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 retargettoWeakly compact. Jay 💬 16:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No comments yet... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom, but also add an entry to the proposed DAB page for weak topology as also plausible. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Weakly compact set, a compact set in a space with the weak topology" already has it. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
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.
Retarget alltoCategory:Indian films, which is more complete than the entries at List of lists of lists. The miscapitalization and the use of singular "List" seem perfectly plausible - there's no reason for the reader not to expect us to have only one list. * Pppery *it has begun... 02:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget all per Pppery. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Retarget somewhere? Create an article? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pre-BLAR version is just a lower-quality duplicate of the category. Why bother restoring it? * Pppery *it has begun... 00:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. List pages and Categories are allowed to co-exist right? Jay 💬 05:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay and Pppery: Lists, categories and navigation templates are indeed explicitly allowed to co-exist, see WP:CLN. While the existence of one does not necessarily imply a need for either or both the others, it is also not a reason to delete (or not create) them. Thryduulf (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist — no comments since the last one. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
List of least polluted (and most polluted) cities by particulate matter concentration[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Moot as no longer a redirect. The redirect has been replaced by an article (as suggested) and so this is no longer within RfD's scope. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect is too broad to specifically point to Hestia. There are numerous others across different mythologies: Vesta, Athena/Minerva, Artemis/Diana, Kumari, Astraea. Heck, even Mary, mother of Jesus. My thought is that this should just retargettoGoddess for now. Thoughts? TNstingray (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would expect this to lead to a set index or possibly an article about virgin goddesses (or deities more broadly) but brief searches have not revealed we have one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: perhaps someone could write a brief article on the topic in the next couple of days—I was about to support, but the target would need to explain the term to be particularly useful, and the explanation would probably be enough to support a stub article, at least. I may give it a shot later today. P Aculeius (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at it is an article now. It would be interesting if there are other goddesses known about their virginity in other cultures. --Lenticel(talk) 00:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: I've made a start, covering Greek and Roman mythology. There were a few citations in my source material that I wasn't able to track down—if anyone can help with Eustathius, I'd be grateful. There may be other Greek and Roman virgin goddesses, or perhaps some of the nymphs who fled from unwanted suitors and were changed into trees or flowers or fire trucks and soforth. It'd be interesting to see if there are virgin goddesses from other religions who might also warrant inclusion in the article. But at this point I think that the article is viable as-is. P Aculeius (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and expand.--Ipigott (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to improbable search entry (due to the parentheses). Also, the term itself is much too broad, but that is mainly a discussion for the entry above. This one needs to go regardless of that outcome. TNstingray (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and unlikely for quotes to be used in a Wikipedia redirect. Yoblyblob (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hestia's virginity is what sets her apart from other goddesses. Dimadick (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Patently false, see the entry above. This one should be deleted due to the technicality of the redirect. The one above is where the content itself should be discussed since it is properly formatted. TNstingray (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the quotes --Lenticel(talk) 08:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite what Dimadick says above, Hestia's virginity doesn't even set her apart from other ancient Greek goddesses. Artemis and Athena were both also virgin goddesses. Arguably the most famous temple in the world is the Parthenon, dedicated to Athena Parthenos, i.e. Athena-the-virgin. Even if "virgin goddess" did refer clearly to Hestia, this would be an implausible redirect due to the quotation marks. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although it's usually thought of as a defining characteristic for Hestia, it's not unique to her in Greek and Roman mythology, and I think there may have been some traditions in which it wasn't the case—but even if it were, the redirect with quotation marks doesn't seem like a plausible search formula. P Aculeius (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It might have been justified if there were some mythology of Iasion unique to Ceres and not at Iasion, but there doesn't appear to be. Doesn't look like a plausible search formula. P Aculeius (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 00:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely unhelpful redirect with no incoming links. "Local" could describe any number of different planets in relation to a given star or other celestial body. There is nothing linking this term to our planet. TNstingray (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until there are other planets where Wikipedians live, this is not needed. Sorry, Earthlings. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unlikely search term for the current target, there are real organizations with this name but not sure if any are Wikipedia notable. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 00:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this redirect serves no purpose. There is no clear definition of what a local planet or local planets are. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an entirely implausible search term due to the crossing of different namespaces. Not sure why stuff like this is kept rather than deleted per the typical abandoned draft process. TNstingray (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was originally created as a redirect in draft space. Serves no purpose Yoblyblob (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 06:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Attempted false article from several years ago by a now-defunct user who was clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. This should never have been redirected, and instead should have been promptly deleted. It is certainly in violation of a few points under WP:UPNOT, and maybe goes so far as violating WP:HOAX. TNstingray (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
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. Jay 💬 16:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has to be an implausible typo, right? It would certainly be a can of worms to have a redirect with 0 replacing O/o for every single link in the English language. TNstingray (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous discussions. Well-used per pageviews. The greatest can of worms opened by this redirect is the number of RfD discussions it attracts. J947 † edits 21:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing has changed since the previous two discussions concluded this redirect should be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the [0] key is next to the [O/o] key, making this a viable typo -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
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.
Supposed Sranan Tongo name of the river. However, only Wikipedia mirrors show up when looking up this name. The Sranan Tongo Wikipedia names this river "Marwina-Liba" instead. Sranan Tongo is Surinamese Creole. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No comment, but I just notified of this discussion at the target talk, in case there is a different opinion. Probably wait a day or two and delete. Jay 💬 09:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Illusion Flame: why was this relisted again? I don't see any objection to deletion. --Tavix(talk) 15:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one else but the nominator has expressed an opinion. Surely you can agree that more discussion is needed. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, the nominator and one other editor expressed an opinion. However, if no one but the nominator expressed an opinion, WP:RGUIDE states that If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete. Unnecessary relisting clogs the logs, so I would disagree with the sentiment that more discussion is needed. --Tavix(talk) 16:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tavix. I did not expect the first relist too, and my response did say "delete" although not bolded. Pinging Illusion Flame for comment on RGUIDE. Jay 💬 16:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your message began with “no comment”. I took this as meaning you are making a note on the request and not wishing to express an opinion. An administrator can judge consensus as a week has now passed with 0 comments. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 17:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
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.
There is no clue in the contemporary version of the article why this redirect was created. There's no clue now. There is no edit history, no useful edit summary, and the creating editor hasn't been active in over a decade. There's nothing that I can find that connects the one to the other, except snarky journalese in The Register from July 2010 that hasn't been repeated since. I think that a nonce usage for about a fortnight in a U.K. red top that hasn't become a widespread alternative name for a subject over the intervening 13 years is not suitable to be a redirect. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not referenced at target, cannot find any clear, widespread links between the name of redirect and the phone Yoblyblob (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Judas phone" refers to the "death grip" technical issue which is described in detail in the #Antenna section of the article (see [1] for example). I don't think it matters that the exact term is not named there: it's the correct target and anyone using this as a search term either already knows what it's referring to or will find relevant information anyway. The only competing use I could find was Judas Priest lead singer Rob Halford kicking a phone out of a fan's hand at a concert, but that's a really sloppy search term, Wikipedia doesn't cover the incident, and there's no indication that the kicked phone was an iPhone 4. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pulling out a July 2010 article from The Register as your sole example makes my point. Uncle G (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that names that are not even used outwith 1 fortnight of journalism in 1 publication 13 years ago are not suitable. The onus, really, is on you to prove not only that they are useful, but first that they are (outwith that) even used at all. You've only managed to point to exactly that fortnight of journalism so far. Uncle G (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The coverage comes from the Register, which while it does some pretty good reporting on certain issues, has a rather specific readership base and uses its own niche terminology, not completely dissimilar from Private Eye (although the audiences aren't the same people). The main reason I bring up Private Eye, is it seems rather often we have issues where we have Private Eye redirects to people where the only context would be if one read Private Eye to know the nickname for said person/phrase, unless it gained larger media prominence (e.g. Tired and emotional), but with many of the others, we retarget to Recurring jokes in Private Eye for context, but context within the term being used in Private Eye. I think if there were an article like that on the Register, said context could be added there and we could target this to there, but as that article does not exist, this would best be deleted as it's far more likely to confuse without context than to help those who remembered the term Judas phone from an article in the Register, but didn't remember which phone it referred to. TartarTorte 13:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A reader interested in "Judas phone" is looking for context, which the target doesn't have. Jay 💬 16:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
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.
Comment While koiné language seems to be the closest translation of Ausgleichssprache (although, as the German article mentions, Koinesprache and Ausgleichssprache are not perfect synonyms, and the term Ausgleichssprache is not used in all the same contexts), the term dialect levelling is very closely related as well, although it refers more to the wayanAusgleichssprache is formed (Dialektausgleich, basically; "smoothing out the differences between dialects", as it were). In linguistics, Ausgleichssprache is a technical term also encountered in English.
Delete it is not closely associated with German, and is not likely to be often used. Yoblyblob (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 13:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 10:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless redirect. 潤芝 already serves as a redirect to Mao Zedong. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 10:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear redirect, as from the title there's no way to tell whether this redirects to the page Epicurus or Epicureanism. Loafiewa (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
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.
I feel like we might well be better off pointing this at Vito Coppola (dancer), a biographical article on an individual bearing this name, rather than the page of a television show that that same individual was involved with. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 01:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk eh... there is RM discussion at Talk:Vito_Coppola_(dancer)#Requested_move_22_July_2023 that will be closed in a couple days, which I don't think there's any objections at the current rate of discussion. Do you mind having this withdrawn and when the RM closes, we can just simply do a swap? – robertsky (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Feel free to consider this withdrawn. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 16:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 20#W.O.T.A.N.
