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 0 23 102 125
TfD 0 0 0 1 1
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 4 2 6
RfD 0 0 0 24 24
AfD 0 0 0 3 3

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 23[edit]

Smart Sockets[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, internet search suggests that this is not a brand name uniquely associated with the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chakra(Naruto)[edit]

The target section doesn't exist. The proper spaced variant, Chakra (Naruto), doesn't exist (and content at this title was deleted multiple times). There doesn't seem to be a proper place in Naruto-related articles to target this redirect or the nonexistent aforementioned proper spaced variant. Probably best to delete to let search results provide the best assistance. Steel1943 (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminium(metal)[edit]

Delete per WP:RDAB. The properly spaced variant, Aluminium (metal), exists and targets the same page. Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bego Turks[edit]

Made up name. "Bego Turks" only gives Wikipedia-related results and "Bego Türkleri" gives 0. Super Ψ Dro 13:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the source who is written in German, there is given the name Bego Turks for the Inhabitans.
https://www.academia.edu/23622641/Mustafa_Bego_t%C3%BCrkischer_Nargileh_Raucher_und_ungarischer_Nationalheld_Nationale_Aneignung_und_internationale_Vermarktung_der_Insel_Ada_Kaleh

called Bego Turks Nalanidil (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nalanidil, can you give the page where this name is said? By the way, if only one single source talks about this term, the information becomes doubtful. Super Ψ Dro 18:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bucharest summit[edit]

I already nominated this one year ago but it just doesn't make sense that this redirect exists. Bucharest is the capital of a country, not some irrelevant city. It's obvious that more meetings have occurred there, so this redirect is unjustified. At Bucharest Nine you can see how many summits of that organization alone have ocurred in the city. Super Ψ Dro 11:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, per nom. Still, "Bucharest summit" seem to primarily refer to this meeting, see [1]. Veverve (talk) 15:45, 23 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a likely search term. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. How is it a hate symbol anyway? Veverve (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

macOS 13[edit]

This redirect should point to the upcoming macOS 13, not High Sierra (10.13). Kreb (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep people did refer to it as 13. Tag as {{R from incorrect name}} / {{R with possibilities}} , when a section opens up for OS 13 at macOS, it can be retargetted there, where 10.13 is already listed. After an article on the replacement for Monterrey is written, it can again be retargetted, and a hatnote added for 10.13; As there is no section at macOS for the future replacement, nor an article on it, it can remain as is. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Exactly what IP said. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 09:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Umm ... redirects should not point to themselves. (Is there something I'm missing here?) Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Foster[edit]

I redirected this to the Bill Foster DAB today but it was reverted by User:162 etc. because of the RMs, see Talk:Willie Foster (gridiron football). There was a clear consensus that the gridiron footballer wasn't primary but not that the baseball was primary. I suggest redirecting to the DAB. The 1st Google result is for Little Willy Foster. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep current primary redirect. There was indeed a long discussion about this at the above-linked RM, which identified that there are three possible targets for "Willie Foster":
  • I'm not aware of anybody else at Bill Foster or William Foster who is commonly known as "Willie Foster". Of these three then, we should ask if there is a primary topic. Based on pageviews [6] and long-term notability, it's clear that that is Bill Foster (baseball). The existing redirect and hatnotes should stay as-is. 162 etc. (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that neither Bill Foster nor Little Willy Foster is primarily referred to as "Willie", and that we do meanwhile have an article on someone who does primarily go by that name, even if they're much less notable, I think it's hard to say there's a clear primary topic. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin makes a good point. Redirect to DAB. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 09:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Homaridae[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article, so it is unclear what this is meant to refer. It seems this word has some sort of connection to lobsters, but the closest title match I could find is Homarus, and it is not completely clear if the redirect and the aforementioned term are synonymous. There is also Homeridae, but that is a subject unrelated to lobsters. Steel1943 (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: it was a spelling mistake in Lobster that seems to have been there for a long time (and wrongly italicized). "Homaridae" is a junior synonym. I've corrected the article with a reference. A Google Scholar search shows that older sources frequently used "Homaridae". Peter coxhead (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was wrongly changed in this edit. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead: Looks good. Consider this withdrawn. Steel1943 (talk) 14:34, 23 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]
  • Delete both per nom. MB 14:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not valid ways to write target's name. Searching them will likely be enough to educate the user. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 09:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep HoWard Taft due to external links (K4). Might as well keep the other one too. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep capital W; cheap and links, Delete capital F per consensus above. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 09:19, 23 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]
  • Delete 146 per year is a statistical irrelevance, ~1 every other day or two. Probably a weird fan site or a mirror, or linkfarm. They'll cope. Zaathras (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CoBain per Sonic678 - the 150-200 hits per year it consistently gets is a very large number for a redirect, statistical noise amounts to a low single digit number per year. I've got no idea where those views are coming from, but that doesn't matter - making it harder for the people to access the content they are looking for harms the encyclopaedia without bringing any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete ToBy. The 15-20 hits it gets per year are borderline relevant, but there is no obvious connection to the capitalisation. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Patently inaccurate written names for the targets. Deleting them will correctly tell our readers they are not applicable, and searching them will likely bring up relevant topics of interest. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/delete per Thryduulf. Zaathras' argument is just incorrect; 146 pageviews per year is well above-average for a redirect. Looking through my own redirect creations, the only ones that exceed that are ones where I happened to snag a common term that for some reason hadn't been redirected yet, like Meteorological event or Transfem. As to Zeke's argument, we don't break incoming links just to teach our readers a lesson about spelling. In fact, our guideline says the exact opposite. There are valid reasons to break incoming links (like if the redirect is impermissibly non-neutral), but that isn't one. I don't like the idea of keeping CoBain, but it seems clear enough it's what we have to do. If someone wants to check back in a few years, maybe whatever page links to that redirect will have gone down or changed the link, and we can delete it. Delete ToBy as probably just noise from search-bar suggestions, or miscapped searches that Special:Search would have handled anyways. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ToBy, weak keep CoBain per Sonic/Thryduulf/Tamzin. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 09:22, 23 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]

  • Delete per Hucbald.SaintAmand, REDYES. Veverve (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need consensus for Functional dissonance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: While it may be ideal to have a separate article, it would seem the redirect for "Functional dissonance" makes sense in the interim. It seems to me that functional and non-functional dissonance could be covered in an article about dissonance.Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While eventually we should have articles about both, the redirects are reasonable as they are pointing to the most closely related content we have right now. The redirects can be switched into articles whenever someone feels competent enough to write them. One of the uses of redirects is to decouple building infrastructure from (re-)organizing contents, and it is good to have them so that continuing to build infrastructure isn't hindered by content work laying somewhat behind. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. and REDYES. Veverve (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 22[edit]

Mudak[edit]

Not mentioned at target, and мудак is not a mat word. 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 18:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Lenticel, though it should be noted that there is actually a diacritic on the d in the proposed target article (it's a Ɗ). eviolite (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zhopa[edit]

Not mentioned at target, and жопа is not a mat word. 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 18:13, 15 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, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slaughter(livestock)[edit]

Delete per WP:RDAB. The correctly spaced variant, Slaughter (livestock), exists and is a redirect towards the same page as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Blind Driveway[edit]

No mention of this name at the target, nor could searching yield any proof that Gorka ever used this name. Appears to be linked to a long term hoax at WP:LOHOW. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Space ethics[edit]

Not equivalent, "space ethics" is a much broader and independently notable topic ([7], [8], [9]) that is currently primarily focused on the ethics of space debris creation and the ethics of going to space at all. I think deletion to encourage article creation is appropriate unless someone wants to get started working on a stub. signed, Rosguill talk 16:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apple blossom[edit]

The target article has altogether two sentences about the blossoms, buried inside the section with the botanican description, and I doubt these could satsify any readers who may be looking for content on the blossoms of apples. More importantly, I'm not convinced there is a primary topic here: the dab page Apple Blossom has entries for two other plants with the name (as well as half a dozen proper nouns). I propose retargeting there.

  • The proposed retargeting sounds like a good idea to me. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I see that I actually carried out this retarget in 2017, but somebody immediately changed it back. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OVERSIGHT[edit]

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

SwitchOTR[edit]

See similar discussions ZieZie, Juhn and more. Reasons for deletion

Väinö I of Finland[edit]

Not mentioned anywhere in the target. DrKay (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per comments on Frederik Kaarle I of Finland. Misleading to the point deletion is a better answer, he was not King of Finland. SnowFire (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aasha (2015 film)[edit]

I don't know what to do about this one. It's a redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry except a circular link. It's in use in Kashif Nisar. It was created in November 2021 (link) by a WP:SOCK, and WP:BLARed (with what I see as a useless result) in December 2021 by Onel5969. Narky Blert (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Alternatively, it could be redirected to Kashif Nisar. Since there is so little info there, I don't really have a strong preference. MB 16:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geko (rapper)[edit]

See similar discussions ZieZie, Juhn and more. Reasons for deletion

  • WP:RDELETE #2 : might cause confusion since Geko is not a member of NSG. They have cooperated once, but so did Ill Blu, Tion Wayne and more.
  • WP:RDELETE #10: could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. With "6:30" being certified Gold, and "Yo Darlin’" certified Silver, it might be time for an article. Muhandes (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RDELETE #10: made this a while ago but now I think this should be an article. UK Rap and Drill Editor (talk) 1:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Pat Ford (activist)[edit]

No mention at target, Libertarian Party of Rhode Island. —Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He was the former Chair of the Libertarian Party of Rhode Island at the time I made the redirect. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael II of Portugal[edit]

Entirely made-up name that is never used. DrKay (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward II of Portugal[edit]

Made-up hoax or fantasy name. DrKay (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward III of Portugal[edit]

Made-up hoax or fantasy name. DrKay (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John IV of France[edit]

Entirely made-up name that is never used. DrKay (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aimone I of Italy[edit]

Entirely made-up name that is never used. DrKay (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William III, German Emperor[edit]

Entirely made-up name that is never used. DrKay (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Ferdinand I, German Emperor[edit]

Appears to be some kind of hoax or fantasy. DrKay (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Mr Prinz von Preussen may have been many things, but "German Emperor" is something for alternate histories. —Kusma (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Friedrich I, German Emperor[edit]

Appears to be some kind of hoax or fantasy. DrKay (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, we shouldn't have fictional redirects about real people. —Kusma (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Ferdinand I, King of Prussia[edit]

Entirely made-up name that is never used. DrKay (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fantasy redirect. —Kusma (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georg Friedrich I, King of Prussia[edit]

Appears to be some kind of hoax or fantasy. There is no king of Prussia anymore. DrKay (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, we shouldn't have fictional redirects about real people. —Kusma (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas III of Russia[edit]

The only sources I can find appear to be typos for Nicholas II. DrKay (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louis I of Brazil[edit]

Entirely made-up name that is never used. DrKay (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro III of Brazil[edit]

Does not appear to be the primary topic for this term. If a better target cannot be found, perhaps it should be deleted. DrKay (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth I of Brazil[edit]

Entirely made-up name that is never used. DrKay (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although she served as regent, Isabel did not reign as monarch (nor was she ever a serious pretender following the abolition of the monarchy). Looking at the links to this redirect, there also seems no reason to retain it. • Astynax talk 16:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But there might be some justification for a redirect "Isabel I of Brazil". There is a book entitled D. Isabel I a Redentora: textos e documentos sobre a imperatriz exilada do Brasil em seus 160 anos de nascimento (published 2006). Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Straw man. There is such a redirect and has been for nearly 12 years without anyone complaining. That's not the issue. DrKay (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maria I of Russia[edit]

Entirely made-up name that is never used. DrKay (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frederik Kaarle I of Finland[edit]

Entirely made-up name that is never used. DrKay (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The fi.wp article says (transl.) "The electoral document called Friedrich Karl by the name Fredrik Kaarle.[111]" with the citation pointing to page 13 of Riitta Sihvonen's 1997 book Valtaistuin vapaana: Kysymys korkeimman vallan käytöstä Suomessa 1918–1919 which I don't have access to. Google books also has a bunch of hits for "Fredrik Kaarle". Based on the quotations in the fi.wp article, the name also seems to have been used by the Parliament of Finland at the time. So this seems to turn into a question of whether the "I of Finland" suffix is appropriate/relevant. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did some minor research on this topic a year or so ago, and I'm convinced that Kingdom of Finland (1918) should be moved or merged to something like "Attempt to establish a Finnish monarchy" or "Aftermath of the Finnish Civil War". The monarchy was a proposal, but it did not happen, and Finland was never a monarchy (despite the line currently in the lead section about "legally being a monarchy", which I don't believe to really be true). Fredrick Charles never accepted his Kingship of Finland nor even traveled to Finland at the time so his later renunciation of the title was more a "for the record" deal. Even if you accept Finland was a monarchy, they were a monarchy without a king. Lots of people are proposed as monarchs, but they need to actually rule to be monarchs. SnowFire (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tradewinds[edit]

If Tradewind is ambiguous—which has been the editorial consensus since 2006—then I think Tradewinds is as well. There's good reason to think that a reader spelling the term this way is looking for one of the eight entities called "Tradewinds" we disambiguate (or the one called TradeWinds), rather than for the concept of trade winds, usually spelled as two words. Thus I think we should retarget to Tradewind. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep trade winds is frequently written without the space [10][11], and is a clear WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT both by pageviews [12] and long-term significance. Tradewind should also arguably be moved to Tradewind (disambiguation) based on pageviews [13]. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Pageviews are meaningless when a redirect is ambiguous: it is conceivable that none of the readers who typed in "tradewinds" was looking for trade winds. Narky Blert (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding pageviews, WikiNav would be the more useful thing to look at here, but for some reason it's not working (at least for me) for this page. If someone can show that "Tradewind" primarily means "Trade wind(s)"—its status as its own page dates back to a fancrufty page about Tradewind (The Incredibles)—I'd support moving that, keeping this redirect, and adding a hatnote at Trade winds (the last bit should happen in any keep outcome here). But Google, at least, suggests to me that that's not the primary meaning; if someone knows how to unb0rk WikiNav, that would be appreciated. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom and WP:PLURAL. Veverve (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man 9[edit]

These films were never ordered in such a way and are never referred to by these numbers either as they aren't part of one series of films, but 3 completely different film series. This is also a very made up (WP:OR) numbering. What about a film like Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, why is it not counted? What about The Amazing Spider-Man (film)? Why is it not Spider-Man 4 or 5? These redirects are just absurd and unnecessary. Gonnym (talk) 05:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - very confusing and unhelpful to any would-be searcher. If reliable sources organised them this way then it would be fine but failing that these should be deleted. A7V2 (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They’re not linear in any way and no reliable source would ever organize them in such a way. They are three connected series, but not unified to justify this--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, since these redirects are named for Sam Raimi-directed films, which violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. No reliable sources found for these redirects, and search results for those may vary in finding such topics. Chompy Ace 07:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol you guys are finally all removed. :) RomanceLove88 (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous[edit]

This is a common English word which doesn't really look like a likely search term for its current target (why would, of all things which could possibly be frivolous, someone be interested only in lawsuits? why not List of frivolous political parties or maybe even the specific legal jargon Frivolous or vexatious, or maybe just the adjective itself [although WP:NOTDICTIONARY is a thing]), nor a useful redirect to anywhere else either (for the same reasons: short of a soft-redirect to Wiktionary, something not usually done for common English words since we assume readers have at least basic English knowledge, there is no good reason to favour one of the many plausible target articles over the others) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Note that the noun form Frivolity redirects to Silliness. eviolite (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At least there's not too many possible targets for the noun, and behaviour that is silly and not serious, or things that are silly and not important [14] is pretty much a synonym for silliness, so that one would be correct. Again, the adjective is quite in a different situation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague and ambiguous. The current target is misleading. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Target is misleading. Gusfriend (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between the various terms noted above. BD2412 T 00:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or DABify as per above. In any case, the statu quo cannot be maintained. Veverve (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Walking ED[edit]

Article's title appears to be a fan-made project that has not garnered significant notability. Though it is based on the TV series, that in itself does not merit enough evidence of notability on WP. There is no mention of "The Walking Ed" in the target article. — Paper Luigi T • C 00:06, 15 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! 02:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RYE[edit]

I would normally just retarget this to Rye myself, this has been targeted to Rye (disambiguation) for 16 years, so I thought it would be better to get some others' opinions on this as well. TartarTorte 01:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-2 (number)[edit]

This redirect was tagged with a speedy deletion tag with no valid criteria offered. So I untagged it but I also question the usefulness of this redirect so I thought I'd send it to RFD for evaluation, if you can see a reason for its presence on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no mention of minus/negative 2 at target. WP:RFD#DELETE number 10 may apply also. A7V2 (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Along with the evidence above, there is probably no reason why the page was created in the first place. WikiMic talk 02:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A dab −2 exists and might be the best target, but deletion seems a better option. -1 (number) correctly redirects to −1; -3 (number) redirects to 3 (why?); other -n (number) titles are redlinks. See also a recent RfD for −3…−10. Certes (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Widow black[edit]

This redirect doesn't make sense. Why would someone who is looking for information about the black widow spider type in "widow black" in the search bar? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - typing "widow b" into google it prefills "widow black ..." for various different things so clearly enough people search this on google for them to bother, so presumably that may be the case here. It seems plausible enough and doesn't seem like it would cause any problems. A7V2 (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A recent mass spam of bad redirect creations by the same editor. We shouldn't start creating redirects from words in backwards order and more specifically, shouldn't give this specific editor the OK to keep spam creating these. Ain't useful. Gonnym (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless MCU redirects[edit]

Outrageously absurd and unnecessary redirects. MCU films are never called "episodes" or "chapters". InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, these are ridiculous and unnecessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. A recent mass spam of bad redirect creations by the same editor who has never even edited these articles. As the nom points out, these films were never called episodes or chapters. Gonnym (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless MCU redirects (pt. 2)[edit]

More absurd and unnecessary redirects. These films and TV series are never called that, so it doubtful any reader would search up these keywords. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is the proper procedure, but adding the following redirect that was just created as well:

InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:59, 22 March, 2022 (UTC)

Delete I agree, these are ridiculous and unnecessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. A recent mass spam of bad redirect creations by the same editor who has never even edited these articles. As the nom points out, these films were never called by these absurd short names. Delete also The Black Widow (2021 film) which is not the name of the film and for over a year the wiki worked without that, making that search time just not something editors were missing. Gonnym (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement to edit an article prior to creating a redirect to it. Comments like that are unnecessarily bite-y and smack of ownership issues. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When an editor creates around a hundred pointless redirects in an area they haven't edited and which almost all of them are complete garbage, I believe pointing that out is very appropriate. Gonnym (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Would the redirects be more acceptable garbage if the editor had paid dues first by making edits to an article? Unless you request sanctions against them for a lack of competence, I don't see the benefit to your comment. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except maybe The Black Widow (2021 film), which seems to be the only one where it is reasonable someone might search for that. The others are very implausible to be searched for or used as redirects. —El Millo (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless MCU redirects (pt. 3)[edit]

Third set of pointless redirects. A number after the phrase "Marvel Cinematic Universe" or "MCU" is ambiguous and unhelpful, and MCU phases are never called "seasons". InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep these, they seem plausible enough. What in particular are they ambiguous with? Also FYI new discussions at RFD should go at the top of the page, not the bottom (though I suppose in this case it helps to keep these large discussions out of the way). A7V2 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, I am only advocating to keep this batch, not the others. A7V2 (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are ambiguous. "MCU: One" could refer to the first MCU film, the first MCU TV show, the first MCU phase, etc. In any case, nobody uses "MCU: One" to refer to any of those topics, which is why the redirects are illogical. The many variants make them even more ludicrous. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. Switching to delete most. A7V2 (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Apparently I didn't notice the ones with "phase" in their name. Keep those, delete the rest per Oinkers. A7V2 (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, these are ridiculous and unnecessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. A recent mass spam of bad redirect creations by the same editor who has never even edited these articles. As the nom points out, these leave ambiguity if dealing with the phase or with a specific film. Also "season" is not a term used for films. Gonnym (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Theyre ridiculous, unnecessary, and even vague too. As the releases per year have grown, one could just as much interpret the seasons as yearly, heck, even as far back as Agents of SHIELD season 1, you know, the presence of television seasons no matter how many overlap, would definitely help that. “MCU #” could be a film-by-film or work-by-work thing too. These redirects are dumb. CreecregofLife (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mcu: phase one, Mcu: phase two, Mcu: phase three, and Mcu: phase four, seems like valid search terms. Delete the rest for being too vague. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s actually pretty fair. I think the others just being so ridiculous just left the reasonable ones lumped in… CreecregofLife (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I included these ones here because I am already excluding MCU: Phase One, MCU: Phase Two, MCU: Phase Three, MCU: Phase Four, and MCU: Phase Five. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the "Mcu: phase [written-out number]" redirects and delete the rest per Oinkers. That's a valid way to search for the phases, all the rest...just are ambiguous. Regards, SONIC678 15:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: They are never called "chapters" or "episodes" since the MCU is not one long ongoing TV series. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 21[edit]

Up and Over[edit]

The term is nowhere to be found on target page. There is no lowercase entry, but the phrase of often used in WP articles. Unlikely to benefit anybody by repointing. Richhoncho (talk) 20:51, 14 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! 22:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunghill fowl[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the article unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meatcube[edit]

Apparently a secret menu item of Wendy's of ungodly size, but there doesn't seem to be a primary topic here - usages of the phrase seem to be referring more to chunks of meat than this obscure dish. Hog Farm Talk 20:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. That, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTFANDOM. Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I found several articles about recipes that uses cubes of meat as ingredients but I don't think they are enough to considered for retargetting. --Lenticel (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:I Won't Break[edit]

Leftover redirect following article move from draft space to main space Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RDRAFT. I just changed the target of the nominated redirect from I Won't Break to Russia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018 (and updated this nomination) since the former is now a redirect towards the latter, thus bypassing the double redirect. In addition, I Won't Break had content for over 4 prior to being redirected; as the nominator alluded, the redirected article was formerly a draft at the nominated redirect prior to being moved. The nominated redirect serves as a historical for both the fact that a draft article (that was eventually moved to the article space) existed in the past, and with the {{R avoided double redirect}} tag I placed on the nominated redirect, editors can follow the "paper trail" if necessary to locate the former edit history. Steel1943 (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:RDRAFT. Nothing is gained from deletion. A7V2 (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urens[edit]

This presently targets the dab page at Uren, but none of the articles listed there (plaecs and peopel with the surname) reasonably take a plural. Until 2018 it targetted to Myrmecia urens, search results indicate there are other genuses with a species called "Urens" so redirecting to one of them would be WP:XY. I'm not sure whether it best to disambiguate the species (I'm not immediately seeing any other uses) or to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete species names never stand alone in any formal/encyclopedic context. There is no need to disambiguate them. Species names may occasionally stand alone in informal (usually conversational, not written) contexts between biologists when the context of the genus has already been established. That is a classic partial title match scenario, just as a much as if I agree to meet a friend from my city at "the zoo" (our shared city of residence establishing the context of the only zoo in that city). Plantdrew (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Plantdrew. For a discussion of specific epithets on DAB pages, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristis (2nd nomination) (the consensus was: they don't belong there.) Narky Blert (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

County Line Country Fest[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, possibly independently notable. Delete unless either a due addition can be added to the target or if someone wants to start a stub. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheTekkitRealm[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, nor is the target mentioned at the linked draft, Draft:TheTekkitRealm. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is obviously a semi-hoax about a non-notable subject, but totally irrelevant to the target. It's just WP:FANCRUFT from a now blocked user and should have been a speedy delete. — Smuckola(talk) 20:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Smuckola. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As much as I love TekkitRealm, he is completely unrelated to "Me at the zoo" and he's still not notable either. GeraldWL 02:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Rickrolling#Ongoing usage There doesn't seem to be any reliable source covering his videos about COM-TEST or Me at the zoo, however, given the secondary sources in the draft, I believe the YouTuber can be mentioned in the Rickrolling article, and this redirect can point there. TheTekkitRealm rickrolling Guiness World Records staff and creating an ad with the original music video could be worth noticing. ObserveOwl (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irish separatists[edit]

superfluous redirect The Banner talk 17:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not every nationalist is also a separatist (regardles of spelling). Unlikely redirects. The Banner talk 17:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not so strange, you created these superfluous redirects. The Banner talk 17:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a separatist and a nationalist are two different concepts. Canterbury Tail talk 18:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Utricle (fruit)[edit]

Per the description of "utricle" in the target article, as well as third party search results, it seems the subject of this redirect is a different subject than the target article's subject. For this reason, delete per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TUROPHOBIA[edit]

I don't think that people usually type SCREAMING, especially about such obscure terms. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 12:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No transclusions. Not a likely search term in all caps. BusterD (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the admin who moved the original article - which I'll add has been deleted as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CAT:VIACOM[edit]

Delete. Unlikely to be useful now that the target is a redirect to Category:Paramount Global. – Fayenatic London 11:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CAT:WAWTOFUI[edit]

Delete. Unlikely to be useful since the target was renamed from Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance in 2007. WANIE was originally Category:Wikipedia articles that need their importance to be explained. – Fayenatic London 10:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Catholic Church (disambiguation)[edit]

Perhaps somewhat unhelpfully, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian Catholic Church (disambiguation) was closed in 2018 as "Redirect somewhere". It was eventually redirected to Russian Greek Catholic Church with a suitable hatnote. If this is acceptable, then it is clear that Russian Greek Catholic Church is not a disambiguation page and so Russian Catholic Church (disambiguation) should be deleted. I would have used G14 if this wasn't controversial. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment a set index could be created somewhere, to list the Catholic churches in what is now and what was in the past Russia (ie. Russian Empire); which would list the churches, instead of the overview article "Catholic Church in Russia"; then this could be retargetted there, per the AfD outcome (since they seem to want to keep it) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete so long as no page exists disambiguating the term "Russian Catholic Church". If such a page is created, retarget there. Or create a DAB/SIA here; the 2018 AfD consensus would only preclude creating it as a DAB for just those two pages. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Tamzin. An article ending with "(disambiguation)" should never redirect to something else than a DAB. Veverve (talk) 14:40, 22 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]
  • I lean toward deletion per WP:XY: Euromaidan was not (generally described by reliable sources as) a revolution, and the Revolution of Dignity did not take place in 2013, so it's not obvious which of the two directions to correct in. However, it's at least a closer to match to the latter (to which Ukrainian Revolution of 2014 redirects, and which does characterize a build-up starting in 2013), so my second choice would be a retarget there. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:02, 10 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! 04:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I find it a close call between Keep and Delete, but I think re-targeting to Revolution of Dignity would be a mistake. That re-targeting tends to imply that 2013 had nothing to do with it, which is misleading. Without this redirect, the possible-match list that drops down when typing in the search box would show "Ukrainian Revolution of 2013-14", which acknowledges the 2013 roots of the 2014 revolution. Google for the redirect-title phrase shows both articles together at the top, with Revolution of Dignity first. Overall, delete seems best to me. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alkiviadis[edit]

Anachronistic transliteration that fails WP:RFFL, as the topic has no affinity to modern Greek. Avilich (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question I would put is, how likely is it that someone reading Greek sources—perhaps tour guides or other tourist literature—or recent histories by modern Greek authors—would run across this form, and wonder who it is? If there's even a small possibility that this form is currently in use, and that people might want to look it up on English Wikipedia, then we should keep it unless it's needed for some other purpose. I don't feel confident in my ability to guess whether people would or wouldn't run across it—but if this is a typical rendering in modern Greek, then I would guess it could come up. P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are people called AΛKIBIADHC in both ancient and modern times, and I don't see how the modern "Alkiviadis" could more likely refer to the Alcibiades than any other person. There is in Wikipedia a Greek general named Alkiviadis Stefanis, which is itself a better target for the redirect "Alkiviadis" simply for the fact that he has the actual spelling in the name. Another possibility is retargeting to Alcibiades (disambiguation), but this spelling doesn't appear there. Avilich (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of any replies I would suggest a soft delete, so that anybody can recreate it with a better target. Avilich (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:S[edit]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources, which is possibly the most important resource for newcomer content writers. Currently, WP:S is basically unused, way under the shadow of the main shortcut H:S. Excessive numbers of shortcuts defeat the benefit of shortcuts.

In contrast, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources is probably the most important, undervalued section in the whole of the project for new content writers, and it has shortcuts that are hard to remember. This would be a much better use for WP:S.

If this is not shot down for a reason I don't expect, I will advertise this discussion on the relevant pages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to disambiguation page. A section of a subpage is too specialized for a one-letter shortcut. WP:S could mean a lot things and a cross-namespace redirect to Help:Searching is not the most natural. WP:S has a lot of incoming links but nearly all of them are from alphabetical lists of all one-letter WP shortcuts without saying where they go, so changing it doesn't break those uses. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Making a disambiguation page out of something that is essentially never used is just silly. Is the aim to make sure that such a high value shortcut remains unused?
    A section of of a subpage may sound "specialised", but this is part of the point. It is not "specialised" but centrally important to the most basic editor function on the project, writing content. This section, currently WP:RSPSS, is way out of balance in terms of how important it is to the prominence of its location. A single-character shortcut may be sufficient to fix that, and will certainly help. I considered suggesting WP:RSPSS be spun out to its own page, but decided against this, because, despite its standalone usefulness to content writing, its maintenance is extremely detailed and it should be boldly edited by newcomers without reading the extensive context present above.
    WP:S could mean a lot of things, but current doesn't. And what better meaning to give it than Sources for content? -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we pick a Sources target then it should be the same as WP:SOURCE and WP:SOURCES, meaning Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. I'm fine with that. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had looked at that and gave it some thought. In terms of Policy, WP:SOURCES is the root of policy on sources, but it is extremely limited to policy-wonk-thought, and it is not very good, notably in how it fails to adequately cross reference WP:PSTS (Primary, secondary and tertiary sources). Limited to Policy theory that is not immediately practical. It is a partial blurb on the theory that undies the source rules. In contrast, WP:RSPSS is the end result list that edits should consult.
The shortcuts are not meant to be a content guide, but quick reference memorable shortcuts. Editors on the ground do not a quicker reference to the non-practical section of WP:V. They need it to get to the sources cheat sheet, WP:RSPSS.
Also, having multiple catchy shortcuts pointing to the same thing is another waste of catchy shortcuts. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since this redirect has targeted the current page (or a redirect towards it leftover from page moves) since 2007. At this point, due to targeting the current page for about 15 years, there's too much potential for links in edit summaries to be broken in the event the redirect is retargeted. If necessary to disambiguate "S", Wikipedia:S (disambiguation) could be created, but that may be overkill; it may be better to just add a hatnote for 1–2 other possibilities that "WP:S" could refer to, and call it a day. Steel1943 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 20[edit]

Chithravadham[edit]

Was an article about impalement as an execution method in medieval Kerala, but is no longer mentioned at target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stevens grips[edit]

I made this redirect by accident during a page move. As the CSD was not formally met, I want to open up a discussion to delete this redirect. I doubt my typo is actually helpful. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Default to keep comment since the nominator's rationale is invalid per this diff; the title existed as a redirect prior to the nominator overwriting it. Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That was Stevens grip, not Steven grips. An error was made during the page move. Stevens grip and Stevens technique are the pages in question and aren't nominated for deletion. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I see that now after noticing the WP:ROUNDROBIN moves that DrVogel performed in the edit history. Steel1943 (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO this ought to have qualified for G7 or G6, but since it's been sent here, and this doesn't seem to be a countable noun, sure, delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maan Kunwari[edit]

I wish to nominate Maan Kunwari for deletion and Princess of Amber for either deletion or conversion to Disambiguation page. Mariam-uz-Zamani was not refer to as Maan Kunwari but as Heer Kunwari or so. And Mariam-uz-Zamani wasn't the only princess of Amber (former state of Jaipur), at least one other princess of Amber has an Wikipedia page. It does not seem right to associate "princess of Amber" with one lady but only two Princess of Amber has seem to have Wikipedia articles. I request to turn this redirect to a disambiguation page or delete it.
Manavati (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about turning Princess of Amber (which I created as a redirect) into a disambig page if there is more than one existing WP page. Dsp13 (talk) 17:58, 13 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! 22:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Pastors[edit]

No articles seem to link to it. Indeed, almost nothing links to its target. Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:42, 13 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! 22:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Molinos en ritmo[edit]

No such term on the target, unable to find more suitable target. Presently no assistance to navigation. Richhoncho (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neodop. If you wish to add that information to the album article I am happy to withdraw the nomination, but to redirect a reader to a page where there is no relevant information, is not assistance to navigation, but a blind alley. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:47, 14 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! 22:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Military intervention[edit]

A military intervention is not necessarily an invasion Gaetr (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Junk food vegan[edit]

"Junk food" is not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edenic diet[edit]

This term is not identified at either of the redirects' targets, leaving what these redirects are supposed to represent to be unknown. (However, Edenic diet is a {{R with history}}, meaning we may have had content about the redirects' subject in the past, but it doesn't look like we do now.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZieZie[edit]

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

Vegan athletics[edit]

The target article mentions in passing athletes who are vegans, but nothing specific in regards to the subject mentioned by the title of the redirect. In other words, readers searching this term hoping to find a subject about this will not find what they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's not worth keeping this category as the op says on the veganism article it is not about athletics. There is no other article this can be redirected to. Also there is no such thing as "vegan athletics". Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Goes Green[edit]

Not mentioned at Hollywood, Los Angeles (which was just moved from Hollywood, which is now a disambiguation page) Plantdrew (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Searching finds the term is used in journalism about the industry making films about "green" subjects or the industry itself adopting "green" practices. I don't see any suitable target. Go green redirects to Environmentalism, but there is nothing in that article specific to the film industry, much less Hollywood.MB 15:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dealul Radului[edit]

By my count, we are down to 23 unhelpful redirects to Măeriște. I think this is a small enough group to bundle them together as one "miscellaneous" nomination. I have verified that there is no mention of any of these terms (or variants) at the target page. -- Tavix (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Without a mention these are at best confusing, at worst misleading. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest NFL Player[edit]

According to the target article, Tyreek Hill set a speed record for the 2016 season, but I don't see any indication that he is considered the fastest in the timeless way suggested by this search term. I also don't see any speed records at List of National Football League records (individual), leading me to think that deletion is the best option. signed, Rosguill talk 15:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, this isn't Guinness World Records or similar. This article says that John Ross is the current holder of this speed record he set for 2017, but even his page wouldn't be the best target for this thing, as the record holder is subject to change throughout the years. Also, people have varying opinions as to who's the fastest player in the NFL, and there are a bunch of different areas in which one can hold that title. Regards, SONIC678 20:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think there's a suitable target for this. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 20:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Hill is known by some (myself included) as the fastest NFL player, and has gained some coverage for it, see [16], [17], [18], though I'm not sure this should be a redirect page. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 40-yard dash#Records. This seems to be a better target where people can see the fastest NFL players by the most frequently used metric—their 40-yard dash time. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Price Whelan[edit]

No coverage of Audrey Price Whelan in redirected biography, only an un-supported statement that she is the spouse of Michael Whelan. No evidence of importance, notability or even being factual.

Failed WP:CSD#R3. Toddst1 (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check his website and literally his Wikipedia says it on their. 2ofthe22ofthe2022 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and his wife and him run his website 2ofthe22ofthe2022 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow-orange vegetables[edit]

There doesn't seem to be any such list or identification of the subject of the redirect in the target article; in fact, the word "yellow" appears nowhere in the target article. For this reason, readers attempting to locate a topic by this name when searching the term will seemingly be left with finding nothing about the topic of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This appears to be a shortcoming of the article rather than the redirect. A quick scan of Google and Google Books hits for "Yellow-orange vegetables" indicates that this is a grouping well-reported on in the real world. I would be inclined to keep the redirect and add at least a line to the article noting that some sources distinguish "Green vegetables" from "Yellow-orange vegetables" for purposes of dietary recommendations and the like. BD2412 T 21:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, e.g.: Thomas E. Moon and Marc S. Micozzi, eds., Nutrition and Cancer Prevention (Marcel Dekker Inc., 1988), p. 228: "Foods chosen for nutrient composition analysis, based upon the results of epidemiologic studies, are divided into two broad categories: green, leafy vegetables (e.g., broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, kale, spinach), and yellow-orange vegetables (e.g., carrots, pumpkin, red palm oil, squashes, sweet potato)". BD2412 T 02:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add sourced description at target if possible based on BD2412's analysis, otherwise delete due to lack of mention to defer to search results. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salad vegetable[edit]

The target article does not mention the word "salad" anywhere, leaving the terms unidentified in the target article. In addition, it would probably not be appropriate to retarget these redirects to Salad since the article doesn't seem to be able to identify what a "salad vegetable" is either. Steel1943 (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Salad anyway; even if the article doesn't use the phrase, it does clearly identify plenty of vegetables commonly used in salads. BD2412 T 02:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shabji[edit]

Delete per WP:FORRED. This redirect seems to be in the Bengali language, which the target article's subject does not have affinity. Steel1943 (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per WP:FORRED: non-English title is in common use. I have takeaway menus for two separate UK restaurants. My options include (1) Shabji Bhajee £3.25 (Fresh mixed vegetables) & Shabji Sag £3.25 (Fresh mixed vegetables cooked with spinach).(2) Shabji Paneer £3.50 (no translation). Hazardous to Health (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...And what type of cuisine do these restaurants represent? Seems like a cuisine type that uses a foreign language. The menu items you listed may be okay to have on this Wikipedia per WP:FORRED due to not having a proper English translation and/or being more commonly known in English by their foreign-language term/phrases, but the individual words themselves should be deleted per WP:FORRED since the subject of the word itself does not have affinity to the language which it is in. (In other words, "delete per WP:FORRED" should be valid for the nominated redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • (1) "Indian & Bangladeshi" (2) "Indian Cuisine" [[WP:FORRED] in a nutshell: Redirects from other languages should generally be avoided unless a well-grounded rationale can be provided for their inclusion. I do not live in a city and yet both these restaurants are within walking distance of me. I believe you are from North America, so I suspect, from your persective, the inclusion has little use. But in the UK Indian and Anglo-Indian cuisine is so pervasive that the last link is actually a sub-section of "English cuisine"! Hazardous to Health (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your comment didn't address my point in the least, and the point you are mentioning again is menu items (phrases which include the word) rather than the individual word itself. Please reread my comment if necessary and, if needed, address what I was stating rather than, I'm assuming unintentionally, WP:BLUDGEON-ing your stance. Steel1943 (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and nom's arguments that while the cuisine would have made sense, this word by itself doesn't, unless we have a better target. Jay (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit vegetable[edit]

Confusing WP:XY situation: Fruit or Vegetable? (Yeah, it's a common question, but as a redirect, the WP:XY exists regardless where it targets.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm inclined to delete, but List of vegetables#Fruits is a possible target (however that list also has sections for "Chile peppers" and "Podded vegetables", which are both fruits; perhaps the list could be modified so "Chile peppers" and "Podded vegetables" are subsections of "Fruit"). Plantdrew (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/refine - I don't think this is an unreasonable search term given the confusion so many seem to have about believing these terms to be mutually exclusive. Plantdrew's target is acceptable, but I prefer Vegetable#Terminology where the confusion is well explained. A7V2 (talk) 00:07, 21 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth tank[edit]

Delete - not mentioned in main article and fictional cruft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Very kick ass unit but has no significant bearing in real life and in the game's lore--Lenticel (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Panzer VIII Maus, a real-life tank that had the codename Mammoth, per our article -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Modding (Command & Conquer)[edit]

Disambiguation makes no sense, not a believable redirect that people could be looking for. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is an {{R from move}} that was at this title for a few weeks in 2007 before being moved to Modding of Command & Conquer, which was then redirected to the main article per an AfD in 2009. I am not sure if there was ever any mention of modding at the target, but we should just leave these redirects per the consensus of the AfD. If someone felt strongly otherwise, I think both redirects should be considered together to reach a new consensus. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdewman6: The other redirect contains the entire article history, although it was entirely WP:OR even at the time. This redirect both has no history to speak of nor makes sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 3 weeks is long enough to collect external links, so we generally keep such redirects from moves. Usually there is no benefit in deletion of such redirects, and if there were content about modding at the target, this redirect would be just fine. The problem here is that in spite of the AfD outcome over a decade ago, there is currently no content at the target. But that's more a question for how to handle the other redirect with the page history. I think as long as that one stays, this one should just be left alone. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I disagree with Mdewman6's arguments. Veverve (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Modding is not unique to this game and anyone looking here for information on modding this game, whether we have any or not, would already know we have an article and to go straight there. This redirect would do nothing to help anyone actually searching for the information it implies because they wouldn't be using it in the first place. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:54, 20 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite two relists, this had participation from only one user. One final try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This sounds vaguely like an Azeri-language name for the municipality, but wikidata links a different entity altogether. If it was formerly known as this (as the IP says their map suggests), then this sounds like a perfectly fine redirect as a former name. But the thing is that the Sevan–Hrazdan Cascade article says The Hrazdan Hydroelectric Power Plant, known as Atarbekyan during the Soviet years, is located between the Sevan and Argel stations and it gives a map that puts the Hrazdan plant basically exactly where the Soviet map says "Atarbekyan" is. As such, it's unclear to me if the map is pointing at a former municipality or if it's pointing at a power plant. In the former case, it would make sense to keep. In the latter, it makes no sense to keep the redirect as-is. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queeensbury[edit]

Implausible typo. Created as a result of a page move made back in 2006. Contains no significant page history, though if kept it should be retargeted to Queensbury, which is also a DAB page like its current target. CycloneYoris talk! 07:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible typo, I believe typing extra letters into the search bar would show results without the need for a redirect anyway (see Kiingsbury for example). Bonoahx (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reeetarget to Queensbury. Letter replication (typing three of something where two are required) is one of the easier typos to make. BD2412 T 21:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible typo. I think it is very unlikely that someone would type three and not notice and correct. As Bonoahx states, the search function would still get you there, even with four: Showing results for queensbury. No results found for Queeeensbury. MB 15:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Queensbury as plausible typo --Lenticel (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. MB has a very optimistic view of how people type. That's certainly not how I type, at least. I smash the keys that I think will take me to the page I'm looking for, and if they fail to, I squint at the screen and try to figure out what went wrong. There's no "check work" step before I hit enter. There's a lot of typos I don't think it's worth our trouble to support, but someone hitting e thrice instead of twice is a quite common one, and makes this a plausible redirect. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't help but think this a bit British-centric. I don't have the stats to show it, and it really isn't important enough to take the time to find them, but it seems to me that outside of Britain, the most common use of the non typo this is a redirect to (or Proposed to be changed to) is the rules of Boxing at Marquess of Queensberry Rules, not a particular school or marquee. 174.212.211.248 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consanguinity (in Canon Law)[edit]

I think it should be turned into a DAB with Consanguinity#Christianity and Affinity (Catholic canon law). However, the capitalisation of the redirect is clearly wrong (it should be "Consanguinity (canon law)", see Canon law). What do you think? Veverve (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LDS(automobile)[edit]

Bit of a weird case. This was a copy-paste of the creator's own article [19] [20]—not an attempt at a cut-and-paste move, just a copy. Redirected 12 hours later, and judging from pageviews is not relied upon by anyone. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Definitely an unusual case, but doesn't seem to serve any purpose. If you typed this in the search box (assuming you're using default settings) it would still bring up the right page. The only way it could really be used would be if you were manually typing in the URL and missed an underscore. 5225C (talk • contributions) 08:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZS(company)[edit]

Implausible typo with negligible pageview. Unusually, for this sort, created de novo, not an r from move. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Burton(bowler)[edit]

Typo in disambiguator corrected 3 hours after article's creation. Negligible pageviews since. Suggest deletion as with most malformatted disambiguators. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 19[edit]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:14, 13 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! 23:33, 19 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]
  • Keep. Most probably this is nothing new to you, but since it hasn't been mentioned yet, cyclus is Latin for cycle. At least in Europe, Latin was the lingua franca of sciences, including mathematics, therefore Latin terms are often of historical relevance in many science contexts even if they are not widely used any more. I weakly remember that I have seen this term being used to describe the equivalent of a full angle in an old book, but unfortunately don't remember which book it was exactly. However, it is a reasonable redirect, abbreviations cyc. or cyl. (although today derived from cycle) are in the article. So, for as long as it isn't confused with another topic or is in the way of another article, keep per WP:RKEEP #3 #5 #6. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I completely fail to see how this is the case. After its creation, and before this RfD, the redirect only had 20 views. There have been no proven examples at all of "cyclus" being used, even in Latin texts, to mean "turn"; "weakly remember"ing something in one book certainly doesn't pass WP:V. Given the lack of verification and attestation, and given the complete lack of evidence, the redirect (and the assertion that cyc and cyl were once derived from cyclus with nothing backing it up) should be considered complete WP:OR. Indeed, the redirect would only confuse readers who find it in the use David Eppstein mentioned, 2π divided by the number of teeth of the gaterotor. eviolite (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:10, 13 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! 23:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gayest[edit]

Delete: I don't think a superlative should be a redirect to an adjective. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 16:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a particular reason for thinking this? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JasonAQuest: It's not a common search term. The daily average redirects from this is 0. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 20:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my question; it's an unrelated argument. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most redirects get <0 pageviews per day. Some valid redirects get <0 per year. This one, however, got 137 last year, so a bit more than 1 every 3 days. That's definitely a useful redirect. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin, redirect is getting a non-trivial amount of traffic. The term is also relatively common, I think it makes sense to redirect to Gay as Gayest by itself would not warrant an article. Bonoahx (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite precedents like this one, I believe redirects like this aren't helpful. There are limits to how many of the conceivable forms of a headword we can realistically strive to create redirects for, and I'd rather we drew the line before superlatives (-est) or adverbial forms (-ly): with a few exceptions like Coldest or Tallest, we don't normally have such redirects (these are all red: Nicest, Prettiest, Heaviest, Creepiest, Most boring...). One problem specifically with this sort of superlative redirects is that they're unlikely to lead readers to what they want: if someone has made the effort to specifically type out the longer, less common, form, then chances are they aren't looking for the same thing that they could have easily reached by the shorter and more obvious route. If they type "hottest", for example, they're likely interested in finding out about entities with the highest value of the property (hottest things in the Universe? hottest places on Earth?....) rather than an article about the property itself (in this case, Temperature). – Uanfala (talk) 02:02, 13 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! 23:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fruiting Shrubs[edit]

Fruit is not exclusive to shrubs, and Shrub is not exclusive to fruiting types, leaving this redirect essentially an unsolvable WP:XY situation. Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pod types[edit]

Pod is a disambiguation page, and righteously so. Having this redirect target the current target is misleading best. (However, I would not recommend retargeting to the disambiguation page since the redirect is not a title match or variation for the disambiguation page.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pod. I agree with the nom that we generally should not have "Foo types" redirects to dab pages at "Foo", but there was an article at this page for ~2 years from 2007-2009, so feel like it should be kept somewhere. At least anyone searching for information about types of pods will be brought to the right place. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Controversy[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Also, third party search engines looking of this term provide results for various subjects such as Kangana Ranaut and Anne Boleyn, but none for the current topic. For this reason, the association between the target article's subject and the redirect doesn't seem strong enough to pigeonhole readers into being redirected to the redirect's current target, and it would best serve readers to have Wikipedia's search results handle any searches for this term. Steel1943 (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague at best as several people can be labelled as this according to Google --Lenticel (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna's controversies[edit]

There doesn't seem to be a section or specific place in this article which these titles could refer. For this reason, readers may search up these titles expecting to be forwarded to some direct section/article regarding the subject of these redirects only to be forced to skim through the target sticks to figure out anything about the various mentions of "controversy" in the article. (Also, the redirect Madonna's controversies was previously an article that was redirected as a result of an WP:AFD in 2008.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP rule 1. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please elaborate, or otherwise, this comment has no context. Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Never mind, I get it now, and I disagree with that stance per my nomination statement, and since the previous article's content was apparently redirected and not merged into the target article after the AFD concluded. Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a misleading redirect, as the article has no controversy section (which is good), and it would be inaccurate to say that the whole article is about Madonna's controversies. Someone following this redirect from a search suggestion or similar will likely not find what they are looking for. As to Presidentman's point, I don't see any indication that this was merged, so we're not required to preserve the authorship (even if we were, we could move the redirect to a talk subpage, or, per WP:NOTBLAME, just copy the list of contributors to the target's talkpage). And the usual concern about deleting a redirect with content in its history isn't applicable when there was already consensus at AfD against keeping that material. So delete. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

High Princess (Stache)[edit]

Confusing/unclear redirect. It seems that a song with some sort of variation of this title (but not exactly this title) was intended to be on Artpop, but it looks like it didn't make the cut. Also, this redirect was at one point targeting Zedd (producer) which targets Zedd. It also seems the phrase "high princess" is nowhere on Wikipedia. Probably best to delete this vague/unclear redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Clarity (Zedd album)#Other songs. Apparently this refers to the Lady Gaga promotional version of Stache. However, my !vote is only weak as I'm not convinced that the parenthetical formatting of the redirect is plausible. eviolite (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Numismatic fund of the History of Azerbaijan[edit]

Page existed at this incomplete title for 3 days before being moved to Numismatic Fund of the Museum of History of Azerbaijan (and it should probably be moved again to match parent National Museum of History of Azerbaijan). Not a likely search term. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Viața studențească[edit]

These redirects translate to "student life", which is too broad of a subject to redirect to a locality. I also can't seem to figure out why they were created. There were no mentions in the article at the time these were created. -- Tavix (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Giurtelecu Șimleului history[edit]

These redirects are a bit misleading because there is not a timeline of Giurtelecu Şimleului at the target. There used to be a timeline in the way-too-detailed article on the settlement, but that article was rightly redirected. -- Tavix (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No longer a helpful redirect as the info was removed. eviolite (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimited Class Wrestling Federation[edit]

Target is a dab page that doesn't mention anything about wrestling, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Middling-weak retarget to Power Broker (character), which mentions this fictional entity. Middling-weak (with second choice delete) because the mentions are fairly brief, and, if that article had a less bloated plot summary, it's not clear to me it would be mentioned at all. (I don't mean "it's not clear to me" as a polite way to say "I don't think that"; I genuinely can't tell, from the way the article is written, how significant this element is in-universe. 20 of the article's 22 references are primary, and it contains Fandom-y writing like Very little is known about the second version of the Power Broker other than he wears a battle suit and can project bolts of energy from his hands. This new Power Broker has apparently taken over Power Broker, Inc. This makes it an imperfect reference point to judge this redirect's appropriateness.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Les Dossiers Blair Witch[edit]

Delete per WP:RLOTE, no special affinity between the target and French. signed, Rosguill talk 15:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, specifically under the WP:RLOTE provision Direct translations where the native/original form of the title is in English (or a language other than the language of the redirect's title). eviolite (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bigamy (in Civil Law)[edit]

I do not know what to to with this redirect. This redirect seems very unlikely to help anyone. It also has capitalisation mistakes.
@Shhhnotsoloud: has pointed out the article Bigamy existed, and suggested at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Bigamy (in Canon Law) that the redirect be deleted.
I would like to point out in case it may be useful, that Legality of polygamy exists. However, I am not sure if it would be a good redirect, as the redirect might not be useful in itself with such a name. Veverve (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I think I've figured out where all these are coming from, namely the Catholic Encyclopedia, which has "Bigamy (in Civil Jurisprudence)", which it appears in some editions may have been "Bigamy (in Civil Law)" [21]. Collier's also had "Bigamy, in civil law" in 1921, maybe also later. Normally I'd support deletion of a nonstandard disambiguator like this, but here, I don't know, I could see it being useful to someone. Unlike the "in Canon Law" RfD, where the issue was an existing consensus against the primary version of that redirect. I'd thus lean toward a retarget to Legality of polygamy (noting that "civil" here means "non-ecclesiastical", not "civil-code-based"). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:17, 19 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I fail to see why a measurement unit has some special status that makes it different from other foreign-language redirects. I see 99 GHits in English for this term (filtering out some about an auto parts store), most of which are either dictionaries or not actually in English. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Failing to see a reason" might not be the strongest of arguments if other editors do see enough reason to create the redirect, but it's definitely on a middle ground per WP:RLOTE. The reason why I lean towards Keeping is because I see the redirect's usefulness in reducing the risk of causing confusion among the many different types of "grades" and "degrees" as measurement units. For me, measurement units stand somewhat out of average words like "flower" (for which we certainly do not need a redirect from the German translation "Blume") because of their very purpose to enable reliable comparison and reproduction, anywhere and at any time. This requires that they are universally understood, or at least not be mixed up. And redirecting some older (in this case common foreign language) terms to the corresponding modern English terms can help in this endeavour. Our article has a number of prominent examples what can go wrong if units are mixed up.
    --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Failing to see a reason" was my polite way to say "You haven't given a good reason". You're just saying that units of measurement are particularly important, but the same could be said of many other things. Languages themselves are very important in international communication; shall we have redirects for every language's term for every other language? Furthermore, this redirect won't help avoid any measurement-confusion-based disasters, since it doesn't actually tell readers what an altgrad is. It just lets them know that it is a term in some way related to degrees, without telling them what that relation is. If a reader wants to use a Wikimedia site to find out what altgrad means, they can consult wikt:altgrad. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    shall we have redirects for every language's term for every other language? Of course not. You are exaggerating. Having a few selected redirects from foreign language terms where they are helpful or important for one reason or another (and not harmful in other ways like being "false friends" or hindering the creation of other articles) doesn't mean we should have them for anything under the sun. As I said, it's on a middle ground and it is up to us to make a case-by-case decision. I see the usefulness of the redirect because to me the names of measurement units are not "average words".
    Furthermore, this redirect won't help avoid any measurement-confusion-based disasters, since it doesn't actually tell readers what an altgrad is I have meanwhile added a paragraph providing some historical background, specifically mentioning the term Altgrad.
    --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to keep now that the term is mentioned. However, I continue to reject the notion that there is anything special about units of measurement that exempts them from normal RLOTE treatment. For basically any RLOTE you could dream up a comparable argument, often a more convincing one. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:09, 19 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I fail to see why a measurement unit has some special status that makes it different from other foreign-language redirects. I see 71 GHits in English for this term, most of which are either dictionaries or not actually in English. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and Feline Hymnic. Veverve (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I have added a one-sentence mention of EU to the PC article, with a link to the Forbes article, since that's probably the only reliable source we can link to. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TERF-related redirects[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

These terms are very similar and often used in virtually same context, but they currently point to different redirect targets. It might be fine to unify the redirect target of these terms, but I am not sure which target is better in this case. C933103 (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at the arguments made in the past, I guess the question is, does the phrase "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" (or any variant thereof) have a significantly different meaning than the acronym "TERF"? On the one hand, the article TERF is about the acronym itself, not the concept. On the other hand, the phrase "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" is rarely used as anything other than an expansion of that acronym (actual GHit count: 147). Indeed, most people who object to the term "TERF" also object to the term "trans-excusionary radical feminist", as they tend to see themselves as protecting cis women rather than excluding trans women. So this isn't a case of a redirect for a neutral term going to an article on criticism of that concept. "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist" is a decidedly non-neutral term, almost exclusively associated with the word "TERF", and thus I think we should synchronize at TERF. The only remaining objection I see is that "TERF" is sometimes used to describe people who are not actually radical feminists (not meant in a No true Scotsman way, like, people who are not and do not claim to be), but I'm not sure the expanded forms are immunte to that either. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 10:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that, I find the term "trans[-]exclusive radical feminist[/ists/ism]" being a bit more commonly used than "trans[-]exclusionary radical feminist[/ists/ism]", but they currently have no redirect links. C933103 (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You have only tagged Trans-exclusionary radical feminism so is that the only redirect you are proposing be changed? Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target all to Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender critical feminism/trans-exclusionary radical feminism except for TERFism. It seems to me that if people are searching or linking to the full term, they would want the article that discusses the ideology, not just the term itself. "TERFism" can stay at TERF as that one explains the meaning of the acronym. Crossroads -talk- 00:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there an ideology called "trans-exclusionary radical feminism"? Or is that a term only used in the same contexts as "TERF" is, to describe an ideology (or set of ideologies) whose adherents usually reject that label? In the latter case, it's generally better to "cover the controversy", i.e. redirect to an article that covers a term's usage rather than what it's used to refer to. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think (and this is hearsay so I might be wrong) that the term TERF was invented by people who called themselves TERFs and then it gained a negative connotation and they stopped using it. casualdejekyll 01:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Our article on the matter says that it was "popularized" by a trans-inclusive radical feminist, but doesn't say where it originates. Either way, my point stands that neither "TERF" nor its expanded forms are labels people tend to self-assign (although there are of course exceptions). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I support @Crossroads. "Gender critical" and its variations redirect to that sections of "Feminist views on transgender topics" and so should "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" and its variations. AndyGordon (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target all to TERF, since this is literally what "TERF" stands for, and there is a hatnote (and wikilink) to the other candidate article. Keep it simple. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This highlights once again why we need a dedicated article that discusses trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF) in its entirety, both the ideology, the reception of the ideology, and the terminology. Having the material on the ideology in one article (where it only constitutes a smaller part of the topic) and the terminology in another article is a hopeless situation. Some readers may be interested in reading about the ideology itself and the reception of it, some may be interested in the terminology, but most are probably interested in both. Other Wikipedia language editions seem to include both ideology and terminology in the same article. This would be the simple, sensible solution. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an English-language acronym and phrase, so I wouldn't necessarily put too much stock in what other language Wikipedias have done. And there are prominent wikilinks from one article to the other. The "feminist views" title is nice and neutral, and the acronym TERF is independently notable. Crossroads -talk- 05:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target all to TERF. This is a sticky situation both in real life and on the project, as there's no neutral description of the ideology labeled TERF or gender critical. I think targeting the acronym these all share is the least astonishing option. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 03:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is currently split 3-2 between TERF and Feminist views on transgender topics#Gender critical feminism/trans-exclusionary radical feminism, with well-reasoned arguments on both sides.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 02:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Target all to TERF, then expand TERF per Amanda A. Brant so that a single article contains both the usage of the terminology, and the ideological information about those to whom it applies. The sub-section in Feminist views on transgender topics should then be turned into stub pointing at TERF, as the Feminist views article is quite clearly about all feminist views on transgender topics, and not specifically those belonging to trans exclusionary feminists. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target all to TERF, which is what all of these term variations are discussing. If the article in question doesn't cover enough of the background, then that's a content issue for improvement, but not a reason to redirect to some other article. SilverserenC 23:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No color[edit]

I don't think "No color" is an alternative name for "Black and white", and not a very popular search term. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 12:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to No Color I guess, assuming it's referring to printers but too broad a term. Bonoahx (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to colourless. Jay (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do whatever you want I don't care I was a moron back in 2007 who didn't know what the hell he was doing. I made a lot of pointless redirects with no thought put into them at all and it wouldn't surprise me if this was one of them. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation page to other aforementioned articles/pages. C933103 (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DABify per nom. Veverve (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to No Color. There's no need for a disambiguation page here: put {{distinguish}} at No Color. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a consensus against the status quo, but no consensus on which target or whether to disambiguate this title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 02:19, 19 March 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, eviolite (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diuranium[edit]

The species U2 is mentioned at Quintuple bond and Phi bond, but not Uranium. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to defer to search results (and bring up the Wiktionary entry). No single best target. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a mention to Uranium#Compounds -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Diuranium itself is hypothetical but "Diuranium" is mentioned in the article 3 times in the context of compounds. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So why not let users see search results for these compounds, rather than unhelpfully just sending them to the big article about the element and making them find instances of "diuranium" in that article? As you say, they could also be seeking content on the hypothetical bonding described at Quintuple bond. If there were a specific section at Uranium to target that covers all possible meansing of "diuranium", I'd feel differently, but there isn't. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 18[edit]

Appleton, WI MSA[edit]

This redirect is wrong, as the Appleton MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) is not at all identical to Appleton city; the MSA is much bigger. Delete per reasons for deletion #2 Yellowcard (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irish people in Scotland[edit]

Maybe better retarget to Irish Scottish people? You opinions? Olchug (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose POV-pushing by someone who has a very odd view on Scots-Irish relations and seems to disbelieve in ethnic groups and wants to throw everything in a massive fruit bowl. The Banner talk 21:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: These nomination were done directly after undiscussed retargets were reverted. The Banner talk 21:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner conform to WP:BRD: bold edit, revert, discuss. What did I wrong? Olchug (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
POV-pushing. First you tried to change them undiscussed and after some pushback you promptly nominated them. Note that the talk pages all have red links.The Banner talk 15:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner almost nobody watches redirect's talk pages. That is why Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion was developed. Olchug (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are wrong. This page is not for pushing undiscussed, controversial changes.The Banner talk 15:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner this is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Thus I repeat my question: what am I wrong about? Olchug (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not the right place to start a primary discussion. First discussion on the talk page of the redirect, if that fails, this page is an option. The Banner talk 17:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zuhra ibn al-Hawiyya[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to enable uninhibited Search. The target doesn't have a mention, but Search reveals several articles that do (and another for "Zuhra ibn Hawiyah". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three Powers Agreement[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, internet and Google Scholar searches suggest that this phrase has been used to refer to myriad different three-way pacts historically, and often informally, making it a poor candidate for disambiguation. Delete unless a justification can be provided . signed, Rosguill talk 17:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baroness Brightman[edit]

Delete as there is no evidence for use of this title. FDent (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kroll Bond Rating Agency[edit]

Delete the redirect because the two companies are unrelated to each other. Mreniwal (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anna,IL[edit]

Not needed, no incoming links Leschnei (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Lack of links is not a reason to delete. Not sure what is meant by "not needed". In any case, seems a plausible enough search term and clearly goes to where a searcher is looking for. A7V2 (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my lack of clarity - by 'not needed' I meant that the grammatically incorrect version is not needed - there is no space between 'Anna,' and 'IL'. There is an Anna, IL which I do think is worth keeping. Leschnei (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahananda (2022 film)[edit]

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

Irish loyalism[edit]

Retarget to Ulster loyalism. Loyalism is not the same as Unionism Olchug (talk) 10:03, 18 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]
  • Delete per nom's amended statement.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:47, 10 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! 03:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's known in modern Israel as "Joseph son of Matthias", that much is clear, but that has no relevance for a figure that lived thousands of years ago. RFFL#1 and #2 aren't met here. Avilich (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A figure that lived thousands of years ago... in present-day Israel. You know, that place that speaks Hebrew? קז'ואל של ג'קיל/casualdejekyll 01:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hebrew wasn't the standard language at the time, nor probably the one he wrote in. There is no evidence of how he was referred to in Hebrew, so the use of a modern reconstruction such as "Joseph son of Matthias" in modern Hebrew has no more justification under RFFL than any other rendition in any other modern language. Avilich (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping that the consensus can become more clear with a few more days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - as a valid RLOTE. Yes, it's a modern reconstruction, but all the reasons that we allow RLOTE at all apply here. Sources people use are going to mention the Hebrew, and that makes it a valid search term. Even if they don't have a hebrew keyboard, copy and paste searches are a thing. Fieari (talk) 00:34, 22 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]
    @Jay: Do you mean to !vote retarget then? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to Dream SMP per Jay's response. L33tm4n (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I meant delete. It is not fair to either topic. Jay (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jschlatt is a co-owner of OTK according to the article about it. The nominator didn't respond to my question as to why it would be good to have a redlink for an article that wouldn't likely be created from it.
    If Jschlatt wasn't a co-owner of OTK, then I could see why a retarget to Dream SMP (where he is also mentioned) would make sense, but it's pretty standard practice for redirects to be created from a business's owners. I don't follow the logic that because two targets could make sense for a redirect, then we should target neither of them. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:07, 16 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 02:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Firstly, Jschlatt is more closely associated with OTK nowadays than DreamSMP (I think he fictitiously died in the smp?), so I oppose the notion to change the target to Dream SMP. I assume the nominator just wants the redirect to be a redlink, which doesn't make sense, when there are 2 related topics associated with the subject. As well, the nominator might be misunderstanding WP:REDYES, because that policy is about adding redlinks to articles for subjects that could have articles, not about deleting redirects. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 22:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 17[edit]

Amphilius grammatophorus[edit]

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

Untitled (In the Aeroplane Over the Sea)[edit]

Another "Untitled" song redirect. I would ask why nearly every song needs 2, 3 or many more redirects, totally 60+ for one album as shown [here] and [here]? Richhoncho (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Not a redirect I would go out of the way to create, but harmless at worst and somewhat useful at best given that there is in fact a song named "Untitled" on that album. signed, Rosguill talk 20:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick, the song isn't named "Untitled", it's just an untitled song, but it's generally referred to as if that were its name, so yes, keep. I find song→album or song→track list or song→discography redirects quite helpful; our notability guidelines are quite opaque, and it's not at all intuitive to readers which songs we'll have an article on and which we won't. Supporting variant spellings and such is then just as valid as supporting variant spellings of an article's title. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly weak keep per Rosguill and Tamzin. The song is untitled, and since people know it as "Untitled," they might search for it using that terminology. Regards, SONIC678 23:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Neutral Milk Hotel song[edit]

Unable to think of any reason for this redirect. Nor able to think of any reason for it's creation, Do we need to be swamped by 'Unnamed songs by XXX' - There's already too many 'Unnamed albums by XXX' When did it become OK to ignore WP:CRYSTAL? Richhoncho (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • When did it become OK to not check what year an album was released, or look at its track listing, before invoking CRYSTAL? :P This is an album from 1998, the 10th track of which lacks a title and is generally referred to as "Untitled", "[Untitled]", or "(Untitled)" (or lowercase-u variants thereof). The only issue here is that there is also a more obscure untilted NMH song apparently included in an issue of Ptolemaic Terrascope, mentioned at Neutral Milk Hotel discography § Miscellaneous. I'm having trouble finding RS for that—concerning for a featured list!—but based on [22] (from that magazine, in the right timeframe, about NMH, but not mentioning an included record) and [23] (purporting to be the song) and various non-RS mentions (fan sites etc.) I'm pretty confident it's not a hoax. So refine to track list, with hatnote to Neutral Milk Hotel discography § Miscellaneous. If anyone can find a proper cite for the other "Untitled", that'd be stellar. I'll take a deeper dive later myself, if I can remember to. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transdeniter[edit]

Made up. Delete. Super Ψ Dro 18:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. I found nothing through a Google search. Veverve (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above mentioned findings --Lenticel (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster people[edit]

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

Disambiguate per Paradoctor, see below.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Olchug (talk • contribs) 08:41, 9 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]
By stating "Disambiguate" you are doing no such thing as proposing (and enacting) disambiguation? If it's off-topic, blank the lot, not just the responses to it. My point about your directive for me to "take it there" was the redundancy of ordering me to do something I'd evidently done. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really not get that "does X need disambiguation" and "is Y a possible meaning of X" are different questions?
The topic of the redirect is ambiguous, that has been established.
Any question about the specifics of what to include belong at the disambiguation talk, not here. Paradoctor (talk) 03:58, 10 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nomination was altered from retarget to disambiguate following the initial responses. I have indented the change in nomination with timestamp so that the initial responses are seen in proper context.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate - per Paradoctor, above. No comment on whether there exists a primary target, but clearly the disambiguation is necessary. Fieari (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DABify as per Paradoctor. Veverve (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Regla[edit]

Redirect title seems to to refer to a venerated image/sculpture of an Afro-Cuban version of the Virgin Mary. Regla is a part of Havana. When Bellerophon created this redirect, Regla did not have an article. Now it does, but no mention of this relic is mentioned on either Regla's or Havana's articles. What should be done?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Perhaps we need a separate section in the Regla article. The Virgin of Regla is regarded as the counterpart of Yemaya in Cuban santeria, and is one of two important figures of Mary in Cuba. Beardo (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Triangulare[edit]

Ligamentum triangulare and Spatium axillare triangulare appear to be similar topics (triangular anatomical parts) as the current topic, and I didn't see that the term is used without the preceding qualifier. Numerous in title uses in species names. Nothing against current target if those more knowledgeable of the topic know that it is used primarily without a qualifier to refer to the bones. Otherwise, might be better to delete or point to Wiktionary; SIA or dab could work, but not sure how appropriate it is as a WP:PARTIAL. Ost (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake (lady gaga song)[edit]

Not mentioned on target article. Per the history of the redirect, looks as though this is or was intended to be the title of a song in Artpop, but it doesn't seem there is a song by the name "Earthquake" in the aforementioned album. Steel1943 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

N,[edit]

Seems to be a non-standard representation of the IPA character "ŋ", and doesn't appear in conventional remappings like X-SAMPA. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Eng (letter). I think this is a plausible search term. Nevertheless, I would certainly be fine with deletion if others favor that. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the comma meant to be a visual cue for the downward hook of the letter? In that case, it's a bit more plausible for the (noticeably rarer) n with comma/cedilla below Ņ. – Uanfala (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think the goal was a way to represent the Greek letter using a standard keyboard (a lowercase n plus a comma, so "n,"). Hence, if kept, retarget to the article about the letter rather than the sound it represents. Based on the location of the comma, I think it's closer to Eng than a cedilla under an N, but I don't feel strongly, and maybe the ambiguity and low plausibilty suggest deletion would be best. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that both the hook and the cedilla appear under the letter, and the cedilla looks more like a comma than a hook, then I think Ņ would be a much better target. That would also match C, (which redirects to Ç), though there doesn't seem to be corresponding redirects for most of the other cedilla versions of letters, like D, -> Ḑ/D̦. – Uanfala (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But Ņ is just a redirect to Cedilla (Ç being much, much more notable than Ņ). I agree we should try to treat these analogously, but as you say, ŋ is much more prevalent than Ņ. Retargeting a specific letter with a comma to cedilla doesn't seem very solid. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:32, 13 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! 16:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Eng (letter). I acknowledge that cedilla is a potentially a closer match strictly speaking, but I also agree that ŋ is a much more common term and more likely to be searched for. Fieari (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to ņ. The cedilla looks a lot like a comma. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 19:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ņ is a redirect. Do you mean retarget to Cedilla? Mdewman6 (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 02:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G.D. Goenka School and G.d goenka. public school[edit]

redirect is reasonably old and abandoned. Not required and useful in anyways. BeLucky (talk · contribs) 14:05, 10 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! 16:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monster (fragrance)[edit]

Not mentioned in target article, even though the word "monster" is used in the target article several times, the term's use in the article refers to either a fan of the target article's subject or related to an album released by the article's subject. Also, there are the articles Lady Gaga Fame and Eau de Gaga which are fragrances related to the target article's subject, but neither seem to have the alternative name of "Monster". Steel1943 (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fame Monster: The Lady Gaga Story[edit]

Does not seem to be mentioned in target article, and doesn't seem to be mentioned in The Fame Monster either. (The latter article's subject is an album, whereas the apparent subject of this redirect is a film.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes-Benz CLT-Class[edit]

The only reference to this I can find anywhere is this article [24] published one day after the redirect was created (but that could be a timezone issue I suppose) claiming the CLT would be shown in Paris. It's safe to say that didn't happen and that nothing ever came of this rumoured model. Delete. A7V2 (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The CLT was a real concept car that gets referenced by even Mercedes Dealerships in their modern marketing materials. In fact, both the modern marketing materials and the automotive snooping sites reference a “shooting brake” design, which makes me think that this was a real concept car. It looks to me like this might just be the CLA under an in-development name, but that would be a bit OR-y to explicitly claim. In any case, the CLT was clearly a real thing, though it never made it to mass production under that title. I see no harm in keeping the redirect under these circumstances. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This redirect was created back in 2008 when the "spy shots" of this supposed new model (I personally wouldn't consider them a reliable source) were taken. It's unlikely that the dealership describing the proposed CLT is referring to the same model, and I wouldn't say it is evidence that this is "real" as it is more of a vague reference when describing something else. In any case, there is no mention at the target, so keeping this redirect would serve only to mislead or confuse anyone searching this term. A7V2 (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes-Benz T-Class[edit]

Both of these are rumoured/recently announced new models (see for example [25], [26] for the CLE, [27] and [28] for the T-Class) with no information or mention at the target or anywhere on wikipedia. Delete. A7V2 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Mercedes-Benz T-class is a real thing and it's made by Mercedes. The all-electric version of the van will be called the EQT, which itself is a concept car still listed on the Mercedes-Benz website. The T-class has been covered by enough sources that a redirect is warranted, at minimum. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not questioning that information exists about these. A redirect is not warranted, however, if there is no information at the target. That is one of the "reasons to delete". WP:RFD#DELETE number 10 seems to apply here. But we should not be keeping redirects just because information exists about the subject elsewhere. A7V2 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 11:20, 17 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]
  • Delete - apparently not worth mentioning in longevity-related articles anymore, and certainly a mention in a community article would be undue per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people, which flatly states To be included in a list of notable people, individuals must still meet the notability requirements per WP:PEOPLE.. eviolite (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Here is the old page that was merged into the list. The list now keeps track of only the top 100 oldest. I find it interesting that Shelby Harris was the 3rd oldest man in the world and was fully the oldest man in the United States at the time of his death, but now doesn't even merit an entry in the list. I kinda want to restore his article for that feat... he once was clearly notable, does notability really go away just because 100 more people out aged him? He used to be #1... this isn't a rhetorical question. Is notability once notability forever, or is being eclipsed grounds for being forgotten? Fieari (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. There are all sorts of other record holders, in sports, in wealth, and so forth, who we would keep despite the record once held being long surpassed. BD2412 T 00:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with this assessment. When the AFD occurred, there was already a section on Harris at the target. I can understand for whatever reason the list part of the article needs to be kept to some number of people, but why would semi-notable people be removed from the article entirely. I would support restoring the section and refining there. A7V2 (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George C. Nield[edit]

  • Delete as the target article doesn't mention the person at all. He was associated with that office in the past, which can be discussed in a new article about him in the future. At the moment the redirect is just confusing readers. He is going to fly to space soon, which could lead to more material for an article. mfb (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget if mentioned somewhere, otherwise delete. I believe I was the one who created the redirect, which would indicated Nield was represented/mentioned in the article at the time. He played a rather seminal role in the entire creation and management of the (newly formed) NASA office of Commercial Space Transportation; is mentioned in many many reliable source articles in that role; and would clearly be worthy of an article if that info were to be collated and curated. Wikipedia has many articles on people of far less impact on the world. Nevertheless, if such info is not found, such that nothing on him is in Wikipedia, then probably should be deleted until such time as it is. N2e (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Produce[edit]

Someone searching for "fresh produce" is likely to be looking for the topic Produce rather than a compilation album. For that matter, fresh produce is a red link. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 07:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*(Creator of the redirect here) Surely this doesn't need a discussion? Wouldn't it be easier by being bold by changing the redirect to produce and then creating Fresh Produce (album) to link to Seaway (band)? MusicforthePeople (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is so clear that that is what should be done, why didn't you do it when you created the redirect? You added categories and talk page content specific to albums to the current redirect, so it's not just a simple retarget. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't occur to me at the time; I guess I thought it would be an obvious redirect (fresh produce to produce) that should've already existed. I support Mdewman6's suggestion. MusicforthePeople (talk) 07:07, 11 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! 05:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teleaid[edit]

Created as a redirect to Maybach (a subsidiary of Mercedes-Benz) then retargeted a few months later on the basis that "The system is available in all Mercedes-Benzes, why should it redirect to Maybach". Not mentioned at either article and I don't think any is justified. There are mentions at Car phone and a few Mercedes models such as Mercedes-Benz W140 (note that this one includes it as the redlink TELEAID). Looking online it is possible that this topic is notable but in any case with no suitable target I think delete. A7V2 (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to helpline, many helplines (hotlines) are described as tel-aid, tele-aid, tel-aide, tele-aide, etc -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about this being appropriate. Searching this and related terms on Google gives me only hits for the Mercedes product (at least as far down as I bothered to look). I'm not convinced these terms are used generically. A7V2 (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Remove Benz from your search -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still didn't find any usage of this term generically, all were particular brand/company names, none of whom are mentioned at the suggested target. And there were other things too, such as a tv repair company [29] and a prison telephone [30]. A7V2 (talk) 23:54, 20 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! 05:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canned edit summary[edit]

This XNR's creator left the summary Not likely to be searched by readers, which I'll recycle as its RfD rationale. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, not likely to be searched by readers. I'd think it fairly likely to be searched by new editors though. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:XNR to nonencyclopedic content, that is not using a pseudo namespace prefix. Edit summary exists and targets a topic in the encyclopedia, while this does not. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Wiki#Edit summary, the target of Edit summary. I'm "weak" on this since at the present time, the target mentions nothing about what "canned" means in regards to its use as an adjective for the subject "Edit summary", but that could be resolved rather quickly by adding a sentence to the aforementioned article section retargeting recommendation. Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 15 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! 02:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - cross namespace redirect without a prefix. Fieari (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the mainspace and the rest of Wikipedia should be kept separated if possible. Veverve (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audi Q6[edit]

Appears to be a perpetually "announced" model. Of course there is no mention at the target. Created in 2011, though there are sources saying this car will be made in 2018 [31] and now more recent ones like [32]. Delete unless mention can be added somewhere, possibly at Audi e-tron (2018) since I think that may be the model that the first article I've mentioned is referring to (indeed it is reference number 7 from that article). A7V2 (talk) 03:30, 10 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! 02:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of Audi vehicles per Andra Febrian and tag as {{R with possibilities}}. According to this source an Audi Q6 has been announced for the Chinese market. Bonoahx (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why would we retarget it there if there is no mention? "Will be announced" is a very clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. If and when mention is added to the list, or if if there is enough sourcing to justify an article then it can be recreated. Having these rumours around is all the more reason to delete since they make this a more likely search term, and someone searching this would then be taken to a list, they would then probably look through the list only to be disappointed and have wasted their time. A7V2 (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeformed[edit]

An {{R with possibilities}} that could equally point towards either Dustforce or Tunic (video game) (Lifeformed composed the soundtrack for both; neither article has any information about him), so suggest deletion to encourage article creation and to avoid confusion for readers. eviolite (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 16[edit]

Yard Ball[edit]

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

Mossy Land[edit]

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

Jodhi Bibi[edit]

I request for deletion of the redirect Jodhi Bibi as Mariam-uz-Zamani is not referred to as Jodhi Bibi in any books, articles, television shows, websites, discussion,etc. Jodhi Bibi is used rarely for her daughter-in-law, Jagat Gosain but since its barely even used, I think it's okay to not redirect to her either. Also no articles link to Jodhi Bibi and is a rarely visited page, so it removal possibly would not cause any problems.
Manavati (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Jagat Gosain, as nominator suggests that it is a valid nickname for this individual. —Ost (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetest Pie (song)[edit]

The base page, "Sweetest Pie", links to the Dua Lipa and Megan Thee Stallion song. It feels disingenuous to have a redirect called "Sweetest Pie (song)" that links to a different album (which does, in fairness, have a song called "Sweetest Pie") when the main target is also a song. — GhostRiver 19:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yash jha[edit]

This seems to be a portmanteau of Yash Kumarr, the current target, and Nidhi Jha, an actor who has played parts opposite Kumarr, left over after a disruptive page move. Delete as a case of WP:XY. signed, Rosguill talk 17:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't spell 'steal' without EA[edit]

You can't spell 'steal' without EA is not mentioned in the redirect target. According to the R-cat, it's a meme, but I can't find any reliable news coverage of the phrase being a noteworthy meme. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 19:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I checked Google Trends and it doesn't come up with anything, so it wasn't much of a meme then. Looks like it may have been an in-joke with extremely limited scope. Fieari (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obscure meme at best --Lenticel (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable. Gusfriend (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carpenters Corner, Minnesota[edit]

In an AfD, users previously have rejected using the redirect to Viking, Minnesota. As far as I can tell, the GNIS entity of Carpenters Corner is in a different county (Pennington County) from the city of Viking (Marshall County). On top of that, there's no mention of "Carpenters Corner" in the Viking, Minnesota page. I'm unsure as to whether to retarget this redirect to Pennington County, Minnesota or to simply advocate for its deletion per the AfD, but the current redirect is simply not correct. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Areo Magazine[edit]

This is an inappropriate redirect for the magazine (https://areomagazine.com/). It was established by Malhar Mali in 2016 and edited by him until 2018. The ~3 year editorship of Pluckrose does not warrant a redirect to Pluckrose, nor would it to its current editor (Iona Italia). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of K-pop artists[edit]

Having this page redirect to List of South Korean idol groups is confusing for many different reasons:

  1. 'K-pop' (as per what the proper noun is short for) is not solely defined by Korean pop music performed by idols;
  2. not all K-pop acts are groups (e.g. Lee Mu-jin, IU);
  3. and some K-pop performers are not even South Korean (i.e. Lisa).

I also nominate this redirect for deletion because reverting the redirect back to List of male K-pop artists would result in strong implications of gender bias, plus the creator of this redirect (Khendygirl) stated the list would be too long if it were to be an actual article. lIl-†V!wanna talk?` 12:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • A merger proposal would also be outside the scope of this discussion, I'm afraid. There's no reason to expect that anyone watching either of the lists would be aware of this discussion. - Eureka Lott 02:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.gov.uk[edit]

Originally was an article for the .gov.uk domain name but at some point was redirected to gov.uk which is the UK government information website (similar to USA.gov). .gov.uk is still a domain name used by some UK government departments and most local councils. Other UK domain names redirect to .uk#Second-level domains, as gov.uk is never generally referred to with a dot at the beginning I'm thinking maybe retarget to .uk#Second-level domains and add a hatnote for gov.uk, but not sure if it's OK as it is. Bonoahx (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic medalist[edit]

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

Fairytale Love[edit]

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

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]
  • Retarget to URL redirection#Redirect chains per Mx. Granger as the place in mainspace that talks about this topic. As for Godsy's concern that the article section doesn't explicitly mention the term: if a reader searches for "double redirect" and they're taken to a section whose title is "Redirect chains" and whose first sentence is "One redirect may lead to another", then I don't see how they may be confused. – Uanfala (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to URL redirection#Redirect chains per Mx. Granger. Schleiz (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential closer comment: If compelled to close right now, I would invoke WP:NCRET and retarget to URL redirection#Redirect chains. I am wary of doing so because that could just kick the can down the road. It creates another situation (redirecting without mention) ripe for deletion. A further relist doesn't seem likely to help much, so I'd just generally ask participants to consider breaking the deadlock some way. In no particular order, that could look like adding explicitly discussion of double redirects at the proposed target, switching to a delete vote, or even writing an article on the concept. --BDD (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it not possible to add something about them at MediaWiki? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A third relisting to prepare participants for a possible inevitable re-nomination in the near future. And to give an opportunity for participants to re-evaluate based on the late support URL redirection#Redirect chains has got.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:58, 16 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 16 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 16 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z (hate symbol)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 23#Z (hate symbol)

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the reason to delete (a typo) is outweighed by the reason to keep (the page history). Per WP:CHEAP, keeping really doesn't have a negative since in the unlikely event someone types this in specifically, then they will still be taken to what they are looking for. A7V2 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

macOS 13[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 23#macOS 13

Electrifying Times[edit]

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

Military journalist[edit]

I just linked the former of these titles from List of journalists killed covering the Russo-Ukrainian War to describe a Ukrainian journalist, and learned that such the link will be misleading due to its current target. There is definitely room for an article about military journalism worldwide, so suggest deletion of both per WP:REDYES, to encourage creation of an article (probably at the latter title). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 15[edit]

Willie Foster[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 23#Willie Foster

Avril treizieme[edit]

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

Quivira (typeface)[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Restored article

Mudak[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Mudak

Zhopa[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Zhopa

Gronk Oz/Graeme Stewart (medicine)[edit]

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

Austin Kyffin-Taylor[edit]

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

Western leftism[edit]

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

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]
  • Dabify to the articles found by nominator. --Lenticel (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dab the first six pages to "Sanctions involving Russia". However, I think US sanctions against Russia should be retargeted to Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, otherwise there would be 30+ redirects to International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War, each being the country imposing sanctions against Russia. lol1VNIO (talk • contribs) 16:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC); Edited 09:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DABIfy all, as all those expressions are too vague. Veverve (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate and separate the articles — Reason is, that Russia and/or people in Russia have had sanctions levied against them before the 2022 expansion of the Russo-Ukrianian War, which began in 2014. The lists of sanctions are very long already, so they should chronologically be separated to those levied after the 2014 annexation of Crimea, the incursion into, and takeover of parts of Donbass and Luhansk provinces, and the sanctions levied after 24. February 2022. There may also be lists of sanctions that predate the Russo-Ukrainian War, including the various Magnitsky Acts in several countries. -Mardus /talk 21:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is support for multiple disambiguation pages, and one of the suggested DAB titles is Sanctions involving Russia.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are not really ambiguous terms, as the phrase can refer to all such sanctions collectively, so create a set index. BD2412 T 00:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Frivolous

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:38, 15 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Walking ED[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#The Walking ED

Mitchell Eisner[edit]

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

March 14[edit]

Edifiying The Ed-Ventures[edit]

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

Carotenemia[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: wrong venue

January 18, 2008 (film)[edit]

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

Supermassive star[edit]

Supermassive stars are a specific type of star theorised in recent years to have existed in the early universe (e.g. [34] ) 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So can we get a consensus to retarget to Stellar population#Population III stars?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Istory of rugby union matches between New Zealand and Wales[edit]

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

Up and Over[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 21#Up and Over

Paradise mall[edit]

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

History of zoology (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete because "History of Zoology" is not ambiguous and the target is not a disambiguation page. Speedy delete previously declined in Oct 19. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an avoided double redirect for History of zoology, which redirects to this section because there is no one article on the topic, but rather two articles: History of zoology through 1859 and History of zoology (1859–present), which are linked at the top of the target section. I think it's reasonable to say, then, that the target section, through its hatnote, performs a disambiguation-like function. It's basically an embedded broad-concept article. I don't think it was really necessary to create this "(disambiguation)" redirect, but there are two articles about the history of zoology, and the target section links to both, so it's not incorrect. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This bizarre redirect shouldn't exist. It implies that there is a disambiguation page, which there isn't, and its existence is thereby confusing (WP:RDELETE items 2 & 5). We don't create "(disambiguation)" redirect pages for every article just in case someday there might be a need for a real disambiguation page. I don't see any need for an additional redirect to Zoology#History, but if you actually needed one, you could create one titled "History of animal study" or some such. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tamzin. This used to target History of zoology when that page was a WP:SIA-like stub, which was then blanked and redirects to its present target, with the "(disambiguation)" version subsequently targeted there as well to avoid the double redirect. So, the history very much confirms this is a {{R from avoided double redirect}} to History of zoology (and should be tagged as such). History of zoology targeting Zoology#History as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is just fine and certainly appropriate, but it's still an ambiguous term with at least 3 potential targets, so there very well should be a page at History of zoology (disambiguation). Instead of hosting a disambiguation page as would normally be expected in the case of a primary topic (which one could argue should be the case here), it instead redirects to a place that with hatnotes that performs the disambiguation. In any case, nothing to be gained from deletion here. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is something to be gained if users like R. S. Shaw above are expecting to see a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice I have just created an article at History of zoology for this blindingly, obviously notable topic.
That has been objected to. Paradoctor (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, and if that shouldn't find consensus, delete as second option. Paradoctor (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not in use, and ambiguity is sketchy, at best. Not seeing any plausible use case. Paradoctor (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: Having a disambiguation page would allow for a link to the different history pages and also related topics. Gusfriend (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Kumar (processor)[edit]

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

Philosophy and myth[edit]

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

Simon Hatt[edit]

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

Russian Catholic Church (disambiguation)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 21#Russian Catholic Church (disambiguation)

Dark Grey[edit]

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

Ukrainian Revolution of 2013[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 21#Ukrainian Revolution of 2013

Genio[edit]

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

Alkiviadis[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 21#Alkiviadis

March 13[edit]

Ukrainian Orthodox Church[edit]

retarget to Ukrainian Orthodox Church (disambiguation) per [35] @Veverve: Heanor (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Mikalra (talk) 20:55, 13 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! 22:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Liz: Is there a reason this shouldn't be closed as retarget (or, rather, that the DAB page shouldn't be moved to this title per WP:DABNAME)? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to see more than one participant in a deletion discussion besides the nominator. I've closed deletion discussions that only had one but I prefer to see more participants before choosing whether or not to delete a page. Other closers might have different opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinocchio: A True Story[edit]

Preemptive creation of an article as a redirect to a disambiguation page, which defeats the purposes of an article, a redirect, and disambiguation. Nardog (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget: I made the redirect for those looking for info about the film in the Wiki. However a disambiguation page redirect may not be the best, so what I can do is specify more on the section that does mention the film on Pinocchio and redirect there instead. Iamnoahflores (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And delete the entry at the disambiguation page (MOS:DABMENTION). If this film becomes notable, it can have an article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said I can redirect it to Pinocchio as that actually mentions the film in question, it just needs a bit of expansion. We can also keep the disambiguation entry, since some entries don't even have links, although it can be reduced. Iamnoahflores (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I suggest we create an article of them, considering how it has been memed. ZX2006XZ (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what? Fair. Iamnoahflores (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pinocchio#21st century which has a mention. Jay (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Woodrow[edit]

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

Maan Kunwari[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Maan Kunwari

Penis cola[edit]

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

Chief Pastors[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Chief Pastors

Genocide of Kashmiri Hindus[edit]

This redirect has arisen due to a recent effort to assign a WP:POV title to Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus. It is well-established by scholars that the situation was nothing like a "genocide". (Sumantra Bose points out that 32 Hindus were apparently killed, in targeted assassinations.) There is currently an avalanche of edit requests at Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus asking for the page to mention a supposed "genocide". The POV title was also used during the editing of the page on The Kashmir Files, and the redirect linked from it. I think this redirect is too prejudicial and should be deleted. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Another diff added. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

As this redirect is fully protected, I've filed an edit request to tag it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete pursuant to nomination. All scholars use either "exodus" or "migration" or "internal displacement" to describe the condemnable events. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absent mention. If a large number of people feel, even incorrectly, that this was a genocide, then that should be discussed in the article (with due weight). Footnotes 21 and 34, both citing page 23 of "A departure from history: Kashmiri Pandits, 1990–2001" by Alexander Evans, support the idea that this is a noteworthy if incorrect perspective. However, so long as the article does not discuss this perspective at any length, there should not be a non-neutral redirect of this sort, as, absent context clarifying such redirects' non-neutrality, they risk putting misstatements in the encyclopedia's voice. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 5 § Gaza genocide and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 20 § Gaza Holocaust. If the article does come to cover this perspective, this should be recreated, probably refined to an appropriate section within the article. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is beholden to reliable sources, and in controversial subject areas scholarly tertiary sources (See WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:TERTIARY). The most widely-used scholarly textbook on modern Indian history is: Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf's A Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge, 2006. says, "The Hindu Pandits, a small but influential elite community who had secured a favorable position, first under the maharajas and then under the successive Congress governments, ... felt under siege as the uprising gathered force. Upwards of 100,000 of approximately 140,000 left the state during the early 1990s; their cause was quickly taken up by the Hindu right. As the government sought to locate ‘suspects’ and weed out Pakistani ‘infiltrators’, the entire population was subjected to a fierce repression. By the end of the 1990s, the Indian military presence had escalated to approximately one soldier or paramilitary policeman for every five Kashmiris, and some 30,000 people had died in the conflict." It does not mention any genocide of Hindus, only the deaths of 30,000 Muslims at the hands of the Indian security forces. @Tamzin: has misunderstood due weight. I urge them to read WP:TERTIARY. Alexander Evans is not a tertiary source. We don't determine consensus or the lack thereof and then attempt in our own way to quantify it; only scholarly tertiary sources do that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My view is simply that, if there's a fringe view popular enough that many people are coming to Wikipedia to promote it, it probably should be mentioned somewhere. Part of our encyclopedic mission is documenting misconceptions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. True, but it would still be better if the tertiary sources say that or something to that effect; e.g. if the Metcalfs had said, "their cause was quickly taken up by the Hindu right which characterized the exodus to be a genocide," or somesuch. There probably are such sources. Will look later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think something like this from "Narratives from exile: Kashmiri Pandits and their constructions of the past," which is Mridu Rai's chapter in Kashmir and the Future of South Asia edited by Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, Routledge, 2020: Among those who stayed on is Sanjay Tickoo who heads the Kashmiri Pandit Sangharsh Samiti (Committee for the Kashmiri Pandits’ Struggle). He had experienced the same threats as the Pandits who left. Yet, though admitting ‘intimidation and violence’ directed at Pandits and four massacres since 1990, he rejects as ‘propaganda’ stories of genocide or mass murder that Pandit organizations outside the Valley have circulated. For all that, Tickoo does not peddle myths of some utopia of communal harmony between Muslims and Pandits existing now or before 1989. He speaks of a distinct embittering of relations between the two communities when the insurgency began. ‘And these shifting sentiments’, he says, ‘were used by politicians on both sides, helping to stoke fear among the Hindu minority’. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • An Exodus with the hallmark events of a Genocide and Holocaust like events, victims and witnesses of which are still alive needs to be called our as a genocide. Nayan576 (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nayan576 (talk · contribs) Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope your stay will be enjoyable. How many Kashmiri Pandits were there in the valley and how many were killed by Muslim separatist groups? In the real Holocaust 6 million Jews were murdered; in the Romani genocide of the Gypsy/Roma people (who had originally migrated to Europe from India) 130,000 to 500,000 were murdered; in the Armenian genocide up to 1.5 million; and in the Cambodian genocide between 1.5 million and 2 million. So again: how many Kashmir pandits were there in the Kashmir valley and how many were murdered by the Muslims? Unless you have watertight scholarly tertiary sources supporting your view, you are using the word "holocaust" lightly, and the inclusion of the edits you propose will be violating WP policy. This is because using "Holocaust" lightly is a form of Holocaust denial. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nayan576 Out of 1724 killing by militants during past 3 decades 89 were KP's. Ref signed، 511KeV (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – inappropriate per WP:RNEUTRAL, as a non-neutral unestablished name (see point #3 and exceptions). Jr8825 • Talk 12:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & WP:RNEUTRAL. signed، 511KeV (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be part of a NPOV push. There doesn't appear to be reliable sources for its use. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 15:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The word genocide has been used for this event by at least two reliable sources that I can find, The Times of India and The Hindu. It is a very likely search term from many people looking for this article.--NØ 18:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This redirect should be KEPT because multiple recent Reliable Sources such as Hindustan Times have referred to this as Genocide instead of Exodus. Please find few sources below. Old Scholarly hegemony cannot be used as perpetual consensus on Wiki, which must reflect recent reliable sources, as per WP:RS[1][2]

References

  1. ^ "Kashmiri Pandits recreate "exodus" through Jan 19 exhibition". The Hindustan Times. 2020-01-18. Retrieved 2020-01-19.
  2. ^ "When will we finally return home, ask displaced Kashmiri Pandits". Firstpost. 2016-01-19. Retrieved 2021-06-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Jhy.rjwk (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)contribs) 23:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC) (Relocated to chronologically correct place (new comments at bottom when added) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]
I wouldn't say they are reliable sources. India's press ranks extremely low when it comes to the Press Freedom Index, suggesting there is significant government interference. It ranks 142 out of 180 countries. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindu is perfectly fine per WP:RSPSS.--NØ 13:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the The Hindu article? It isn't calling it a genocide, its a film review which says that "[t]he film ... presents the tragic exodus as a full-scale genocide, akin to the Holocaust", a film that the review itself describes as a "revisionist docudrama" and states the following, "[e]mploying some facts, some half-truths, and plenty of distortions, it propels an alternative view about the Kashmir issue". Tayi Arajakate Talk 16:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is critical of the film but does make a mention of the event as an alleged genocide. I can see it as a potential search term for readers of pieces like this.--NØ 17:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not treat film criticism as authentic fact. Dsnb07 (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. The existence of the term used by a minority of RS does not justify the timesink that this redirect is; already, the full protection is being evaded by ethnonationalists redirecting to this redirect *facepalm* We do not need this, people. SN54129 21:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid term backed by multiple reliable scholarly sources.[36][37][38] and not to forget how many media sources have used the same term so far. Whether the term is more authentic than "exodus" or "displacement" is not supposed to be discussed here.❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 06:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Kautilya3. The death toll doesn't amount to anything even resembling a genocide, and it is rather insulting to even compare it to events such as the Holocaust, Armenian genocide and Srebrenica. It would be more appropriate to use the term refugee crisis or exodus. This redirect is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasonable redirect and the term has appeared in vast number of WP:RS. Shrikanthv (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete till there is a mention in the article (if it's found to have due weight) per Tamzin (I couldn't have worded it better). The article at present doesn't cover the perspective at all, and as such without any context, the redirect presents a fringe inflammatory designation in the encyclopedia's voice. Tayi Arajakate Talk 16:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : As per United Nations Genocide Convention there are five acts which are treated as Genocide. (Source - wiki Genocide and source) and in the case Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus first three applies.
  1. Killing members of the group
  2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group Article II(b)
  3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction
  4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
  5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Dsnb07 (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Tamzin. There are a couple more - 1990_Kashmiri_Pandit_genocide (since 2017) and Kashmiri Pandit genocide (created on March 14). Since they are essentially identical to this, is opening a new discussion for them necessary or can the result of this discussion be held applicable to them as well? Hemantha (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 5000 people were killed which then lead to the exodus to 500000 people sources [39] , [40], [41], [42],[43] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.43.63 (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC) (Move to correct section — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep per #5 at WP:R#KEEP and also per reliable sources provided by several editors above. I have also found a book titled "Genocide of Hindus in Kashmir".[44] Those supporting deletion only deem the redirect to be representing the disputed title for the entire event but that is clearly not a valid criteria for deletion. Dhawangupta (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The committee which authored/published the book you link, was set up by RSS. Hardly a reliable one, as are the others linked by the previous IP voter, which are blog posts and tweets. Hemantha (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dsnb07: And yet we call them 2002 Gujarat riots and 2020 Delhi riots. What forked tongues we speak with when the Hindus do the killing Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Molinos en ritmo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Molinos en ritmo

Indie jazz[edit]

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

ŘČS[edit]

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

DXJJ[edit]

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

Angelic Pope[edit]

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

Talkquote[edit]

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

Iocane[edit]

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

Fifre[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19#Fifre

Tax the rich[edit]

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

Cyclus (geometry)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19#Cyclus (geometry)

Draft:Hit ratio[edit]

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

Beffroi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Beffroi

Mammoth tank[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Mammoth tank

Modding (Command & Conquer)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Modding (Command & Conquer)

March 12[edit]

Atarbekyan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Atarbekyan

Ajedrez[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retargeted شطرنج to Shatranj and Deleted the rest per nom.

Giurtelecu Şimleului Synagogue[edit]

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

Evocative[edit]

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

De Havilland Pirate[edit]

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

Gayest[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19#Gayest

Consanguinity (in Canon Law)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Consanguinity (in Canon Law)

Bigamy (in Canon Law)[edit]

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

Drawsko (jezioro)[edit]

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

Doublé[edit]

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

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no incoming links, no mention at target. We have Computerwoche redirecting to the same target, so I don't see why we need more qualifiers. Jay (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Altgrad[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19#Altgrad

Brageirac (vila)[edit]

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

Bogengrad[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19#Bogengrad

Electric Universe (physics)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19#Electric Universe (physics)

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]
  • Delete as no incoming links, and target is no longer a disambiguation. Jay (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Bypass. This, with double redirect bypassed, redirects to a page that disambiguates the term "Twin Peaks (Salt Lake County, Utah)", exactly as advertised. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin: are you advocating to keep a double redirect? @Leschnei, Mdewman6, and Thryduulf:, the nomination may need to be relooked since the target is no longer a set index but a redirect. Jay (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The merging of the pages doesn't change anything here; if kept, the double redirect will be fixed by default and bring readers to the place where Twin Peaks in Salt Lake County, Utah are disambiguted. Sure, we could all change our 'keep' votes to retarget to respond to Tavix's bold merge, but I don't see that as being necessary. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly what Mdewman6 said (with a side helping of endorsing Pppery's parenthetical). Any !vote that would result in a double redirect can (and normally should) be taken as a !vote to point the discussed redirect at the other redirect's target. Only if you disagree with the redirect pointing to the second redirect's target is it really necessary to query. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Sorry, clarified. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:04, 19 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]
  • Retarget to Almighty Jay. Jay (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same artist, why would we want to do that? --Muhandes (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almighty Jay is a rapper who has an article on Wikipedia. I would believe Almighty is not a typical first name, the rapper disambiguation helps in differentiating it from almighty, and the redirect will help the reader find the rapper's page. Whether this rapper is not the same as another artist is not relevant. Jay (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 11[edit]

Wikipedia:PCM[edit]

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

Empyrean (Warhammer)[edit]

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

Joseph Ben Mattias[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Keep all and refined Mattatyahu ben Yosef

Bloodbender[edit]

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

No color[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19#No color

Baroness Brightman[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 18#Baroness Brightman

Russian Fiasco[edit]

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

TERF-related redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 19#TERF-related redirects

TP:TI[edit]

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

P:TUVALU[edit]

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

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of different options proposed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a Top radio (disambiguation) page is in order. casualdejekyll 14:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top Albums Sales[edit]

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

Hot Albums[edit]

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

Flavio Josefo[edit]

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

יוסף בן מתתיהו[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 18#יוסף בן מתתיהו

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has expanded way beyond the initial proposal. I think this RFD should not just be relisted but restarted as it is unlikely that those who have already participated will return to see the change that occurred. What do you think, Anarchyte? Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the restarting. This is a mess. I can't tell what the original proposal was, but all the older votes should be essentially nullified, IMO. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 06:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I initially listed two redirects ("2001-current") not knowing how many more there were. You'll note above that I intended to leave this as just those two to see if we could get a consensus on some before nominating the rest. It looks like there are even more links that aren't included here (linked by C933103 below). I have no opposition to either procedurally closing this and restarting it, or relisting it and leaving talk page notifications for everyone that has already participated. Anarchyte (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've never cast this "vote" before but I think this RFD should be Restarted given the huge expansion of redirects under consideration from the original two that editors commented upon. Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also links like War in Afghanistan (2001-) not covered by the current discussion. C933103 (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "War in Afghanistan (2001–present)" is the previous name of the page. It is linked to from a lot of places (including Al-Qaeda), and the introduction of the RfD tag to the redirect page actually broke it. Regarding the actual proposal, this seems like it will break a lot of things (especially external links) and deleting them because they're "misleading" is not very convincing IMO. 212.21.42.228 (talk) 02:56, 15 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could there be some agreement on retarget page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expand into article according to other Wikipedia language edition articles in d:Q1763527.C933103 (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too vague. --Olchug (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SCP Level 0[edit]

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

Economics of internet[edit]

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

Future Event List[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: bypass double redirect/keep

March 10[edit]

IPhone 8 (2nd generation)[edit]

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

OIIIIIIIO[edit]

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

List of leap years[edit]

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

N,[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 17#N,

G.D. Goenka School and G.d goenka. public school[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 17#G.D. Goenka School and G.d goenka. public school

The revolution of farmers[edit]

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

Loveleen Mishra[edit]

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

Pneumoultramicroscopicsilicanovolcanoconiosis[edit]

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

Golden orb[edit]

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

Mercedes-Benz CLT-Class[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 17#Mercedes-Benz CLT-Class

Conjuration[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: procedurally closed

Mercedes-Benz T-Class[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 17#Mercedes-Benz T-Class

BlueHybrid[edit]

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

Fresh Produce[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 17#Fresh Produce

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Kai Burghardt has added a mention at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The addition to the target page seems, per Pppery, POINTy, and I'd revert it as SYNTH but there's a bit of a Gordian Knot between the useful addition of the Smith reference and the unhelpful, SYNTHy John Oliver stuff. Regardless, for our purposes at RfD, the poorly-worded addition doesn't make clear if a "dick pic program" is a real thing (Smith, invoking Snowden, says it isn't), so I don't think this is a suitable mention to redirect readers to. It would serve to confuse rather than to educate, and we are above all else educators here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wine cats[edit]

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

Porn Project[edit]

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

Ukraine Wikiproject[edit]

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

Teleaid[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 17#Teleaid

Q Wiki Club[edit]

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

Paulo Correa[edit]

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

ASPERSIONS[edit]

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

Canned edit summary[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 17#Canned edit summary

2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia[edit]

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

André Konsbruck[edit]

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

Audi Q6[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 17#Audi Q6

Brain Sucker[edit]

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

Ukraine Is Not Yet Dead[edit]

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

S/b/:Ralston Bowles[edit]

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

S/b/:Hydropolis[edit]

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

JCK (disambiguation)[edit]

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: moot: target has been restored as a dab page. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 9[edit]

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]

  • Weak redirect to Ranking Roger, maybe? QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 22:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not retarget to the above suggestion. In the absence of a plausible target, the best solution is to delete this. We don't want to confuse readers who may end up in an article where there's no mention whatsoever of the title in question. CycloneYoris talk! 20:55, 9 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! 23:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Ranking Roger who, according to Google, has a song by this title.Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No mention of this title at Ranking Roger so again no help to navigation. Richhoncho (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete [updated] while the song is listed in many catalogs, there are no reliable sources discussing it Wiki-psyc (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • See the last revision at the target before the working titles were removed. Jay (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment That revision makes mention that "One Minute Closer to Death" was the working title. Wiki-psyc (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yard Ball[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 16#Yard Ball

Wiffle®ball[edit]

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

Mossy Land[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 16#Mossy Land

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 Kaiaphas project. 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jodhi Bibi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 16#Jodhi Bibi

Functional dissonance[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 23#Functional dissonance

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

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore article

Nasty Party[edit]

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

Department of Finance[edit]

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

Northern Irish nationalism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 16#Northern Irish nationalism

CoBain[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 23#CoBain

Paul WolFowitz[edit]

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

Vlad Puttin[edit]

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

HoWard Taft[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 23#HoWard Taft

Jschlatt[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 18#Jschlatt

Connection Tour 07[edit]

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

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

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 16#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 16#Talk:List of Negro league baseball players/test

Kyiv Internatioanl Film Festival "Molodist"[edit]

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

Z (hate symbol)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 16#Z (hate symbol)

March 8[edit]

Pleiodon[edit]

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

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]

  • Delete both per nom. Elder Llywelyn was created by Cltjames, and Llywelyn the elder was created by Serial Number 54129. The former was the page's title for less than a day, and the latter was the page's title for about a month. I'm going with the different talk page conversations that seem to imply that these redirect titles are not actual terms, but helpful (short) titles that were used only within enwiki to distinguish the subject from Llywelyn the Great. And now they realize that the redirect titles are misnomers. Jay (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: I realise nothing of the sort, and your mind reading is, of course, wrong, as well as an implicit exercise in bad faith. Cheers! SN54129 20:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page discussions participants who are in consensus would be Cltjames and Ham II. My reading of your comment at Talk:Llywelyn Fawr ap Maredudd: The only redirect that's actually important here, to me, is that Llwelyn Fawr and the Great are shown as being the same individual; which did not mention about the Elder redirects, was that you are either fine with their suggestions, or had no opinion on the Elder redirects. I may have misunderstood your usage of smileys. You may want to rephrase what you meant there. Jay (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Realize" is an extremely :loaded word. SN54129 22:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Harris (supercentenarian)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 17#Shelby Harris (supercentenarian)

∾[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

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]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 16#Fairytale Love

Ulster people[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 17#Ulster people

Wikipedia talk:SOAP[edit]

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

Draft:Aplusk[edit]

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

Western leftism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 15#Western leftism

Sope Willams- Elegbe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 16#Sope Willams- Elegbe

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: [45], [46], [47]. 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]

  • Comment To me, this should point to Higgs particle, as the Higgs field provides the rest mass to particles in physics. There's also Einsteinian relativity, where kinetics provides mass to particles. And medical oncogenesis, forming masses. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given that several usages of the subject term comprising the two words have been offered, but there is no DAB drafted, we don't know if it is feasible. If there is interest for this to be made a DAB in future, it may be started afresh. In the context of Mattias Desmet, as the term is a translation from German, and there is a draft Draft:Mattias Desmet underway that discusses the subject in a section, when the draft is approved it'll be part of mainspace, and this term if not a DAB by then, can be revisited. Jay (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and consideration should be given to creating a disambiguation page to replace it. Gusfriend (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 7[edit]

Russia Sanctions[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 15#Russia Sanctions

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

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

Tangan[edit]

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

Supermassive star[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 14#Supermassive star

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]

  • Delete for better search results. He is mentioned in multiple articles. If an award article is a better target, then there is no single page as he is mentioned as a winner in 21st AVN Awards, and as a nominee at the 25th and 28th awards. Jay (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retargeting to 21st AVN Awards#Major awards makes sense as a starting point for looking up information on this entertainer while steering the reader to notable topics. The reader still retains the ability to search for pages containing this name. Rusty5231B (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Cañon[edit]

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

Revans Institute[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 15#Revans Institute

North-South divide in Scotland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 15#North-South divide in Scotland

Template:CCC Team riders[edit]

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

Ukrainian Revolution of 2013[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 14#Ukrainian Revolution of 2013

Elmezzi Graduate School of Molecular Medicine[edit]

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

March 5[edit]

Ćajtanja[edit]

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

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]
  • Retarget to Petersglocke. Jay (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: I may be wrong, but my reading of that article is that it is referred to as "Decke Pitter" or "Dekke Pitter", rather than "Decke" by itself. The dewiki article has a few references that mention "decke" but it's always in the phrase "decke Pitter" or "decken Pitter". eviolite (talk) 05:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was misled by the way it was mentioned at that article. I have fixed it there and struck off my vote. Jay (talk) 05:31, 13 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 Davis 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]

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

West Korea[edit]

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

Top radio[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Top radio

Religions in Giurtelecu Şimleului[edit]

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

Giurtelecu Şimleului Synagogue[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Giurtelecu Şimleului Synagogue

Devastated the island of Puerto Rico[edit]

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

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

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

Gabriel Vargas (footballer)[edit]

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

Warp Zone (Wii)[edit]

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

Callao Roads[edit]

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

Drawsko (jezioro)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Drawsko (jezioro)

Doublé[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Doublé

Dongbien[edit]

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

Computerwoche (0170-5121)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Computerwoche (0170-5121)

Altgrad[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Altgrad

Brageirac (vila)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Brageirac (vila)

Bogengrad[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Bogengrad

`Id kull-il-Qiddisin[edit]

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

March 4[edit]

Electric Universe (physics)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Electric Universe (physics)

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]
    Trying to understand BLAR better. Does a disagreement with a BLAR always mean the page should be restored/kept? Because if a disagreement can also mean that the page should be deleted, then this RfD looks like a late contested BLAR. Jay (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In WP:BLAR, the disagreement is referring to the act of blanking the article. At RfD, that would take the form of an editor making an argument in favor of an article on the topic. That can take the form of a delete !vote; if the argument for deletion is to encourage the creation of an article on the topic, we might as well restore the article then (the caveat being if the article is not in restore-worthy shape, and WP:TNT may be better). If the subject of the article were to be someone with no credible claim of significance, that's not something we want to restore and the redirect should be deleted (given no scope of discussion of the subject at the target). Furthermore, even if there is a disagreement it may be easier/better to settle it at RfD depending on the context of the dispute. BLAR mentions that other methods of dispute resolution should be used and goes on to call out AfD by name, but RfD is also a forum of dispute resolution. My rule of thumb is: if the status quo is an article, it should be discussed as one at AfD; if the status quo is a redirect, it should be discussed as one at RfD. As I mentioned to Mdewman6 earlier, I do agree that AfD is the better forum overall. However, it does a disservice to AfD to dump our junk over onto them simply because it used to be an article over a decade ago for five minutes; we have the ability to determine whether or not—at a bare minimum—a given article would stand a chance at AfD. -- Tavix (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you don't see a clear separation of responsbilities between RfD and AfD, and that RfD participants can make AfD-style arguments. If an RfD turns out to be a de facto AfD, the closer is bound to go by the consensus. As this is about process, I'm moving the discussion to the talk page WT:Redirects for discussion#BLARs at RfD. Jay (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there is a clear separation of responsibility: AfD is for articles and RfD is for redirects. Whenever there is a redirect with article content in its history, you're going to have to make some kind of determination on the "keepworthiness" of the content. Thus the two processes are not mutually exclusive. I trust RfD participants to have some kind of idea for what may or may not be notable and handle the content accordingly. Some RfDs even turn out to be a "de facto RM" and I'm okay with that too so long as that was not the original intent of the nomination. The bottom line: if a consensus on what to do with a redirect has been reached, I expect the closer to carry out this consensus accordingly. -- Tavix (talk) 15:27, 21 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]
  • Delete (and move other page). Generally, content is only deleted on Wikipedia through CSD, PROD, AfD, and more obscurely PDEL. At the same time, however, there is nothing forbidding RfD from deleting redirects with content in their history, and most everyone agrees that there are some such redirects that can be deleted; it's just a question of where we draw the line. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and thus I draw that line at "would be speedily deleted, would likely not have a PROD challenged, or would have a snowball's chance in Hell of surviving AfD". This has a snowball's chance in Hell of surviving AfD. Sending this to AfD wastes editor-hours. Deleting it now wastes no usable content. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ben Mattias[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Joseph Ben Mattias

Bloodbender[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Bloodbender

Book 4: Air[edit]

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

Top Albums Sales[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Top Albums Sales

Hot Albums[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Hot Albums

Avatar-Bending Master[edit]

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

Almighty (rapper)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Almighty (rapper)

Possible Debuting Countries In The Eurovision Dance Contest[edit]

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

Flavio Josefo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Flavio Josefo

יוסף בן מתתיהו[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#יוסף בן מתתיהו

Gamma-amino butyne acid[edit]

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

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

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 12#Twin Peaks (Salt Lake County, Utah) (disambiguation)

Afghan War (2001–current)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Afghan War (2001–current)

Dick pic program[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 10#Dick pic program

Constitutive nations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Constitutive nations

Elf cat[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=1078725508"