This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 9, 2020.
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasspeedy delete per Animawiki29's commentsigned,Rosguilltalk22:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While the article states that this was the previous name for "Cranston Academy: Monster Zone", this claim is unreferenced in the article, and does not seem to be supported through my searches. I bring this up because a title such as "Scary show" is very ambiguous and can potentially refer to the genre of horror shows, orScary Movie. I do not believe that "Scary show" commonly refers to the target.Utopes(talk /cont)22:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The term "show" is so incredibly broad in this context, meaning everything from an animated film to a live-action television series to a play off-Broadway and more, that deletion seems to be the right call.CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)15:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Proceed - It seems as though the term used for the redirect doesn't seem to specifically apply to an independent animated film likeCranston Academy, and I grant permission that if the Wikipedia team feel most comfortable with deletion, let them proceed. Thank you for bringing my attention. Have a good day.Animawiki29 (talk)18:12, 11 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.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 19#Spankenburg
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasno consensus. Unfortunately this was not very suitable for a bundle as there are significant differences between the terms. Accordingly, I am declaringWP:NPASR on renomination of individual entries.King of♥♦♣ ♠02:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Made-up neologisms by a user who made many other redirects currently at RfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)22:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Méxicanx as an implausible misspelling (the e in México is only accented in Spanish for the actual country name, not for the demonym or adjective).Weak delete Chileanx as a misspelling that's a bit of a reach but not totally implausible (especially for someone with mixed proficiency in English and Spanish).Keep the rest: some of them may be neologisms, but I think that usage of the -x suffix is becoming widespread enough that these are justifiable search terms.signed,Rosguilltalk22:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. The neologisms are used by a small group of people which aren't recognised by native speakers. --Tenryuu 🐲 (💬 •📝)23:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and keep per Rosguill. In the Spanish language, male Mexicans are "Mexicanos", female are "Mexicanas"; technically, a mixed set of males and females is termed by the male collective noun (similar to alumnus, alumna, alumni). However, more people use "Mexicanx" or "Mexican@" for inclusiveness so it's not unreasonable to set a redirect for such usages. Redirects are cheap.Carlossuarez46 (talk)23:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all perthis Vox article. "Latinx" is an English neologism, not Spanish. There is no evidence that any of these particular spellings have actually gained widespread usage in either language (except perhaps "Mexicanx" without diacritics asUser:Carlossuarez46 has pointed out, if that's the case we can keep that one title).Deryck C.17:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep except Méxicanx and Chileanx per Rosguill and Carlossuarez46.Guettarda (talk)04:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Deryck Chan, In response to the delete argument that this form does not have widespread use, we don't need widespread use for a redirect to be useful. Single digit percentage points of a large population are still a whole lot of people.signed,Rosguilltalk04:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rosguill: I would agree that single-digit percentage point is a lot of people but I'm not seeing that prevalence. That said, I don't live in the Americas so I will give way if American editors are convinced that these terms are being used.Deryck C.13:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, you've got two native Spanish speakers in this discussion saying that this form sees enough use for the redirects to be plausible. The single-digit claim that I made comes from the article,Latinx which cites a US survey that ~2% of residents of the United States of Latin American descent prefer to use this form.signed,Rosguilltalk17:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - With the lone exception of "Méxicanx", which I'd support getting rid of, all of these appear reasonable enough. The above arguments make sense to me. Just because a term is obscure doesn't make it unworthy to be used on Wikipedia.CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)10:37, 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete.signed,Rosguilltalk22:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a conflation ofAman (Tolkien) andAmon Sul, and is not a real concept in Tolkien's universe. I see no reason to have a redirect for a misspelling of a fictional alternate name.12 pageviews in 2019Hog Farm (talk)21:22, 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.
Already released "upcoming" redirects
[edit]Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 19#Already released "upcoming" redirects
Quality & Safety in Health Care
[edit]
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasspeedy keep. Nomination withdrawn.(non-admin closure) — J947(user |cont |ess), at03:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this should not redirect to a publication, however... what exactly should it redirect to?~R.T.G18:49, 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.
Biquadratic function
[edit]Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 16#Biquadratic function
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasmake an article. Thanks59.149.124.29 for the work you put in.(non-admin closure) — J947(user |cont |ess), at20:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting a search term aboutSomalia to an article aboutSomaliland seems potentially misleading. We don't currently have an analogous article about Somalia, andHistory of Somalia does not appear to have information about anything since 2017, so I think that deletion may be our best option here. Alternatively, redirecting toSomalia could be appropriate.signed,Rosguilltalk18:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete exactly, you are right and redirecting toSomalia seems the best opt.Shafici Bashe (talk)19:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect both toSomalia.KingSkyLord (talk |contribs)20:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; I think the best retarget is toOutline of Somalia#History of Somalia if a retarget is deserved. — J947(user |cont |ess), at23:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'd say that these should be made into articles, as they have consistently been from2004 in Somalia through2018 in Somalia. As for the "[Year] in Somaliland" articles, those started in 2018. You'll see that2018 in Somaliland exists, yet2017 in Somaliland does not. Yet, I would think that keeping these as redlinks to encourage article creation would be a reasonable alternative for this case.Utopes(talk /cont)00:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thesearchpages are very unhelpful, that's a point against deletion. These are probably going to be pretty high-traffic redirects so I'm unsure that condemning readers to those search pages is a good idea. The navbox (example:bottom of this page) needs to be changed to remove the Somalia link. — J947(user |cont |ess), at00:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I havedone some work where I could. To make things more complicated, we hada stale draft and heaps ofone-line (IIRC) drafts (includingDraft:2019 in Somalia). — J947(user |cont |ess), at01:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Close both2019 in Somalia and2020 in Somalia now have some article content. Redirecting toSomalia orOutline of Somalia is a non-starter, those articles barely mention 2019 and don't even contain the string 2020.59.149.124.29 (talk)03:13, 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.
Hawkeye (2021 TV series)
[edit]
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete.signed,Rosguilltalk22:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The series is currently scheduled for "sometime in 2022", so this now-orphaned redirect isn't useful. It's well outside the speedy deletion threshold, though, having been created in September 2019 (pre-move history), so bringing it here for resolution. —Cryptic18:02, 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 Legend of Zelda: the Hero of Time
[edit]
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete.signed,Rosguilltalk22:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All that comes when I search this are the... wrong things.TheAwesomeHwyh17:42, 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasspeedy keep as now mentioned(non-admin closure)1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)21:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at target.1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)17:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete - No page history that needs to be kept, and no mentions besides a list entry with no explanation atList of fictional castles and a couple stray mentions of an NN object named "thepalantír of Amon Sul" which would not make a good retargeting point because those mentions are about the bowling ball that can see Sauron (not quite, but basically), not the castle this is referring to. Bundle inAman Sul,Tower of Amon Sul, andTower of Amon Sûl as going to the same target and essentially the same thing.Hog Farm (talk)17:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be right about the conflation. Amaximum of 7 people a month have used that link, who knows why - it is possible there was a link to it from somewhere. I'd not think it worth keeping.Chiswick Chap (talk)18:55, 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete.signed,Rosguilltalk22:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Baby boomers" are not referred to as "Generation W." This appears to be an attempt to popularize a neologism.
Literature refers to "Generation W" as Serbia's war generation. See[1]Toddst1(talk)16:40, 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete.signed,Rosguilltalk22:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drinking in these countires is by no means confined to the consumption of beer. I don't think there are any relevant aricles covering the topic, and the corresponding categories (Category:Alcohol in Chile, etc.) don't have anything that remotely approaches the expected scope.WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation? –Uanfala (talk)16:39, 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.
Trinity United Methodist Curch
[edit]
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)15:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Several years ago, this redirect was left over when its target page (compared to which it gets very few pageviews) was moved to its current title to "fix [the] typo in [its] name [and] disambiguate" it from other churches with the same name. Maybedelete it orretarget it to the DAB pageTrinity United Methodist Church. Regards,SONIC67815:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to saydelete on this one. Searching for the string *curch is how you bring up all mentions of a string on Wikipedia. I got this redirect, a few typos I fixed, and two names. The fact that other redirects don't have this is probably a sign this isn't necessary.Hog Farm (talk)15:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-target toTrinity United Methodist Church, a disambiguation page. I'd really prefer to have it deleted, but it's a vaguely plausible misspelling, I suppose.PKT(alk)16:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. i did that move, in 2009. no inbound links. --Doncram (talk)18:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; implausible typo. --Paul_012 (talk)18:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The correct name appears in the searchbox well before getting to the 4th word. This is just clutter.Narky Blert (talk)20:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An unambiguous error, and the wrong target.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)12:03, 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeep.(non-admin closure)buidhe05:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, no reliable source has called the virus COVID-20; the 20 seems to be based solely on the year 2020, nothing else. --/Alex/2114:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Unlike the real-life virus, this redirect is totally harmless and isn't hurting anyone. While it doesn't have this name, it's a reasonable assumption for someone to make that it would have this name in addition to "COVID-19" for "2019".Paintspot Infez (talk)16:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there are a few hits – in unreliable news sources, as far as I can see – for the phrase, but even without them this is a plausible{{R from incorrect name}}. –Uanfala (talk)16:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The potential for confusion is plausible.BD2412T17:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and add the RCAT{{R from incorrect name}}. Plausible mistake.Hog Farm (talk)17:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree. This seems to be a plausible mistake, as stated above, and fundamentally appears helpful enough.CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)17:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - confusion will arise if another COVID arises this year, which of course it might. Since it certainly isn't an official name, best avoided really.Chiswick Chap (talk)18:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As there is no new strand of coronavirus explicitly named COVID-20 yet, this is a plausible "R from incorrect name".Utopes(talk /cont)23:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep;easy misnomer to make for now, we will obviously change it if a proper COVID-20 arises. — J947(user |cont |ess), at23:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can anyone show me a reliable source supporting the use of "COVID-20"? And if this continues into next year, should we create "COVID-21"? --/Alex/2123:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a plausible error that someone might make, and if the redirect helps them find the correct article, it is useful and helpful.Cullen328Let's discuss it01:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Corona Virus was spreaded in very few countries in 2019. Majority of the countries got affected in 2020 only. So some may search with the given name. It may have created a confusion if a dedicated article was written. But now it redirects to COVID-19 which has relevant info. -Vijeth N Bharadwaj 08:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per others. Plausible, cheap, and harmless redirect. --Soumyabratastay at homewash your handsto protect from coronavirus05:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, not mentioned, but would make sense.WP:CHEAP.
>>BEANS X2t15:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply] - Comment - I'd like to note the fact that referring to various things as "COVID-20" has been referred to by publications such asthis one, where it's used as a reference to weight gain. There are other such kinds of commentary all over the internet.CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)13:16, 12 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.
Church of England parish hurch
[edit]
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)15:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that someone might forget the first "C" in the second "church," I'm not sure how plausible of a typo this is, given that there's both the correctly and incorrectly spelled versions of the word in the title. Regards,SONIC67814:51, 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.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 19#World Café
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)14:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's a running joke of Aussies pronouncing "Australia" in strange ways, but this one's just a bit too far, don't you think? – numbermaniac13:56, 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.
Wikipedia:ROUNDROBIN
[edit]
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasretarget toWikipedia:Page mover#Round-robin page moves andkeep, respectively. --BDD (talk)14:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They should point to the same page.1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)11:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Point both toWikipedia:Page mover#Round-robin page moves as there is more information there, and the fact that "round-robin" moves are of higher relevance to page movers than admins.feminist (talk)12:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go out on a limb and saydelete both. The encyclopedia will be a lot better without the use of round-robin moves, or project pages that promote them, or shortcuts to those pages. –Uanfala (talk)13:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Uanfala, I'm only here because I got the RFD notice at WT:PGM, but deleting the redirects isn't going to stop round-robins,or the knowledge of them. Hell, I didn't even know about these redirects until I saw the notice. Get consensus to stop these type of action first, and the deletion of the redirects will follow. I think that particular discussion is a little outwith the purview of this particular board, though.Primefac (talk)13:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)(pleaseping on reply)[reply]
- While I agree with the sentiment (round-robin moves very often confound page histories, and complicate situations where pages really should just be G6ed), I don't think this is the place to argue it, and deleting redirects won't help. --Paul_012 (talk)18:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Point both toWikipedia:Page mover#Round-robin page moves which has the more complete step-by-step guide.Narky Blert (talk)14:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget the first toWikipedia:Page mover#Round-robin page moves andkeep the second there to direct people to the same page per nominator. Regards,SONIC67815:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete. As the creator ofWikipedia:ROUNDROBINWikipedia:ROUNDROBIN, I'm here to state that due to the existence of the other redirect, I have no opinion on where these should so, as long as they are not deleted. However, I will say this: I'm almost 99% sure that I was not aware of the existence ofWikipedia:ROBINWikipedia:ROBIN, a redirect created months before I createdWikipedia:ROUNDROBINWikipedia:ROUNDROBIN.Steel1943 (talk)16:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget the first toWikipedia:Page mover#Round-robin page moves andkeep the second as is perSonic678. We should consolidate all information on round-robin page moves to a single page in project space. In fact, we could very well createWikipedia:Round-robin page moves as its own space to host all of that, and point to it from the existing pages.BD2412T17:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Target both toWikipedia:Page mover#Round-robin page moves, since it's a more informative location. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Make them consistent - I also think that we should target both over to 'Wikipedia:Page mover#Round-robin page moves'.CoffeeWithMarkets (talk)06:05, 16 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasprocedural close. The process for proposing page moves isWP:RM.(non-admin closure) –Uanfala (talk)12:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current target doesn't appear to be the primary topic; a Google search suggests that person names are probably the most common occurrence in English. Suggest replacing with the dab page currently atPrasad (disambiguation).Paul_012 (talk)08:59, 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.
Kerala State Fil Award for Best Sound Recordist
[edit]
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)14:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I can see people forgetting to press theM key while searching for "film," I'm not sure how plausible of a misspelling it is...hence why its target was moved to its current title thirteen years ago, leaving this redirect. Regards,SONIC67805:36, 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)14:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Final batch of artist to label redirects created by Zawl where the artists are not mentioned at the target and no other mention of them can be found anywhere on the encyclopedia.Jalen Folf(talk)05:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all for lack of mention in the target, as before.
- Thankyou for the labour of digging this lot out.Narky Blert (talk)06:24, 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.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 16#R2 RapidBus
