Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 16

< February 15 February 17 >

February 16Edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 16, 2020.

Fish BellyEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 26#Fish Belly

Bank of WasteEdit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

No "Bank of Waste" is discussed at the target article. Delete unless justification can be provided. Hog Farm (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete as ambiguous and potentially confusing, per WP:R#D2 and WP:XY. I expected to say "move to Bank of waste and disambiguate," but I can't find any targets. Doug Mehus T·C 19:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - Aside from referring to waste management administration, this also seems to be used to label physical banks (the land formations, not the buildings with tellers) covered in waste objects. Inside Wikipedia, there appears to be no clear target for this. Deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
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.

FuinurEdit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Appears to have been the name of a character in Tolkien's backstory, not mentioned at target article and mentioning him there would be WP:UNDUE. Deletion would be best for this obscure part of a fictional work. Hog Farm (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Tolkien seems to have created him as a bit of detail to add depth; in the main article about all races of Men, talking about him rather than hundreds of others would seem surplus to requirement. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Chiswick Chap's argument and recommended outcome. Doug Mehus T·C 19:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
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.

CornPopEdit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Corn Pops. The apprehension about whether it's a reasonable typo are worth considering, but I think there's consensus here for a retarget. ~ Amory (utc) 22:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Not mentioned in the target article and unsuitable for a mention. In any case, readers will be better served with news articles on 'Corn Pop' than a Wikipedia redirect. feminist (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete it seems to come from this, but a redirect is completely unnecessary. Not a likely search term for Joe Biden. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete "Corn Pop" was a figure in a long-winded story Biden told about his days as a lifeguard (the story also involved a diving board and a length of chain). Not going to be due to be mentioned in the article. Hog Farm (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Corn Pops as {{R from misspelling}} and {{R to plural}}. I think that's best, @Muboshgu, Feminist, and Hog Farm:, and it will allow us to enforce consensus by reverting to this new target, protecting as needed. Doug Mehus T·C 19:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't have any objection to that. Would it be too pedantic to delete the redirect that stands and create a new redirect to the cereal? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Muboshgu I would have no objection to that, but it seems like an unnecessary step, unless this was created by a now, or about to be, blocked user, and you'd prefer a clean start. Consider me neutral then on doing that or just retargeting it here. Doug Mehus T·C 19:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget it’s been about 5 months since this was first reported and we don’t have any coverage in Joe Biden or Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign strongly indicating that it’s not significant enough to be covered. Regarding the question about deleting first, personally i don’t see the need.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not mentioned in the article and therefore not helpful. This capitalisation is not a plausible typo for Corn Pops. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Corn Pops Joe Biden is not the primary topic. pbp 01:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete no context for Biden for the article as is. If there are others, this could expand into a disambiguation like Soda pop (disambiguation). AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
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.

Consumer CzarEdit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I note that Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau redirects there. -- Tavix (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Based on a Google search this appears to refer to the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; in any case Elizabeth Warren would not be an appropriate target. feminist (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu Right, but in Canada, I've heard it used to refer to other consumer protection watchdogs; thus, I don't think Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is still best. Would you support the broader Consumer protection? Doug Mehus T·C 19:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that could be a good compromise. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good, I   Like it. Doug Mehus T·C 19:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Consumer Czar (United States) could be created then for the director. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
That would reinforce a bias to U.S. topics, though. If that's the outcome, that's fine, but I still think Consumer czar is a valid redirect for Consumer protection, which we could do per WP:DIFFCAPS. Doug Mehus T·C 19:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment. In UK and Ireland, the term is not Czar but Ombudsman. Any North American bias doesn't bother me. Narky Blert (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Narky Blert Yes, we generally use the terms ombudsman and commissioner for that type of role, but I was thinking of the common way that the mass media, including CTV News and state-owned CBC News, refer to the various consumer protection watchdogs. Doug Mehus T·C 15:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
In my experience, not in UK they don't. Narky Blert (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
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.

Mayor CheatEdit

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. Consensus is clear. -- Tavix (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

This should be deleted as well per Muboshgu's comment concerning the #MayorCheat nomination below. feminist (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete purely derogatory, not a likely search term. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:R#D2 and WP:XY as potentially confusing and ambiguous. Although it may currently be trending about Pete Buttigieg, potentially, it could be referring to any number of past or future mayors for a variety of reasons. Doug Mehus T·C 19:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. We should only include offensive political nicknames either in articles or as redirects if they are well-sourced, e.g. Failing Grayling. We should not have redirects from, for example, BloJo, The Onanist, Das Pfeifele or Failed Foreign Secretary to Boris Johnson. I've seen all those and others in political blogs. (Full disclosure: I coined one of those myself.) Narky Blert (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - As stated above, the fact that this term is temporarily associated with the current U.S. Presidential candidate doesn't mean that much. History is full of examples of individual leaders who've been criticized like this, and that's likely to go on into the future. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per NPOV, BLP. Solely used to denigrate. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
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.

#MayorCheatEdit

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. Consensus is clear. -- Tavix (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I doubt this would be searched often, when you consider that hashtag. feminist (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:BLP. Purely negative tag being used by Bernie Bros (and/or Russian trolls) to sew division. Also not a likely search term at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP and WP:R#DELETE #3. It's purely disparaging and serves no encyclopedic purpose. - MrX 🖋 18:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Did Trump use this term or not? Kart2401real (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:R#D2 and WP:XY as potentially confusing and ambiguous. Although it may currently be trending about Pete Buttigieg, potentially, it could be referring to any number of past or future mayors for a variety of reasons. Doug Mehus T·C 19:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt per NPOV, BLP. Solely used to denigrate. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Salting isn't needed yet as it hasn't been repeatedly recreated. If, on the other hand, this redirect were recreated four or more times, then we'd probably want to consider salting. Let's hope editor maturity prevails, and it's not recreated. Waste of perfectly good salt if you ask me. Doug Mehus T·C 19:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
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.

Think with GoogleEdit

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. The general consensus here is that neither the current target nor the proposed target would be helpful to readers. Deryck C. 12:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete Does not appear in the targeted list. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Google Ads with rcat {{R from blog}}, {{R to related topic}}, and {{R without mention}} as the name of one of the Google's advertising division's blogs. It's mentioned in a reference at List of Google Easter eggs, but I think Google Ads is the better target. Doug Mehus T·C 17:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not mentioned at the current target, and isn't a subtopic at any of the other suggestions. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Without any mention of this at the target, someone looking for specific information about this will end up confused or disappointed. -- Tavix (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
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.

ShinéEdit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

There are no subjects with a name that ends with "é" on the target disambiguation page. Readers attempting to locate a subject with that specific diacritic will not find what they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment (was Leaning keep per WP:R#K5, but add {{R from diacritic}} and any other applicable rcats.) It's targeted to a disambiguation page, so there's no confusion. Doug Mehus T·C 15:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment It apparently means said in the Irish language, which the Wiktionary entry linked from the disambiguation page notes. I've noted a mention in other uses, but will wait to see if Narky comments here and/or cleans up the mention. Similarly, it's mentioned in the article on Salsa dancing, so retargeting there is a possibility, but given the Irish language use, I think it's ambiguous per WP:R#D2 and keeping is best. Doug Mehus T·C 15:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    • ...Okay, but there's still no examples of it on the disambiguation page. The Rcat templates {{R to diacritic}} and {{R from diacritic}} are traditionally reserved for redirects whose target has a variation with or without diacritics (Example: "Pokemon" vs. "Pokémon".) For a similar, recent debate where the use of diacritics was disputed when there were no applicable targets at the target page, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 January 24#Dağ. In addition, the section at Shine#People currently contains no examples of given names or surnames that are stylized "Shiné"; if anything at this point, maybe Shine (surname) needs to be created if there really is potential for a surname page, and if that is the case, that's validation for this redirect to be deleted per WP:REDLINK until such a page is created. Steel1943 (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
      ...Oh wow, surnames were never mentioned until I said something. Oh well... Steel1943 (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
      ? Doug Mehus T·C 00:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
      Okay, but just to clarify, previous RfD discussions can provide context that may be useful, but they aren't precedent-setting. Nevertheless, I'm seeing at least two potential bluelinks to add to Shine (surname), though I think it was either Narky or perhaps PamD that told me surname stubs typically take precedence disambiguation pages, so then we may need to move Shine to Shine (disambiguation), right? At any rate, we should create Shine (surname) because there's at least two potential bluelinks in Bill Shine and Michael Shine. At that point, we could either keep Shiné targeted to the disambiguation page, due to the confusion with Salsa dancing, or target it to the surname stub, with hatnotes on each of the surname stub and the Salsa dancing article? Doug Mehus T·C 16:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay, 8 entries now. I'll create the page. Doug Mehus T·C 16:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  Done. Now, how do we update Shine to remove the duplicate entries? Do we add a link to the Shine (surname) as a see also reference or within the "People" section? Doug Mehus T·C 16:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  Done some more. Twenty or twenty-one bluelinks at Shine (surname), many of which are of Irish origin, and shiné is a common Irish language word. It could either be targeted to the disambiguation page, per the above, or to Shine (surname), if that's the primary topic. Arguably, Shine should move to Shine (disambiguation) then, and Shine (surname) to Shine. Doug Mehus T·C 17:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steel1943. I have also removed Dmehus's shiné addition for failing WP:NOTDICT and WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing substantive about "Shiné". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per above. It's still appropriately targeted to the disambiguation page shine, so there's no ambiguity or confusion. I don't see article creation as likely at all, but that being said, its utility and usefulness is quite low. So, call it a weak-ish delete per WP:R#D8. Doug Mehus T·C 19:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
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.

HildorEdit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This minor name for "the race of Men", one of numerous pejoratives supposedly given by the Elves to the lesser race, is at best an unlikely search term on Wikipedia. Apanonar, Engwar, Firimar, Usurpers, Strangers, The Inscrutable, the Self-cursed, the Followers are some of the others. I don't think we need any of them actually. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

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 (Final Fight)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 delete. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This character does not appear to be mentioned in any Wikipedia article. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete. I couldn't find a target using either the WP searchbox or Google. Narky Blert (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
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.

Crimson HeadEdit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Fictional elements that are no longer covered in any Wikipedia article, and aren't mentioned at all at the target. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not mentioned in target = useless redirect. Narky Blert (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
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.

Shine(Album)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 delete. -- Tavix (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete typo error x2. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Two typos are too many. Narky Blert (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Shine#Albums as more specific. Quite honestly, what's the point in deleting it? It's definitely helpful and is historic too. There's no policy-based rationale for deletion, and there's some weak policy-based rationales for keeping at WP:RfD#HARMFUL#2, WP:RfD#KEEP#2, WP:RfD#KEEP#4, and WP:RfD#KEEP#5. Also, WP:RfD#HARMFUL says: Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones. J947(c), at 02:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I disagree that two typos is "too many" that Narky said because, in an unrelated RfD, the editor mentioned three typos is too many. I guess that could suggest anything more than one typo is too many. On the other hand, I'm not seeing how this redirect is any way harmful. Under-utilized, probably. Useless, probably. But, like J947, I tend to think it's sort of meh. There's not really a compelling reason for deletion here; it's targeted to the disambiguation page, so there's no confusion or ambiguity. Doug Mehus T·C 20:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RDAB. Steel1943 (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Still not seeing any policy-based rationale for deletion. J947(c), at 00:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Retarget per J947. It's harmless, and potentially useful. It's targeted to a disambiguation page named Shine, so there's no confusion. Doug Mehus T·C 00:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Shine (album) exists. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per extensive previous consensus with respect to parenthetical redirects. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. I wouldn't advise people to nominate such redirects in piecemeal fashion, but once brought to RfD they should be deleted, per the previous consensus summarised in the essay section of WP:RDAB. Yes, that's not a policy, but neither is the quoted information supplement at the top of WP:RFD. I don't see a historic reason to keep the redirect, as this was the title of an article for only an hour and a half more than fourteen years ago (too long ago to matter for external links, not ancient enough to be worth preserving as a hallowed relic). As for the pageviews – regardless of whether you see one view per week as a small or a big number – that's a double-edged sword: yes, some readers would have undoubtedly been helped by the redirect (like those who start typing "Shine(album)" in the search box), but it's possible some would have been hindered too (for example those who intend to type "Shine (song)", but omit the space and after typing the opening bracket are presented with a single suggestion for "Shine(album)", which could mislead them into believing there are entries only for the album and none for the song/s). – Uanfala (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
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.

Al MeemEdit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Minor fictional characters that haven't been covered in the target article for years and aren't mentioned anywhere else. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, due to the lack of a mention and potentially confusing. As well, per WP:R#D10, this free up those names for future, possibly real living persons, and encourage potential article creation. Doug Mehus T·C 13:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:R#D10 isn't for hypothetical future usage, it's for terms that we know are notable now and want an article on. I find it very unlikely that most of these names would have incidental real-life usage. -- Tavix (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
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.

Rome II ConferenceEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 24#Rome II Conference

Serinus MaximusEdit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Subject has no affiliation with the Latin language, delete per WP:RFFL. Hog Farm (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Doug Mehus, the infobox box sources them as "him". ミラP 15:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
ミラ, good point. That's a contradiction. I will start a discussion at Talk:Big Bird. Doug Mehus T·C 16:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
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.

Pearl - one person one lifeEdit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Rather odd one here. Not sure why the "one person one life" qualifier is given. 8 page views in 2019. Was originally this oddity - [1]. Deletion is probably best here. Hog Farm (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Delete as too obscure and a blatant Wikipedia Manual of Style contravention. Nothing wrong with redirects for characters, but there's no need to keep this one because of bizarre disambiguation qualifier, which doesn't meet our style conventions. Doug Mehus T·C 13:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete - "One person one life" seems to have nothing to do with anything. I agree. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I don't see this as a prominent quote (is it even a quote?) from The Scarlet Letter. Also it's confused with One Hour One Life AngusWOOF (barksniff) 03:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC) updated 21:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
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.

33/5Edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

This number's association with the Klan is not mentioned in the article and only becomes apparent when you open the old version of this page that was an unsourced possible OR stub that got redirected to Ku Klux Klan in 2012. A couple minutes on Google did not turn up anything related to the organization for this number. I'm sure there's a better retarget somewhere, but not sure where would be best. Hog Farm (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment I want to say this number is ambiguous per WP:R#D2, so I'd probably lean towards deletion as an WP:XY thing. Doug Mehus T·C 02:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only thing I could find was Hunter 33.5, which is too remote. Narky Blert (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete as ambiguous and potentially confusing per WP:R#D2 and WP:XY, and per Narky. Doug Mehus T·C 13:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete No clear target, or this number simply does not have any significant meaning. ComplexRational (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
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.