting %very few% %page views%). %Unless%, of course, %justification% can be %provided% for this, they should probably be %deleted%. Regards, %SONIC678% 16:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per %nom%. These look like delimited string variables in some programming language or other. Narky Blert (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I guess due to either a bug or unforeseen circumstance with Module:Jct and Module:Road data/strings/USA/NJ, there is no way to remove the "%County% County" portion of the link if the linked county road has an "A" suffix (e.g. CR 527A). New Jersey Route 33#Major intersections has an example of such a link. @Dough4872: (already notified anyway of this) and @Fredddie: I know are more familiar with this module and may work up a fix/workaround. If this is made, I will revise my vote to Delete. I do note that CR 524A and 527A exist signed only in Monmouth County and 536A exists unsigned only in Gloucester County. —Mr. Matté (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I didn't fuly understand the previous editor, but it doesn't seem like a reason not to delete this clearly unlikely search term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I probably created the redirect a while ago to get around a technical issue with the {{jct}} template. It’s no longer needed as the links were fixed and it’s not a likely search term. Dough4872 20:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears there’s links from the List of 500-series county routes in New Jersey page due to technical issues with the {{routelist row}} templates and still links in {{jct}} from articles. Dough4872 20:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that the template issues have been fixed, I have restored my delete vote. Dough4872 14:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant keep - Obviously, this shouldn't exist. But, a template is producing links to this, and I don't think we should delete it while the links are still running. If someone can fix the bug in the junction template, then I'll change to delete this. However, as it now stands, I think having these around in existent is the price we have to pay for the template bug. Hog Farm (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hog Farm as demonstrably helpful; where's the harm in keeping this? — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 20:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete now that it's fixed. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 19:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the others, with the provision that as soon as this bug is fixed, any admin is free to delete them without discussion. I guess that's a delete later vote? Nyttend backup (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The bug was fixed in [3]. -happy5214 10:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, as the bug has been fixed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and close per WP:SNOW since the bug has been fixed. –Fredddie™ 01:21, 6 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Giant Killing Characters characters → Giant Killing#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, not sure why someone would search for a list of "characters characters" rather than just characters. Regards, SONIC678 16:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Narky Blert (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree. This looks like a clear-cut case. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, the article wasn't at the title for long at all and the pageviews seem bot-driven. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 19:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete delete. Per nom. It's harmless, and leads exactly where you'd expect it to, but I honestly can't imagine many people typing this in. Thegreatluigi (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We go to to the gallery → Miriam Elia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• We go to to the Gallery → Miriam Elia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another seemingly unlikely repetition of a preposition. I think this has got to to go. Regards, SONIC678 15:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unlikely and unhelpful. Narky Blert (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unlikely word repetition. Hog Farm (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Also adding We go to to the Gallery to to this nomination.
• Delete, for the reasons above. Aisteco (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete G6. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I created these by mistake many years ago, so you can add a G7 Author requests deletion, to nomination. --Salix alba (talk): 21:31, 4 April 2020 (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 retarget to Emoticons (Unicode block)#pensive. There is consensus that the current target isn't helpful, but there's general agreement that (if not encouraged) there is at least precedent for Unicode redirects to point at the list. ~ mazca ^talk 18:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• U+1F614 → Sadness  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is the unicode for an emoji titled "pensive face" [4]. It doesn't seem to unambiguously indicate sadness or any other single emotion, and thus I would suggest deletion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Rosguill: There are a few other redirects like this lying around, from "U+1Fxxx" to an article about what the emoji represents. In general, I'm not sure how useful these are, since readers will most likely search the emoji itself rather than its Unicode codepoint, so I would be inclined to lean delete for this reason.

Also keep in mind that 😔 (the emoji itself) redirects to the same article. If U+1F614 is not deleted, both redirects should point to the same target. ComplexRational (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and I'm also inclined to delete this redirect 😔 for the emoji. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, upon second thought, I believe there may be a better target to a section on a code chart, so I would suggest retargeting to it. I don't have any current ideas on where that target would be, so if no alternate target arises, my vote will stand. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Utopes: Does your vote still stand now that a target has been found (see below)? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still am not in full support of the target, and but I have no preference over the outcome of this discussion. This brings into question all other emojis, and whether they should target the emoji code chart or target what they represent. Besides, we don't have any encylopedic content on this emoji or its code point, so the presence of a redirect would be misleading in this instance. Regardless, the codepoint as well as the emoji should have the same target. See WP:REMOJI for further information and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 29#🙃, which has become some sort of precedent for dealing with emoji or Unicode codepoint redirects. In this instance, the glyph is not clear, but the codepoint could potentially be redirected to the Unicode list.Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • My opinion is that emoji shouldn't point to what they represent in the first place, and instead go to the article in which the most information about the character itself is provided (that is, most often, the article about the Unicode block). There are enough people who don't even see what a character is, and on the other hand I wouldn't (and we shouldn't) expect a reader to search for a concept by putting the emoji that represents it in the search box. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• See above. I think retargeting to a code chart would be fine. Better target. Invalid^OS_talk 22:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget both (second choice) to Template:Emoji (Unicode block)#pensive. It's a CNR, but both sides are reader-facing; I don't see the problem with that. Personally, I think a tiny stub (firstsecond choice) on the emoji is the best way to go about it; the readers are searching up the emoji/code because they want to get information about the emoji; not merely its appearance or what it refers to. An alternative to that is lists of emojis bundled together; I don't really mind. For now, I'm meh. What should happen to the emojis should be sorted out soon, and it shouldn't be a whole jumble of things at the moment for easiness of change. I think that having a redirect from the Unicode is important however, if an emoji doesn't show up on their device but it gives them the Unicode then a redirect anywhere really gives them good information. Sorry for the jumbled, uncopyedited wall of thoughts. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 22:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the Descriptions table in the Emoticons (Unicode block) article is a better place for a redirect because it's an article, not a template (which can be transcluded into multiple articles). DRMcCreedy (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah that's a better idea. Retarget both to Emoticons (Unicode block)#pensive.

  • For 😔, the rcats should be {{R from Unicode character}}, {{R to anchor}}, and {{R printworthy}}.
  • For U+1F614, the rcats should be {{R from Unicode code}}, {{R to anchor}}, and {{R unprintworthy}}.

  — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 20:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like it is usual for Unicode redirects such as this to exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:R_from_Unicode_code&hidelinks=1&limit=500. Peter James (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of them are Basic Latin (U+0000–U+007F), Latin 1-Supplement (U+0080–U+00FF), or Braille Patterns (U+2800–U+28FF). These follow a pretty clear pattern, the rest appear to be somewhat randomly scattered across other blocks (only about five of these exist in the range U+1F000–U+1FFFF). So I would not say this is an accepted standard for every Unicode character, nor would I endorse the creation of ~143,000 new redirects. ComplexRational (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Emoticons (Unicode block)#pensive per above. Also do that with all the emoji in the block (with the corresponding anchor). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Silvaze → Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

So I'm thinking this one's just a little silly. The name "Silvaze" is almost certainly a name made by fans who romantically 'ship' two of the game's characters together (Silver and Blaze). The term is not mentioned anywhere in the target article. – numbermaniac 08:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not mentioned in the target, all a search turned up was fansites. Narky Blert (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2020 (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. --BDD (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Shidlovtza (Hasidic dynasty) → Biala (Hasidic dynasty)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The first word of this redirect and variations of it are mentioned in the target article, but there is no concrete evidence that the mentions in the article are for a "Hasidic dynasty" by this name and/or evidence that this is an alternative name for the target. So probably delete per WP:REDLINK otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the issue: what is the connection, and why isn't the connection in the target article? I'll look into this on the restday of Shabbat, and will get back on this after Shabbat. Since this is simple matter of checking the facts and adding them to the target article, if necessary, that should resolve the issue. Debresser (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the target article also mentions a Grand Rabbi of Shidlovtza as being the son-in-law of the Grand Rabbi of Biala. That is almost the definition of a dynasty. It is also a Hasidic dynasty, even if a minor one. Debresser (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, so ... shouldn't that mean that the subject of this redirect is a subject separate from the topic of the target page? Steel1943 (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to encourage article creation. The Shidlovtza dynasty is mentioned but there's virtually no information in the article that would be useful to readers searching for this term. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:25, 10 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• IIrish League 1966-67 → 1966–67 Irish League  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

II don't see why people would search "Ireland" with two "I's," also it gets far fewer pageviews than its target and less than its correctly spelled counterpart Irish League 1966-67. Regards, SONIC678 04:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. UUnlikely mmisppelling. Narky Blert (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DDelete as unlikely. GiantSnowman 13:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hhighly iimplausible -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Ddelete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Detele - Very uunlikely you are going have anyone search for it. HawkAussie (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree. This looks like a clear-cut case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:27, 7 April 2020 (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 speedy delete. All agree. Speedy closing mistake. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Javier Fernández (Spaniish politician) → Javier Fernández (Spanish politician)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This doesn't seem like a plausible typo for Spanish (although I'm sure people might search "Spanish" as "Spainish," I doubt that's the case for "Spaniish"). Delete, maybe? (Unless, of course, justification can be given for this spelling) Regards, SONIC678 04:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, was a spelling error on my side.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. @Ortizesp: You, as creator, could blank this redirect and tag it as {{db-author}} to get rid of it quickly. (How do I know that?...) Narky Blert (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, tagged it as {{db-author}}. Hopefully deletion goes smoothly.@Narky Blert:.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:G6. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Terrace, Briitish Columbia → Terrace, British Columbia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Britiish III Corps → III Corps (United Kingdom)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These don't seem like plausible typos, plus their targets seem to get WAAAAAY more page views than these two redirects do. Regards, SONIC678 04:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unlikely misspellings. Narky Blert (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:G6 unambiguously created in error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2020 (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 keep. Clearly no consensus to delete either redirect. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Video game list list → Lists of video games  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Full Joint List list for the Israeli legislative election, 2015 → Full Joint List for the 2015 Israeli legislative election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure someone would search a list of something as a "list list of something," these two also get relatively few page views compared to their targets (also, the first even less than its sister "List of lists of video games"). Regards, SONIC678 03:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unlikely duplications. Narky Blert (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Video game list list - Since the target article is a list of lists, I can see that being plausible. Delete the other. Hog Farm (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The first is a list of lists (that is to say a list list); the second is a list of the Joint List. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both, both are plausible search terms. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Shhhnotsoloud. The second one is the same situation as Full Likud list for Israeli legislative election, 2015 and Full Yesh Atid list for Israeli legislative election, 2015, with the sole difficulty that this political grouping (Joint List) happens to have "list" in its name. Nyttend backup (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2020 (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 WP:SNOW -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Tsar Alexander (disambaguation) → Tsar Alexander  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Malformed (disambiguation) qualifier. Page was at this title for four days, but no incoming links in the articlespace. Surely outside links didn't accumulate in four days. Hog Farm (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the usual reasons. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 31#Tzar Alexander (disambaguation). Narky Blert (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:G6 unambiguously created in error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2020 (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. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Vengeance (DJ) → Armada Music#Artists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Outback (DJs) → Armada Music#Artists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Elevation (DJ) → Armada Music#Artists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Cern (DJ) → Armada Music#Artists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• B&W (DJ) → Armada Music#Artists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Galavant (DJs) → Armada Music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target; cannot find another suitable target. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Similar nominations merged/combined together. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Not mentioned in the target, therefore useless. Narky Blert (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Bdien → Joe Biden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible misspelling. This page received 9 pageviews in the last 90 days compared to 12374 for the correctly spelled Biden and 3086396 for the target article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess this is possible as a misspelling for Bdin. – Uanfala (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an ambiguous misspelling. Narky Blert (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not useful. BeŻet (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Make disambiguation page so fat fingered users can get to Biden or Bdin with one more click. Samboy (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation pages are not lists of possible misspellings. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It’s unnecessary. Wikipedia does not have redirects of misspellings and typos. Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ma nam is geoffrey: See Category:Redirects from misspellings. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • But we should only create links for plausible misspellings. wbm1058 (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This redirect msay cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Implausible typo which implies dyin' so this could be misconstrued as an attack on the aging politician. Not saying this wasn't created in good faith in October 2012‎ but we should be cognizant of appearances of bias. wbm1058 (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Seems implausible and unnecessary. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:44, 8 April 2020 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Need For Strings → String theory  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Hard to believe that anyone would search this. The original content in 2006 was an essay that lasted two minutes before being redirected. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – ambiguous, no suitable target, and not an encyclopedic title. Unless someone can source "the need for strings" to anything in particular, there's no way of knowing what this should mean. ComplexRational (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vague and ambiguous. A Google search turned up a redirect undefined at the target in The Free Dictionary, and in-context mentions relating to computer programming, guitars and puppetry. Narky Blert (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Implausible search term. This was never a meme, even in physics. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It sounds like it could be an article in itself if it's notable. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 22:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neither a plausible search term nor an encyclopedic title. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't remember the last time I wanted to delete something that's been a redirect for such a long time, but it's highly unlikely to have gotten links when it was an article, and the implausibility of its title means that it's not likely to have gotten links since then. Nyttend backup (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It honestly sort of makes me think of a hypothetical Uncyclopedia article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:03, 8 April 2020 (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.