Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 3

August 3
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 3, 2021.

List of past Emmerdale characters (1972–1999)
 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  .  MBisanz  talk 21:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * List of past Emmerdale characters (1972–1999) → List of former Emmerdale characters (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Term "past" is not used for fictional characters as agreed by WP:SOAPS. Redirect gets no traffic/use and has no purpose since it's an implausible search term and linked nowhere. – DarkGlow • 20:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Note this redirect has a very extensive history and before deletion (if that is the consensus) it is important that any required history merges are identified and completed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 20:57, 3 August 2021 (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.

126.com
 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  or no consensus (depending on the redirect, but the result is the same). I will go ahead and restore the edit that  discovered in order to resolve the lack of mention concerns. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 22:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * 126.com → NetEase (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * 163.com → NetEase (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * 188.com → NetEase (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Not mentioned at target; mentions elswhere appear to consist exclusively of citations and compatibility notes for email clients. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Keep all as all are plausible search terms. In this edit, (who created 126.com and 188.com) added: "E-mail Services: Largest provider of free e-mail services in China with more than 940 million users as of 2017, in addition to 163.com, the company also runs 188.com, 126.com and more." This information has since been removed. I would support restoring this information, possibly with a better source. NetEase's website at http://tech.163.com/special/00093ID1/nd60specList_43.html confirms that it owns these domains: "网易旗下六大电子邮箱（126.com、163.com、188.com、vip.163.com、yeah.net、netease.com）注册用户总数已突破2.8亿". The Google Translate of this text is: "The total number of registered users of NetEase’s six major e-mail addresses (126.com, 163.com, 188.com, vip.163.com, yeah.net, netease.com) has exceeded 280 million". Even without mention of these domains in the article, I would still support retention since they are all plausible redirects of NetEase's domains to its article. Cunard (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There seems to be a consensus to keep at least the first redirect, but no clear consensus yet on the other two.
 * Keep 163.com which is discussed at the target with various WP:RS in support, and is well-known as part of the company's branding. No opinion on the others Delete the others as not significant enough to be mentioned. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC) updated 01:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks; it appears I confused something. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)  08:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep 163.com, discussed at the target and a plausible search term. Neutral on the others. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 20:55, 3 August 2021 (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.

Fever Games
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 12%23Fever Games

The Spectrum & Daily News
 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 The Spectrum (Utah).  MBisanz  talk 21:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The Spectrum & Daily News → Gannett (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Spectrum & Daily News → Gannett (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Thespectrum.com → Gannett (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Not mentioned at target. Mentions elsewhere all appear to be in citations. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Retarget the first two to The Spectrum (Utah), the current article (albeit the stubbiest of stubs) we have for the paper. The third is unlikely to be a proper target.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 09:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mrschimpf Thanks, I didn't see we had an article; retargeting there seems appropriate. Why do you think an R from domain name is an unlikely search term? User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)  18:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Only because there's so many things named 'Spectrum'.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mrschimpf But the domain name belongs specifically to the newspaper you linked. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)  18:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 20:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Retarget all three to The Spectrum (Utah)All three, including the URL, seem like reasonable redirects, as noted above.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Retarget all per Yaksar. The third is a reasonable r from domain name. -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 11:16, 8 August 2021 (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.

Sunnydale Syndrome
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 12%23Sunnydale Syndrome

Daventry Parkway Project
<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  for now, with no prejudice against recreating should a sourced mention somewhere stick. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 01:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Daventry Parkway Project → Weedon railway station (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Delete. The redirect is part of a wp:ADVOCACY attempt to use Wikipedia as a platform by a non-notable campaign to establish a new railway station and new line for Daventry in England. See history of the target article and of the Daventry article  John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest that WP:Articles for deletion/Sustainable Transport Northamptonshire and the reasons give by 's to reject Draft:Sustainable Transport Midlands are relevant to this RfD submission. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. I have added a citation needed at the target for the line that mentions the advocacy group and the proposed project.  Jay (Talk) 06:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry but, before having seen your note here but after you moved the non-citing 'citation' (at (Weedon railway station), I deleted the line for the self-styled 'group' per WP:advocacy and WP:notnotable, because your (correct) edit means that it has never had a valid citation since it was first inserted. This is the threshold level of political commitment we should require unless we are to accept as valid every bedroom fantasy. But feel free to revert if my edit may be considered prejudicial. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There is short, cited paragraph about this at Weedon Bec that notes support from the district council. That level of mention seems entirely appropriate for the article about the station too, so I suggest mentioning there and then keeping the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would have been more impressed if the first citation at the Weedon Bec article had not been WP:SELFPUBLISHed [I have deleted the sentence, it was redundant in the article anyway] and if the text nominally supported by the second citation had actually been been an honest reflection of that citation. [I have corrected, charitably.] Until today, there was some text asserting the existence of a campaign to reopen Weedon as "Daventry Parkway" but the claimed supporting citation failed verification. (This morning, [re]moved the citation and then I removed the unsupported text – see above.) So yes, the redirect should certainly stand if there is some reliably-sourced text at the station article to receive it. Right now there isn't and Google can't find anything that passes the selfpublish and primary source test. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Have seen mentions of it, probably in published works, so Keep as redirects are cheap . Mallaeta (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , even one citation would be good. Yes, redirects are cheap but to which target article? Why? I wouldn't normally bother about something so trivial except that the proponents have been littering multiple articles with advocacy material and have had two AFCs declined. Leaving the redirect is just an invitation to resume when attention has moved on. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder if perhaps the reference you recall was actually to Long Buckby? It is about 4.5 mi from central Daventry and de facto its parkway station (and the obvious reason why another station is most unlikely to be funded). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I've found a 2014 book reference to "Daventry Parkway" (without the Project), which pre-supposes a HS2 station at Brackley (which is not going to happen):
 * . (Willoughby is 4.9 miles from Daventry.)
 * So I guess there might be a case for a correctly named redirection article that points to Braunston and Willoughby railway station where a sentence might cite Hall's concept. (I'm unconvinced but would not oppose.) I also found a reference in a a Daventry District Council planning document (Daventry District Settlements and Countryside Local Plan – Responses to Regulation 19 Consultation (Plan Order)) that dismisses the idea. There are other mentions in blogs etc, none by anyone notable. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:aqua 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 05:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 20:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Retarget to List of largest towns in England without a railway station where the nom has added details of the Daventry Parkway station proposal.  Jay (Talk) 15:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that is a misreading. "Daventry Parkway" [sic] is just about notable, "Daventry Parkway Project" is not – it is a teenage fantasy with no traction whatever. It has zero mention outside the self-published sources. My (cited) addition to the "List of largest" is about the Parkway, not about the imaginary "project". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In the absence of a Daventry Parkway proposal, I thought the current redirect would suffice, but if the uppercase P of Project makes it refer to the experimental project with limited reach, then Delete for now.  Jay (Talk) 19:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Calling this "self-published" is an error. Neither the publisher nor the byline are the proponent of the scheme. That said, I have no idea where and how this minor factoid fits into Wikipedia.  It's less well documented than the Weedon and Daventry Railway Company (incorporated in 1868 by Act of Parliament) and the Daventry and Weedon Railway Company (of 1872), both of which apparently (if I am not mis-reading the sources) belong in Weedon–Marton Junction line, and both of which better-documented (in history books) attempts at a railway line are not in Wikipedia at all yet. Uncle G (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are absolutely correct that the Northampton Chronicle is not a self-published source and is certainly reliable enough for this purpose. However, the story in the Chronicle says nothing whatever about a Parkway Project. It just says that this 14-year old kid would like to see his local station (on the West Coast Main Line) reopened as "Daventry Parkway". As already said above, "Daventry Parkway" is just (barely) notable enough to have a redirect (to List of largest towns in England without a railway station) but there is no notable (or even credible) 'Project'. If no local source has given it any credence, why should we? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2021 (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.

New York Emmy Awards
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 12%23New York Emmy Awards

No (Vim song)
<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 soft delete  . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion .  ✗  plicit  23:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * <span id="No (Vim song)">No (Vim song) → Eddsworld (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

No mention of "no", "vim" or songs at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed,Rosguill talk 20:12, 3 August 2021 (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.

Leucoleftism
<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 soft delete  . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion .  ✗  plicit  23:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Leucoleftism → Baizuo (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Neologism with no evidence of use elsewhere, delete unless evidence of usage can be provided. signed,Rosguill talk 20:11, 3 August 2021 (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.

University of Lahn
<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 soft delete  . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion .  ✗  plicit  23:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * University of Lahn → University of Giessen (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Not mention of "Lahn" at the target or its linked deWiki counterpart; searching online, the closest relevant result was University of Marburg, (Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg An Der Lahn), a separately notable institution. It's not clear to me that it is ever referred to that way, so I'm currently leaning towards deletion of this redirect. signed,Rosguill talk 20:03, 3 August 2021 (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.

German Blimpways
<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  .  ✗  plicit  00:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * German Blimpways → Hindenburg-class airship (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Not mentioned at the target, zero results on GScholar and no relevant results in an internet search. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed,Rosguill talk 19:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, I likewise found zero results on an academic search engine I use, could be a poor translation from Deutsch but the redirect is definitely spurious in lieu of solid info. Carguychris (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, noting that the creator has a history of questionable German aerospace redirects. This is six redirects now that no one's found evidence for, all in the same topic area, plus two about the German language. Are these terms you've seen used elsewhere? If so, where? If not, you should probably stop creating redirects like these.  -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 11:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: 's past creation of a redirect for the comical mistranslation "Deutschlandese Airways" strongly suggests that "German Blimpways" is a hoax and a joke, just a less obvious one. Carguychris (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of these stretch AGF pretty thin. Still, they haven't edited for a few weeks, and I will reserve judgment till they're active again and can answer these questions. Otis, if you're reading this in the future and this RfD has already closed, feel free to post on my talk page with your answer to why you created these. -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:27, 9 August 2021 (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.

Bill Hanks
<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  .  ✗  plicit  00:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Bill Hanks → Bill Cosby (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Not mentioned at the target, no evidence of use online. The edit summary for the redirect's creation is Redirect based of wife's surname. Although never referred by this surname such redirects are still plausible as people do search people on Wikipedia by spouse's surname like Amber Depp for Amber Heard. I think this is a flawed argument, because a) men taking their wives' surname is extremely uncommon in the US and is a much less likely search term than "Woman's Name + Husband's Surname" and b) Bill Cosby is far more well-known than his wife, further reducing the likelihood that someone would search for him by his wife's name. I think deletion is the way to go here. signed,Rosguill talk 19:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.  Jay (Talk) 19:17, 4 August 2021 (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.

Yaron Cohen
<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  . ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yaron Cohen → <Redacted for reasons obviuos from the nomination rationale> (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Please delete per WP:DEADNAME: "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists". If this should be kept, I have no idea what the word "redirects" should exclude. 93.172.226.66 (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I can find no evidence she was notable prior to transitioning. Reliable source coverage uses her stage name, and the other name present in the article. Star   Mississippi  19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete; I feel like this should be a speedy delete criterion. &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2021 (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.

Guitar-rock
<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 Rock music.  ✗  plicit  00:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Guitar-rock → Pop rock (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Guitar rock → Pop rock (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Guitar rock refers to rock music with guitars, which is a much broader category than just pop rock. Rock music is probably the most appropriate existing target, although deletion may also be appropriate. signed,Rosguill talk 19:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Retarget to rock music per nom, the term "guitar rock" is used in many different contexts and can't be reliably tied to any particular style. Carguychris (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2021 (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.

Russian Occupied China
<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  .  ✗  plicit  00:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Russian Occupied China → Outer Manchuria (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Chinese irredentist term, not currently in use anywhere in Wikipedia and gramatically incorrect. Super  Ψ   Dro  16:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I was prepared to !vote keep on the premise that this could be a valid R from non-neutral term, but I can't find any evidence of use of this phrase even in Chinese irredentist contexts; the few results I found use it as a descriptive term for territory actively occupied during military conflicts between Russia and China, which isn't coterminous with Outer Manchuria. signed,Rosguill talk 20:18, 3 August 2021 (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.

Bennett Government
<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 Thirty-sixth government of Israel.  ✗  plicit  00:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Bennett Government → 15th Canadian Ministry (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Should be turned into a disambiguation page as the Thirty-sixth government of Israel is also called the "Bennett–Lapid government"  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 06:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Thirty-sixth government of Israel and disambiguate there with a hatnote pointing to the old target. An internet search suggests that the Israeli government has rapidly established itself as the primary topic for this term, although there is plenty of historical use to justify the prior target. signed,Rosguill talk 20:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Thirty-sixth government of Israel as a more suitable target. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:05, 5 August 2021 (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.

Arnaldo Hernandez variants
<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  .  ✗  plicit  08:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Arnaldo Jose Hernandez → Kansas City Royals minor league players (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * <span id="Arnaldo Jose Hernández">Arnaldo Jose Hernández → Kansas City Royals minor league players (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * <span id="Arnaldo Hernández">Arnaldo Hernández → Kansas City Royals minor league players (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Alternate spelling deleted last year at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_2. Briefly played in the Mexican League since then, but has since been released; I'm not sure that there's a good list or anywhere else to point this. Hog Farm Talk 05:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete all Not notable, not likely to become notable, no article history needing th be saved. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete all as no suitable target. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:04, 5 August 2021 (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.

Rafael DePaula variants
<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  .  ✗  plicit  08:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Jose Rafael De Paula → Atlanta Braves minor league players (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Rafael de Paula → Atlanta Braves minor league players (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Rafael DePaula → San Diego Padres minor league players (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Subject has washed out of the minor leagues, and does not seem to be in the Padres, Braves, or any other teams' systems, so shouldn't be at these lists. Hog Farm Talk 04:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete all Not notable, not likely to become notable, no article history needing th be saved. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as no suitable target. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:03, 5 August 2021 (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.