Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 1

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. Clearly not happening, and I'm putting a lid on this before any more insults are thrown at the nominator. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM? → Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is substantively the same this redirect which was deleted after this discussion. Anne drew (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This redirect is substantively different from "SANFRANJANBANSFRAM", the redirect that was previously discussed and deleted, insofar as it has letters in a different order and thus has a different meaning. This is how language works? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No it's not the same thing. It's a question, rather than an assertion, and it's the same question a lot of the community have been asking. The nom should find something more productive to do, than to keep trying to throw roadblocks in front of that discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh keep. The prior redirect was "SANFRANJANBANSFRAM" which was, rightly or wrongly, deleted on attack/BLP grounds because it implied that a specific person (Jan) was solely responsible for the ban. The current version avoids that concern. Ordinarily I would !vote delete anyway because the redirect feature is meant to be used for actual redirects, that is, situations in which a reader might reasonably type in an alternate name for something that is present on Wikipedia under another pagename. But in the prior RfD, a consensus was emerging that this situation called for allowing a bit of humor, and I don't think we should spend another week here arguing about that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's worth a month, at least? Martinevans123 (talk)

• Keep The previous redirect included someone's name, and was speedy deleted because the humor-challenged could plausibly infer that the redirect was attacking that person for banning Fram. This redirect does not have that issue, so it does not make sense to use the previous rationale as a reason to delete this one. Additionally, G4 speedy deletion (the usual process by which things are deleted when the same reason applies) is only valid for things that were deleted as the consensus of a full deletion discussion, not true in this case (there was a deletion discussion, but it was headed the other way until cut short by the speedy). (I happen to think the original redirect was funnier, but oh well.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The previous redirect suffered from a fatal flaw, in that Jan is German; his name, therefore, did not fit the intended rhyme scheme. The current redirect at issue has a flawless rhyme scheme, does not get personal, and is therefore perfectly kosher. Thank you! Elizium23 (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Typical WMF.... JAN today, JAM tomorrow! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  SANFRANFRAMBANJAM? EEng 22:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - faulty premise. Killiondude (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - The former redirect was not deleted as a result of the linked discussion. It was speedy deleted under WP:G10 as a unilateral admin action. This redirect alleviates that concern. Otherwise, the discussion resulted in no consensus to delete. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This redirect does not contain "JAN", so where is the offence?. Dr. K. 22:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the reasons articulated in the last RfD, and overturn the previous version’s G10 deletion so the RfD can actually handle whether there’s an attack concern. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep if that is the rationale. This does not have the same problem as the previous one. SmartSE (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Although I believe there was no consensus regarding the close upon which this new RfD is predicated, I do not comment on the propriety of that. Instead, I'd like to note the substantive difference: this one lacks any and all terms that can or could be considered a personal attack. As such, it ought to be fine. (In short, and in a more jocular manner, I note that Elizium23 is perfectly correct.) —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Anne drew Andrew and Drew have you even read the last discussion .... If you had you'd know these aren't the same at all, Snowflakes today always finding something to be offended at. –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(The discussion was closed at this point. Steel1943 (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC))

• Ivanvector, you are seriously out of line here. Oh wait. Never mind. EEng 23:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Legends of Tomorrow → Legends of Tomorrow  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unhelpful redirect as (a) it does not lead to a list article, but to the main series article and (b) it can't be changed to a better target, as it can be a list of List of Legends of Tomorrow characters or List of Legends of Tomorrow episodes. Gonnym (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This was originally created as an episode list article but was redirected back to the main series article because there was no consensus to split the episodes out to a separate page. The split was lso done without complying with WP:CWW. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ambiguous title. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - ambiguous as to what it refers to (could be a list of characters or a list of episodes or a list of cast members or who knows what else) and also we do not have an actual list of things expected to be considered legendary at any point in the future. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Meaningless. — the Man in Question (in question) 06:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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) feminist (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Legends of Tomorrow eps → List of Legends of Tomorrow episodes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unhelpful abbreviation of the word "episode". The redirect Legends of Tomorrow episodes is already here for people who want to search in this style. Gonnym (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm not really sure what you're after here. The redirect already targets List of Legends of Tomorrow episodes so I don't see that there's any real problem. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just a pointless redirect that is maybe mildly helpful, but since a similar redirect (Legends of Tomorrow episodes) already exists with proper grammar, this is just garbage. --Gonnym (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Redirects are cheap, and WP:REDIRECT#KEEP states that a reason to keep is "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." Well, I find this redirect useful, and it has no other issues (it's not POV, it's not misleading, etc.). Wiktionary acknowledges "ep" as a common abbreviation of the word "episode". "List of Legends of Tomorrow episodes" is really long to type out, and I visit the page often, and it's useful to me to type the much shorter "Legends of Tomorrow eps". —Lowellian (reply) 20:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you saying you find it useful in the sense that it's something you (would) actually use? Or are you saying you find it useful in the sense that it strikes you as potentially being useful to someone else? Because the quote you gave is referring to the former, but it sounds like you're describing the latter. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Both. It's useful to me and others. —Lowellian (reply) 23:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nominater even agrees that it might be mildly helpful. That's all you need to justify an unambiguous term to be a redirect. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - unambiguous and points at the correct target. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unhelpful redirect. Are all television episode pages to receive such redirects? I sure hope not. Redirects are costly, and keeping a redirect like this encourages more to be made in the same pattern. — the Man in Question (in question) 06:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  With all due respect it seems that you don't edit many TV articles because all sorts of weird redirects exist for TV articles. Some I've created myself, like List of Legends of Tomorrow above, when I redirected an improperly created article back to the main series article. A redirect like this won't encourage creation of redirects any more than existing redirects do. I should probably point out that while WP:REDIRECT#KEEP is an actual editing guideline that is supported by WP:RFD#KEEP, Wikipedia:Redirects are costly is just an essay. "eps" is a common abbreviation for "episodes" so having this turn up in web searches is actually useful. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, respectfully, I continue to vote for deletion. Consensus is on your side. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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) feminist (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• List of LoT episodes → List of Legends of Tomorrow episodes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unhelpful abbreviation (which is not used once), which might fit other items as well. Gonnym (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Redirects are cheap, and it's a common and reasonable shortening of a long show title. —Lowellian (reply) 20:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Unless you can find another show that LoT can refer to. Otherwise, it's an unambiguous term that could only help readers and editors too lazy to type the full name. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't think LoT is ambiguous (it could be but I can't think of anything, Lord of Thunder or something like that), and it points at the correct target. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CptViraj (📧) 10:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ibranovski → Stmpd Rcrds  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Listed on the artist's section, but its listing remains unsourced, as are multiple other artists listed on this page. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Eurasia and Eastern Eurasia, respectively. I am not refining due to the suggested section no longer existing. I note there is still a bit of disagreement on Western Eurasian, but this result now matches Western Eurasian with Western Eurasia, West Eurasian, and West Eurasia. Perhaps those four redirects may be the subject of a future RfD should no additional content emerge. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Western Eurasian → Caucasian  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Eastern Eurasian → Mongoloid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The terms "Eastern Eurasian" and "Western Eurasian" are introduced in the lead of the target Mongoloid as alternative, more modern terms for "Mongoloid" and "Caucasoid" respectively, but no sources are provided to back up this claim. Sources elsewhere in the article referring to "Eastern Eurasian" groups do not appear to ever refer to the term "Mongoloid" in their text. I was unable to find any decisive evidence that these are synonyms in an internet and Scholar search. Eastern Eurasian is a new redirect, whereas Western Eurasian had been pointing at Eurasia since 2008, and was changed to point to Caucasian the same day that Eastern Eurasian was created. If sources cannot be found establishing that these are actually equivalent to race science categories, these redirects should be pointed back to Eurasia or deleted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be getting a mixed result here. Our article Eurasian describes the term as referring to people of mixed ancestry, part European, part Asia - so that’s completely different from these redirects, which seem to be talking about native inhabitants of the continental landmass called Eurasia. The target article Caucasian is completely wrong; it is actually a DAB page and it doesn’t mention “Western Eurasian.” The article Caucasian race is probably what they meant, but it does not use the term “Western Eurasian” either, and I couldn't even find a reference to the concept under another name. So the "Western Eurasian" redirect is a bust. On the other hand, the target article Mongoloid does mention the "Eastern Eurasian" concept - once unreferenced in the lead saying it is a “more modern” synonym for Mongoloid, and once in a paragraph with three citations talking about an “eastern Eurasian clade” of the Eurasian population; it's in the context of Caucasoid-Mongoloid divergence, so they may be using the concept as a synonym for Mongoloid. What I’m coming up with is that Eastern Eurasian may be a valid redirect to Mongoloid, but Western Eurasian should be deleted unless it can be added with sources to a target article. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my concern was that it wasn't clear that the sources cited in Mongoloid discussing an "eastern Eurasian clade" were using it in such a way that we could conclude that it directly refers to the category of "Mongoloid". I would presume that if it was such a direct renaming of the concept (a la mental retardation --> Intellectual disability), we could find RS saying as much in anthropology, biology, or critical race studies publications, but my attempt to find such sources in Google Scholar was a bust. This leaves me concerned that these terms as used in Mongoloid and as redirects are WP:SYNTH, and rather thorny synth given the subject matter. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't make it clear (and I didn't), I am fine with deleting both of them. They seem like rather unlikely search terms anyhow - not much used that I could find. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – These are attempts to re-task broad geographical terms as neologisms for outmoded racial classifications, as in the above-mentioned wording in the Mongoloid article, which was added at the same time. The phrases are occasionally used in genetics articles, but in a broad geographical sense, not as designating racial groups. Kanguole 14:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't really have much to say about the above, but Eastern Eurasian should not be deleted, whereas it could quite reasonably be redirected to Eastern Eurasia. It's not much, but it makes sense. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Eurasia#Anthropology and genetics (where Western Eurasia redirects) and Eastern Eurasia, respectively. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom comment I support BDD's suggestion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Eurasia#Anthropology and genetics per BDD. bd2412 T 17:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (Clerk comment) @Rosguill, MelanieN, and Kanguole: Any comments on BDD's proposed new targets? Deryck C. 13:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Deryck Chan I believe I already said I supported it in my previous comment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Western Eurasian. Eurasia#Anthropology and genetics is a proposed target, but I've just pared down that section to what was actually supported by the source cited, leaving no mention of West Eurasians at all, with only a passing mention of "West Eurasia" in a short sentence that is bound to disappoint anyone looking for information on the topic. I don't rule out the possibility of good content eventually getting added, but until that happens there's no point in keeping this redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, but neither does the redirect necessarily address West Eurasians, despite the section heading for this discussion. My proposal is to treat these as simple adjectival forms of "West Eurasia" and "East Eurasia". I admit that kicks the can down the road a bit, because it really doesn't address what, if any, content we should have at West(ern) and East(ern) Eurasia. Your edits are probably reasonable, though by removing the section heading, you've broken the section redirect of Western Eurasia. Let's make sure that's addressed somehow as this discussion resolves. --BDD (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but with the present state of the article, I don't think the redirects West Eurasia and Western Eurasia are any more useful. – Uanfala (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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) CptViraj (📧) 10:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Derpy → List of mainline My Little Pony ponies#Derpy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Does not seem to be the primary use of the adjective “derpy”. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless there is another existing topic on the English Wikipedia named "Derpy". Otherwise, at the present time, per Wikipedia terms, this redirect is "de facto" unambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Steel1943. There doesn't seem to be anything encyclopaedic to say about the use of the word to mean something idiotic. Someone looking for that is better served by wikt:derpy. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There doesn't seem to be anything else that this could redirect to. PC78 (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Confrontation (2011 film) → Heartbeat (2011 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I can't see why this redirect targets this page Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative, working title for the film per HanCinema and early sources [1]. PC78 (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PC78: Then the article should say so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's strictly compulsory, but I can see about adding it if people otherwise consider it a dealbreaker. PC78 (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per PC78. A mention is not strictly necessary, although it would be preferable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hora de verao → Summer time in Europe#Portugal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is not an English term. It is a basic Portuguese term that has no special significance. Furthermore, the title has a typographical error in it, as it lacks a tilde. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 05:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is just a descriptive phrase in Portuguese, presumably it could refer to summer time in Brazil too. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete According to Google Translate, this appears to mean simply "summer time". Thus BDD's reasoning likely holds. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dhruv Krishna Vikram → Dhruv Vikram  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No source that he is known by this name. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• C24H27N2O13 → Betanin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

C24H27N2O13 was created by mistake: formula of Betanin is …H26… not …H27…. There is no molecule in enWiki with formula C₂₄H₂₇N₂O₁₃. I propose to delete it. Gyimhu (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: this nomination was not completed (article was not tagged, header was not included, editors were not notified). I have done so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: ChemSpider suggests that this molecule is "(1E,2S)-2-Carboxy-1-{(2E)-2-[(2S)-2,6-dicarboxy-2,3-dihydro-4(1H)-pyridinylidene]ethylidene}-5-hydroxy-2,3-dihydro-1H-indolium-6-yl β-D-glucopyranoside". And that's where I bow out. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As just above, I came here from the note at the WikiProject. Regardless of whether the formula is correct or not, it's truly useless as a redirect, because there are multiple ways this combination of atoms can be assembled into chemical structures, so there is nothing to make it unique to the target page, or to make it useful as a search term. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Molecular formula redirects are common (Category:Molecular formulas) and useful, even when there is more than one chemical compound with that molecular formula. If there is only one matching article on Wikipedia, redirect to that article. If there is more than one use disambiguation (Category:Molecular formula set index pages). -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The (apparently incorrect) formula is found in the following sources: [2], [3], [4], [5]. — the Man in Question (in question) 06:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If there is no Wikipedia article for any chemical compound that matches this molecular formula, the redirect should be deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.