Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 24

July 24
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 24, 2021.

Superior Prut and Lower Danube
 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 List of Euroregions. I've created the anchor. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Superior Prut and Lower Danube → Lower Danube (Euroregion) (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

This redirect combines two euroregions into one single title for no reason. These are the Lower Danube euroregion and the Upper Prut euroregion. This redirect is pointless and should be removed in my opinion. Super  Ψ   Dro  13:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep This is a . The best source I've found so far indicates that there was a euroregion founded in 1998 called "Superior Prut and Lower Danube" (pdf page 20) and one founded in 2009 called "Lower Danube" (pdf page 21). What the relationship between them is isn't clear, but there is no evidence of a region called "Superior Prut" alone (unless one was created after this 2016 document), the references in English on the Romanian Wikipedia article cited by the nominator are inconsistent and unclear about whether Superior Prut and Lower Danube, are or were 1 region or two closely connected ones. Additionally, the redirect is getting a lot of use, with over 100 hits so far this year. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 19:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Euroregion or create an anchor to the specific table row in that section. It has information on founding and the local name.  Jay (Talk) 14:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Jay. signed,Rosguill talk 20:43, 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.

List of 2020 Summer Olympics medal winners
 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 Withdrawn by nominator  . Since it is almost certain an article will soon be created, given the opinions expressed by nominator, I'm closing this. If an article is not created in the end, we can create a new nomination. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * List of 2020 Summer Olympics medal winners → 2020 Summer Olympics (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Not useful as a redirect. This provides no useful information sought based off of the title. Should be deleted to encourage article creation, or at very least to prevent misleading those who might follow a link to this. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, very likely to be created ASAP. Just expand, don't delete. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy close Well it would have been created ASAP but now it's at RfD so we need to let this run the full seven days unless nom wants to withdraw or an admin wants to do an IAR close. I'm not comfortable doing a close that is both IAR and NAC, but I'd be fine if someone else, or an admin, did so. Smartyllama (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to withdraw if an article is actually created here - that was the whole point of this nomination. This is useless as a redirect though. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Trouble is an article technically can't be created while it's at RfD unless that's what consensus is. It would probably fall under WP:IAR in this case but it would be easier for you to just withdraw it at this point. Smartyllama (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm fine with anyone closing this provided an article is actually created. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:16, 24 July 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.

New York Emmy Awards
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 3%23New York Emmy Awards

Nigger moment
 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  . Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Nigger moment → The Boondocks (2005 TV series) (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

The phrase isn't discussed in the target article as such. It does discuss the controversy over the target's use of the n-word, but it doesn't use the word "moment" in reference to that. Googling the phrase, most of the uses of it appear unrelated to the target article. Given all of this, I'm not convinced this is a useful redirect. Mr248 (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * This was explained at the article for the episode "Granddad's Fight" (as a "Nigga moment"), but that article was redirected to the episode list in 2014. - Eureka Lott 19:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this redirect actually helps readers. Anyone who stumbles upon the redirect is going to be perplexed by not knowing that history. Adding discussion of this phrase to the target article might remedy that; but, if this phrase is not an important enough aspect of the TV series to be noted by reliable sources, it is arguably the kind of fancruft trivia which doesn't belong in the target article. That would leave deletion of the redirect as the only sensible option. Mr248 (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as is simply not at target. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 15:50, 24 July 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.

Hannitize
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 1%23Hannitize