Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 6, 2022.

Donegal, Ireland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#Donegal, Ireland

Bela River (disambiguation)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 21#Bela River (disambiguation)

Soniku[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 17:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name seems to be related to Sonic OCs. Possibly WP:FANCRUFT. No mention in article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems to be fan fiction based on cursory google search --Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep tag as {{R from alternate language|ja|en}} since this is a Japanese videogame character, called "ソニック" (Soniku / Sonikku) -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly weak keep per our fellow 65 participant. It's another spelling of "Sonikku"-while not exact, people might search it that way, and it's a pretty plausible search term still getting a decent number of pageviews with a spike since June. It's definitely not fanfiction. Regards, SONIC678 02:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Disney XD P[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Legoktm (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible alternate name. Note that most of the history was at Template:Disney XD prior to a bunch of messy moves currently being discussed at ANI, and this title was only created a few days ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not following the discussion at ANI. Delete per nomination unless ANI discussion decides otherwise. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Cartoonito z[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 04:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible alternate name. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bagdasarian P[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Move without redirect.. (non-admin closure) Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 23:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible alternate name. Note that most of the history was at Bagdasarian Productions prior to a confused page move in December. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kenneth Randall[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Ken Randall. signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this person at the targeted page. Ken Randall is a more appropriate target since his full name is Kenneth Randall. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Secret meeting arranged by journalist Kevin Myers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Improbable search term and the secret meeting referenced in the redirect is not mentioned in the article. TartarTorte 20:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

All the greek gods[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "All" is misleading since it assumes the target is complete, which may not be the case. Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The target appears to be a complete listing, bar a couple of entries (that don't seem to be gods) that explicitly point elsewhere for complete lists. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Greeks did not, in fact, have a comprehensive and definitive list of gods and goddesses, but the purpose of a redirect such as this is to lead to a list of those that are known from surviving works of literature or other sources, and for this purpose it's absolutely fine. The only objection I can see to this redirect is the fact that it combines an unorthodox search formula with incorrect English capitalization. If we had "All the Greek gods"—which we apparently don't—then "All the greek gods" would probably be superfluous. P Aculeius (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

All disney films[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Lists of Walt Disney Studios films. (non-admin closure) Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "All" adds the assumption of completeness, which cannot be the case as Wikipedia is always a work-in-progress. Steel1943 (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Lists of Walt Disney Studios films, which the current target describes as a more complete list (actually its a list of lists, but that's minor). While Wikipedia is a work in progress it can and does contain complete lists of finite sets, and the list of Disney films is one example of such. Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Retarget per Thryduulf. There is no objection on the grounds that "all" implies completeness, or that the target might potentially be incomplete. However, as I noted above under "All the greek gods", perhaps it should be "All Disney films" rather than "All disney films"—combining an unusual search formula with incorrect capitalization may be unnecessary redirection. But as with "All the greek gods", we do not have "All Disney films". P Aculeius (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If "All Disney films" is a useful search term then "All disney films" is too - a great many people search entirely in lowercase. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, anyone searching in lowercase will find the correctly-capitalized version at the top of the drop-down list. For some reason, a correctly-capitalized version of this potential search formula does not exist: we only have it incorrectly capitalized. The same is true of "All the greek gods". The principle I have in mind for redirects is that it makes sense to have the most likely version of a particular search formula; it is not necessary to have every imaginable capitalization of them as well. If it makes sense to have these, then we should at the very least have them correctly capitalized. If those are unnecessary then presumably the incorrect versions are as well. That said, having both is probably harmless. P Aculeius (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

New York railway station[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Transportation in New York City#Major transit hubs. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to my nomination below for Philadelphia railway station, New York has multiple railway stations. By page views alone, it's clear there's no primary topic between Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal for the topic of New York railway station. As well, this could apply to any railway station in New York City (of which there are many) and even the entirety of New York state (of which there are even more). It seems like deletion is the appropriate course of action here. TartarTorte 19:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Listify I considered a CNR, but I think creating a list would be the best solution here. This is a plausible search term with multiple different targets. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Retarget to Transportation in New York City#Major transit hubs which lists the major rail stations which is what someone using this search term is almost certainly looking for. It definitely should not be a redlink. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Listifying per Peresidentman is also fine with me. Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Transportation in New York City#Major transit hubs as a better target for this ambiguous term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my numerous other delete rationales for just about everything created by jailbrokeniPodgonewild. Starting to wonder if we need a custom CSD to deal with the thousands of garbage redirects created by this user. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that many of them have been or can be sensibly retargetted, including this one, I don't think a CSD is warranted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too vague. I'll note that "New York" ≠ "New York City", so the proposed retarget would be too narrow. If someone wants to put together a list of railway stations in the state of New York, I would not be opposed to that, but it would be asking way too much of an RfD closer to do that. -- Tavix (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the proposed retarget is too narrow, thus my preference for a list. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think it is plausible someone using this search term is looking for a railway station that is not in New York City. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New York is much bigger than New York City. Buffalo, for example, has a healthy-sized rail network with several stations. -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed New York is much bigger than New York City and contains many railway stations that are not in the city. However the only thing that is relevant here is what someone using the search term "New York railway station" is looking for, and it is overwhelmingly more plausible that they are looking for a railway station named after a city than they are a railway station named after a state. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, I think someone searching this would be looking for a railway station named "New York railway station" over a list of railway stations. Since there is none with the name, this can only be a descriptor of railway stations in New York. The New York disambiguation page signifies that there is no primary topic, and due to the rich railway culture in the State of New York outside of the City, I do not agree that the City would be primary within this topic. For example, List of New York railroads is for the state, New York high-speed rail refers to the state, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of pages like New York taxi, New York Skyline and New york bridges, which all target pages dealing with the City rather than the state, and New York rivers and New York Beach which target sate-wide lists, demonstrate that context matters and that while "New York" doesn't have a primary topic some more specific search terms do. If this redirect were about railroads in general then I agree that there wouldn't be a primary topic, but it is not, someone using this search term is looking specifically for a railway station, and there are hundreds of thousands (at least) of stations worldwide named after cities but I'm not aware of any named for states or similar geographic areas without some sort of qualifier (e.g. Worcestershire Parkway railway station, and New York state is 81 times larger than Worcestershire). Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor do I. It doesn't make sense to name railway stations after the state, as most rail transport doen't cross state lines. Retarget to Transportation in New York City#Major transit hubs. Also another target to consider is Category:Railway stations in New York (state) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix: New York (the state) or New York City? Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete assuming that "New York" means NYC and not NYS seems like a major error to me. Targetting NYC for such an article title would be a mistake. I would say the same for "New York bridges". "New York taxi" shows an iconic status but only for Mahnattan taxis (yellow cas), and not say, Brooklyn/Queens ones (black cars). Similarly the skyline is iconic, but only for Manhattan, and not NYC as a whole. In no way would the entire NYC ever should be the target of any such generic terms. They should all be disambiguated between the entire NYS, the whole NYC, and the specific Manhattan; if such separate articles exist, if not, they should point to state-wide lists, where the city and Manhattan would be included. -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as too vague. Pennsylvania Station is the biggest station in New York City but it's far from the only one and I don't think it would ever be referred to as "New York railway station". There are quite a few articles which give some details on railway stations in New York City, none of them seem like good alternate targets. No objection to redirecting to a list of New York City railway stations but we don't seem to have such a thing. Hut 8.5 18:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Transportation in New York City#Major transit hubs is a list of all the railway stations that could be meant by this search term. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Transportation in New York City#Major transit hubs. The redirect title is singular, and it implies the reader is looking for THE major/central station of New York (City), provided there is one. There isn't, hence the best we can do is target to a section that lists the major ones. Jay 💬 05:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

All New York Airports[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 00:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of airports in New York is a better target, but this redirect should be deleted because that list still doesn't cover all New York airports. Per the lede, it excludes many private-use and former airports. -- Tavix (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've moved List of airports in New York back to List of airports in New York (state) during the course of this RFD and my reasoning may be found at the move log. If you disagree, feel free to start a WP:RM. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible redirect. Something like New York airports is a logical redirect, but this is a strange search term, which had two views over the past 90 days until it was brought to RfD yesterday. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The use of the word "All" makes the assumption that the subject/target is complete, and nothing on Wikipedia is complete as it's always a work in progress. In other words, if even one thing is missing, the redirect is invalid, and there cannot be the assumption of completeness. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This has been quite unused and I think "All New York" if it were to imply something would be heavier in leaning towards the state, but with the lack of use, ambiguity between this target and List of airports in New York (state), and the odd phrasing of the search term, deletion just seems like the best option. TartarTorte 20:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pokémon Ruby & Pokémon Sapphire: Super Music Collection[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 14#Pokémon Ruby & Pokémon Sapphire: Super Music Collection

Marine and Terra Cave[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Unreferenced content was merged after AfD to Pokemon Emerald in September 2006, but was removed from the article in February 2007; the content in question does not have a WP:SNOW chance of surviving AfD if restored on its own. signed, Rosguill talk 21:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article an no reliable sources to warrant a mention in article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Annette (singer)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Withdraw. (non-admin closure) Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 15:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect, unnecessary disambiguation, searches are bringing up confusing results. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The target is a singer who recorded under the name "Annette" so this is an extremely plausible search term. The only other person listed at Annette (given name) described as a singer is Annette Humpe who is not known mononymously and so a hatnote to her will be plenty. "Unnecessary" is not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For music fans she was generally known as singer Annette (not Annette Funicello). Many (me including) had no idea what was her full name. So, if searched, who woud have guessed to type Annette Funicello. Madonna is referred to by her first name, and I would say that only fans know that her birth name was Ciccone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeJack (talk • contribs) 07:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from mononym}} & {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. A hatnote at the target per Thryduulf would suffice. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm, since consensus is pretty clear, can I withdraw this? I honestly sent it here moreso because I didn't know what to do with the redirect; it didn't seem quite appropriate to me but it didn't rise to the level of deletion. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mirage Tower[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 17:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A non notable fictional location. Only appears in Pokémon Emerald so that makes it less notable and it is not mentioned in either article. No reliable sources mentioning this tower either. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

World's Edge Island[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#World's Edge Island

Template:Color box inline[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 05:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Color box}}. no transclusions. Qwerty284651 (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The target template is intended to be used inline, and redirects are WP:CHEAP. Steel1943 (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects cannot be redundant to their targets; that concept does not make sense. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  as this is indeed an inline template . Makes finding and using the template easier. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can I just archive this per WP:SNOW? I agree with what is being said here. Don't know what I was thinking when I did this nom. Was going for a cleanup, unbeknownst to me that the name itself is key, yet genius over here nominates it for deletion. Anyway, I revoke my decision. Take care. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty284651 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Northern Tavria[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#Northern Tavria

Pokémon: Tenth Anniversary[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#Pokémon: Tenth Anniversary

Ice Path[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 16:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could refer to any other Ice Path. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not mentioned at target. Paradoctor (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a brief mention at Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver#Audio (inside the collapsed box). But that's not really enough for a redirect, and the genericity of the term (there are many articles using the phrase "ice path" generically, but I could find no good generic target other than possibly ice road) means I support deleting the redirect anyway. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of unused Pokémon in the 1997 Pokémon Gold and Silver demo[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Pokémon Gold and Silver#Unused Pokémon leak. signed, Rosguill talk 21:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading as there isn’t a list of unused Pokémon from the 1997 demo as it only mentions that there is unused Pokémon in the article. Adding a list like this to the article would probably be either WP:POKECRUFT or WP:LISTCRUFT. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to Pokémon Gold and Silver § Unused Pokémon leak. While the target does not contain a list, it discusses such a list. The second redirect is a clear case of subtopic with a section discussing it, I'll tag it accordingly. Paradoctor (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see the "Unused .." redirect be retargeted that way even just because I like seeing the history of that page be preserved. Still sad it was turned into a redirect at all ^_^; ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Game Boy: Entire Pokémon Sounds Collection CD[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 16:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another music related redirect that is not mention in the article. No reliable sources to warrant a mention in article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

10th Anniversary Pokémon Happy Birthday Concert[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 15:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t seem to be mentioned in the article nor any others as well. No reliable sources to make a mention in the article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

North Dublin[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 13:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page redirects to North County Dublin (UK Parliament constituency). For separate reasons, I moved that page to the more concise title of North Dublin (UK Parliament constituency). However, I would argue that the 1885 to 1922 constituency is not a natural target for North Dublin. I don't think any of the links to North Dublin are to this page (I will check the links on those pages to avoid incorrect links or linking to a disambiguation page after the conclusion of any discussion here). I converted this yesterday to a disambiguation page, but this was reverted by MB. This may have been because of the inclusion of Fingal. However, in the particular context of Dublin, where county identity remains strong, Fingal is appropriate to include in a disambiguation page for North Dublin, just as it is for North County Dublin. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate: The UK Parliament constiuency is definitely not the primary topic for the concept of North Dublin. I think the inclusion of Fingal makes sense. Historic counties are still very commonly used and that's reflected even in the name of the Dáil constituencies in Fingal, which all begin with Dublin. I think the current redirect is confusing as is. TartarTorte 13:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Fingal doesn't mention the term "North Dublin". Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I reverted the dab page because I don't believe it meets the criteria. None of the articles listed were ambiguous with North Dublin, nor did they appear to be commonly called just "North Dublin". They were all WP:PTM or worse. Dab pages are not collections of things in a certain geographic area. No comment on if there is a better target for this as a redirect. MB 18:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The one that best fits it is probably Northside, Dublin, which usually refers to the city area, but is also broader than that, to include the county. The benefit of the disambiguation is to also include Fingal, being the modern county in the area of North County Dublin. But the best might be to alter the redirect to Northside, Dublin. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have brought back nom's disambiguation revision as a draft at the redirect. Non-relevant dab entries may be removed. Jay 💬 04:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Black K[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Black Krrsantan. With no prejudice against future re-nomination in case of no mention at the target. Jay 💬 04:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black K does not exclusively refers to this character. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Weak because we could retarget this to Black (surname)#K but I think that might be stretching things. The status quo is not preferable to either deletion or retargetting. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If kept retarget to Black Krrsantan as that is a more appropriate target for Black Krrsantan, but I have no real knowledge of whether this is even a nickname used. TartarTorte 18:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have notified of this discussion at Talk:Black Krrsantan.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One Last Time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 12:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of this being used for anything else but as surname-initial of given name abbreviation. Paradoctor (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC) 17:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per AngusW🐶🐶F, provided it gets a sourced mention there. Paradoctor (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Engla[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#Engla

Hammer and Chisel[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate and retarget.

Hammer & Chisel is a former name of Discord. It is an alternate term for hammer and pick and probably most commonly refers to "hammer and chisel". In spite of the capitalization of the proper name, I recommend this be a dab. MB 17:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a third possible term, this can be a hatnote on the top of the Discord article to point to hammer and pick. Masem (t) 17:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that "hammer and chisel" is the third term, even thought there is no article on that. It is still the most common "thing" the term refers to. MB 23:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation is about topics, not terms. We have only two topics here. Paradoctor (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not always that clear cut. It took me a few seconds to find Upper Harz Water Tunnels which links to Hammer and chisel, which doesn't mean the symbol. Hammer and chisel (tools) (just created) is a third topic. MB 03:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gezähe § Typical implements: Schlägel und Eisen: miner's hammer and chisel, the symbol of mining. More to the point, the redirect is WP:XY. Paradoctor (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Please note that Schlägel und Eisen redirects to hammer and pick. Paradoctor (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, "Hammer & Chisel" is the former name of the company that develops Discord (the software platform). The company "Hammer & Chisel" is now "Discord, Inc.", the software hasn't changed names. aismallard (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate, with a listing for chisel, which mentions common usage with a hammer in the lede. BD2412 T 17:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disambig draft by MB looks good. Remove the hatnote from Discord. Jay 💬 04:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pols Land[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 09:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether this is intended as a mispelling, an alternative name or something else but regardless I don't see it as helpful. It has recevied only 5 page views this year, and Google results are not clearly tied to Poland - only one of the first 10 results has any apparent connection and that is to the Polish community in Chicago. Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete an implausible name for the target. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Foreign language redirects to Poland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#Foreign language redirects to Poland

The Lord[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#The Lord

IIIRP[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to History of Poland (1989–present). Jay 💬 09:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This term is not used on the target page so I don't understand the connection, looking to see if it is used elsewhere I find that it is a partial title match for an aircraft operated by the Pakistani Airforce (Dassault Mirage III) which just makes me more confused about why this redirects to Poland. Thryduulf (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - There is perhaps some kind of connection to the Polish military. I have no idea what that connection is, but IIIRP does appear in the filename of some flags, [1] and [2]. A7V2 (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to History of Poland (1989–present). This refers to the Third Polish Republic, with the "III" being the number 3 and the "RP" being "Rzeczpospolita Polska" (Republic of Poland). The Polish Wikipedia article pl:III Rzeczpospolita gives "III RP" as an abbreviation of the subject, so it seems to be an actual term used to refer to present-day Poland in Polish. Hut 8.5 18:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to History of Poland (1989–present) per Hut 8.5. The term is used and explained there. A7V2 (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

European Political Community[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Jay 💬 06:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a case for changing this redirect to European Political Community (2022)? It is the more likely current search, at least it was what I was looking for, so might be a better WP:primarytopic? That said, I'm cautious and aware of WP:RECENTISM, so open to views on this. Macron's venture might not end up being long-lasting. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 06:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget, Recentism is worth considering, but the previous EPC was a proposal that failed and so doesn't seem like it would be the primary topic. If this new EPC also fails then I expect a disambiguation page would be the likely best option. CMD (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between:
Treaty establishing the European Political Community (1952)
European Political Community (2022)
It may well turn out that Macron's 2022 project eclipses the historical significance of the 1950s attempt, but we're not in a position to say this for sure yet, and an encyclopedia should view things in historical perspective, avoiding recentism. Other Wikipedias e.g. the German one have gone for a disambig (de:Europäische Politische Gemeinschaft). A straight redirect to the 1950s EPC is the least desirable option, since the article it redirects to isn't even titled "European Political Community", unlike the thing most current readers will be looking for. Beorhtwulf (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. IMHO, i think it is nonsense, today, to leave European Political Community as a redirect to the 1952 failed proposal, given current events. No one is randomly showing up looking for the 1952 thing. I already added "For" type messages to serve readers better than leaving them to try to interpret this obscure/internal/irrelevant Wikipedia discussion. Further, I believe it is obvious (and no one commenting so far disagrees) that either a) a disambiguation page will be put in place, or b) the primary usage meaning of the term will be determined to be the article European Political Community (2022). So, it seems obvious that putting the disambiguation page in place, at least, is needed, and I am wp:BOLDly going to do that now.
Please continue this discussion, but refocus as the question whether the disambiguation page should be left as is, or whether the 2022 thing should be considered primary usage. --Doncram (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for going ahead with the disambig. I think it should stay that way for a while yet. It's not just a question of pageviews, which I agree will go overwhelmingly to the 2022 one because it's current, but historical perspective. We don't know how Macron's idea will pan out yet.
I note the old article is now titled Draft 1952 treaty to establish a European Political Community, but really the subject of that article is the whole idea of the EPC in its 1950s incarnation rather than the treaty specifically. So I would retitle that one "European Political Community (1952)" like German Wikipedia has, or "European Political Community (1950s)" if we think 1952 is too specific. Beorhtwulf (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beorhtwulf, thanks. I semi-boldly moved the old one from awkward, and possibly misleading, name Treaty establishing the European Political Community to the awkwarder(?) name Draft 1952 treaty to establish a European Political Community because it seemed to me that a) the title was misleading (the "treaty" involved was not a treaty, it was a failed treaty proposal, and the EPC was not established), and b) to get "1952" into the title to differentiate it. Offhand I agree that European Political Community (1952) would be okay/better, although technically I don't think the entity was created, so "European Political Community proposal (1952)" might technically be more descriptive. That is a technical distinction though, which the article addresses well enough, so I think you should just go ahead and boldly move it, exactly as you suggest. If anyone has a problem or thinks more discussion is needed, then a formal wp:RM could be opened, but I don't expect that will be necessary. --Doncram (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing no objections, I made that suggested move just now, and revised the disambiguation page, dropping its last mention of this redirects for discussion process. I think this RFD should be considered closed. Anyone could open a different proceeding about whether the 2022 thing should be considered primary usage. --Doncram (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hammer and chisel (tools)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Chisel. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY Paradoctor (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Chisel. We really ought to have something at this title given how the tools are used as a pair and thus extremely likely to be searched for together. The best thing I've found so far is a retarget to Chisel as (almost?) every tool listed there is used with a hammer (or mallet, which is basically a type of hammer) and someone using this search term is not looking for uses of a hammer that don't involve a chisel. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "extremely" By what standard? What data supports this?
    "searched for together" The query would then be "hammer chisel" or "hammer and chisel", presumably. Maybe "hammer chisel tools". I don't see users looking for the phrase disambiguating their query.
    The redirect is explicitly not about the idiom meaning "mining", but an enumeration of tools. Paradoctor (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is indeed not about the idiom, but I didn't mention that or anything to do with that - I only talked about tools so I don't understand your point there?
    Hammer and chisel are tools that are used together (which is why they appear together in the symbol), so it is very likely that someone looking for information about the tool(s) will search for them together - because why wouldn't they? "Hammer and chisel" would indeed be a likely first search term, but that page takes them to a page about the use of a symbol in heraldry and on maps, so readers familiar with Wikipedia disambiguation (which is a hell of a lot of readers) looking for information about the tools will plausibly search for "Hammer and chisel (tools)" to highlight that they are looking for information about the tools based on their experience of how other Wikipedia articles are titled. They may also add the disambiguation preemptively if they know or suspect that there is another use that they may be taken to (c.f. {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}). Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    🤦 Paradoctor (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm even more confused by what point you are trying to make. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No point, just exasperation. Consider it me giving notice for this conversation. Paradoctor (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Retarget per Thyduulf. This is clearly a plausible search term and in fact is incorrectly linked to Hammer and chisel in existing articles. Also see the related redirect discussion. MB 14:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searching for "Hammer and chisel" without the disambiguator lands at Hammer and pick which has an effective hatnote "For the tools, see hammer and chisel." Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I added that hatnote after seeing the nomination here. It will have no impact on people using preemptive disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Thryduulf. This is a common pairing of tools discussed in the proposed target article. BD2412 T 17:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Stanley (Cars)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus and retarget to Cars Toons. There is a clear consensus that the current target is inappropriate. There is no clear consensus on where it should point, however the argumentation for Cars Toons cited WP:DIFFCAPS as reasoning why it shouldn't match Stanley (cars). Legoktm (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Target has been removed from the article. I'd say either retarget to Stanley#Motor vehicles Stanley#Transportation or delete unless the character in the movie is determined to be notable enough to be included in the list. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC) edited, proposed retarget was changed after I proposed this. 17:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete With the character having been removed from the list, the dab page is the most plausible target. The capitalization makes this an unlikely search term, however. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore information on list page, though slimmed down akin to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters#Other characters. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree with restoring the information to the list page. The character has virtually no importance to the film franchise other than having founded the place where most of the 1st film takes place, and he's also dead by the time the films take place. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He also appears in an episode of Cars Toons, "Time Travel Mater". -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget. Possibly delete. I agree with Blaze Wolf and Presidentman. I can't see what use the page has now. Is it a likely search term as formatted? I don't think so. Originoa (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • See related close below. Originoa (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to match Stanley (cars), the two are equally plausible search terms that should not lead to different places. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Stanley (and others) are not listed in List of Cars characters but are listed in the cast of the individual movie pages I think they should maybe redirect to those pages instead? MoviePhan (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are varied opinions including multiple retarget suggestions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 03:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Three Guys 1 Hammer[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#Three Guys 1 Hammer

2008 Summer Tour (Maroon 5 and Counting Crows)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#2008 Summer Tour (Maroon 5 and Counting Crows)

Need for Speed Unbound[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect, as an article for this upcoming game (Need for Speed Unbound) will probably be made soon. No need for a redirect right now. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NVIDEOGAMES, this game is upcoming and redirect are necessary, the announcement could come in today, leave this redirect for now. --2600:1700:9BF3:220:843E:7CB4:B014:18E9 (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the ip editor. The redirect can be overwritten with an article when there is sufficient encyclopaedic information about the game, but until then it should take people searching to the information we have elsewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've added Need for Speed: Unbound to this nomination since they should share the same fate. A7V2 (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If kept, one should be tagged as an {{R avoided double redirect}} of the other. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The only mention at the target is in a table mentioning it as being upcoming and giving a circular link to the redirect. At the very least these should be refined to Need for Speed#Games and the link removed, but I don't think keeping this is helpful to a would-be searcher. WP:RFD#D10 may also apply here. A7V2 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per the above. I'm working on the draft for this at Draft:Need for Speed Unbound however it's nowhere near finished right now. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 11:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep information was recently posted on news that EA would announce a release date In October. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @AngusWOOF: They announced it today and I'm currently waiting for a few minutes/hours so that RSes can get their articles on it out before adding more details. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion is not necessary here, since one can simply overwrite the redirect with an article when needed. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{{db-afc-move}} would also apply when the draft is ready. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, we don't need RfD for dealing with this. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Knoxville Massacre[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 02:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"massacre" not used in target, no clear evidence this is used to refer to the target (as the deaths of two people hardly fits the definition of a massacre), and arguably would more plausibly refer to Knoxville riot of 1919. Suggest deletion to avoid confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even before I saw you mention that 2 people hardly qualifies as a massacre, I was puzzled at why "massacre" was used to refer to this murder. If 5-10+ or even more died, then I'd call that a massacre. There already exists a wholly appropriate redirect, Knoxville murders, and I see no reason to keep this one here. Agree on delete, per nom. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While this seems to be used by some press to refer to these murders, it is also used to refer to the 1919 riot. The former has a bit of recency bias due to it having occurred in the internet age. This could be DABified, but the usage on this is low enough, we're probably safe to delete it. TartarTorte 01:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_6&oldid=1117434442"