January 31

2028 United States Presidential Election

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 without salting at this time, as I don't see any evidence of it being repeatedly recreated._signed,Rosguill^talk20:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2028 United States Presidential Election2028 United States Presidential Election →United States presidential election (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is justWP:CRYSTAL andWP:TOOSOON material.Dominicmgm (talk)22:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and/or protect as2024 United States presidential election/United States presidential election, 2024 was until after the 2020 election, per AFD. A redirect is not a big deal, but it is too soon for this to be open to becoming an article.Reywas92^Talk22:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt.WP:CRYSTAL and repeatedly recreated, so until there's significant discussion or we're in 2024, such a redirect will inevitably not lead readers to relevant information (in the target article specific to 2028) and be subject to repeated attempts to create an article.ComplexRational (talk)13:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm very surprised that I've not been able to find any content about this. I wasn't expecting much more than a sentence or two saying it's expected to be held on <date>, the electoral college votes are expected be the same as/different to 2024, and any other notable aspirations/plans/hopes notable people/groups have said/expressed about 2028; but I was expecting something.Thryduulf (talk)14:48, 1 February 2021 (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.

Gabriela Cartol

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,Rosguill^talk20:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Gabriela Cartol →Noé Hernández (actor) (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Can't see the point of redirecting an actress's name to an article about an actor in which all we ever learn about her is that she once starred opposite him. Also,WP:R#DELETE #10.Victor Lopes^Fala!•C20:07, 31 January 2021 (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.

.NET

Complete List of Beyblade Characters

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. --Tavix^(talk)22:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

ImplausibleWP:PANDORA redirect, seeWP:COMPLETELIST.Elliot321 (talk |contribs)12:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nominator. Note also the miscapitalisation.𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)12:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, of course. I'm surprised this wasn't done 16 years ago. --Zanimum (talk)05:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepWP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) andWP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody. In this case the long-extant, plausible title is an accurate description of the content. There is no reason to make the content harder to find by breaking links.Thryduulf (talk)12:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. Also, the redirect is an{{R from move}}, soK4 applies.— J947 ‡^{message ⁓edits}00:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this list complete? If not, is a complete list practical here? --BDD (talk)16:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: No, it doesn't seem to be complete. In the page history there has recently been a lot oftrimming of unsourced/non-notable characters (the page has been reduced from 88k to 15k), and some of the characters are listed at varioussubpages for the spin-off series.86.23.109.101 (talk)00:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks.Delete, then. It matters a lot whether these lists are actually complete, or reasonably could be without running afoul any guidelines. --BDD (talk)18:11, 12 February 2021 (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.

Complete list of Booknotes interviews

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 toList of Booknotes interviews. ~mazca^talk15:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete list of Booknotes interviewsComplete list of Booknotes interviews →Booknotes (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

ImplausibleWP:PANDORA redirect, seeWP:COMPLETELIST.Elliot321 (talk |contribs)12:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nominator. The target does not even have a list either.𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)12:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but not per the completely irrelevant nomination:WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) andWP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody.However, there is no list of interviews at the target (or anywhere else on Wikipedia that I can find) so the redirect is misleading.Thryduulf (talk)12:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: There used to be a list of episodes atList of Booknotes interviews, but it was broken down into yearly pages 10 years ago: seethis diff for a link of the subpages. They're linked in the template at the bottom of the page, but it's not obvious that they're there.86.23.109.101 (talk)13:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget to the index of the complete yearly lists I've just created atList of Booknotes interviews, with thanks to the IP above.Thryduulf (talk)13:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget toList of Booknotes interviews. This is a TV show that has been out of production for 17 years so it is entirely possible to have a complete list of episodes.86.23.109.101 (talk)13:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget toList of Booknotes interviews per above, which is a completely reasonable redirect.— J947 ‡^{message ⁓edits}00:26, 27 January 2021 (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.

Complete List of Jasoosi Dunya (Old)

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. --Tavix^(talk)22:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete List of Jasoosi Dunya (Old) →List of Jasoosi Dunya by Ibn-e-Safi (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

ImplausibleWP:PANDORA redirect, seeWP:COMPLETELIST.Elliot321 (talk |contribs)12:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Old... older than what?Dominicmgm (talk)12:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nominator. Also, weird disambiguator.𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)12:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the nomination is completely incorrect - the target is a complete list (the author is dead so it is a finite set),WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) andWP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody. This title, which has existed since 2008, got almost 300 views last year so it's obviously either a plausible search term and/or linked from somewhere - in either case deletion will hinder people finding the content they are looking for. The "(Old)" disambiguator is unusual but it's not obviously incorrect.Thryduulf (talk)12:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I assumed the "(Old)" here had the same meaning as that forImran Series below, but I don't see anything atJasoosi Dunya to indicate the series was continued by other authors, so this is likely to confuse. --BDD (talk)16:52, 11 February 2021 (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.

Complete list of authors published as UK first editions by Collins Crime Club

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. The facts that the listdoes appear to be complete, and the length of time this page existed at this title, leads to greater weight being given to those arguments versus the vague boilerplate nomination. ~mazca^talk15:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete list of authors published as UK first editions by Collins Crime ClubComplete list of authors published as UK first editions by Collins Crime Club →List of authors published as UK first editions by Collins Crime Club (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

ImplausibleWP:PANDORA redirect, seeWP:COMPLETELIST.Elliot321 (talk |contribs)12:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as extremely long redirect title.Dominicmgm (talk)12:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nominator. A long title is not a reason for deletion, though (the target article has quite a long title, too).𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)12:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep the nomination is completely incorrect - the search term is highly plausible and correct - the first sentence of the target isThis is a complete list of authors published as UK first editions by Collins Crime Club and no additional works are being published so the list will remain complete.WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) andWP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody. This is possibly the worst of these mass nominations as it's clear the nominator has not even looked at the page.Thryduulf (talk)12:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Crime Club has not been publishing since 1994, so the list is complete and will likely remain complete for the foreseeable future. The main list was at this title for 4 years until moved in 2017, so this is also a useful R from page move.86.23.109.101 (talk)00:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf's comprehensive argument. This redirect is unambiguous and getsvery high amounts of usage and thus deleting it serves only to deter many potential readers. As an aside, I highly doubt that this particular (horrible)PANDORA argument espoused by the nominator has any basis – surely readers would be likely to after searching this up, look at the big black title at the top of the page, and subconsciously remind themselves that including the wordcomplete is unnecessary? They'd at least be more likely to do that than pay no attention to the extremely easily noticed big black title at all and continue typing things exactly the same way, as the flawed PANDORA argument assumes. I think that a person's use of two similar everyday phrases likecomplete list/list tend to vary, with a tendency towards the more concise phrase – but then again, my armchair linguistic psychology with no basis probably shouldn't be relied upon. But neither should this PANDORA psychology.— J947 ‡^{message ⁓edits}01:26, 27 January 2021 (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.

Complete List of Imran Series (Old)

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._signed,Rosguill^talk19:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete List of Imran Series (Old)Complete List of Imran Series (Old) →List of Imran Series by Ibn-e-Safi (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

ImplausibleWP:PANDORA redirect, seeWP:COMPLETELIST.Elliot321 (talk |contribs)12:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nominator. Also, weird disambiguator.𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)12:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the nomination is completely incorrect -WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) andWP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody. The title is odd, but it does lead to a complete list of the Imran Series so it is not inaccurate, and it's getting a few hits so there isn't actually any reason to delete.Thryduulf (talk)12:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I thought the "(Old)" was a placeholder from page views, but it seems to be indicating the "old" originalImran series, which has been continued by subsequent authors. Given that, and its status as a previous title, I don't see a reason to delete. --BDD (talk)16:48, 11 February 2021 (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.

Complete list of Rock Band Network songs

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 toList of Rock Band Network songs#Complete list of available songs. The fact that there's a "complete" section on this page certainly justifies the page title in this case. ~mazca^talk15:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete list of Rock Band Network songsComplete list of Rock Band Network songs →List of Rock Band Network songs (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

ImplausibleWP:PANDORA redirect, seeWP:COMPLETELIST.Elliot321 (talk |contribs)12:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nominator.𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)12:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and refine toComplete list of Rock Band Network songs#Complete list of available songs where people using this plausible search term will find the exact content they are looking for. It's worth noting that the nomination is completely inaccurate (WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) andWP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody) making it clear the nominator has not even looked at anything beyond the title of the redirect.Thryduulf (talk)12:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine toList of Rock Band Network songs#Complete list of available songs per Thryduulf.Gets views.— J947 ‡^{message ⁓edits}01:47, 27 January 2021 (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.

Complete list of works produced by Hanna-Barbera

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. ~mazca^talk15:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete list of works produced by Hanna-BarberaComplete list of works produced by Hanna-Barbera →List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera Productions (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

ImplausibleWP:PANDORA redirect, seeWP:COMPLETELIST.Elliot321 (talk |contribs)12:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nominator.𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)12:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the completely incorrect nomination is another example of this nominator not looking at anything other than the redirect title. The search term is highly plausible and accurately reflects the content found at the target,WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) andWP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody.Thryduulf (talk)12:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf and what I've outlined in other similar nominations. It isn't helpful to nominate these harmless redirects to RfD.— J947 ‡^{message ⁓edits}01:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have no issue with tagging this{{R unprintworthy}} with the idea of discouraging "Complete list" titles, but since this one indeed seems to be a complete list, there's no problem. --BDD (talk)16:43, 9 February 2021 (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.

CAT:FRINGE

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 toCategory:Fringe theory. At the risk of sounding like a supervote, there doesn't seem to be a reason to prefer the more specificCategory:Fringe science over this.WP:FRINGE itself doesn't refer exclusively to science. Many fringe theories relate to science, but not all. --BDD (talk)16:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• CAT:FRINGE →Category:Edinburgh Festival Fringe (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's more than one category related to a topic with "fringe" in its name, likeCategory:Fringe festivals,Category:Fringe (TV series), or evenCategory:Fringe science, so I suggest deleting this shortcut.𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)11:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Shortcuts may be and generally are ambiguous; they are not intended for readers but rather for editorial purposes. That aside, theses shortcuts usually point to maintenance categories etc. (not "regular" categories for lack of a better way to put it offhand).— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT)12:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's not the target I would have chosen, but it is a valid redirect - and the Edinburgh Festival Fringe is "the Fringe". All the best:RichFarmbrough13:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Retarget toCategory:Fringe science, in the same way thatWP:FRINGE and{{Fringe}} already go to fringe theory topics.— Precedingunsigned comment added byHotdogPi (talk •contribs)22:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per HotdogPi, this is clearly what the "FRINGE" shortcut means on Wikipedia.Elliot321 (talk |contribs)11:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per HotdogPi - all other things being equal, the current target would be a reasonable one for this shortcut, butWP:FRINGE is a commonly used shortcut with a specific meaning in Wikipedia, and it seems best to make this consistent. ~mazca^talk13:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget, but toCategory:Fringe theory, which is the catch all category for fringe material including Fringe science. BothWP:FRINGE and{{Fringe}} are about generic fringe theories, they're not specifically fringe science, and they could equally well be applied to pseudo-history or Conspiracy theories, for example.86.23.109.101 (talk)18:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget toCategory:Fringe theory per 86. and to matchWP:FRINGE.Thryduulf (talk)15:20, 9 February 2021 (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.

Men In Cages

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.Thryduulf (talk)15:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Men In Cages →Androcide (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided._signed,Rosguill^talk17:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete the page. It is clearly not androcide, I have made a mistake and I hope to improve

• Comment Author has requested deletion in good faith, so wouldG7 now be applicable?ComplexRational (talk)22:06, 1 February 2021 (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.

Complete list of downloadable content for the Rock Band series

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 toList of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series#Complete list of available songs. Formally no consensus, implementing the refine proposal as it appears to uncontroversially be an improvement over the status quo._signed,Rosguill^talk20:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete list of downloadable content for the Rock Band seriesComplete list of downloadable content for the Rock Band series →List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band seriesComplete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series →List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (complete list)List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (complete list) →List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

ImplausibleWP:PANDORA redirect, seeWP:COMPLETELIST.Elliot321 (talk |contribs)12:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nominator.𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)12:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. As new games are released, likely so will new downloadable content (which might be in the making right now even without new games in the series being made). I'm also addingList of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (complete list) here. Regards,SONIC⁶⁷⁸16:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The search term is plausible,WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) andWP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody, so the nomination is incorrect on all counts. This is a slightly different situation to most of the other similar nominations (although the nominator apparently not looking at anything beyond the title is the same) in that the list is still growing, but it is being maintained has been consistently for years so the title is accurate and not (as some have incorrectly speculated above) misleading.Thryduulf (talk)12:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine all toList of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series#Complete list of available songs to be specific. Per Thryduulf, there is no valid reason to delete this redirect.— J947 ‡^{message ⁓edits}01:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine: per J947.JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?}12:41, 28 January 2021 (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.

Complete list of NJ Transit stations

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._signed,Rosguill^talk20:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete list of NJ Transit stationsComplete list of NJ Transit stations →List of NJ Transit railroad stations (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term, "complete list" -> "list" should not be something we redirect in generalElliot321 (talk |contribs)11:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: perWP:PANDORA/the newly createdWP:COMPLETELIST.𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)12:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unlike most of the other similar redirects noted, this is something where the title is accurate.Thryduulf (talk)17:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the list is complete.HotdogPi00:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above and what I've outlined in similar nominations. It isn't helpful to nominate these harmless redirects to RfD.— J947 ‡^{message ⁓edits}02:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentWP:PANDORA is very much not a valid reason to delete anything. Redirects are judged on their own merits, regardless of whether similar redirects do or do not exist. The existence of one redirect implies nothing about the desirability or otherwise of another redirect.Thryduulf (talk)22:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, the relisting comment given was more of a !vote than a comment on consensus determination.— J947 ‡^{message ⁓edits}05:27, 5 February 2021 (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.

Complete list of non-English Wikipedias available

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._signed,Rosguill^talk20:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete list of non-English Wikipedias availableComplete list of non-English Wikipedias available →List of Wikipedias (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely search term, "complete list" -> "list" should not be something we redirect in generalElliot321 (talk |contribs)11:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: perWP:PANDORA/the newly createdWP:COMPLETELIST. Note also that the list also includes the English Wikipedia.𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)12:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Contains both English and simple English Wikipedias, so it's not a list of non-English Wikipedias. The list doesn't seem to be complete either, e.g. there's no mention of the hoax "Siberian Language" wikipedia.86.23.109.101 (talk)17:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per 86.23.109.101.Crouch, Swale (talk)20:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the search term is plausible,WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) andWP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody. The title is also not incorrect - that the list includes English Wikipedias does not alter the fact that it does contain a complete list of non-English Wikpedias. The deleted Siberian Wikipedia is not available so it's absence from the list is also irrelevant.Thryduulf (talk)13:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The title is accurate.HotdogPi00:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf and what I've outlined in similar nominations. It isn't helpful to nominate these harmless redirects to RfD. Note also that this redirect is pretty old history – it's from 2002.— J947 ‡^{message ⁓edits}02:11, 27 January 2021 (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.

Complete List of Pokemon

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._signed,Rosguill^talk20:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete List of PokemonComplete List of Pokemon →List of Pokémon (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

wrong capitalization and no need for the word "complete" in redirects.Elliot321 (talk |contribs)11:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Between the incorrect capitalisation and unnecessary "Complete" this is an implausible search term. Only got 8 page views in the last year.86.23.109.101 (talk)21:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the nomination is completely incorrect - the search term is extremely plausible,WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) andWP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody. While there is not a single list of Pokemon, anyone searching for such will easily find what they are looking for as complete lists by generation are linked from the target.Thryduulf (talk)13:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf and what I've outlined in similar nominations. It isn't helpful to nominate these harmless redirects to RfD.— J947 ‡^{message ⁓edits}02:13, 27 January 2021 (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.

Complete list of Michael Cimino's unrealized projects

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 toMichael Cimino's unrealized projects._signed,Rosguill^talk20:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete list of Michael Cimino's unrealized projectsComplete list of Michael Cimino's unrealized projects →Michael Cimino#Unrealized projects (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

If kept, this should be retargeted toMichael Cimino's unrealized projects, where more information is provided; however, I don't think this is a likely search term.𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)11:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete perWP:COMPLETELIST of course.Elliot321 (talk |contribs)13:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to the complete list of Michael Cimino's unrealized projects atMichael Cimino's unrealized projects where searches will find exactly what they are looking for. Given that the target is a complete list,WP:COMPLETELIST (which reflects the opinion of only 1 or 2 editors and is far too blunt to be anything approaching useful) is not relevant.Thryduulf (talk)13:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: (only replying once, though this addresses most of your comments on this page) fair enough. I wasn't trying to act likeWP:COMPLETELIST was a policy, more that it's more efficient to link a short essay than to write the reasoning in every nomination. I do think that the redirects are generally harmful to the project, though.Elliot321 (talk |contribs)04:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that that that essay is a gross oversimplification built on top of the fundamentally wrong idea that no list on Wikipedia can ever be complete. That there exist so many "complete list of..." redirects additionally demonstrates that the idea these are implausible search terms is also incorrect. The reference to PANDORA (an idea that is equally faulty and not representative of either reality or consensus) is also telling - these redirects need to be examined individually to asses their utility. A redirect that accurately describes that content it leads to, is unambiguous and not in the way of anything else is never going to be harmful absent truly extraordinary circumstances - circumstances that would need to be identified individually.Thryduulf (talk)14:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget toMichael Cimino's unrealized projects per Thryduulf and don't delete per what I've outlined in similar nominations. It isn't helpful to nominate these harmless redirects to RfD.— J947 ‡^{message ⁓edits}02:15, 27 January 2021 (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.

Black Friday (2007 film)

Gould (Europeans cricketer)

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 toFrancis Gould (cricketer)._signed,Rosguill^talk20:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Gould (Europeans cricketer)Gould (Europeans cricketer) →Category:Europeans cricketers (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is thisFrancis Gould (cricketer)? If yes, retarget there, otherwise delete perbelow.𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)11:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget toFrancis Gould (cricketer) who played for the Europeans. He may not be the only Gould who played for the Europeans but I'm pretty sure he's the only one who we've got an article on.— J947 ‡^{message ⁓edits}00:21, 1 February 2021 (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.

Hyde (Europeans cricketer)

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,Rosguill^talk20:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hyde (Europeans cricketer)Hyde (Europeans cricketer) →Category:Europeans cricketers (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Duncan (Europeans cricketer)Duncan (Europeans cricketer) →Category:Europeans cricketers (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• B. GaillardB. Gaillard →Category:Europeans cricketers (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• F. KnoxF. Knox →Category:Europeans cricketers (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• P. Johnson (Europeans cricketer)P. Johnson (Europeans cricketer) →Category:Europeans cricketers (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not useful XNRs; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. Delete to encourage article creation. Neither of these seem to have mentions on Wikipedia: there are quite a few cricketers named "Hyde" and "Duncan" on Wikipedia, but none of them seems to have played for Europeans; "B. Gaillard" only returns unrelated citations; the rest has no slightly related search results at all.𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)11:11, 31 January 2021 (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.

Māori All Blacks redirect

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,Rosguill^talk20:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Māori All Blacks redirect →Māori All Blacks (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As per the edit summary of the page creation, "stupid idea".𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)10:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems to be left over from a round robin page swap.86.23.109.101 (talk)11:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this serves no useful function anymore.Elliot321 (talk |contribs)15:18, 31 January 2021 (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.

OMSI 2

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,Rosguill^talk20:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• OMSI 2 →List of simulation video games#Bus simulation (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the targeted article.Jovanmilic97 (talk)09:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This seems to have been a 1 line stub on a non notable video game that was blanked and redirected. The redirect is clearly inappropriate as there is no mention of the game at the target, and I can't find anywhere else it could point to.

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.

Buunemba

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,Rosguill^talk20:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Buunemba →List of Dragon Ball characters (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not currently mentioned at the target.WP:BEFORE could not find anything of substance except as a possible unverifiable hoax or non-notable fan fiction, courtesy of the original creator. This redirect should be deleted.Haleth (talk)09:27, 31 January 2021 (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.

Melbourne Sports and Entertainment Centre redir

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,Rosguill^talk20:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Melbourne Sports and Entertainment Centre redir →Melbourne Sports and Entertainment Centre (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was left over from a temporary move to make way for a title change to its target, and doesn't seem to be used much nowadays. See alsoWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#Houston, Texas (redir). Regards,SONIC⁶⁷⁸02:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as housekeeping.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)09:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – no longer serves a useful purpose.shaidar cuebiyar (talk)23:23, 31 January 2021 (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.

Marianne Schifferer

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._signed,Rosguill^talk20:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Marianne SchiffererMarianne Schifferer →Marianne Schönauer (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As mentioned in the article, Marianne Schönauer's real name wasSchifferes after her father Karl Schifferes.Schifferer appears to be a plausible typo, as this is the more common and 'natural' name in German. But we should not prolong and encourage the error by having that redirect.KnightMove (talk)21:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed.Lord Cornwallis (talk)22:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per nom's comment on the plausibility. Just tag it with{{R from typo}} and{{R unprintworthy}} to address the nom's concerns --70.31.205.108 (talk)08:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Concur with this. A plausible typo.Politrukki (talk)19:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 70.31. I've gone ahead and tagged it with the two suggested rcats, plus{{R from incorrect name}}. --Tamzin (she/they) |o toki tawa mi.22:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Some surnames (e.g. Baumgarten, or McCandlish for that matter) exist in 20 or more variations, and we should not create or tolerate the creation of variant-spelling redirects for individual subjects who cannot be found using them in RS. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 12:33, 28 January 2021 (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.

Stats grok

28-3

Storm Over the Pacific (Move)

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,Rosguill^talk20:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Storm Over the Pacific (Move) →Storm Over the Pacific (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Wotakoi: Love Is Hard for Otaku (move) →Wotakoi: Love Is Hard for Otaku (film) (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days (move) →Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days (novel) (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Leftovers from page moves, not more needed.𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)00:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as either an unnecessary artefact of a move, or as an error in disambiguating.Shhhnotsoloud (talk)09:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All. The first is an implausible typo of "movie", the second and third seem to be left over from doing round robin page swaps.86.23.109.101 (talk)11:47, 31 January 2021 (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.

Pedophile pope

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,Rosguill^talk20:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pedophile pope →Catholic Church sexual abuse cases (talk ·links ·history ·stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While I can understand whyPedophile priest would be a helpful redirect toCatholic Church sexual abuse cases,Pedophile pope doesn't seem a particularly helpful redirect to this subject and needlessly defamatory. (Regardless of one's views on the Church's handling of the situation or the inaction taken, afaik there haven't been any seriously regarded accusations of paedophilia or child sexual abuse against any Pope). I would argue this should be deleted.Bangalamania (talk)00:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete considering that the sexual abuse scandal is more about homosexuality with adolescents than pedophilia, I would consider both of your mentions to be needlessly defamatory.Elizium23 (talk)00:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needless defamatory is pretty rich, since you just lied that the scandal is about homosexuality instead of sexual assault and rape.Oiyarbepsy (talk)02:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure what your comment has to do with the discussion of the redirect?Elizium23 (talk)03:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lest this sets a trend for redirects of "Pedophile (profession)", like "Pedophile DJ" forJimmy Savile.Dominicmgm (talk)01:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (by creator) I must not have thought this one through before I created it (on request) some ten years ago. As Bangalamania said, there's no widely publicized pedophilia accusations against any pope (that I'm aware of), so this isn't a plausible redirect. No objections against deletion.decltype(talk)02:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find any significant uses of the exact term, all the hits on google are tags, separate sentences or similar ("1 in 50 priests is a pedophile - Pope Francis" for example). There is one exception to this in the top 20 google hits is a Pintrest caption "Satanist pedophile Pope Francis working to bring Anti Christ false peace in Middle East with Islam." but even if that were in a reliable source and not a one-off it would not indicate this was a useful search term.Thryduulf (talk)03:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not seem to be used in reliable sources to describe the event, and no pope has seriously been accused of paedophilia as far as I can tell.86.23.109.101 (talk)11:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article it leads too is not about Popes.Dimadick (talk)19:56, 1 February 2021 (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.