Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 5

September 5
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 5, 2019.

Sounds of the Skeng (Stormzy album)
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was speedy delete  . CSD G7 Ad Orientem (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Sounds of the Skeng (Stormzy album) → Stormzy (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sounds_of_the_Skeng_(Stormzy_album)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Implausible redirect. Actual subject is Sounds of the Skeng, a song, not an album. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2019 (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.

Sounds of the Skeng (album)
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was speedy delete  . CSD G7 Ad Orientem (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Sounds of the Skeng (album) → Stormzy (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sounds_of_the_Skeng_(album)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Implausible redirect. Actual subject is Sounds of the Skeng, a song, not an album. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2019 (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.

Wellington Lima (Palhaçada)
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  . –Darkwind (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Wellington Lima (Palhaçada) → Wellington Lima (acrobat) (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wellington_Lima_(Palha%C3%A7ada)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

The original title of Wellington Lima (acrobat) may be disparaging, as "Palhaçada" is apparently Portuguese for "clown", and nothing in his article indicates he was one. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The nominated redirect should go (on "implausible foreign-language" grounds rather than NPOV grounds), but it brings another question. Wellington Lima should probably be moved to Wellington de Lima Gomes (the actual name of the person described here, currently a redirect), in which case the (acrobat) disambiguation is no longer needed for the acrobat. Even if WdLG was mentioned as WL by multiple sources (which does not seem to be the case), I don't think it is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:38, 6 September 2019 (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.

Parx (DJ)
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  . –Darkwind (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Parx (DJ) → Alone (Alan Walker song) (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parx_(DJ)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Per item 5 of WP:R, The redirect makes no sense. There is no reference to Parx (DJ) in the article that is directed to. - Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 14:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a reference to "Alone" (Parx Remix) in the tracklisting section of that article; but delete in any case because it's pretty tenuous. PC78 (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sharpiegate
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  . (non-admin closure)  Invalid OS (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Sharpiegate → Hurricane Dorian (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharpiegate&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

usage in reliable sources is mainly in scare quotes Lmatt (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is really a deletion rationale. Seems plausible enough, and not especially obscure. Not sure having RS use scare quotes really pertains to WP:R. I actually had this watchlisted because I was waiting for someone to try to make it into an article.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Politico, Washington Post, Irish Independent, Newsweek, Guardian - scare quotes or hashtags do not necessarily dictate a deletion. This is world news.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the worst rationales I've seen for deleting.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * But wouldn't these article fall under non-neutral viewpoints and opinion pieces? For one you have late night comedians as a link that is an opinion piece. Also SHARPIEGATE is an opinion of the media, there is no proof Trump did the act. This controversy' piece is basically a Trump tantrum that has no impact on Hurricane Dorian, just to expose Trump of being stupid. IE a collection of articles that wouldn't be found in any encyclopedia. Dwightks11 11:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Dwightks11 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The thing is, while redirects can't be outright inflammatory, they don't necessarily need to conform to exactly the same standard of neutrality or prominence as articles do. They're not really a medium for content delivery, so much as they are a mechanism for navigation. The important thing is that they are a reasonable search term, and readers searching for it are looking for the type of content we're pointing them to.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  11:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)



The community expects a Wikipedia page to resemble what you would find in an encyclopedia. I know they are structured differently and you can get alot more info on Wikipedia about a topic. But I feel like the information being presented here doesn't have anything to do with information about the Hurricane itself. Any topic that's going to be labeled controversy would be a netrual view point, In the sense that I'm not looking for information about what happened in the media. Im with you and I'm against you, because it is a topic(hurricane) but it's specific topic(Dorian). Im a little flustered because I see a lot of article links that are biased on other pages, like all of the articles presented here. But I can't really give you any sites because I don't trust any news links, because even though it might not say opinion piece the majority of the time it's someones opinion. Is this the right place to have this long form discussion? I'm new, sorry.
 * Not really, but it's probably not going to break anything. You kindof have to partition the two topics in your mind here: 1) whether this is a useful redirect, and 2) whether the content of the article is verifiable and neutral. Redirects are cheap, and Wikipedia's search engine is pretty awful (albeit getting better). So our main concern first is whether this is an appropriate target for a stand alone article. I would say no, the "sharpiegate" thing may receive in-depth coverage, but it's unlikely to receive sustained in-depth coverage, and both those things are needed to warrant an article.
 * Having gotten that out of the way, it is a plausible search term for a reader looking to read about reactions to the hurricane? I'd say probably yes. "Plausible" is a pretty low bar, and much lower than our standards for notability or even our much lower standards for credible significance. And it looks like the search term is being used upward of 100 times a day so far. And that's pretty well within acceptable usage to qualify as plausible.
 * Whether the article's content is neutral is a much nastier and detailed issue, and will probably be hashed out on the article's talk page for a long time to come. I say personally, on current events, articles usually don't reach neutrality until about three to five years after the fact, when people have enough hindsight to approach things dispassionately.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked at that statistics page you linked and it said only a total of 138 people have searched it. So would be better off as it's own topic and a link on the Dorian page in the see also drop down?
 * This specific piece (SHARPIEGATE) goes against these,wp:Not
 * Opinion pieces
 * Scandal mongering(Gossip specifically [] the first and last Functions on this link).Dwightks11 13:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The tool I linked to only measures views in full 24 hour periods, and the page has only existed for one full 24 hour period. But while page views are highly relevant in determining whether a redirect may be a plausible search term, they're not really relevant for notability, which is decidedly not a measure of popularity or fame.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep "Sharpiegate" is a reasonable search term even if it is a WP:NEO, and it is redirecting to an appropriate section. (I was curious how WP was covering this just now and saw this). --M asem  (t) 14:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So these policies means nothing? wp:Not Dwightks11 14:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What you're citing at NOT doesn't apply to redirect terms. The fact that it is actually being called (even if jokingly or demeaningly) as "Sharpiegate" probably should be mentioned briefly in the text, but clearly not presented as such. But readers coming from the news will be searching on this term, assuredly, and there is no harm in having the redirect that points to where they can read more that's written in a neutral manner. (Whether that text is or not... there's a few minor issues, but not for this RDF page.) --M asem (t) 17:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, your beef seems to be with the content at the target article, not the redirect itself. You should take your argument to the talk page of the target article (located at Talk:Hurricane_Dorian). If the content is kept (which to me seems likely although not guaranteed), the redirect does not meet any of the criterion from WP:R. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 16:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Soibangla's retarget to Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump though the previous target was OK. I suppose a standalone article is warranted (unfortunately), retarget to that one when it goes live. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 10:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Like it or not, it’s a happening thing. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; the redirect is useful. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as some article mentions the term, it seems to be reasonable redirect to that mention. If there is no mention of the term in any article and it's not obvious to a reader who has vaguely heard of the term but has no idea what it is why they were redirected, I would support deleting the redirect as pointless and confusing. (In this case, I think mention of the Sharpie in the article is likely sufficient since IMO the term suffix gate is commonly used enough to be obvious. Maybe even simply mention of a marker pen although that's stretching it a bit since it requires someone to appreciate the US usage of marker pens commonly being referred to by the brand name Sharpie.) I don't think RfD is the best place to discuss whether the article should mention the term, that should follow normal WP:Dispute resolution processes for article content. Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand into a full article. It was already overrunning the Hurricane Dorian article, but today it expanded into a full blown scandal, with the revelation that the Secretary of the Interior ordered the head of NOAA to issue a report saying Trump was right - and threatening to fire the top officials at NOAA if that wasn't done. The head of NOAA initially objected, but we know that such a report (unsigned) was in fact issued - and that there was an enormous backlash against it in the NOAA rank and file - and that the lead scientist at NOAA is investigating. I intend to start drafting an expansion of the article later tonight or tomorrow, and I wouldn't be surprised if the people who !voted "keep" would support such an expansion. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you think about my suggestion to expand this into a full grown article? Maybe moving to a better title to be worked out later, such as Hurricane Dorian Alabama controversy, but starting out by expanding Sharpiegate.) -- MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest not expanding out, at least at this stage. RECENTISM and all. Appropriate to document in context of Dorian, but not yet as a separate article; if in a few weeks this is still a major detail, then a separate article can be warranted. --M asem (t) 00:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think we're past the point of trivially passing coverage. If this is still a thing that anyone is still writing about in a few weeks, then color me shocked and I'll help you write the article myself. But we're just getting past the weekend, the weekly shows have had their crack at it, and everyone having their go rehashing what the weekly shows had to say without adding much in the way of substance. I highly suspect we're well on the downhill slope once we get that collectively out of our systems. Next the administration will suggest we use nerve agents to stop a tornado and we'll be well on our way to talking about something else.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  02:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * - I don't feel strongly either way, and I think the answer would be settled at AfD…  starship .paint  (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that looks like consensus so I'll hold off. I may start a draft, but I'll keep it as a draft until there is more feeling that we need an article. I do think it will get to that point. Now that the cabinet is involved - Congress is certainly going to look into what appears to be a cabinet member overruling science for political reasons. No telling how far this is going to go. But, WP:CRYSTAL at this point. (Sorry, GMG, I don't have "shocked" in my crayon box.) -- MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You *could* write that over at Wikinews too (that, RECENTISM would not apply) and then if/when it looks like we should cover it on en.wiki, transwiki it over. --M asem (t) 05:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, Masem. I took a look at Wikinews but their style is too different. They are looking for quick, news-right-now-gone-the-next-day kind of articles, not longitudinal coverage over weeks like my draft. I'll just keep building it in my userspace and wait for the time to be right for a full article. I am confident that time will come soon. And when it does, we could remove most references to it at the Hurricane Dorian article, with a "main article" link instead. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with others it seems unnecessary to have a stand alone article at this time. With the NYT claims it looking a lot more like one could be justified but it's still too soon. If this does blow up more and eg Congress looks into the allegations people's jobs were threatened this will probably go into the standalone article territory but let's wait and see. Nil Einne (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I do NOT want this as a separate article, but judging by the piss-poor quality of many other utterly trivial articles, it would probably pass with the majority of editors. Drmies (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The story gets more significant every day; it is now revealed that the order for NOAA to issue a statement supporting the president came directly from the White House. And that's going to trigger congressional investigation for sure. I'm keeping a draft. I feel sure a full article will be needed at some point, probably soon. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm warming up to the idea. As I'm sure you know, anything Trump related at AfD is a 36,000 word fiasco. I'm still inclined to wait a bit longer and see if we get more sustained coverage in the form of an official investigation, and maybe we can avoid that AfD all together.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  01:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There already is an official investigation - three of them actually. The NOAA chief scientist, the Commerce Department inspector general, and a House committee are all investigating whether there was improper political influence over the department. I have an article ready to launch. It will be tentatively called "Hurricane Dorian - Alabama controversy" - name open for discussion. My draft can be seen here. If the result of this discussion is "redirect" as I expect, I propose to redirect "Sharpiegate" to the new article and then trim 80-90% of the content on this subject out of the Hurricane Dorian article - where it is way out of proportion and overbalancing that article, which ought to be about the hurricane. I think this will be a net improvement of our coverage. If people agree with this approach, they can !vote to redirect Sharpiegate to the new article. If someone doesn't agree with this approach, there is always AfD. But I think when you see the article - how much meat it has and how well referenced - you will agree it is a valid article. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as a redirect for now, per Masem. Time will tell whether it should be expanded into an article.  Mini  apolis  22:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please comment on the redirect target as well: it used to point to Hurricane Dorian but during the RfD retargeted to Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump. (I support that, and commented above.)  Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 10:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Autophilia
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Self-love. (non-admin closure)  Steel1943  (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Autophilia → Narcissism (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autophilia&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

"Autophilia" is not mentioned in the "Narcissism" article, and no clear alternative target is apparent to me. I do no believe "autophilia" and "narcissism" are related terms at all. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Autophilia should redirect to self-love. Self love could be narcissism but not necessarily. Wictionary references narcissism as a possible meaning of autophilia which is consistent with self love. --Penbat (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can go along with that, but the article on self-love currently does not mention autophilia either. It does not define it as a synonym or anything like that. I do prefer this target over narcissism, though. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a better match.--Penbat (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Al-Faqihu 'l-'Imad
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was speedy keep  . Withdrawing nomination, an explanation justifying the redirect was provided. (non-admin closure) signed,Rosguill talk 21:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Al-Faqihu 'l-'Imad → Umara bin Abi al-Hasan al-Yamani (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Faqihu_%27l-%27Imad&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

I don't see any indication in the target article or in an internet search that this term is connected to the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed,Rosguill talk 08:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, the lede paragraph does indeed mention this man as "al-Faqīh Abū Muḥammad." The reason I made this redirect was because of its use in a list of Arabic manuscripts held at one of the British libraries (I can't remember which); either Cambridge University or Oxford University in England. The University published a catalogue listing the Arabic manuscripts it possesses, and one of which was the works of this great man whom they named as "Al-Faqihu 'l-'Imad," the word "al-Faqih" being only an honorary title, meaning "the Jurist." The Arabic adjective following his title is "'l-'imad," which is simply "general," or "all-around," in other words, "the all-around jurist," or "the general jurist." The same British publication names him as being the author of the book Tarikh al-Yemen ("The History of Yemen"). The author of this work is also known by the name Umara bin Abi al-Hasan al-Yamani. The redirect, therefore, is important, especially if anyone who reads the British catalogue wishes to know more about this great man. Keep the redirect! Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that 'l-'Imad was short hand for Abu Muhammad. If that is the case, then I have no problem with keeping the redirect. signed,Rosguill talk 16:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstood me. The adjective `l-`Imad (or "al-'Imad") means "general," as in General Secretary. The author of the work Tarikh al-Yemen ("The History of Yemen") was called in Arabic "the General Jurist." As for "al-Faqīh Abū Muḥammad," it is the author's kunya, where it means literally "The Jurist, the father of Muhammad." In this case, Muhammad is the name of his eldest son.--Davidbena (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I understand. Withdrawing nomination. signed,Rosguill talk 21:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Scott Baron
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  . —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Scott Baron → Leslie Nielsen (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Baron&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Per WP:SURPRISE, and Teahouse where participated. The only discernible link is that Baron is co-author of ref 20 in the article about Nielsen. Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 08:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per item 10 of WP:R, unless someone is able to (1) create a stand-alone article about Baron or (2) find a way to incorporate actual content about him into another article (perhaps an article about one of his books if an article about one of them can be written or content about one of them added to another article). -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Absurdly tenuous link that should be cut forthwith. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hinotama
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  . –Darkwind (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hinotama → Hitodama (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinotama&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

From reading the target and the linked Japanese Wikipedia article, it would appear that while Hitodama (人魂) refers to a type of ghost, Hinotama (火の玉) just means fireball (not quite, see following comment by Osarusan). While Hitodama supposedly manifest as a ball of light, I don't think that makes this an appropriate redirect and would suggest deletion. signed,Rosguill talk 08:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC) 16:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The two items are very different, in terms of folklore. The hitodama is a human soul and appears as a glowing ball of light. Hitodama are magical fireballs and there exist many dozens of different types. One could argue that the hitodama is a type of hinotama, but not vice versa. They should be separate pages. Osarusan (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sir Andrew Lewis
<div class="boilerplate rfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;"> Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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 Andrew Lewis (Royal Navy officer). –Darkwind (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Sir Andrew Lewis → List of provosts of Aberdeen (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sir_Andrew_Lewis&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Delete because The redirect is to an unrelated topic which happens to include a minor reference to someone with a similar name. Sir Andrew Lewis was an Essex deputy Lieutenant. There is already a redirect for Sir Andrew Jopp Williams Lewis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjm at sleepers (talk • contribs) 07:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC) *I deproded the redirect, as the individual concerned is on the list, therefore it could potentially have use. I admit that the usefulness is rather limited, but redirects are cheap, and this redirect is hardly misleading. OxonAlex   - talk  08:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC) Change target to Andrew Lewis (Royal Navy officer) per   OxonAlex    - talk  08:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This nomination was a bit malformed. I have cleaned it up (no opinion on the redirect currently). Geolodus (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * On reflection, it should probably become a disambig page to distinguish Sir Andrew MacKenzie Lewis from Sir Andrew Jopp Williams Lewis. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Changing target to Andrew Lewis (Royal Navy officer) as suggested by and Clarity Friend and OxonAlex sounds good to me. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Andrew Lewis (Royal Navy officer), with a redirect hatnote to the provost. The former is much more notable than the latter. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.