Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Request for comment.

Administrator instructions

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
CfD 0 1 141 3 145
TfD 0 0 3 4 7
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 9 1 10
RfD 0 0 8 4 12
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
  • If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Please do not change the target of the redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for both potential closers and participants.

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

Shortcut
  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
  • In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]


Shortcut

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes
Further information: Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving over a redirect

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").

Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.

Reasons for deleting[edit]

Shortcut
See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects
"WP:RDELETE" redirects here. For revision deletion, see Wikipedia:Revision deletion. For deletion review, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

Shortcut

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. 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. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut
I.
Tag the redirect.

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end of the page.

  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page ("Publish changes").
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination.
II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors to the redirect that you are nominating the redirect.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

{{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Current list[edit]

March 9[edit]

Department of Finance[edit]

I'm really not sure what the proper process is for converting a redirect to a dismabiguation page so forgive me if I'm in the wrong place here. Currently, Department of Finance redirects to finance minister. I believe however that this page would serve much better as a disambiguation page for a considerable number of Departments of Finance throughout the world. See here for search results. Calistemon (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Irish nationalism[edit]

Disambiguate Northern Irish nationalism between Irish and Ulster nationalisms, the term is clearly ambiguous. And retarget Nationalist (Northern Ireland) to this disambiguation page. Olchug (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CoBain[edit]

Implausible capitalization in the middle of the name. Created in 2008 and not relevant camel case titles. By a user who created redirects with various possible misspelling and capitalization combinations. Suggest deletion. Jay (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar RfDs related to the user's capitalizations: RfD for Paul WolFowitz and Paul WolfoWitz, RfD for HoWard Taft and Howard TaFt, RfD for HoWard TaFt. Jay (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kinda weak keep CoBain, which for some reason keeps getting a decent stream of pageviews such as 146 last year, and delete ToBy, that one hasn't Been getting a lot of use nowadays. Regards, SONIC678 06:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul WolFowitz[edit]

Implausible capitalization in the middle of the name. Created in 2008 and not relevant camel case titles. By a user who created redirects with various possible misspelling and capitalization combinations. Suggest deletion. Jay (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar RfDs related to the user's capitalizations: RfD for HoWard Taft and Howard TaFt, RfD for HoWard TaFt. Jay (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. These don't seem to be receiving much traFFic in the Way of pageviews, apart From a Few mostly relatively small spikes here and there. Regards, SONIC678 06:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeLete both per nom and Sonic678, implausible typo. Bonoahx (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad Puttin[edit]

The target is not known by this name. This looks to be a parody twitter handle with a handful of tweets in January 2018, and not mentioned at the target. Suggest deletion. Jay (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, no reliable sources use this term (all I can see are Twitter handles, Reddit posts, and comments on other forums), and it is not a plausible typo. Bonoahx (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HoWard Taft[edit]

Delete these implausible ones for the same reasons as the nom. WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 2#HoWard TaFt 2 below; created by the same blocked user. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need consensus for HoWard Taft which is probably linked externally.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep HoWard Taft and delete Howard TaFt per Hog Farm. Deleting the Former might inconvenience a lot of readers (it's still being linked, possibly From external links as Well), but not so much With the latter, Which only got a Whopping 7 pagevieWs compared to the Former's 453. Regards, SONIC678 06:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jschlatt[edit]

Delete per REDYES. This could be its own article. There's currently a draft about it, but even if it gets rejected, I think this redirect should still be deleted. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 04:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@QuickQuokka: That really doesn't make any sense. If the draft gets accepted, then the redirect will be moved or something to make way for it. If it is rejected for notability concerns, then why should we have a red link when it's unlikely for an article to get created in the first place? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not per nom. As the draft says, he is more known for Minecraft. Dream SMP mentions him in reference to L'Manberg. It is not fair to redirect the topic to One True King only. Jay (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Connection Tour 07[edit]

Nowhere mentioned in article, and creator of redirect is a confirmed sockpuppet. QuickQuokka [talk] 16:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/2012 proposed revision[edit]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @UnitedStatesian per speedy deletion criterion G8 as a talk page for a non-existent page. Courtesy ping for @Liz. FASTILY 00:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test[edit]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @UnitedStatesian per speedy deletion criterion G8 as a talk page for a non-existent page. Courtesy ping for @Liz. FASTILY 00:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete cross-namespace redirect to a user talk page, zero substantial page history. -FASTILY 00:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reason to have this cross-namespace redirect. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep G8 is not applicable: This criterion excludes any page that is useful to Wikipedia, and in particular: * Pages that should be moved to a different location First, I moved the "non-existent" page from "List of Negro league baseball players" to "Lists of Negro league baseball players" (plural) but I missed the subpages; that means this redirect should be moved to a different location excluding it from G8. Second, this redirects to a page I userfied to preserve its history as it was part of a contentious XfD several years ago, the redirect is linked to in several WP & talk archives so deletion would break the links, so therefore the redirect is useful to Wikipedia and again excluded from G8.
Regarding Cross-namespace. This applies to redirects (apart from shortcuts) from the main namespace to any other namespace.... "Mainspace" is defined as The main namespace is the default namespace and does not use a prefix in article page names. ... The main namespace does not include any pages in any of the specified namespaces that are used for particular purposes, such as: * the talk namespaces for discussing what the content of articles in mainspace should be. Since this was in the "talk" space, it is excluded from "cross-namespace redirect" criteria as it specifically is for "main namespace."
And finally, this redirect was attempted to be deleted last week by UnitedStatesian when they moved the target of the redirect from my user-talkspace to my userspace here, causing the redirect to show on AnomieBot's broken redirect list, causing it to be deleted by Liz. This is a direct violation of UnitedStatesian's page mover permission which only allows for the redirect to be deleted if Moving pages within a requester's own userspace to another location if a desire for deletion is expressed. No such request was made, and if a pattern of such misuse is shown, it is grounds for removal. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for any irreparable issues I caused, that was not my intent. But it would be helpful to know why the subpage targeted by both redirects is in the User talk: namespace, and not in the User: namespace. Can you enlighten us? Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where are sandboxes required to be in "User" space as opposed to "User talk" space? And, why is it of such an interest to you to move it after so many years? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't want to answer my reasonable question, so why should I answer your questions? And you seem angry with me for some reason, I am not sure why. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is on you to show where sandboxes should be in user space, which you have not done. Until you can do that, your questions, and actions, are baseless. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I base it on WP:OWNTALK, which says "User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier." Of over 3,000 pages that transclude {{draft article}}, congrats, yours is the only non-trivial transclusion in the User talk: space: pretty strong evidence that draft articles are not supposed to be there. You could have also saved all these spilled pixels by tagging both redirects with {{G8-exempt}}, along with any others you find useful for some reason. Hope this helps. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OWNTALK, nor any other page, disallows sandboxes to be kept in user talk. Why are you focused on only one of my sandboxes, after so many years? I have several, yet this is the ONLY one you target. Stop moving users' sandboxes. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I tried to make clear, this was the only one in the User talk: space tagged with {{draft article}}. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented out said template. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did delete this page when it showed up as a broken redirect and because I thought it was a cross-namespace redirect. It seems like this dispute hinges on whether cross-namespace redirects refers ONLY to article space or if it can it apply to other spaces as well.
An essay, Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects is delightfully vague and states that this is a "controversial" issue and presents arguments both for and against deletion of cross-namespace redirects. But it does specify MAIN space so it is questionable whether the Talk space is included in "main space" or whether Talk is a separate namespace entirely that is not covered by the cross-namespace guidance. The only conclusion I can come to is, unlike my opinion before discussing the matter with Bison X, the answer isn't as black and white as I originally thought and that this particular instance will be a judgment call on the part of the closer. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv Internatioanl Film Festival "Molodist"[edit]

Redirect for an unlikely misspelling Atlantic306 (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per K4; this is an {{R from move}}, which was the article title for a few months. Those few months were enough to see this redirect garner some views from old links, and we are better served not breaking them. It isn't like this redirect is causing any signficant harm. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947, and because redirects are cheap, and there's nothing wrong with keeping some typo redirects around. Fieari (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was the one who unthinkingly mentioned the possibility of RFD in an edit summary while adding {{R from misspelling}}. It was not a serious request for nor attempt at an RFD nomination, and I should have considered the implications more carefully. I am neutral to the nomination as it currently stands. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z (hate symbol)[edit]

The Russian "Z" does not appear to be regularly described in reliable sources as a hate symbol – a more appropriate target would probably be Wolfsangel per USA Today. Maybe I missed something, since it's a tad difficult to search for a single letter in this manner, but I would suggest it's too soon to be classifying the Russian "Z" as a hate symbol, given the reliable sources aren't there. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Redirects don't require reliable sources, they just have to be an unambiguous alternate title or search term. That said, you may be right that Wolfsangel is a better target, except that the Russian Z is a current hot news topic and people may be struggling to figure out how to describe it in their searches for it... and this does seem to be a plausible way they might search for it, given that some people (not reliable sources, just some people) online are describing it as a hate symbol. I almost want to create a disambiguation page for various uses of Z-like symbols as group identifiers, but that might be too broad. But regardless... searching for information on this thing is difficult, because it's so generic! It's just a letter of the alphabet! Fieari (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 8[edit]

Pleiodon[edit]

Pleiodon is a valid genus of mollusc and should not redirect to a genus of grass that was briefly known under this preoccupied name, an article for the mollusc does not yet exist, but can be created easily Armin Reindl (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK --Lenticel (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig - until a stub is created for the mollusc, the page should be a disambiguation page. When the mollusc page is created, there can be a hatnote. Also, the name was not preoccupied if it was only used for an animal previously, as that would be a separate nomenclature system. There are tons of examples of genera of plants and animals with the same name, we shouldn’t treat this instance any differently. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • dabify per awkwafaba -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elder Llywelyn[edit]

Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd was the elder of two brothers called Llywelyn, but the only instances of these two terms (both of which have previously been titles of this article) seem to be in running text where a sentence needs to specify which of two Llywelyns is being referred to, e.g. here for "elder Llywelyn" and here for "Llywelyn the elder". The first example refers to these brothers, but the second refers to Llywelyn the Great and Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, so the redirect target is not the only possible "elder Llywelyn". (In fact, the first page of Google Books results for "elder Llywelyn" is mostly made up of references to Llywelyn the Great, not Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd.) Ham II (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig per nom. Multiple sources use these terms to describe people so they are plausible search terms, that they are used for multiple people means we need to disambiguate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: That was actually meant to be an argument for deleting the redirects; sorry for not being clear. Llywelyn (disambiguation) doesn't cover any of the aforementioned people (rather counterintuitively) so the closest thing would be Llywelyn § Personal names: historical. That currently mentions Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd but not his younger brother. Llywelyn the Great and Llywelyn ap Gruffudd do appear there, and I suppose the order of seniority is clear because their dates are given, but it's not as if either of these terms is used as a proper name. Ham II (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you intended deletion, but your argument makes it clear that these names should be disambiguated somewhere. Whether that is Llywelyn (disambiguation) or a specific one at either of the titles nominated is less important, but if there is a good reason why they aren't covered at the existing page then it would seem best to create a new one. Disambiguation guarantees that people can find who they are looking for by giving appropriate context, search results (which may be several clicks/taps away depending on device, search method and account type) by contrast are not guaranteed and even if the relevant articles do appear there is no guarantee that the provided context will enable readers to reliably pick the correct article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think someone's going to read "Llywelyn ap Iorwerth had been a much more mighty ruler than his grandson. But yet he had never obtained, had hardly ever aspired to, so formal a position in the feudal hierarchy. The elder Llywelyn had generally been content to style himself 'Prince of North Wales.'" (a string of text which appears in a lot of the Google Books results) and fail to realise that the "elder Llywelyn" is the person referred to earlier as Llywelyn ap Iorwerth. It's only in contexts like this that these phrases are used. Ham II (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added 'Elder Llywelyn' which was changed to 'Llywelyn the Elder', but both redirects are unnecessary as Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd would be the correct naming for the article. There is confusion as to who is who here, Llywelyn Fawr existed in the history books, and the name has since been adopted by 'Llywelyn the Great' as the literal translation, however 'Llywelyn Gwych' would be 'great' in a literal sense of the word. But to reiterate, both Elder Llywelyn & Llywelyn the elder article searches which are now redirect pages, they should both be deleted. Also, the original naming of the article Llywelyn the Elder ap Maredudd ap Cynan ab Owain Gwynedd is unnecessarily long and the original article name which was the cause the redirects, that too should be deleted as it is a confusing name which blends both English and Welsh incorrectly, Llywelyn's name was Llywelyn Fawr (the elder is an English translation). Again, I would like to bring up the case of Llywelyn the Great using Llywelyn Fawr's name incorrectly as that should be amended too, they are 2 different people who's names have been lost in translation over centuries and that should be stated through the redirect search engine, instead of having Llywelyn the Great borrowing 'Fawr' in his article search, the name should be redirected to Llywelyn Fawr who with referenced searches held the naming in the 13th century. Please see Talk:Llywelyn the Great#Llywelyn 'Fawr'? for sourced information regarding the argument. Cltjames (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cltjames: If you really want to resolve the issue of the Llywelyn Fawr redirect (and I think its current target is correct), I'd guess that the best thing to do would be to start a formal RfC at Talk:Llywelyn the Great – a step up from your existing talk page section there. If you do, please ping me in as I might not be watching. I'd continue to argue that Llywelyn ab Iorwerth/Llywelyn Fawr/Llywelyn the Great (all the same person) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Ham II (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Harris (supercentenarian)[edit]

Harris is no longer mentioned at this list of American supercentenarians. It looks like this was originally an article, but was merged into the list article. But since he is no longer in the top 100 longest living supercentenarians, he has been removed. It seems unhelpful to have a redirect to a page that does not contain this person (either in prose or in the table). Natg 19 (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelby Harris closed as "merge to List of supercentenarians from the United States" in 2015, with a comment that there was a "pretty strong consensus that this should not exist as a standalone article". Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget if mentioned somewhere, otherwise delete. I would have suggested mentioning them at Rock Island, Illinois#Notable people and retargetting there - it's clear from the references on the former article that he was notable person in the community, but that section determines notability solely on the basis of having a Wikipedia article. The article states he was "a native of Ayrshire, Indiana", I wouldn't object to redirecting to a sourced sentence there, but given how short that article is I'm unsure how DUE that mention would be? Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

∾[edit]

Another Wiktionary redirect from Neel.arunabh that targets an empty Wiktionary page. The current target here is completely inadequate containing only the unicode character name and a message that someone needs to add a definition. Unless a proper definition is added this should be retargeted to something local or deleted 192.76.8.77 (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that Neel.arunabh has added the useless definition (mathematics) inverted lazy s, which is identical to the description. That helps no one and does not change my position that the redirect should be deleted unless a local target is identified. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wiktionary is currently the best target. 2607:FB91:132B:A8B6:F0A7:BB28:4E79:3A4 (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 21:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fairytale Love[edit]

Possibly a working title, not mentioned on the target or related articles. Suggest delete unless there is a better target in which this would be useful. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster people[edit]

More commonly used to refer to Ulster Scots people. Retarget to Ulster Scots people. Disambiguate per Paradoctor, see below. Olchug (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose This is astonishingly ill-informed. Ulster Scots are only one grouping within the people of Ulster and are a minority thereof. (That said, the current redirect is questionable as Northern Ireland is only part of Ulster). Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that all the people of Ulster are Ulster Scots. I just stated that the term 'Ulster people' usually means Ulster Scots people. Naturally, the term can also mean simply a resident of Ulster.--Olchug (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely doesn't mean that, ever, let alone "usually". Your multi-article campaign of the last two hours is becoming a menace. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please study this. And count when 'Ulster people' means Ulster Scots people and when it means just resident of Ulster. Olchug (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing supportive that I can see. It's up to you to do the work as you're advancing the proposition. Cite quotes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for example The Ulster People: Ancient, Medieval and Modern, Ban-gor. 10 Lunney, L., 1994,“Ulster attitudes of Scottishness: The eighteenth century and after” Olchug (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about it? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check this source. There 'Ulster People' means 'Ulster Scots people'. Olchug (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the latter a quotation from the (fringe) source or your interpretation of it ? Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Google searches show that the most common usage is to mean "people who live in or are from Ulster" (where "Ulster" refers to the 6 counties of Northern Ireland most often but can refer to the wider 9 county area). This is perhaps most clearly articulated in this 2015 article in The Times In the most general terms, Ulster people claiming an Irish identity tend to be Roman Catholic. [...] In equally broad terms, many Ulster-Scots folk are Protestant, chiefly Presbyterian [...]. A minority use refers to people from Ulster County, New York; the use of "Ulster people" as synonymous to "Ulster Scots people" seems to be largely confined to the single work cited by the nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Ulster people" is wider than just "Ulster Scots people". The region was never depopulated and filled again with people from Scots origin. The Banner talk 20:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate The term is clearly ambiguous between people from Ulster, people from Northern Ireland, people from Ulster County, and the Scots subset, so I created Ulster people (disambiguation). The only question left is if there is a primary topic. Unless sourced, citable evidence is provided that there is, the disambiguation page should inhabit Ulster people. Counting random search engine results won't do. Paradoctor (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Including Ulster Scots at your dab page is like saying Italian Americans=Americans. I've removed it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
like saying Italian Americans=Americans No, it is not. That is exactly not what disambiguation pages are for. They list possible meanings, even mistaken uses. As the discussion above has shown, this is the case here.
If the terms were equivalent, then I wold have !voted to do as Olchug asked. Paradoctor (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dab pages are for listing the mistaken use of one Wikipedia editor and a solitary work they claim to support them (though no supporting quotation has been provided)? Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum. This is not about the redirect under discussion here. It's about the dab page, and we're already have a discussion there. Take it there, please. Paradoctor (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you're allowed to raise your preferred solution of the dab here but you hide my response, to this very thing you raised, as off-topic, whilst retaining your own comment which prompted it? That's outrageous. And as you well know, I have "(taken) it there". Mutt Lunker (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
raise your preferred solution of the dab here I did no such thing. You raised the question here: Including Ulster Scots at your dab page. I should've pointed to the dab talk right then. So I was one reply slow. Does not change the fact: This issue is entirely unrelated to the purpose of this page, and does not belong here.
I have "(taken) it there" And I did not complain about that, did I? Here is not there. Paradoctor (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TALKOFFTOPIC: If a discussion goes off topic (per the above subsection § How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using {{Collapse top}}/{{Collapse bottom}} or similar templates. Paradoctor (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but potentially a compromise could be adding a hatnote to Ulster Scots people within Ulster people - perhaps a different discussion to be had. Bonoahx (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, within People of Northern Ireland. I see that there is already a hatnote redirecting to a dab page now per Paradoctor which I think would also be fine. Bonoahx (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:SOAP[edit]

Wikipedia:SOAP and its talk page, each redirect to very different places. Currently:

WP:SOAP → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

WT:SOAP → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas

-- DB1729 (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment our soaps community use WP:SOAPS plural rather than the singular WP:SOAP, so I'd advise retargeting WT:SOAP to the guideline since we already have WT:SOAPS to redirect to the soap community talk page. – DarkGlow • 11:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to match WP:SOAP. There are no incomming links intended for the WikiProject (there are at WT:SOAPS) so it seems unlikely that this will cause any significant disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WT:SOAP. No need to redirect to a talk page for a section imo, and ambiguous. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Thryduulf. The term is disambiguated with a hatnote at the target, so there is no problem should a wayward soap opera aficionado happen to arrive there. Paradoctor (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Aplusk[edit]

Delete Only edit is the creation by now-blocked user, and of course not mentioned in the target. Should be a prohibition on de novo creation of redirects in the draftspace, like this one was. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ashton Kutcher's twitter handle, would have made sense if it was not in draftspace. Delete as an improper draft redirect. Jay (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Draft:Aplusk" is not remotely likely as a search term, not encyclopedic in any way. Paradoctor (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Western leftism[edit]

I'm not sure the target page can be considered the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or that it's a neutral destination. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the target notes this redirect in a hatnote and suggests readers might be interesting in the general left-wing politics article. Google results show the current target to be the single most common thing referred to, but nowhere near primary topic over various different leftist groups/people/ideologies/parties in the cultural West with exact meaning depending heavily on context. I need to think more about this. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag as {{r from hypernym}}. "Western leftism" is an extremely vague concept whose meaning is the combination of the literal meanings of its parts. It is not an idiom, whereas "baizuo" is: Western leftism (Chinese political jargon). Unless we can we can identify other idioms attaching to the phrase, this is the way. Paradoctor (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sope Willams- Elegbe[edit]

Name of redirect is not viable with the space but page contains some historic content and actually pre-dates existing article page. The redirect Sope Willams-Elegbe already exists with content. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sope Willams- Elegbe started as a draft Nov 12, 2020 and Sope Willams Elegbe started as an article on Feb 22, 2021, both from the same editor Zend2020. The article may have been a copy of the draft, although the article creator did not mention the source. If there is nothing additional at the redirect's content to merge to the target, we can delete it since the nom has attributed User:Pallet182 (the only other editor till Feb 22, 2021) at the target's talk. Or is there a standard format for attribution at the talk page?
If there is no support for delete but the typo at the redirect title is a concern, we can move it to Sope Willams-Elegbe, but we need to delete that redirect first, and that is another content fork mess. Jay (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mass formation[edit]

Used in a wide variety of contexts in academic literature, from fluid dynamics to microbiology to applied medicine. Not well-described anywhere on Wikipedia, although "Mass formation psychosis" is discussed in some detail at Robert_W._Malone#COVID-19. Given the circumstances, I think that deletion to allow for search results is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 18:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a number of substantive examples of "mass formation" being used in other fields as a standalone phrase (i.e., not as "XXX mass formation", which is usually to be parsed as "[XXX mass] formation" not as "XXX [mass formation]" and therefore irrelevant)? Google hits at the moment reveal overwhelming support for this being used in the context of "mass formation psychosis" (correctly parsed as "[mass formation] psychosis"), which is a term apparently invented by Mattias Desmet (not Robert Malone) based on the real term "mass formation" used by Freud in this book. There's no question that--regardless of its veracity--"mass formation" is a significant concept in public discourse at the moment and that this book is its origin... Bueller 007 (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The most common result after discarding "[XXX mass] formation"-form results is for mass formation in medical contexts: [2], [3], [4]. These are just a small sample, I scrolled through 6 pages of GScholar results for "mass formation" -water (as "water mass formation" is the most common result for the [XXX mass] form) and found no results about psychology, group or otherwise. Can you provide any scholarly examples where "mass formation" is invoked without the phrase "psychosis" to refer to the social psychology usage? signed, Rosguill talk 15:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the current association with COVID misinformation, any change to an article (or disambig) should probably be workshopped in draft space first. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the expression can refer to numerous phenomenons as pointed out in the nom. Furthermore, it can also refer to the biological phenomenon of how a mass of fat is formed, or to the geological phenomenon of how a mass of rock or sand is formed. Veverve (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Thesmp (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DABify. If there are a bunch of expressions that this term refers to, then making a useful disambiguation page seems better than just deleting it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relisting comment @Mhawk10: What would a disambiguation look like? Do you have examples of articles that "mass formation" may refer to? -- Tavix (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/make a proper article about the phenomenon who tells it exists, who tells it is a hoax. Also a redirect page if the term is also used in other fields. Desmet (the professor who translated the term from massavorming (Dutch) and Massenbildung (German) and connected it to covid has published his Dutch book. The book is just out and already sold out 2x, in reprint now. In the Summer the English edition occurs. He refers in the book to Elias Canetti, Gustave le Bon, Hannah Arendt as the fundament for the descriptions of what 'mass formation' (Freuds Massenbildung in German) is. The experts mentioned by Reuters (and copied by many msm-channels) can be put under a paragraph 'Criticism about the existence of the term'. Or put in the introduction as a source that the term is speculative. Denying the Belgium professor and head of the clinical psychology department doesn't really solve the case. In fact, the paradox here is even, that Reuters and the cited experts are under a spell of mass formation even, according to Desmet (now it gets weird, but you have to read the book to understand that jump). https://www.amazon.co.uk/psychologie-van-totalitarisme-Mattias-Desmet/dp/946401539X/ref=sr_1_4?qid=1646307290&refinements=p_27%3AMattias+Desmet&s=books&sr=1-4

Or include the term in Crowd psychology or Group dynamics with a good description. Everybody knows sheep form a mass formation when they get scared. One guy on the dancefloor triggers the other people to join, etc.. It is weird that this is denied. Mass formation is not mass psychosis, it exists and we all know that. Le Bon is mentioned as the first source in the article group dynamics. Desmet refers to him as the one who described the phenomenon as well.

In addition this graphic novel explains very well how the term massavorming/mass formation popped up actually in Belgium and the Netherlands. It describes the recent history of Desmets media appearance and how it is connected to Ad Verbrugge (professor philosophy at Leiden University and prominent Dutch thinker with 10 books): https://medium.com/@yurilandman/dissident-in-20-21-yuri-landman-aa3b8c7e9585 Note: of course that graphic novel is not a RS about the term itsself, but it gives good info about the historic background what actually happened with Desmet and the media, and it can be a source for that. Reuters is not a RS for that history. 2A02:A443:5030:1:140:6FB2:699E:BDF3 (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is all over the map.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 7[edit]

Russia Sanctions[edit]

It is unclear whether the titles of the first three refer to sanctions by Russia, or sanctions on Russia. Additionally, it is unclear to which round of sanctions is being referred. Possible results include choosing one as the primary topic (I'd say there's a good case to be made for International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War, but that may be considered recentism), retargeting them bar the last to Economic sanctions#Russian sanctions or Russia sanctions against Ukraine, or deleting them to encourage a creation à la United States sanctions or Sanctions against North Korea. Given that there are differing interpretations, I thought it would be best to bring it to RfD for harmonisation. "Sanctions on Russia" doesn't suffer from the two-fold ambiguity of the rest, but I have bundled it together due to the one of the layers of ambiguity being identical. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. I've added another four redirects for which the same considerations as "Sanctions on Russia" apply and so should be discussed with the others. Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tempted by a dab (or more likely set index) here, listing the various sanctions that have been applied by and against Russia/the Soviet Union over the years, including both present targets. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setindexify/disambiguate per nom's list of articles -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit[edit]

Delete as they are going against rule #8 in WP:RDELETE, and are unwieldly long, and no-one is likely to search all this instead of just "Wikipedia". The pageview stats show that they're not very used. Also, the creator of the pages is a confirmed sockpuppet. QuickQuokka [talk] 17:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia. It's at least mildly plausible that a user may type that to learn more about the meaning behind the motto, but it's still fairly obscure so deletion could be preferable. Bonoahx (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC) (striked vote 22:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]
    • @Bonoahx: the main space and the rest of Wikipedia should be kept separated as much as possible, so I oppose your redirect poposal. Veverve (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose retarget WP:CNR Support deletion Happy Editing--IAmChaos 21:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Oops, sorry, didn't realise that would be an issue. Changing my vote to Delete per nom and others in that case. Bonoahx (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless, and used enough. Both are reasonable alternative capitalisations of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. See also this somewhat related RfD. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 01:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947 and the recent discussion they cite. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per J947. Seems like a reasonable enough (even if unlikely) search term, and someone searching this will be taken to what they are looking for. A7V2 (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tangan[edit]

Delete. This word is not mentioned at the target, wikt:tangan tells me it does mean "hand" in many languages, including Malay and Indonesian, but it also a romansiation of two different Japanese words (meaning "entreaty, petition, to implore, to beg" and "Simple eye" or "one-eyed creature") and a verb form of the Spanish word "tangar" meaning "to trick" or "to swindle". Gooogle Maps tells me it's also the name of a settlement in Tajikistan, but I can't verify that in reliable sources. Wikipedia search results find primarily partial title matches for several Iranian vilages, and phrases in Indonesian or Malay. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my new comment after the second relist. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ambiguous (various foreign words per nom, Tangon River per Narky Blert, and Palangan, Kurdistan per original target), but I do not believe a dab page is warranted, mainly per WP:DABDIC and that I struggle to find any English coverage that refers to either of Tangon River and Palangan, Kurdistan as simply "Tangan" (no "River", no accents). eviolite (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. We've got a number of sources that use "Tangan" (with or without "river") as the name of the river, and there's also a village whose article gives "Tangan" as synonym. Both are valid dab entries, and we're not including the Malay word for 'hand', so WP:DABDIC shouldn't concern us. The only question that I see is if there is a primary topic, and here the river certainly has a very strong claim. – Uanfala (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget with hatnote per Narky, second choice DAB per Uanfala. "Tangan" seems to be a fairly obscure alternate name for Palangan, while it's an alternate transliteration of Tangon, and so I would think the latter to be the primary topic. I'm open to arguments to the contrary, but that's my read. I don't at all see the argument for deletion here. If there are multiple meanings, we disambiguate or point to one and hatnote to the others. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a case for deletion. Instead of creating navigational infrastructure which will lock readers into accessing only the topics that we've explicitly included, it's better to leave it all to the search engine (first making sure the term concerned is prominently mentioned in the relevant articles). That way, when new content gets added that mentions other topics with the same name, they will remain available through the search results. That's how the reasoning goes; I haven't seen it used at RfD for deleting anything, though I do follow it myself when abstaining from the creation of redirects (however, I make sure to watch the title, because sooner or later someone else will come along and create a redirect, likely to a completely different topic, which will then necessitate disambiguation). From this vantage point, deletion is best, but disambiguation is better than redirecting: because if someone created a link to this page intending some other topic, then they'd get notified if that page were a dab and so they'd be able to both correct their link and expand the dab with the relevant entry; if the page is a redirect, that opportunity will likely be missed and the encyclopedia will end up with one more incorrect link.
    I prefer disambiguation for a few other reasons as well. First off, I see it as the default option, the neutral ground, departing from which will require some positive evidence as to why one rare name for an obscure topic should be treated as primary over an equally rare name for another obscure topic – disambiguating saves us the time of engaging with such an unexciting and unimportant question. Even if there is a primary topic, disambiguating may still be desirable, particularly if, as is the case here, the hatnote would be for an obscure alternative meaning (the village) of an obscure alternative spelling ("Tangan" for "Tangon"): if there is a hatnote here, it will clutter the screens of the two thousand readers who visit the article every year, when in fact it will be needed for probably only one or two of them. Another reason for preferring disambiguation is that a separate page can more easily accommodate more entries: it's alright to have a dab's "See also" link to Tangan-tangan, Tongan or Tanggang, but adding those to a hatnote will increase the clutter. – Uanfala (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking through the search results, I've come across another village with the name. So, I've taken the liberty of drafting a dab page below the redirect. Obviously, if there's consensus for redirecting, then four of the five links from that dab page can simply be moved to a hatnote. – Uanfala (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of different options being proposed here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given there are multiple articles that I failed to find when doing the WP:BEFORE for this nomination, I think disambiguation is the best option here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supermassive star[edit]

Supermassive stars are a specific type of star theorised in recent years to have existed in the early universe (e.g. [5] ) which should have a page of their own; the wiki-link should not simply redirect to the list of *current* most massive stars observed Fig (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Pumper[edit]

The only mention of this name in the article is from an interview, saying Brian Pumper would not be a member. Does not appear to be a valid target for this redirect. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving the current situation is the purpose of this discussion. (I removed the pipe at the Dogg page.)
"insignificant" As I argued above, receiving notable industry awards for his work makes him encyclopedic. Apart from that, WP:CHEAP, and deleting does not improve matters. Paradoctor (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of keys on a standard US 105-key computer keyboard[edit]

This page was originally created as a stand-alone list. I assume it was converted to a redirect as the list failed WP:NLIST, but the redirect target (a) does not currently contain the section this article tries to redirect to, (b) at least from a quick look around the time this article was set up to point to a specific section, did not contain that section at that time either, and (c) would not actually provide useful information for someone looking for a list of keys on a standard US keyboard anyway.

As such, I think this redirect should just be deleted; the only thing it does is cause confusion for the (presumably very few) users who – like me – ended up there after a web search and thought there might be useful info (the redirect page is the highlighted result, at least for me, of a Bing search for "104 vs 105 keyboard"). —me_and 10:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or revert?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the nominator makes a solid case for why this is harmful. British and American keyboards mentions that the UK keyboard has 105 keys, contrasting against the American keyboard that has 104 keys, so there is a case for this being misleading as well. -- Tavix (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cañon[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn

Revans Institute[edit]

I came across these redirects from a rather confusing hatnote at Revans University. However, my confusion was not alleviated by the target articles. Revans is not even mentioned there! Reg Revans#Legacy is slightly more helpful, but I am concerned that paragraph is unreferenced and full of puffery. Unless anyone is willing to untangle this web, I think deletion would be best. -- Tavix (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North-South divide in Scotland[edit]

This redirect targets a section that has presumably been deleted. There is some discussion of a north-south divide in Scotland in Geography of Scotland#Political Geography so it could be retargeted to that section, not sure if anyone has any better ideas (potentially North-south divide in the United Kingdom but this article seems to discuss a divide between southern England and the rest of the UK, rather than more localised divides within the countries themselves). Bonoahx (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CCC Team riders[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 19#Template:BMC Racing riders. CCC Pro team ceased to exist. Intermarché–Wanty–Gobert Matériaux is not their sucessor. BMC was CCC previous name. Rpo.castro (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Due to consensus; CCC/BMC is now separate to Intermarché. therefore it redirects where it shouldn't. Paulpat99 (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Revolution of 2013[edit]

There wasn't any 'Ukrainian revolution of 2013', so this seems to be an implausible misnomer. The revolution happened in 2014, and we have an article on it, Revolution of Dignity. The question is, do we delete this redirect, redirect it to Revolution of Dignity (as a potential typo), or leave it tied to the article on the Euromaidan movement, which does include 2013 events (though they were not yet a revolution at that stage)? RGloucester — ☎ 04:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Both articles’ intros support the idea that the protests led to the revolution, and one could conceive of the two as a four-month “revolution.” As a reader following the link is expecting an article about something that started in 2013, I would prefer keeping the redirect as is, but I’m also fine with changing it to the other. —Michael Z. 17:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elmezzi Graduate School of Molecular Medicine[edit]

Support possible restoration/rewrite of the article that was here. The redirect target, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, does not mention the graduate institution. A second article on the institution under an old name, Picower Graduate School Of Molecular Medicine, was recently discovered, and I've given it some basic information to update (and possibly move to this title which is the current name). Given how selective it is—it admits MDs!—sourcing is quite hard to come by. Pinging Natureium who made the redirect. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 6[edit]

Xenogender[edit]

This page is a soft redirect to wiktionary, a section (visible anchor) is now available in Non-binary gender#Xenogender. Should this be there or remain as a soft redirect? The addition to the page non-binary is new, it could be removed as it already were multiple times in the past (see Talk:Non-binary_gender/Archive_8#About_the_xenogender). Tazuco (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Orthodox Church[edit]

retarget to Ukrainian Orthodox Church (disambiguation) per [6] @Veverve: Heanor (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhouse gas emissions from streaming music[edit]

Delete as negligible compared to anything else people do - such as eating - see for example Low-carbon diet Chidgk1 (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the nomination statement is completely irrelevant to whether a redirect should exist. The sourced target section that had (apparently uncontroversially) been in the article since August 2019 was removed from the article by the nominator without discussion, with an identical rationale, four minutes before the nomination here. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For context here is the deleted section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Streaming_media&diff=1075598893&oldid=1074993941. I also don’t believe that a section that at fave value appears to be decently sourced and has stood for over a year and and half should have been removed without discussion unless there was a very good reason (and no I don’t consider the nominators assertion that the impact is negligible to be one). I would recommend closing this, restoring the section, the nominator open a discussion to remove the section on the article talk page and, if a consensus to remove is formed to remove the relevant info then ask for the redirect to be deleted.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see the reposed above mine to be contesting the removal so I readied the section. I reiterate that this should be closed since I see a discussion on the articles talk page as the first step if the nominator believes that that subject shouldn’t be covered.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK I doubt I will bother with the article which is about "media" but I think the redirect should be deleted as I understand "music" to mean just sound not video. As you know sound takes up minimal space and transmission capacity compared to video. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sock it to me?[edit]

Is this phrase, with its question mark, properly targeted, or should it be deleted to lead the searcher to disambiguation page Sock It To Me? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the second sentence. Your !vote is for a refinement, so you are saying that a change should be made. -- Tavix (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: While the current redirect is fine, the comments here evince ignorance of Nixon's question on Laugh In so refining helps make this more clear, although anyone who reads English could have read the article to understand the redirect. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I don't see any ignorance of Nixon nor misunderstanding of the redirect here. This is a straightforward (albeit flawed) WP:PRIMARYTOPIC question. -- Tavix (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per Eureka Lott. SNSL, if you want searchers of this term to go to the disambiguation page, the solution would be to retarget it to the disambiguation, not deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambiguation page. I'm not convinced the Laugh-In reference would be the primary topic here. A quick Google search yields results mainly pertaining to the clothing company or the various songs mentioned there. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atarbekyan[edit]

It is not clear why these redirects target here, which gives rise to a confusing hatnote. "Atarbekyan" is mentioned at Sevan–Hrazdan Cascade and, for a different reason, at Artimet. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the article was originally at Atarbekyan; it was moved to the current title in 2017 and the name Atarbekyan was removed from the article with no explanation. (The sole source cited (GEOnet Names Server) seems to block my IP range as well as my VPN and Tor, so I can't access it.) 61.239.39.90 (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Poison[edit]

Seems to have potentially been a working title, although I can't find any reference to it as such on Wikipedia. If there is a better target for this then retargeting could work, otherwise I suggest deletion Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not mentioned at target. 114.125.94.129 (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Appears to be a working title and/or placeholder name. Not mentioned in target article. Grk1011 (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genio[edit]

Not mentioned in article Muhandes (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

我就喜歡[edit]

Seems to be implausible redirect per WP:RLOTE. Vitaium (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian Slovene language[edit]

R3 - it is a double redirect and doubles two alternative names for the same page. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strike my R3 comment and {Endorse} retarget per Mx. Granger Happy Editing--IAmChaos 08:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to avoid the double redirect. This seems like a plausible search term for a reader who is trying to specify the Slovene language as spoken in Slovenia (as opposed to Austria or Italy). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: as nom - changed my proposal post relisting; just wanted to make clear it was after, so i'm posting this below the relist boxHappy Editing--IAmChaos 08:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fifre[edit]

French and Italian WP:RLOTE; can't find a particular connection with the target. eviolite (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative is to redirect Fifre to The Fifer, a painting called Le Fifre in its native French. eviolite (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congean[edit]

Can't find anything conclusive in searches; possibly means the target in Malay or Indonesian (cf wikt:congek). WP:RLOTE applies. eviolite (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tax the rich[edit]

Possibly NPOV as a rallying cry in american politics - I don't think it strictly meets CSD3, and I can't PROD, so here you guys go. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, mentioned at target. Whether it's POV or not doesn't matter. 114.125.94.129 (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think the political slogan has received enough attention to warrant a section (just look at the articles about AOCs Met gala dress), made the redirect after noticing it didn't exist yet and this article seemed like the best fit. Will probably expand it later. jonas (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. Even though the redirect's title is POV, the article redirects to a more neutral title. Also, the slogan itself may be notable, and could be expanded into an article, per Jonas1015119.2601:647:5800:1A1F:3D52:22A2:17BC:5FC (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DABify. There are a number of very similar proposals that tax the rich, but this slogan is not exclusively used in the context of a vague progressive tax. The slogan has been used in advocacy for a Financial transaction tax and is eerily similar to the Soak The Rich slogan, which redirects to a different location. “Tax the rich” is also used in contexts that don’t relate to the concept of a progressive tax—in the USA, the term is used in some circumstances to advocate for stricter enforcement of tax evasion laws, which is a different concept entirely than a progressive tax in and of itself. The redirect could also be used to point to wealth tax, which seems to be at least one concrete way in which the slogan is consistently used. Dabification would be the most prudent thing to do, since the slogan appears in multiple contexts and there is no one primary use thereof. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as "Tax the Rich" is a motto for the progressive taxing movement, and is a very plausible searh term. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 11:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclus (geometry)[edit]

I'm a bit confused here. I can't find any instances of the term "cyclus" being used in geometry in any language, at least from Google Books and other sources. There's this etymological dictionary that indicates a circle or the revolution of a celestial object, which is I guess is similar to "turn" but seems really obscure/archaic and is likely more astronomy-related than geometry. There's also this, which uses it in a German quote that seems to mean something like "the [cycle] of my work in the field of analytical geometry is complete", not related to angles at all. Of note is that the dab page Cyclus does not mention this either, nor does the Turn (angle) article in all of the languages I checked. eviolite (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The term "cyclus" does seem to be used for something related to angles at https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/icec/536 but that's only one publication and the meaning appears to be somewhat different. I don't think that single usage justifies this redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second War of Ukrainian Independence[edit]

This was tagged for speedy deletion CSD R3 but I thought it was better to discuss whether this redirect is appropriate than judge it as a "misnomer". Liz Read! Talk! 04:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – No evidence reliable sources use this name, or that anyone could possibly think to type this in to get to our article on the 2022 invasion. By the way, I nominated it for CSD R3 on the premise that this redirect is 'implausible', as for whether it is a misnomer or not, I cannot say... RGloucester — ☎ 04:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is invalid as a descriptive title (a defense from invasion is not a war of independence) and enjoys no widespread usage, in reliable sources or otherwise—just this Reddit comment, in a thread where it wasn't even the top answer. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the above. Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete While I understand this redirect was meant in good faith, it's not a common term. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons above. This name is not used in any RS. P1221 (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned at the target. Plus, haven't seen any RS use this term. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 19:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beffroi[edit]

Unnecessary WP:RLOTE from French; either delete or possibly redirect to Belfries of Belgium and France (the only term on the dab page relevant to the Francosphere), though the latter does not list the French name of the site at all in prose. eviolite (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Belfry (architecture), which has an extensive etymology section that mentions beffroi. That said, it probably shouldn't have that long an etymology section, and this isn't that plausible a search term, hence the weakness of this !vote. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go fuck yourself[edit]

There are several other existing redirects that involve the phrase "Go fuck yourself" or a derivative thereof. These include Go Fuck Yourself (song), Go fuck yourself, San Diego!, and Go fsck yourself. I'm not really sure that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Go fuck yourself is Russian warship, go fuck yourself!, and the page Fuck contains several examples of the well-known use of the term "Go fuck yourself". It seems likely to me that Fuck would be the best place to redirect this to, so I propose that we redirect to Fuck. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support a redirect to Fuck as the creator of the target page Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 01:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support either the proposed redirect to Fuck or creation of a disambig. The idea that this redirect to RWGFY is being used to support the phrase's ubiquity to not merge it, when "go fuck yourself" is a common turn of phrase decades preceding it is ludicrous and let's quickly stop it. Kingsif (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Setindexify/disambiguate -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 2007 until now, this was a redirect to the article on Fuck, which includes a couple examples of people using the phrase. Revert to the previous state, and add a Russian warship mention to the article on Fuck, if desired. - Eureka Lott 07:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could've been boldly reverted instead of taken to RFD because it is a very common swearing phrase. So yeah, revert and retarget to fuck. 114.125.94.129 (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert back to fuck I was a moron back in 2007 and made a lot of pointless redirects. This is one of the few redirects I made back then that was actually worth it. Does anyone searching for this honestly care about this Russian crap? Hell I have never even heard of it and I'm sure most people searching for go fuck yourself never have either. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. Although I must comment what a naughty redirect :) Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh if you think that's naughty you haven't seen my videos. I use the F and C word in my videos constantly. At the top of that I use a lot of dark humor. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Revert back to Fuck, largely per OP and Blaze (hello!). -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enui[edit]

Due to some double-redirects, this has ended up redirecting to Ennui (sonnet), which as far as I can tell is never spelled with one n. This seems to be a common-enough misspelling to have a significant number of pageviews, so suggest Retarget to Boredom, which ennui redirects to. eviolite (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ajedrez[edit]

Whole load of WP:RLOTEs to Chess (Spanish, French, Portuguese, Turkish, Russian, Arabic, Afrikaans, Breton, Kazakh, Catalan, Czech, Danish, Esperanto, Icelandic, Latvian, Lithuanian, Latin, Mongolian, Norwegian, Turkish (for "check"/"king"), Czech/Slovak, Tagalog/Cebuano, Ukranian, Vietnamese, Hindi, Irish, Volapük, and Punjabi). Some are mentioned in the body of Chess, some in the body of History of Chess, but I don't believe any are particularly connected to chess (besides being spoken in Eurasia as the game spread). My suggestion is Retarget شطرنج to Shatranj and delete all others. eviolite (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, it does seem like several of these redirects do get a not-insignificant number of pageviews, so I'm not so sure. eviolite (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@eviolite Well, the popularity does not matter if it is not suitable per WP:RLOTE. See WP:POPULARPAGE. And There's also the redirect שחמט, which I listed in another RfD discussion thread QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 13:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects for discussion is an exception to this provision; a redirect is more likely to be deleted if it receives very few hits, on the grounds that it is implausible, than if it receives many. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@J947: Oh, sorry didn't notice it 😅. Hope you can forgive me lol. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 11:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep any that are mentioned, which shows an affinity with the given language. -- Tavix (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tavix: I don't believe that is at all the case for most of those. For example, this is the sentence that mentions most of them in History of chess: Thus, the game came to be called ludus scacchorum or scacc(h)i in Latin, scacchi in Italian, escacs in Catalan, échecs in French (Old French eschecs); schaken in Dutch, Schach in German, szachy in Polish, šahs in Latvian, skak in Danish, sjakk in Norwegian, schack in Swedish, šakki in Finnish, šah in South Slavic languages, sakk in Hungarian and şah in Romanian. This does not at all prove affinity with these languages as the article is just listing them with no elaboration on any in particular, and the entire paragraph is also unsourced. eviolite (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These are good illustrations of how the evolution of the game affected the naming across these languages (and it is a fascinating thing to map!) I have a very low bar for keeping WP:RFFLs as long as no other issue presents itself, given that they are useful for speakers of the language and those studying where the language and the term in question overlap. I recognize that having RFFLs for any random language is indiscriminate, so being mentioned in the article in some form can establish a "line in the sand", so to speak. -- Tavix (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My primary issue with that is that the sentence is completely unsourced and therefore arbitrarily listing all of these languages together is a form of WP:OR. They really shouldn't be in the article, IMO, but I guess that's not really a thing for RFD to decide. eviolite (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aerostation[edit]

WP:RDELETE (10): This could be expanded into an article using Rees's Cyclopædia. The target article contains no information on the subject of Aerostation. The term is obsolete (wiktionary), it can have multiple meanings, and the subject appears obscure. No article is likely forthcoming. Paleorthid (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 5[edit]

Ćajtanja[edit]

WP:RLOTE apparently from Polish, which has no connection to the target. eviolite (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decke[edit]

I cannot see how this redirect makes sense; it's tagged as {{R from alternative language}}, but it seems wikt:Decke refers to covering cloths and ceilings/roofs rather than any musical term; the dewiki article for the target is de:Korpus (Musikinstrument) (not Decke). It was created as part of Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics/10, but that does not provide any insight. eviolite (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

de:Decke (Saiteninstrument) is the relevant article for string instrument sound boards. Just plain Bill (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that. I merged the Wikidata items accordingly. I still lean towards deletion per WP:RLOTE, however. eviolite (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Davis (blogger)[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Was formerly at Michelle Davis, but moved for search engine reasons. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The paragraph at the target article is about her and her partner. I wondered about inserting their names there, but it seemed unkind. People who are searching for her will be getting to the story and links they're looking for. We could add the name of the blog into both the redirect and the article, maybe? valereee (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've clarified the target. valereee (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Valereee's latest edits at the target. Jay (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If kept, this will need to be moved back to its original location, as there is no other subject on Wikipedia using this name. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you point me to where the guideline says that? But if that's the case, Michelle Davies can be made a disambig page. Jay (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      per WP:MOVEREDIRECT the page should not be moved, but a companion redirect created at the base name if this is kept. As there are no other people by this name with an article, and no obvious WP:DABMENTIONs a disambiguation page seems unlikely to be viable at the present time. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Orthodox Ochrid Archbishopric with the Pechka Patriarchy[edit]

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 6#Greek Orthodox Ochrid Archbishopric AKK700 23:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per ... apparently me as the nominator of the referenced discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

West Korea[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Not mentioned in the target article; no indication that this term is in use. feminist (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per discussion above Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top radio[edit]

Encourage article creation for either Top Radio (Nigeria), Top Radio (Spain) (no article in any wiki but it's a station in Madrid), or de:Radio Top. An IP attempted to blank this redirect in 2012. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • disambiguate to the current list (top radio programmes), the German interwiki link, the TOPradio. Since it is a lowercase "r" it wouldn't be any of the three suggested topics at the top of the nomination -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous, and no suitable current targets. However, if "TOPradio" is pronounced as "Top radio", then we have a case to retarget there. For the current target, we already have helpful redirects Top radio program and Top radio show. Jay (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Religions in Giurtelecu Şimleului[edit]

Here are a couple redirects that I should have bundled with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 13#Greek Catholics Giurtelecu Şimleului, but they were missed. The same rationale applies. -- Tavix (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom & RfD Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giurtelecu Şimleului Synagogue[edit]

Next in the "Măeriște series" are a group of redirects regarding a synagogue. However, there is no mention of a synagogue at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Devastated the island of Puerto Rico[edit]

Not a valid redirect, this fragmentary phrase. I encourage regular contributors on this board to look at the user's other redirects--you all have more experience than me. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meanings of asteroid names (9001-1000)[edit]

Not sure if this redirect is a plausible typo (with 1000 in place of 10000); it gets very few pageviews and is several modifications away from the canonical article title ("asteroid" vs "minor planet", parentheses vs colon, hyphen vs dash). eviolite (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not really useful. Urhixidur (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete misleading. Asteroids & minor planets are both distinct classes of celestial bodies. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 14:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Vargas (footballer)[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Warp Zone (Wii)[edit]

Not mentioned in the article so has no references. Eurohunter (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to this it appears to have been a small secret associated with the UK version of the Wii Virtual Console https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2007/02/welcome_to_the_warp_zone. I haven’t seen much else regarding this so it appears to have never been more than a small message in one relatively small region so I’m doubt it’s worth mentioning. I am also against retargeting to Warp (video games) since I doubt someone typing this would be looking up warps in general.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Callao Roads[edit]

If this is supposed to be about roads in Callao, then it is incorrectly capitalised, and ambiguous. I suggest we delete: it is rarely used. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is evidently referring to Callao as a port (it is Peru's largest port), with "Roads" another term for roadstead, akin to something like Hampton Roads. There is one incoming link that uses it in this context. However, there is no mention at target, and quick searching hasn't turned up much evidence that this term has historically been used for Callao. Keep if a sourced mention can be added to target, otherwise it may be best to delete and update the incoming link. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drawsko (jezioro)[edit]

These redirect pages have the parenthetical disambiguator "jezioro" (Polish for lake). While they do lead to lakes in Poland, I do not think a disambiguator in a foreign language will be a common search term for readers of the English Wikipedia, and indeed these largely have few pageviews. eviolite (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename I agree with the nominator that a parenthetical disambiguator in Polish doesn't make sense in the English Wikipedia. However, the first three of these terms are ambiguous without disambiguation, therefore we should create redirects using our common " (lake)" disambiguator (or even better, since it would preserve and value the initial editor's contribution, rename (without leaving a redirect behind) the existing redirects accordingly). The last three of these redirects do not (currently) need a disambiguation at all, however, if there is a risk that there are other terms making them ambiguous and therefore we might have to disambiguate these terms in the future, we should proactively create " (lake)" redirects for them as well (marked with {{R from currently unnecessary disambiguation}}), so that links don't have to be changed again and to catch links when someone would routinely use the WP:Pipe trick for lake names like [[LakeName (lake)|]]:
Drawsko (lake) → Drawsko Lake
Gwiazda (lake) → Gwiazda Lake
Dąbrowa Wielka (lake) → Great Dąbrowa
Świdwie (lake) → Świdwie
Wigry (lake) → Wigry Lake
Hańcza (lake) → Hańcza
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doublé[edit]

Can't find any indication that this band ever had an acute accent on the e. Suggest retarget to Glossary of fencing#D where the term is mentioned. eviolite (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dongbien[edit]

This title seems highly implausible as a search term. From doing some research it seems that it can only come from a corruption of the Vietnamese name, Biển Đông (lit. "Sea" and "East"), that has switched the words, removed the space between them, and removed all of the diacritics. In addition, according to Wiktionary, "Biển" should always be capitalized anyway. Unsurprisingly, Google results are completely unrelated. eviolite (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, only gets about 10 pageviews a year Thefficacy (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Computerwoche (0170-5121)[edit]

No reason to have an ISSN in redirect titles (implausible and unnecessary disambiguation), especially as the publication in question does not have a standalone enwiki page. eviolite (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Computerwoche" ("Computer week") and "Computerwelt" ("Computer world") are German titles of publications which in the US are called "Computerworld". Therefore we don't need a separate article about "Computerwoche" and the redirect to "Computerworld" is perfectly accurate. However, there were/are 46 different parallel editions of this publication internationally, some running under the same name, some under similar names, and some even under rather different names. They have some common contents but also country-/language-specific contents and they obviously firm under different ISSNs. In citations, we often link to specific publications rather than only by name. In this case, the different editions of Computerworld and Computerwoche have a common origin (so the corresponding redirects point to the same page), but often enough there are even identically named journals, magazines or newspapers which have nothing at all in common except for the name. In both cases, such similarly or identically named publications need some disambiguation so that they can be linked to specifically and distinguished in reverse lookup ("WhatLinksHere"). In the case of periodicals we quite often use the ISSN as parenthetical disambiguator. So, it is perfectly okay to use the ISSN here as well. In addition to this, we also need to distingish between publications named "Computerwoche" and the (former) company named Computerwoche GmbH. So, for proper linking the disambiguation is necessary.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthiaspaul: I highly doubt any of the other publications/entities known as Computerwoche besides the original German one are notable; there aren't even any articles in dewiki. I can find no evidence that this (or any) redirect with ISSN is helpful; we don't have ISBN redirects for the same reason. I only found one previous RfD for a ISSN-disambiguated page here; though it was from 2009, it closed as Delete.
For the record, I believe this is a complete list of redirects with ISSN as a disambiguator in parentheses:
List
It is possible that I missed some where both the first and second part of the ISSN start with 1 or 2 as it is difficult to differentiate these from date ranges. In any case, all of these have vanishingly little pageviews (10-30 over all time, each) and have no incoming links. If there's consensus to delete this one, all of these should probably be bundled in another nomination. eviolite (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom per WP:RLOTE since the subject of the target article has no affinity to German. Also, the redirect is not used as a loanword in English, meaning if someone is looking up the redirect, they are most likely a native German speaker looking for the article on the German Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943: this is not a RLOTE case per se as Computerwoche is a different publication that is mentioned in the target article; however, my concern is the (AFAIK non-standard) use of an ISSN as a disambiguator. eviolite (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Altgrad[edit]

Same as Bogengrad below: unnecessary WP:RLOTE from German. eviolite (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I could agree with the nominator's rationale if this would be a redirect from an "average" foreign language word. However, it is the name of a measurement unit, and therefore it is important to be accurate and to help keeping specific terms in sync regardless of language. A straight-forward literal translation of the term would result in "old grade" and therefore would not be helpful to find the relevant info. This redirect is helpful to reliably forward people running into this term in the (older) scientific and mathematical literature to the relevant contents in our encylopedia. WP:R#KEEP #3 and #5 apply. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As additional explanation for those who do not have the international perspective:
Altgrad is a (meanwhile almost historical) term used for what is otherwise just called Grad in Germany (but degré in France), typically firming under the label "DEG" on electronic calculators. It was introduced to distinguish it from the Neugrad (grade nouveau), which is meanwhile also called gon and grad in English (and grade in France), designated as "GRAD" or "GRD" on calculators. As you can see, the seemingly simple term [G/g]rad, even if narrowing the scope of use to angular units only (so we rule out °C, °F, °DIN and many other uses), is highly ambiguous to an international audience and can mean completely different things in different contexts. On top of this, the literal translation of Altgrad would result in "old grade", not degree. Therefore, it is important to be specific and to make it as difficult as possible for users to confuse the units when they run into them in the (older) literature.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom per WP:RLOTE since the subject of the target article has no affinity to German. Also, the redirect is not used as a loanword in English, meaning if someone is looking up the redirect, they are most likely a native German speaker looking for the article on the German Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think, the redirect is helpful to anyone of our international audience capable of reading German scientific or mathematical literature. People, who are multilingual, read books for the information in them regardless of language and place of publication, and in the case of historical works they have no choice but to read them in their original language, anyway. They probably don't have problems reading the formulas, but might have problems to understand the prose. As an international encyclopedia for anyone, it is our duty to make information as easily and reliably accessible to anyone as possible. That's why it is important that they find the correct information about degrees when they enter Altgrad into our search engine. We can't and shouldn't do this for any average word, but I consider it important to do it in this case because it is the very purpose of measurement units to be understood globally (that's why many of the modern units (although not this older one) have identical or at least very similar names in different languages, sometimes even codified in the standards or specifications definining them).
In regard to WP:RLOTE, I consider this case to be on a middle ground between what is appropriate and what is not, so it is up for us to decide. The question we have to ask is if the redirect can be helpful at least to some users, or not. I found it useful and not to be in the way of any potentially to be created article. Also, its existence cannot cause any kind of confusion, there are no "false friends" in other languages. Since WP:RLOTE is only an explanatory supplement, not a guideline, I consider our guideline WP:R#KEEP #3 and #5 to have priority here.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...TLDR to the max, like usual. But either way, I read the first sentence, and RLOTE recommends the opposite of why you cited it for the reason I stated. Steel1943 (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brageirac (vila)[edit]

While the name of the commune is in the native Occitan, the disambiguator "vila" does not appear to be in English, French, or Occitan (rather Portuguese/Galician/Catalan), so is inappropriate for a redirect. This redirect was created at AFC with the simple reason "native name", which does not explain the disambiguator. eviolite (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bogengrad[edit]

German translation with no mention or justification in article; delete per WP:RLOTE. eviolite (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I could agree with the nominator's rationale if this would be a redirect from an "average" foreign language word. However, it is the name of a measurement unit, and therefore it is important to be accurate and to help keeping specific terms in sync regardless of language. A straight-forward literal translation of the term would result in "bow grade" and therefore would not be helpful to find the relevant info. This redirect is helpful to reliably forward people running into this term in the (older) scientific and mathematical literature to the relevant contents in our encylopedia. WP:R#KEEP #3 and #5 apply. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom per WP:RLOTE since the subject of the target article has no affinity to German. Also, the redirect is not used as a loanword in English, meaning if someone is looking up the redirect, they are most likely a native German speaker looking for the article on the German Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

`Id kull-il-Qiddisin[edit]

Seems to be a transliteration of a direct translation of "All Saints' Day" from Arabic or some other Semitic language (WP:RLOTE). Online searches show no use of this transliteration online anywhere except from websites deriving data from WP. eviolite (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 4[edit]

Electric Universe (physics)[edit]

There is no mention at all of "Electric Universe" at the target article "Plasma Cosmology".

Discussion at the Talk page of the target article also suggested that there is no direct link. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It is probably more accurate to say that discussion on the target talk page suggested that there was no link verifiable by reliable sources, but it amounts to much the same thing. If we can't source a linkage between the subjects, we can't discuss it. And if we can't discuss it, we shouldn't leave readers wondering why the redirect exists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: The redirect was created when Electric Universe was deleted in 2007. There are very few reliable sources for either EU or Plasma Cosmology, and both are very WP:FRINGE. Evidence that the redirect should exist: the plasma cosmology people say they're the same (not a reliable source, except that the people who still care about this idea claim they're related), and a one-liner from Forbes (noting their "absurd conflict with observations" in an article about various alternatives to the big bang). What we don't want is the redirect replaced with an actual article: that would be a much worse outcome. - Parejkoj (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or rename to Electric Universe (pseudoscience). From all I was able to find on this, this term refers to one or even several plasma cosmology "theories", which are all esotheric and outside of normal science. However, as an encyclopedia we have a duty to remain neutral on this and just document what is, not "is" in the meaning of that it is scientifically backed up (which it is not), but in the sense that the term exists and is used by (some) people out there - and the fact that the term is in use in certain circles (since apparently the 1960s) can be easily checked using Google. According to one book cover, it is a variant of plasma cosmology, so a redirect flagged with {{R to related}} appears to be appropriate. My point is, we are not doing our readers a service when we do not have an entry for this term at all as people might run into it in the net or elsewhere and expect to find more on it in Wikipedia, and the minimum service we can do is to direct them to the most closely related content we have. Ideally, the term should be briefly mentioned in the target article, but this is not a requirement for redirects to exist, they just need to be helpful. Even if all we can or want to say about the topic is that it is esotheric and pseudoscience related to plasma cosmology, we are already doing our readers an important service instead of passing the opportunity to educate them and leave them clueless about it at all. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We only have to "remain neutral" within the bounds of reliable sources. Do you have any reliable sources we could use? - Parejkoj (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The target article (Plasma Cosmology) currently lacks any mention of the incoming redirect from E.U. Any 'keep' needs to be accompanied by a proposal to write, cite and maintain something at the target article that acknowledges and explains why E.U. is redirected to it. What is the proposal for E.U. text at the target article? Without that, wouldn't the redirect be inconsistent? Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abeceda[edit]

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Disambiguate

Erin Sheehan[edit]

Deletion; page created unnecessary confusion. Page stats reveal that people are not searching for this obscure survivor of a crime. KidAd • SPEAK 20:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fine. If we determine here there shouldn't be a redirect to the Virginia tech page, then the politician page should be moved by default. Or we could decide to disambiguate at the base name. If kept as is, though, a hatnote should be added, and a future RM could always then address the ptopic question. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Complicating the matter though, is that the redirect is the result of a WP:BLAR. So perhaps it should really be restored and sent to AfD? Mdewman6 (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Erin Sheehan. And as a default for non-ambiguous pages, move Erin Sheehan (politician) to Erin Sheehan. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 09:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert per WP:BLAR and send to AfD. There is a mention of Erin Sheehan in the Norris Hall shootings section of the target, but it's a single mention with the sole purpose of attributing a quote so nowhere near enough to anchor a redirect. I'm almost certain that AfD will delete the sub-stub about them, but it is not speediable and has not been discussed so it cannot be deleted here. Add a hatnote to the politician from the restored article and mentioned them at the AfD so the closer will know to move that article if/when the shooting survivor's article is deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Erin Sheehan (politician) over redirect as the primary topic. Virginia Tech's Erin Sheehan is clearly non-notable and should not be restored. -- Tavix (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So which speedy deletion criterion does the article meet? Thryduulf (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not share your opinion that former articles must be speediable to be deleted here. If there is consensus to delete, that is all that is needed. -- Tavix (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And you have never been able to explain how this is compatible with the deletion policy and guidelines like WP:BLAR, so I don't expect you to be able to this time (but I can hope), but it helps the closer and any editors unfamiliar with RfD to articulate that it is contrary to policy. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly, this is the most fundamental principle of WP:RFD: Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted. This is a potentially problematic redirect, so after a week or more of discussion, if there is consensus to delete it will be deleted (and then Erin Sheehan (politician) can be moved there). I actually don't see how WP:BLAR is relevant with this redirect. It explains what happens when there is disagreement with the blanking of an article, but I don't see anyone actually arguing that the Virigina Tech Erin Sheehan should have an article so there is no disagreement here. -- Tavix (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may be fine to reach consensus here that the redirect should not be kept, and then perform a round-robin move that would maintain the history of the blanked article, however, in that case the page history with the previous article would be at an inappropriate title (the article's subject was not, to my knowledge, a politician) and could not easily be restored for that reason. Therefore, it would be best the redirect be deleted first in that case, and I tend to agree with Thryduulf that in most cases of a past BLAR deletion is a decision best reached at AfD. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, it would not be fine to perform a round-robin move that places the Virginia Tech Erin Sheehan at an inappropriate title. Instead, we can keep the edit history of this redirect by suppress moving the redirect to eg. Erin Sheehan (Virginia Tech) (and keeping it as a redirect to the VT shooting!) and then the politician can be moved to the base title. I also agree that a WP:BLAR disagreement is best adjudicated at AfD. However, I maintain that WP:BLAR is inapplicable here because no such disagreement has presented itself here. Restoring former articles that no one is advocating for lead to silly and unnecessary AfDs that could have easily been taken care of at RfD. -- Tavix (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, moving the redirect to an acceptable alternative, disambiguated title to make way for the obvious primary topic would certainly be superior to having the history at the wrong subject. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ben Mattias[edit]

Unlikely combinations of English, Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic, with mispellings, sometimes all in the same redirect. Avilich (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because it honestly seems like a reasonable mistake people would make. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 22:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the other thousands of possible combinations, no doubt. No reason to favor these specifically. Avilich (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all but Mattatyahu ben Yosef (delete that one) because, as much of a mishmash as they are, Google annoyingly reveals them to be in actual use in sources that identify one or another of them as his "real" name. Largoplazo (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodbender[edit]

Not mentioned in that get article, leaving the connection between the redirect and its target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Bloodbending is a plot element in the season 3 episode "The Puppetmaster", but I'm undecided if Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3) would make for a good redirect target or not.--AlexandraIDV 15:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since redirects are cheap, and this, as seen above, is mentioned in an episode, so I see no reason to delete this article. The whole point of RFA is to delete potentially problematic redirects, this is not that. Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 16:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Umm, no. As mentioned above and by myself, the redirect targeting its current target is unhelpful due to its lack of identifying it in the target article, in addition to potential alternative target(s) existing. Anyone trying to understand what the redirect's subject represents will currently be led to nothing in the article (just mention in an episode is not enough; making that claim is akin to a WP:NOTFANDOM issue), meaning WP:RDEL (probably point #2) applies. Steel1943 (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Book 4: Air[edit]

This redirect seems to refer to a non-existent 4th season of the target's subject. Third-party search results return results for fan-fiction. Steel1943 (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This seems like it could refer to the first season of the sequel series, which is titled "Book One: Air", but I don't know if that's too tenuous to retarget it to. The redirect gets very few views.--AlexandraIDV 15:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top Albums Sales[edit]

There's also US Top Album Sales. As-is, name too vague to mean one specific chart. George Ho (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Albums[edit]

The retarget name as-is looks too vague to mean one specific thing. It may also mean Billboard Top 200 or any other albums chart. Also, it's linked by only one article at the moment. George Ho (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar-Bending Master[edit]

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection unclear. Also, WP:FANDOM-like third-party search results do not return this exact phrase either; third-party results use "bending master(s)" without the word "avatar". Steel1943 (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almighty (rapper)[edit]

Not mentioned on target. Also WP:RDELETE #10 applies: could plausibly be expanded into an article, translating Almighty which seems to have quite a number of reliable sources. Muhandes (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it's kind of a catch 22. The artist likely isn't worth mentioning at a music genre article without its own article for context, and if it has its own article, no redirect is necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Debuting Countries In The Eurovision Dance Contest[edit]

I really hope people aren't still trying to figure out which countries may possibly be debuting in the 2008 Eurovision Dance Contest... -- Tavix (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all: I do not see how those redirects could have a logical target. Veverve (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, dance contest has been inactive since 2009. If it were the song contest then it can link to the appropriate section. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 06:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Not a plausible search term. No one is speculating about what the contestants WILL BE anymore, given that we know for certain who they WERE. Fieari (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This might be a plausible search term if the contest were not defunct, but it is. No prejudice against recreation if the contest resumes and the article has relevant content, but that doesn't seem likely at the present time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 09:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flavio Josefo[edit]

WP:RFFL, no connection of topic with Spanish or Portuguese. Avilich (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

יוסף בן מתתיהו[edit]

Translation of "Joseph son of Matthias" to modern Hebrew, which falls under WP:RFFL as Flavius isn't a Hebrew name, and this is just another editor's conjectural reconstruction in a modern language, and there is no evidence of what his actual name in Hebrew sounded like during his lifetime. Also, not mentioned in the article. Avilich (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: as a Hebrew speaker, the name "Flavius" is not mentioned in the redirect. It's translation is "Yosef, son of Matityahu" --93.123.119.139 (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My translator got bad for a moment, and I amended the statement accordingly, but there's more to the argument than that, and it should still be deleted. Avilich (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma-amino butyne acid[edit]

the use of "butyne" would imply the presence of an alkyne functional group, or a triple bond, in the compound, which is not the case, so this misleading incorrect name for the compound should be deleted. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Peaks (Salt Lake County, Utah) (disambiguation)[edit]

No longer needed - the target is now a set index article and there are no incoming links. Leschnei (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since a set index performs the same function as a disambiguation page, and this redirect can be used to explicitly link to it. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mdewman6. The only reason set indexes are separate from disambiguation pages is overly-rigid formatting rules for the latter, and we cannot expect anyone to predict which of the two a given page will be technically described as. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no purpose remains. Twin Peaks (Salt Lake County, Utah) has been merged to Twin Peaks (disambiguation)#Utah to resolve the WP:INCOMPDAB issue. The double disambiguation is implausible as a search term, and because the separate page no longer exists it should not be used for linking purposes. -- Tavix (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The doubly qualified redirect is useful only for a wikilink referring collectively to all places called Twin Peaks in Salt Lake County, Utah. No article does that, and it's unlikely that one ever will. Some SIAs do have (disambiguation) redirects, but in this case the target is now a dab section and there is no longer an SIA to target. Certes (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Nomination was rendered moot by Tavix's conversion of the target to a redirect (which IMO should not haave been done during the RfD, although I endorse it on the merits). * Pppery * it has begun... 05:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan War (2001–current)[edit]

As the war has officially ended, we should rename and delete these redirects. Redirects are cheap, but they should not be misleading. Anarchyte (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Afghan War (2001–current) as it has essentially no page traffic. Keep Afghan War (2001-current) as it has a bit of traffic probably due to incoming links. I don't think the redirects are necessarily misleading; they're just out of date. If a redirect has existed for long enough and has enough page views, it makes sense to keep as long as it can't reasonably be superseded by this and seeing that there's no other ongoing Afghan war that began in 2001, I don't think that is a huge risk. TartarTorte 15:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TartarTorte: The question then becomes when is "current" truly misleading? In 2025, 2030? People can type "Afghan War" or "War in Afghanistan" into the search bar and they'll be presented with links that say "Current". That will definitely lead to confusion eventually. Anarchyte (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think about others below? Sawol (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects with "to present"
  • @Sawol: I would also want those renamed, but I'll note that some of the 2015 redirects have substantive history that we should not delete. If this RfD is successful, we can discuss the rest after. Anarchyte (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. No reason to delete one and not the other (and by keep all, I mean all of the ones raised by Sawol also). It has been less than a year. These aren't ambiguous with anything, so deletion doesn't provide any positive utility, just runs the risk of breaking external links. A7V2 (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dick pic program[edit]

Seems to be derived from a joke featured on the television show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, shown here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Except that it’s not a joke. The NSA is/was passing around pictures of naked people, and as laid out in the linked article various intelligence agencies collect bucketloads of data, it can’t be ruled out dick pics are collected too. Edward Snowden himself said in the interview, “Well, the good news is there is [= in 2012] no program named the ‘Dick Pic Program’, the bad news is they are still collecting everybody’s information. Including the dick pics.” The confusion is certainly there. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 12:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to lack of mention at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to a prominent mention on a popular tv show and sourced quote from Snowden. It doesn't need a mention in the article, it just needs to be useful for someone searching for information... and it is certainly plausible that someone would have seen the John Oliver episode, but not be able to remember the real and official name, given that "Dick pic program" is so memorable in comparison. Redirects are cheap, and this one is pretty unambiguous. Fieari (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No mention at the target. Implausible search term, with little or no pageviews. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 09:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pppery and CX Zoom: “No mention at the target” is really a non-issue. It can easily be fixed. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 11:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You've added one sentence that lacks necessary context and screams of undue weight. I guess as long as that content exists the redirect should be kept (and refined to Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present)#Reactions of citizens), but it feels bolted on to make a point, rather than a legitimate part of the article. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutive nations[edit]

Delete not mentioned in the target. Or retarget to Ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina as {{R avoided double redirect}} for Constitutive nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thesmp (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elf cat[edit]

Not mentioned at the target article, leaving the association between the redirect and the target article unclear. Also, Elf cat was previously an article which was redirected to the current retarget via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elf cat. Steel1943 (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, add content at target consistent with close of the AfD. The article was redirected, not deleted. If content from the redirected article is useful for adding to the current target, simply take what is desired from the article in the page history and add to the target with an edit summary along the lines of "merged content from [[Special:Permalink/808108479|this version]] of [[Elf cat]]" to provide adequate attribution. Would also be good to use the {{copied}} template on the redirect and target talk pages to have an explicit record of what was done. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore sourced section at the list per Mdewman6. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 06:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and include the section in that article based on the deleted article as per the AfD discussion. Fieari (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 3[edit]

Wikipedia:EK[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7.

Deidre DeJear[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Deidre DeJear is the democratic frontrunner for Governor of Iowa. Similar to the Theresa Greenfield situation, she should have her own page, not just a redirect, especially seeing that she is most likely the nominee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liftup8492 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I mean until an article is written, the redirect should remain, at which point it could be G6'd. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 10:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep and close. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless and until and article is written the redirect takes people to the place where they will find the greatest amount of relevant encyclopaedic information about the subject - which is exactly what someone searching for this person on Wikipedia is looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. RfD is not for asking for articles to be created over redirects. There is nothing to be done with this redirect. Nom should be aware boldly turning articles into redirects is encouraged as it says at the top of the RfD page. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep until article is created. Nominator may create an article themselves, or if they can't, they may request an article to be created at WP:Requested articles. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 05:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so it's already requested there. Please have patience. When an editor knowledgeable enough to start an article about the subject finds it, they'll write it. Allso, I reiterate that you're encouraged to create the article yourself. But please consider reading Your First Article first. Cheers! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 06:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conjugation (biochemistry)[edit]

This section was removed from target page by Smokefoot as off topic - and the guy who failed chemistry class found maybe two different pages it could go to, so I'm going to let the smarter people retarget this. Or not retarget it, idk. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Templates Task Force[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted

March 2[edit]

Do Men gossip more than Women[edit]

Re-direct is nonsense and possibly sexist. Maurice Oly (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak redirect to § In psychology, or delete per nom and because that is a very unlikely search term, and not answered at target. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 22:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a question, not a topic.Wiki-psyc (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Happy Editing--IAmChaos 10:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The title is not nonsense (it's very clear what someone using it is looking for) and whether it is sexist or not is irrelevant (per WP:RNEUTRAL), but someone looking for information on this topic will not find anything relevant at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia that I've found. The title of a couple of references used in articles that are extremely tangentially related to this term suggest that there is probably scope for a section discussing gender differences in gossiping behaviour and/or stereotypes and this title would not be an inappropriate redirect to that, but as it stands there is no suitable target that exists. Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Thryduulf. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 22:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. The redirect speaks for itself. XtraJovial (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One Minute Closer to Death[edit]

No assistance to navigation. Probably a rumoured title before release. Failed to find any reference to this title at target, nor at any other page. If there is a better target I have missed, I would remain in favour of retargetting. Richhoncho (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mossy Land[edit]

Besides the fact that this redirect uses proper case when its current target is not a proper-cased subject, this redirect does not seem to be an alternative name for the target, leaving the connection to possibly seem WP:NEO. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because peat is just mossy land, not everyone knows the actual name of it and could be useful Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 21:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RDELETE item 10: This redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article based on content published in Rees's Cyclopædia under the heading of Mossy Land. The target article contains no information on the subject of Mossy Land. Paleorthid (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super swamper[edit]

Unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a quick google seems to find a bunch of tires? That isn't notable, and seemingly nothing at target. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 10:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. My first thought was that this was the name of a water pistol, but on investigation I think I'm misremembering the Super Soaker. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no remorse. Review of the user's edit history on the day they created the article indicates the term likely relates to Batman. The Batmobile from Christopher Nolan's Batman films—aka “The Tumbler” uses super-swamper tires.Paleorthid (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 22:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schwingmoor & Swingmoor[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: withdrawn/resolved

Guido Fawkes (blogger)[edit]

Technically, the blogger is Paul Staines, who uses the penname "Guido Fawkes" both for his blog (Guido Fawkes) and himself. Not sure how best to deal with this; probably best just to delete this as a redirect. AFreshStart (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Paul Staines. If someone is using this search term they are most likely wanting to read about the person behind the blog, not about the blog itself. A hatnote to the blog can be added if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget per Thryduulf QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 19:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget I’m confident that someone typing Guido Fawkes (blogger) is looking for the person not the website where they post to.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

שרעק[edit]

Delete because Hebrew versions have no relevance to targets, per WP:RLOTE. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 14:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep שרעק in some capacity since "Shrek" is derived from the Hebrew word-I'm not 100% sure about this action since that franchise (and the book that spawned it) is American. Definitely delete the rest per WP:RFOREIGN, since these other topics aren't particularly connected to Hebrew. Regards, SONIC678 15:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sonic678: Wait, Shrek is derived from Hebrew??? Also, the article for Thessaloniki had a redirect @ סלוניקה, but I'm not sure if I should add it to RfD, because it has some connection. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 16:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sonic678: שרעק is Yiddish for fright, derived from the German Schreck. Shrek the film franchise is transliterated to שרק in Hebrew-language versions of the film and advertising of the film in Israel. There might be an argument to retarget שרעק to Schreck (disambiguation) but I'm not sure, Yiddish and German are very similar but distinct languages. Bonoahx (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @QuickQuokka and Bonoahx: Good points. I'm also not sure what target this would best suit this redirect, so hopefully we can find one. Regards, SONIC678 19:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:RLOTE, no affinity to the Hebrew language. Bonoahx (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. There is no particular affinity with the Hebrew or Yiddish language, and these are unlikely search terms here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget שרעק to Shrek! due to Shrek!'s title coming directly from the Yiddish word שרעק. delete the rest especially צֹועַן Ṣōʕan which isn't even entirely in Hebrew but a garbled mix of Hebrew and IPA? TartarTorte 01:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Functional dissonance[edit]

Not mentioned at target (the word "functional" does not even appear there at all). 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 14:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canoeing at the 2017 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival[edit]

Delete. Missleading in templates such as Template:Events at the 2017 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival. Should be deleted to provoke page creation. CLalgo (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - valid redirect, and to preserve page history. Onel5969 TT me 14:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral On one hand, there shouldn't be an article about this, per WP:NOTDATABASE (and due to the fact that no other content seems to exist about this). On the other, even if properly targeted, this is an unlikely search term (giving this is a rather unlikely topic as well), and there is no content about this (other than a line in the sports-by-sports medal table) at the target article (which is itself not much better than a database entry). Removing the redirect would not remove any functionality or valuable content (previous versions of this redirect are entirely unsourced); though at the same time keeping it is a redirect to discourage article creation is also a valid concern. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. Nothing in the completely unsourced history that would help with that. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Equimolar[edit]

This is not mentioned at target; is a Wiktionary redirect to wikt:equimolar a better alternative? 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 13:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lawn bowls at the Summer Paralympics[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural keep

Nasty Party[edit]

Appears to have originally been an article retargeted to Conservatism in the United Kingdom but changed to the current target without discussion. Theresa May popularised the phrase, but it isn't really in relation to her. Suggest Restore per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nasty Party or retarget to somewhere more appropriate as WP:RNEUTRAL. Bonoahx (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete entirely. The original redirect doesn't mention the phrase "Nasty Party" at all (and such a redirect seems borderline PoV/disruptive). The Theresa May reference at least mentions the phrase, but I don't see it being notable enough for this redirect ot exist. — Czello 11:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, or restore: It certainly is a known and probably notable expression enough and probably ought to be included in Conservatism in the United Kingdom—it is used routinely in discussions around British politics to describe the shifts in positioning of the UK's political parties (i.e. following shifts in public attitudes and Howard's failure in the 2005 General Election, the Conservative Party moving away from social conservatism and towards the social liberalism of the David Cameron/George Osborne years). Examples of it being used: Guardian 2002, Independent 2021, BBC 2002, BBC 2008, BBC 2021, BBC 2021 again LabourList 2016. The neutrality argument here seems weak—the phrase is associated with Theresa May. The redirect does not say to the reader "Theresa May is a nasty party" nor "Theresa May is a member of a nasty party". If you read it like that, the neutrality argument would also apply if to any other redirect target (e.g. the Conservative Party or 'Conservatism in the UK'). Redirecting any political slogan or expression could have an obtuse interpretation, but we should assume a sensible reader who can grasp a modicum of nuance. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a little bit of content at Compassionate conservatism#United Kingdom. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A plausible search term that's discussed in sufficient depth at the target article, which is about the person who introduced the term into mainstream political discourse. WP:RNEUTRAL, which the nominator cites, explicitly contradicts their argument. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausible search term and May is definitely associated with the phrase. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the white rabbit[edit]

The phrase "follow the white rabbit" is used a lot in conspiracy-theory discourse (e.g. QAnon/Pizzagate), and it is not clear this would be the primary topic for someone searching for the uncapitalised version of this phrase. To avoid confusion, IMO, this should either be made into a disambig page, or deleted. AFreshStart (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • A disambiguation page with what? Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I feel the redirect should be DABIfied with White Rabbit and the Follow the White Rabbit episode. The capitalised current target should link to the DAB. Veverve (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add a hatnote something like {{For|the fictional character followed by Alice|White Rabbit}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amstelodami[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Set out[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

HoWard Taft[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#HoWard Taft

HoWard TaFt[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Nguyen Ngọc Tho[edit]

I know redirects are CHEAP however; this redirect is incredibly improbably as it is from a title without diacritics but includes ọ, which is a letter with a diacritic making it a redirect from partial diacritics to a page with full diacritics. The diacriticless Nguyen Ngoc Tho is a redirect that works perfectly well. I recommend delete. TartarTorte 20:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, gets non-negligible pageviews. And that's enough. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 00:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like a majority of the page views over the past 365 days (12-of-16) have been since the RfD nom. I think some of the earlier use was that Nguyen Ngoc Tho was not created until 2014 whereas this has existed since 2007 so the data dating back to 2014 could start to lean towards Nguyen Ngọc Tho for that time period. TartarTorte — Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 24 February 2022‎
    • This is why the stats link at the top of all nominations is configured to show the period ending the day before nomination. However, the page view tool is currently broken for me so I can't see what the actually relevant figures are. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This got 5 page views in the last year, which is basically noise levels of usage. As a title with partly missing diacritics I don't think it's a plausible search term. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keepish. WP:CHEAP, as nom said, and there are at least a few pageviews per year. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 11:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Connection Tour 07[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#Connection Tour 07

🔴[edit]

Seems a little weird to me that we're assuming that people who specifically write in 🔴 want to go "Circle"—seems much more likely that if they're gonna take the time to copy and paste the unicode emoji, they'd want to be navigated to The Color Red. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If you cannot see this emoji, it is a large red circle the same size as other emojis. On some platforms, it has a glossy specularity. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without prejudice. This character is U+1F534 "LARGE RED CIRCLE", the similar characters 🟠 🟡 🟢 🟣 🟤 🔵 🔶 🔷 🔸 🔹 🔺 🔻 🟥 🟦 🟧 🟨 🟩 🟪 🟫 all redirect to Circle, Rhombus, Triangle or Square as appropriate to their shape and this one should not be singled out from the set. All individual unicode code points that have a defined meaning are plausible search terms and should lead to somewhere. In this case I don't see any reason why that somewhere should not be the article about the shape, but if others prefer the colour or some other target then the set should be discussed as a whole. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - no opinion on Circle vs e.g. Red, but changing it to the color would require a discussion involving all of the other ones pointed out above. Although the song in question apparently has been illustrated as a red dot on some versions of the CD, it doesn't look like there's an official name, and the album predates emoji's inclusion in Unicode anyway (so the dot isn't specifically the emoji.) eviolite (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Red Circle. feminist (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Red Circle, and additionally, take the other ones pointed out by @Thryduulf and retarget them to Orange Circle, Yellow Circle, Blue Square, Orange Rhombus, etc etc, if such articles exist. If such articles don't exist (if there is actually an Orange Rhombus article I will genuinely be surprised), keep the current redirects. casualdejekyll 01:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to this suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Red Circle per WP:REMOJI and above. Bonoahx (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget + Retarget list of thryduulf per casualdejekyll Happy Editing--IAmChaos 11:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are very few "colour shape" pages for which these emoji have any plausible connection to the topic discussed; green circle and Red Square (painting) seems to be the only ones are actually about solid-coloured geometric shapes (to be fair, I haven't checked rhomboids and triangles yet) 61.239.39.90 (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

Department of public services[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Future Event List[edit]

Overcapitalized unused redirect; I moved the redirect to Future event list to make it usable in article text, which left this redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since the only rationale for deletion is due to capitalization, this looks to be a valid {{R from alternative capitalization}}. Since you moved it, this should also be kept as a {{R from move}}. I don't understand the point of moving it though. If you didn't think "Future Event List" was a good redirect, you should have just nominated that for deletion instead of performing a WP:MOVEREDIRECT. That aside, I'm not sure Future event list is a good redirect—it's not defined at the target (and "future" isn't even mentioned!). -- Tavix (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to bundle with related redirect that has been proposed for deletion by Jay
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AW[edit]

Should this redirect to Article Wizard, like WP:aw? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AssumeGoodWraith: I would suggest bundling the other redirect into this nomination, since the aim here seems to be to syncronise them. I would be tempted to retarget WP:aw, since it was fairly recently created and has no real incoming links, as opposed to WP:AW which has been around for 15 years and has a few dozen links. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bundled. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd say target all to the article wizard. It's weird that it currently goes to Template:Wikipedia Awards rather than Wikipedia:Awards. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin note I've nuked WP:aw per WP:G5. If someone wants to recreate it following the result of the above discussion I don't see any reason why that would be an issue. Primefac (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There needs to be a very good reason to change a shortcut that has "been around for 15 years and has a few dozen links", and I'm not seeing any in this nomination or elsewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One good reason to change a shortcut is when most (or all) of the existing uses are not for the current, but for the proposed target :) – Uanfala (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change. I've checked five existing uses of the shortcut at random (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), and in all of them the intended target was the article wizard. Retargeting there certainly makes sense, though it may be wiser to both resolve potential future ambiguity and accommodate present uncertainty by creating a disambiguation page. – Uanfala (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Uanfala. Article wizard is much popular and searched for page than Wikipedia Awards as shown by pageview stats of past 12 months. If a significant number of current links to WP:AW were meant for Article Wizard but are leading to Wikipedia Awards instead, I think that's an issue needs to be solved. AW is a much more natural shortcut for Article Wizard than anything else. Article Wizard page itself was created 5 years ago. No way someone would have known 15 years ago that we'd have a much better candidate for AW to redirect to. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 22:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Retarget to Wikipedia:Article wizard per Uanfala (until the last clause, I oppose disambiguating). I've spot-checked a few additional links myself (6, 7, 8, 9, 10) and came to the same conclusion. Additionally, the new target will resolve the namespace mismatch. I'm not concerned at all about the lowercase version; lowercase shortcuts are rarely (if ever?) used. -- Tavix (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    re lowercase shortcuts. They are sometimes used when the shortcut is a word, especially if it's 4 or more letters (e.g. WP:KEEP and WP:Keep both get used) but two letter combinations that aren't a common word are rare. I wouldn't go out of my way to create one, but equally wouldn't go out of my way to delete one that matches the target of an unproblematic uppercase version. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm shocked that you're replying to me about something that I already expressed that I don't care about, instead of correcting your hasty !vote in the face of "new" information (new in quotes because it was there for you to figure out on your own). -- Tavix (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/2012 proposed revision[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/2012 proposed revision

Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test

March 1[edit]

Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 7#Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit

Minimal criminal[edit]

Irrelevant target article; "Minimal counterexample" is a mathematical concept, while the title of the redirect is "Minimal criminal" which itself doesn't make any sense. Should be listed for retargeting —CrafterNova [ TALK ]  [ CONT ] 17:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Kaiaphas#Minimal Criminal as it seems that is a name that he has used and Googling for it shows more hits for him than for anything else, on the first page at least. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect is linked from Well-ordering principle, another mathematical article, which is pending references from 2008. I have added another citations needed for the criminal part. Jay (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote for the album. Richard Courant and Herbert Robbins, "What is Mathematics?" 2nd ed., 1996, ISBN 9780195105193, page 495: "Since there is no point in making bad maps bigger, we go the opposite way and look at the smallest bad maps, colloquially known as minimal criminals."
The term seems to have arisen in the context of the four color theorem. Paradoctor (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:SOAP[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 8#Wikipedia talk:SOAP

Western leftism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 8#Western leftism

Wikipedia:BC[edit]

This page should be made a disambiguation page, for the reason that I outline for other redirects (edited) of this ilk: undue focus (to quote another RfD commentor) on a niche WikiProject, when there are a few other pages (like WP:Bureaucrats) that can also fit this acronym. Even though the Brit. Col. WikiProject is not as dormant as others, it is still not fairly accommodating all navigators of this redirect. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • For another example of provincial WikiProject being dabified this way, see WP:MB and its RfD. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all my comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 13#MS and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12#EE. Unless you can show some evidence of this redirect being actually (not theoretically) problematic (for example by a significant proportion of links being intended for a different target than the current one) then there is only harm and no benefit from change. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, but not per the nominator, who has failed to advance any convincing rationale for why this should be disambiguated. Potential ambiguity is not on it's own a sufficient reason to break incoming links, nor are vague assertions that the target is niche. The whole point of shortcut redirects is to provide a quick way of navigating to pages, disambiguation essentially destroys a large part of the utility of them. This should be disambiguated because it originally targeted WP:Bootcamp, and was widely used in welcome templates for new users before being retargeted to point at the wikiproject, in fact WT:BC still points to the old place. Doing a spot check of incoming links to this redirect suggests to me that a significant proportion of them (certainly several thousand) are supposed to be targeting the help page. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per 192.76.8.70. There appear to be a very large number of incoming links intending the Bootcamp, and as far as I can see only about two dozen uses for the British Columbia project. The dab page could then also have entries for MOS:BC (probably a more plausible target than any other), Wikipedia:Basic copyediting, and possibly others. – Uanfala (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tangan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 7#Tangan

Lynching of Wollo University professors[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; misleading redirect. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to pre-redirect version. This along with some 100 articles were part of an AfD which closed to encourage smaller batches of nominations, but this was not re-nominated. The talk page discussions had support for redirect with the suggestion from Platonk that if, after doing the redirect method, there is objection then one could always undo the redirect and start a proposal.. Jay (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Langenkamp (Wes Craven's New Nightmare character)[edit]

No articles link to redirect. Created by user who has a nine-page talk page archive of notices for deletion of redirects, categories and orphaned images, the majority of which have been removed. AldezD (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget, same as § Heather Langenkamp (Wes Craven's New Nightmare character) Paradoctor (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paradoctor. This is a character in that movie, it is discussed at the target. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you mean Retarget? Because that's what I propose, and what you said below. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no anchor for the paragraph Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994) at Nancy Thompson (A Nightmare on Elm Street); this current target article discusses the topic. The rationale for keeping the redirect is the same, the target is different. It should keep pointing to the Nancy article. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What you are saying here makes no sense. Both redirects should go to the same target, yet on one you !vote retarget, and on the other you vote keep. Would you please clarify what you are voting for? Paradoctor (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This redirect contains "character", and the target is a fictional character article discussing the fictional Heather. The other redirect is missing "character" and could equally refer to the actress herself instead of her fictionalized version, thus should target the movie, since both are equially represented there under the topic of "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" instead of "Wes Craven's New Nightmare character". The "character" redirect thus justifiably redirects to a character article, where a variant of that character occurs with the name "Heather" in a paragraph of coverage. The "character"-less redirect should point to the film article, as it could be referring to the real-ife actress as well as the fictionalized actress character, and thus points to the film article where both occur in the context of that movie. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If "Heather Langenkamp (Wes Craven's New Nightmare)" could also refer to the actress, it would be ambiguous between the real actress and the fictional actress. If the real actress is the primary meaning, the redirect should point to Heather Langenkamp. If the fictional actress is the primary, it should point to the same target as the other redirect, as both are about the the fictional actress.
    Either way, it should not point to the Nancy article. Subtopic redirects go to their supertopic, not other articles excerpting the supertopic. Paradoctor (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PopCap Games Framework[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Sope Willams- Elegbe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 8#Sope Willams- Elegbe

Ask The Big Banana[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Birdman Coast to Coast[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Sophia the Martyr (Q15916381)[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7

Gamma-aminobutylic acid[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

∾[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 8#∾

Supermassive star[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 7#Supermassive star

Mini-Pufts[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Mass formation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 8#Mass formation

๐[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

February 26[edit]

Mountains of the Moon (The Shadows song)[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gordon Boulevard[edit]

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Attractive[edit]

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Kyiv Offensive[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Samson Kayo[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Monarchy of Hong Kong[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: too soon

Warp Zone (Wii)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 5#Warp Zone (Wii)

Taiwanfu[edit]

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Margaret Bandele Olayinka.[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted

Callao Roads[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 5#Callao Roads

Callao, Chile[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

The last idiot[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Kevin Sellers[edit]

The redirect was created less than 2 hours after deletion via this RfD by a voter who had opposed deletion. I am nominating it as a fresh RfD for Deletion as I was not sure if it could be tagged as a WP:G4 (as the target is now different). The current target was brought up at the previous RfD, but there ware no opinions about it, and the redirect was deleted irrespective of the merits of the current target. Jay (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the delete votes at the earlier RfD were to facilitate uninhibited search results, and three (including the nomination) were because of no mention at the then target Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German. The closer Explicit can add the deletion rationale at that RfD (and here as well). Jay (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the updated closure comment at the previous RfD, it was deleted for both reasons, and because there was no justification for a retarget. Jay (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDYES. Veverve (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sellers wrote "Blue Skies Again". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have supplied a deletion rationale to my closure at the original RFD per Jay's request. ✗plicit 01:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous consensus. This redirect shouldn't have been re-created when the proposed targeting was rejected so recently. - Eureka Lott 23:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Desirability[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Tectonic Plates[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep the first and retarget the second

Russian land[edit]

I think this should point at Territorial evolution of Russia, as this target covers the full expanse of "Russian land". My understanding is that the prior targeting is based on the etymological origin of Ruthenia as "Land of the Rus", but that is not equivalent to "Russian land" (see Names of Rus', Russia and Ruthenia for the history of these terms), nor is the latter phrase mentioned at the target, and the equation of "Russian land" with Ruthenia is arguably in line with fringe Russian irredentist POVs. Ruthenia is briefly mentioned at the target I am suggesting, so anyone that is indeed looking for Ruthenia will still find their way to what they are looking for. signed, Rosguill talk 16:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, User:Rosguill, Russian land has nothing to do with Russia, this is a confusion. 'Russian land' (Руська земля) means the same as Rus' (region) which is synonyms with Ruthenia. And Ruthenia is not mentioned at the target you are suggesting, Carpathian Ruthenia is, but Carpathian Ruthenia is only small part of Ruthenia. Other parts are Ukraine and Belarus. There is no consensus between scolars whether to include Russia in Ruthenia (Russian land), although most of them include it too. --Heanor (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Surveying English academic texts does not support your translation/interpretation: this text uses "Russian Land" to refer to territory in the Urals, this text uses the term to refer to Muscovy, and the majority of the results use the term to talk about "Russian land reform", "Russian land acquisition", "Russian Land Commune" etc. (i.e. things to do with the land of the Russian Empire or Federation). A more fluent and contemporary translation of Руська земля would be Rus'ian land, as in [11], [12], [13]. signed, Rosguill talk 17:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As for whether the target includes a link to content about the Rus' and Ruthenia, there's also this line in the first section: For the history of Rus' and Moscovy before 1547 (see Kievan Rus' and Grand Duchy of Moscow). signed, Rosguill talk 17:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely agree with you that Rus'ian land is a more fluent and better term, but the difference with 'Russian land' is so small that I propose to mark it a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Rus'ian land. --Heanor (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is that given the basic semantic meaning of the term "Russian land", readers could potentially search that trying to learn about Russia itself, and even peer-reviewed publications use the phrase that way, per my evidence above. I think that pointing to Territorial evolution of Russia and adding a hatnote at the top pointing to Ruthenia and Names of Rus', Russia and Ruthenia would be the most effective way to ensure that everybody finds what they're looking for. signed, Rosguill talk 17:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a very good point. But this is a proper name and the current redirect represents our best article representing the subject. Russia is prominently linked and discussed in the target article. Maybe it needs a hat note? —Michael Z. 16:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 
    Historic core of Rus'.png
    “Russian Land” is a dated or POV translation of Ru. russkaia zemlia, Uk. rusʼka zemlia, OES rusĭskaiȩ zemliȩ, more precisely rendered as Rus Land. In the Kyivan Rus period it was considered to be the lands around Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Pereiaslav, or sometimes more broadly as all of Kyivan Rus. This is not controversial: here’s a map based on three historians’ estimates: w:ru:Насонов, Арсений Николаевич, Boris Rybakov, and Petro Tolochko). Starting from the Muscovy period the term came to be used in Moscow to refer to its lands. Perhaps this proper name should be moved to capitalized Russian Land. —Michael Z. 00:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if starting a stub article Rus Land already might be less work and more productive than concluding this discussion? —Michael Z. 16:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between historical and contemporary uses. (ie. territorial evolution of Grand Muscovy, and the land of the Kievan Rus) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate, the term is generic enough that readers may not be looking for this very specific meaning. CMD (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, eviolite (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate as per above. Veverve (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the expression was recently used by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow to refer to the Kievan Rus': "May the Lord protect the Russian land. When I say 'Russian,' I use an ancient expression from the 'Tale of Bygone Years' - 'Where did the Russian land come from?' The land, which now includes Russia, and Ukraine, and Belarus, and other tribes and peoples. So that the Lord preserves the Russian land from external enemies, from internal discord, so that the unity of our Church is strengthened." (English source, Russian original).
To me, this support the need for DAB. Veverve (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 25[edit]

United States Surgical Corporation[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Beckton Riverside[edit]

Reason #10: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." This redirect is used to have something to link to, as if Wikipedia had any useful information on this planned DLR station.

But we don't. Much better to delete the redirect and unlink until linking gives a reader something useful. CapnZapp (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Beckton Riverside DLR station and Beckton Riverside station are separate redirects (that I'm about to nominate on today's page), this redirect should target information about the development the proposed station would serve that either has a link to or contains information about the proposed station, however I can't find any article that currently has any such information. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the development proposed in the next 10/20 years in the area (see here) I think an article may emerge in the future - but for now, Beckton seems a reasonable place to link the redirect. Could always stick a line in the Beckton article, if you'd like. Turini2 (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Turini2 I hope you understand that it is precisely because the target article does not contain any useful on "Beckton Riverside" I have nominated the redirect for deletion. In other words, it is the opposite of "reasonable" to redirect readers to articles that add nothing useful. If the article does contain significant information ten years from now, you are welcome to then recreate the redirect (or even flesh it out as a stand-alone article) but please do not consider "gaming the system" by adding content to Beckton solely to justify keeping the redirect. Thank you and have a good day CapnZapp (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @CapnZapp: adding information to the target that is encyclopaedic and DUE that supports a redirect is not gaming the system, it is improving the encyclopaedia and something that happens quite often. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, when and if useful info can be found. However, I was responding to Turini2's comment - I am talking about the (hypothetical) case where editors make an effort to mention the redirected term for the chief purpose of not having to delete a redirect, not for the purpose of actually bringing the reader useful information. Anyway, this discussion is well and good, but there still is nothing on the Beckton page about Beckton Riverside, and we don't create redirects "for future use". CapnZapp (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well we do create {{R with possibilities}} redirects for future use, but they should still take the reader to some relevant content in the meanwhile. As for not bringing the reader useful information, how would you classify this edit of mine which was made so the (imo useful) redirect Rail transport in the Maldives would not be deleted? In this specific case though you can see I am recommending deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to limit my response to simply noting our agreement. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Myall Creek[edit]

Suggest to disambiguate or move Myall Creek, New South Wales here or redirect to Myall Creek, New South Wales. The 2014 RFD seemed correct to target the massacre but since then an article about the town has been created. The town article can probbaly serve as a WP:DABCONCEPT in respect to the massacre as its linked prominently. Given Dalby, Queensland and the streams in Queensland it may be better to disambiguate, see ceb:Myall Creek if the streams are notable. There are links at Quinalow, Barnard River and Queensland Women's Historical Association for the stream(s). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the primary topic. I don't see any of the other uses rivalling the massacre. I do appreciate there are more uses that have developed since the 2014 RfD, and would welcome a disambiguation listing them at Myall Creek (disambiguation). -- Tavix (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Civil court[edit]

Civil courts do much more than hear lawsuits. I recall that when I changed my name there were something like 30 options on the form, and only 2 or 3 involved lawsuits. An article that explains that fairly well, if too briefly, is Civil law (common law). I think it would be better to retarget there. The other concern with this redirect is that it could be ambiguous with a court operating under Civil law (legal system), but the proposed target links to the DAB Civil law, so I think that handles that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 11:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree the current target isn't great, but I'm wondering whether a dab page might be better. The top hits on google for me relate to County Court (England and Wales) for example, but this will likely be different for those googling from outside that jurisdiction. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDYES. Veverve (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have sooo many stub articles on marginally distinct legal topics. I'd just as soon not encourage creation of another. What is there to be said about civil courts that can't be said in the article on civil law? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that both Civil law (common law) and Civil law (legal system) hatnote the DAB Civil law.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to be clear agreement that the status quo is unsatisfactory, but no clear consensus between retargeting, deletion, and disambiguation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to Extraordinary Writ's suggestion, although I'd still prefer my own. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A separate disambiguation page, as Thryduulf proposes, would be acceptable as well, I think. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having thought more about this, I think a dedicated disambiguation page, linking to but separate from, Cvil law would be the best. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Double-redirect[edit]

If these article-space redirects should exist, they should both lead to the same target. The problem is that neither of the current targets is appropriate - the disambiguation page at Redirect doesn't mention double redirects at all, and the project-space page is not something that is aimed at or particularly useful for readers or very new editors. I think I favour deletion, but pointing both at the article-space page is better than two XNRs. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep' double redirect, common word on Wikipedia, less common elsewhere, points the readers at the right page. Don't care much about what happens to the hyphenated version, retargetting to Wikipedia space or deletion both seem acceptable. —Kusma (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:Cross-namespace redirects, although only an essay, has some interesting points to consider. I was disappointed to find that Double redirect doesn't redirect autologically to Wikipedia:Double redirect as suggested above. Certes (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Retarget the first to the second's target. Both can be used as shortcuts on talk pages. Some editors might use the hyphen, some won't. These should be retained as long-term shortcuts under the consensus described at WP:XNR. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 14:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Double redirect to Redirect or weak delete both. The value of these redirects as WP:XNRs is questionable. At the present time, Redirect contains a hatnote directing readers to go to Wikipedia:Redirect for the policy if they arrived at Redirect erroneously; if anything, the setup of having these redirects target Redirect with the hatnote at the top of the page will help new readers understand how the "Wikipedia:" namespace versus the article namespace work, specifically in regards to using the "Wikipedia:" prefix to reach pages in the "Wikipedia:" namespace and learn to navigate Wikipedia using the prefix when applicable. Absent of that ... delete them both to allow the search results to populate appropriate articles (which honestly isn't helpful ... but is more helpful than WP:XNRs) and the fact that "Double redirect" is not an exact match for the title "Redirect"; the former option (retargeting Double redirect to Redirect) is probably more helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh ... the more I read my statement, the more I don't know. I guess I'll just accept that I don't know and bow out, but anyone is free to read my struck out statement if they want to contemplate the stance. Steel1943 (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both We shouldn't have redirects to project space, and there is no good reason to make this an exception. If someone has a good article space target, I might change my mind, but I seriously doubt that one exists. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per Oiyarbepsy. Veverve (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: Redirects should not exist from mainspace to Wikipedia namespace. Double-redirect is probably not an useful search term for the casual Wikipedia reader. I don't find it in pages listed under the Redirect disambiguation. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 17:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Софија[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Hornography[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Gamma-amino butyne acid[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Gamma-amino butyne acid

Twin Peaks (Salt Lake County, Utah) (disambiguation)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Twin Peaks (Salt Lake County, Utah) (disambiguation)

Afghan War (2001–current)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Afghan War (2001–current)

Dick pic program[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Dick pic program

Constituent monarchies[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Download Songs[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Download Albums[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Top Albums Sales[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Top Albums Sales

Hot Albums[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Hot Albums

Tweener (basketball)[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

February 24[edit]

Constitutive nations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Constitutive nations

Noguera Ribagorzana/Noguera Ribagorçana[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Galgalátz[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Il buio oltre la siepe[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Genially[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

ICC International umpire panel[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

General audience[edit]

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Avgp[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Michelle Davis (blogger)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 5#Michelle Davis (blogger)

Yugoslavia-redirects[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Former Yugoslav republics, Ex-Yugoslavia, Former Yugoslavia kept, Yugosphere deleted.

Cornis[edit]

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Over expression[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Binding antibody unit[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

The Death of the Moth[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Mambo Kingz[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Brain Sucker[edit]

Unclear/vague redirect. Brainsuckers are enemies in Bloodborne for example. Should be deleted to allow the use of the search function. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A disambig draft will help to see if there is support for disambiguation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there's also the brain bug from Starship Troopers, with the meme "They sucked his brains out" -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No good target and we shouldn't really be creating dabs when none of the entries are pages that have this as an alternate title. Letting the search results take over is the best option. Mlb96 (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Junker (SS rank)[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

Standartenjunker[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

Serbo-Romanian[edit]

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

Elf cat[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 4#Elf cat

⊚[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

February 23[edit]

Heliogabale[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Top radio[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 5#Top radio

Bundesstelle für Fernmeldestatistik[edit]

Delete per WP:R#DELETE #10, not mentioned at the target, appears to be independently notable based on the deWiki article. signed, Rosguill talk 18:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per WP:RFOREIGN and WP:R#KEEP #3. As covered in the dewiki article, this was the code name of most of the branch or field offices of the Federal Intelligence Service from its founding and until 2014. This means that a large number of such offices throughout Germany had a "Federal Office for Telecommunications Statistics" sign and were listed as such in directories, while they were in fact "Federal Intelligence Service" stations. This might qualify for an independent article on the English Wikipedia, but this is not certain as the German Wikipedia assumes every formal federal office is notable. This is a plausible search term for the organization, as anyone who searches for this name, which was a name officially used by the organisation, would be searching for the Federal Intelligence Service. Pikavoom Talk 06:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, unless there is a mention at the target. If it was an official name, there must be reliable sources for referencing at the target. Jay (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jay due to a lack of mention. -- Tavix (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom et al. No point in keeping if there's no mention at the target. CycloneYoris talk! 23:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

West Korea[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 5#West Korea

Newbury Medal[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Guido Fawkes (blogger)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 2#Guido Fawkes (blogger)

Youngest self made billionaire[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Nasty Party[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 2#Nasty Party

Square Deal Association[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Steve Henifin[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Straban[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Alaskan Thunderfuck[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Follow the white rabbit[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 2#Follow the white rabbit

Amstelodami[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 2#Amstelodami

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=1076025415"