Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 7, 2023.

Life Speaks to Me (lyric video)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant redirect from an implausible search term. With extremely rare exceptions on the order of "Thriller", a music video would virtually never qualify for its own standalone article as a separate topic from the song that it's the music video for, and lyric videos (which absolutely anybody can make and post to YouTube at any time whether it's "official" or not) have an even weaker prospect of independent notability than narrative videos do -- but since Life Speaks to Me is already a redirect to the same place as it is, there's no compelling reason at all why the lyric video would need its own separate redirect distinct from the song's redirect. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is information about a lyric video for "Life Speaks to Me" at the target, even if not much, so someone using this plausible search term is going to find the information we have. I wouldn't recommend routinely creating redirects such as this, but I see no justification for deletion if someone does create them. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there enough information at the target for keeping this redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible search term. Wikipedia doesn't have articles or article sections on "lyric videos", which are almost entirely a fan-created YouTube pastime, and categorically non-notable and WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia about which reliable independent sources do not write, so we'll never have articles or sections about them. We have no encyclopedic content about the entire topic of them, other than very brief material at Music video#Lyric videos, which is only in small part about them (the rest of it being about official music videos consisting mostly of lyrics, like the one for "Fall on Me" by R.E.M., which have sometimes been called "lyric videos" before the Internet-meme thing by the same name existsed). Not only does Category:Lyric videos not exist, it was explicitly deleted at CfD when someone tried to create it (and never contained anything but something about one artist, which was itself deleted). In short, for things that are indiscriminate, non-encyclopedic claptrap, we have no reason to have redirects, especially ones that are apt to encourage the creation of more matching but useless redirects.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish, who explained it well enough that I won't bother paraphrasing him. If you allow one, you end up allow all of them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If a redirect is useful, and I've explained above why this one is, then we should keep it. Other similar requests could not be less relevant - if they are good redirects we'll keep them if they're created, if they aren't then we'll delete them if nominated. In all cases though they should and will be discussed on their own merits. There is no such thing as "allow one, allow all" because that's not how Wikipedia works. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except possibly in the vanishingly rare circumstance that a lyric video somehow qualifies for its own standalone article as a separate topic from the song it's lyric-videoing, no lyric video could ever have any different considerations than this one does: no lyric video could ever be any more in need of a redirect than this one, and no lyric video could ever be any less in need of a redirect than this one. So essentially it is an all-or-nothing situation, because no lyric video would ever be subject to any different considerations than any other. It's not a class of topic where there are notable, non-notable and on-the-cusp members who need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, like singers or bands or albums or songs — it's a class of topic where virtually all lyric videos are of precisely equal non-notability, and there's never any case to be made that some of them need redirects more than others do. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And "if they are good redirects we'll keep them if they're created, if they aren't then we'll delete them if nominated" is highly, um, optimistic. RfD regularly poos the screwch because too few editors have any interest in this process and it's mostly the same handful of people over and over again imposing their preferences, which run very inclusionist toward certain categories of things and very deletionist towards others. Given RfD penchant for treating previous decisions as precedent to cite, I think this should be nuked with extreme prejudice.
There is no reader-facing purpose served by this redir, because the redirect target is a section of WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia about YouTube content created by random nobodies (most of them anonymous), with no sources but the primary source of the YT video existing at all (and there will surely never be any actually reliable, independent, secondary sourcing about this music-video equivalent of fanfic). That whole section should be and probably will be deleted, though I won't go do it right now because it would be WP:POINTy in influencing the RfD outcome. That material is like creating at the article Spock a section for "Internet-posted paintings and drawings of Spock".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish. Redirects for lyric videos are unideal because nearly every song has a lyric video, making it generally too unimportant to be a disambiguator. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content about lyric videos are encyclopedic and there are several song articles with a lyric video section. However, delete per the reasoning that lyric videos are never independent of its parent song article titled similarly, so there is no reason for a disambiguated title redirect. As pointed out by SMcCandlish, the Category for lyric videos was also deleted, hence such redirects are not useful for categorizing. Jay 💬 08:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Billy B. Oliver[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 09:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one with the "B." middle initial on dab page. Allow for redlink. Natg 19 (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hope the creator will comment here. I also checked the disambiguation page William Oliver. The only person I could find that might be referred to this way is William B. Oliver, but I don't see any indication he went by Billy. --BDD (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, thanks for reviewing this. The redirect was meant for the NFL player https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Oliver_(American_football). The “b” initial is where brother came from in his name that was commonly used. I couldn’t find proof of this so thought a redirect was the best thing to do rather than editing the page. If it breaks redirect policies then I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoxBilly (talk • contribs) 10:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and creator since there is no proof. Jay 💬 08:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Interstate 63 in Alabama[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. Going to go ahead and close this due to the complete absence of !votes after nearly a month since the other redirects were bundled in. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, all I-63 proposal are coming from blogs or personal pages; this does not qualify as a reason to have this redirect. ChessEric 21:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with the other similar redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then Interstate 63 (Alabama) and I-63 (AL) should also be bundled. -- Tavix (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bundled. As this is around 9 hours since the last relist, the closer can wait an additional day before closing. Jay 💬 06:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Technically this is the first relist since proper bundling
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Persia (Iran)[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 Persia(Iran), retarget Persia (Iran) to Name of Iran. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if Persia (Iran) should remain at its current target or be retargetted to Name of Iran, given that Persia(Iran) redirects there. Either way though, Persia(Iran) should be deleted per WP:RDAB since Persia (Iran) exists with the correct spacing in the title. Steel1943 (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For Persia (Iran) - retarget or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

☄️[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 ☄️, retarget ☄ to Comet § Etymology. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These two redirects appear to be the same thing ... so why do they have different targets? Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's weird. The second one looks like an emoji identical to the first when viewing on a browser, but when editing the page, it almost looks like a one-character emoticon. Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On my browser, they look completely different; the first one is an emoji and the second one looks like an ancient pictograph. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget to Comet. Also, Enix150, you've made this WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument before, and, to be blunt, I'm sick of it. Saying that "oh, deleting that would make it the only {x} without a redirect on Wikipedia" isn't even an argument because it doesn't remotely have a basis in any policy, guideline, or even essay. This comment, which you have copy/pasted over and over, amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion is tired because we've had the same debate over and over again, and each time the outcome is the same. This emoji is named Comet and should clearly redirect to the intended target article of the same name. As for policy determination, it is currently being rehashed at the Village pump. Until that gets solved we're going to have to have the same debate every time someone adds an emoji to RfD, but all eighteen discussions so far have decided that keep/retarget is the best option. Enix150 (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And while there is no clear consensus for a single outcome at that discussion, those options involving deletion are by far the least favoured. Thryduulf (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ☄️, someone searching on the emoji is almost certainly looking for the article about comments. Retarget ☄ to Comet#Etymology where the astronomical symbol (which is not an emoji) is discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment they are not the same thing. One is an emoji, the other is a real symbol. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, retarget or a combination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Doug Doug[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 DougDoug. (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, this is... complicated. There's a person named DougDoug (no space), and a person named Doug E. Doug (with a middle initial). I'd weakly lean towards keeping per WP:SMALLDIFFS, but I think this is a matter worth discussing either way. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 07:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we could also hypothetically disambiguate. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 07:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to DougDoug, who is the clear primary topic among the two of them on Google when searching "Doug Doug" -Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be rendered moot since I nominated the DougDoug article for deletion. Ca talk to me! 15:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case Wait until the AfD concludes. If the DougDoug article is deleted then this is moot as there will be only one encyclopaedic topic to which it can refer. If the AfD consensus is for some action other than deletion then we can discuss where best to point this redirect at that time. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD has already concluded, and was closed as "no consensus". CycloneYoris talk! 17:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf, AfD has been closed as no consensus. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 20:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case I reinstate my original recommendation to retarget to DougDoug as they are the clear primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, repoint to Doug (disambiguation) and add entries there -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as primary per Thryduulf. DougDoug already has the hatnote to Doug E. Doug. Oppose repointing to Doug (disambiguation) as DougDoug cannot be added as an entry there. If DougDoug is deleted at the AfD, then keep. Jay 💬 07:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to DougDoug per above. CycloneYoris talk! 17:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate DougDoug has 10,989 views and Doug E. Doug has 10,072[[1]]. Per SMALLDETAILS its quite likely people looking for DougDoug would type the more normal "Doug Doug" so it probably doesn't indicate a specific topic so its probably best to disambiguate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly it's very plausible that someone who has heard of Doug Doug but doesn't know (or doesn't remember) they use camelcase will search for the spaced title (especially as Wikipedia article titles frequently don't don't replicate stylisations). Secondly, the evidence from google searches is that "Doug Doug" as a two word phrase does indicate a specific topic, and that topic is the YouTuber. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're first point is what I was saying that people aren't normally expected to search using unusual casing etc so people looking for YouTuber will probably use "Doug Doug". In terms of you're second point yes Google suggests the YouTuber but the actor has similar views and most people don't use middle initials so someone looking for the actor would probably use "Doug Doug" as well so its probably best to say no primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that all the evidence shows that there is a primary topic, and it's the YouTuber. Note that because the redirect takes people looking for the YouTuber to the actor, many of the views for the actor's article weren't looking to read that article. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pageviews statistics I cited don't support there being a primary topic. And unless views are skewed towards a recent event or there is otherwise an odd spike I consider it the most reliable method and we can can probably say both uses are likely to be searched for this way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to DougDoug. "Doug E. Doug" is similar but different to "Doug Doug", whereas "DougDoug" is just a stylization of "Doug Doug". They are similar enough that either way there are probably going to be people who are going to search "Doug Doug" looking for either one, but the DougDoug page already has a disambiguation note for Doug E. Doug so anybody potentially searching "Doug Doug" looking for Doug E. Doug will find it right there immediately anyways. It also seems to me that Doug E. Doug is a relatively obscure actor, and while both people are relatively obscure in the grand scheme of things, DougDoug is fairly well known and significant within the online video space whereas Doug E. Doug isn't particularly significant to the field of acting. ARZ100 (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2023 (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, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Where's that damn fourth Chaos Emerald?[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. Editors remain divided between deletion, retargeting, or keeping outright after two relists. signed, Rosguill talk 23:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wikiquote.

Non-notable quotation, no specific page on Wikiquote, quote does not appear on target page, no inbound wiki-links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect to q:Shadow the Hedgehog (video game). Why is that DAMN redirect pointing to a "Special:Search" thing if it can just redirect to the page itself?! Regards, SONIC678 20:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just how {{Wikiquote redirect}} works. It directs to Special:Search (presumably in case the article with that exact name doesn't exist), which makes no difference if the article does exist, as in that case the end user will get redirected to the article automatically. Randi🦋TalkContribs 15:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase does not occur on the proposed target page, ether. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, in lieu of the multiple other non-notable quote redirects created by this user. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that the nomination statement is incorrect - the quote does appear on the target page (and has done consistently since the page was created in 2019). The lack of incomming internal links is completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Untrue. The target page includes the phrase "Where's that DAMN 4th Chaos Emerald?!" (for which we have and need no redirect), not the one used by the redirect under discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "4th" vs "fourth" (and "DAMN" vs "damn") are trivial spelling changes and do not mean the phrase is not on the target page. We would not delete the redirect for these reasons if the target was local, so it is not justification for doing so because it's an interwiki. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or redirect): Redirects can't be non-notable because it is not an article, but a redirect. If you read WP:BLAR, it says "Removing all content in a problematic article and replacing it with a redirect is common practice, known as blank-and-redirect." Most articles are BLARed because of notability problems and because of this, WP:N does not affect redirects. Also, the quote is mentioned in the Wikiquote article. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The page was created as a redirect, not an article. It has never been an article. WP:BLAR is irrelevant. The phrase as written here is not on the target page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, the phrase is on the target page. That it is not spelled exactly as it is here "4th" vs "fourth" is irrelevant, someone looking for the content will find what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

List of assets owned by major automobile corporations[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, move without redirect to List of automobile manufacturers by parent company, and restore article. This is very unconventional (and might have never happened before), but there is no consensus on whether to restore and let AfD take care of it or just delete. There is, however, a consensus to move it without redirect to List of automobile manufacturers by parent company if not deleted. No prejudice against AfD. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 06:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this title is meant to represent, specifically regarding "assets". Otherwise, this redirect was an article for a day in 2007, during which the article's creator WP:BLARed the article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert and rename. Based on the history, this seems to have been intended as a List of automobile manufacturers by parent company. As far as I can tell this is not content we have anywhere, but it seems like the sort of thing that would be potentially useful to have. As such I recommend reverting the BLAR and renaming the article to something more logical without prejudice to an AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The content that was in the former article is not what I would have expected to find at that title. "Assets" does not generally refer to an automaker's brand ownership. I'm not convinced that the content that existed there in 2007 is anything that should be retained. --Sable232 (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether that content should be retained is a decision that AfD needs to be making, not RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep page, without prejudice to AfD. At present, it’s an {{R with history}} (engaging K1), with previous content that hasn’t been assessed by AfD (per Thryduulf, whether or not to retain it is a decision for AfD to make). A page at this title has also existed since 2007, engaging K4. Any renaming/AfD nominating can be done boldly, but without any prejudice to doing so. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 12:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move without redirect to a correct title List of automobile manufacturers by parent company per Thryduulf, and restore. Tag as unsourced. Jay 💬 08:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no reason to restore the unsourced mess at Special:Permalink/122198778 when its own author felt, 16 years ago, that it duplicated List of automobile manufacturers. That's just adding maintenance burden to the people who clean up unsourced articles, for no real benefit. It's not even content anyone here appears prepared to vouch for, and presumably some things have changed in the world of auto-making since 2007? So delete. If someone else wants to write this article, they're welcome to, but they're better off doing so from the ground up. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 09:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    16 years ago it might have duplicated another article, but it doesn't duplicate anything today, so your comment is almost entirely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tamzin. -- Tavix (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content may have been a simplified version of a list then at List of automobile manufacturers. The list was then merged to Automaker, and then removed from Automaker per Talk:Automotive industry/Archive 6#Top vehicle manufacturing groups by volume - yet again for the reason that the detailed list which was based on annual figures, was volatile and difficult to maintain. Which should have no bearing on the pre-BLAR list being discussed, which the creator thought was duplicate, but which we now don't have duplicate content for. I don't find the list a mess, I find it useful, but deletion may be debated at AfD. Jay 💬 17:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Pyschiatric care[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) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based on the sole fact that I encountered transposed letter effect when reading the nomination (i.e., I read it as a correctly-spelled version). So, the typo isn't implausible to me! - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems reasonably plausible. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 01:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Typo is very much plausible, a search for "Pyschiatric care" brings up multiple significant results despite the misspelling. MooseMike (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above --Lenticel (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

San Joaquin River Estates, California[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 restore article. See also § River Road Estates, California (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another pointless redirect of what seems to just be a subdivision, which is never mentioned in the target article. Very unlikely search term and even if someone is searching for it, they won't find any information on the Madera County article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert. Prior to redirection this was an article that was not deleted at AfD (it closed as no consensus). Such content should absolutely not be deleted at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert per Thryduulf. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the prior AfD. There was support for deletion at the AfD, but because of a keep vote (for a different entry), and an opinion about the improperly bundled nomination, it was closed as no consensus. One of the comments suggested redirection, which was subsequently done, and per nom, this fails as a redirect. Also bundle San Joaquin River Estates with this. Jay 💬 05:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because there was support for deletion doesn't mean that we get to declare the lack of consensus for deletion wrong or invalid - after all there was also opposition to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Revert or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If by opposition, you meant the redirect vote, then thats what is being discussed here as a pointless redirect. Regarding the correctness or validity of the lack of consensus , we're not declaring anything but trying to provide an explanation. Jay 💬 08:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

River Road Estates, California[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 restore article. See also § San Joaquin River Estates, California. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, since this appears to just be a subdivision, and the target article does not mention River Road Estates at all. Should simply be deleted. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert. Prior to redirection this was an article that was not deleted at AfD (it closed as no consensus). Such content should absolutely not be deleted at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert per Thryduulf. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the prior AfD. There was support for deletion at the AfD, but because of a keep vote (for a different entry), and an opinion about the improperly bundled nomination, it was closed as no consensus. One of the comments suggested redirection, which was subsequently done, and per nom, this fails as a redirect. Also bundle River Road Estates with this. Jay 💬 05:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because there was support for deletion doesn't mean that we get to declare the lack of consensus for deletion wrong or invalid - after all there was also opposition to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Revert or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If by opposition, you meant the redirect vote, then thats what is being discussed here as an unlikely search term redirect. Regarding the correctness or validity of the lack of consensus , we're not declaring anything but trying to provide an explanation. Jay 💬 08:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Madera Country Club Estates, California[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 restore article. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless redirect; seems to just be a subdivision. Target article makes no mention of any "Madera Country Club Estates", making it misleading. Should simply delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert. Prior to redirection this was an article that was not deleted at AfD (it closed as no consensus). Such content should absolutely not be deleted at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert per Thryduulf. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AFD, I don't see a problem with deleting uncontested redirections at RFD but this one has been at AFD so should go there again if deletion is desired. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the prior AfD. There was support for deletion at the AfD, but because of a keep vote (for a different entry), and an opinion about the improperly bundled nomination, it was closed as no consensus. One of the comments suggested redirection, which was subsequently done, and per nom, this fails as a redirect. Also bundle Madera Country Club Estates with this. Jay 💬 05:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because there was support for deletion doesn't mean that we get to declare the lack of consensus for deletion wrong or invalid - after all there was also opposition to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same as below.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If by opposition, you meant the redirect vote, then thats what is being discussed here as a pointless redirect. Regarding the correctness or validity of the lack of consensus , we're not declaring anything but trying to provide an explanation. Jay 💬 08:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Lake Madera Country Estates, California[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 restore article. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless redirect; this seems to just be a subdivision. Highly unlikely anyone would search for this place. Should simply delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert. Prior to redirection this was an article that was not deleted at AfD (it closed as no consensus). Such content should absolutely not be deleted at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert per Thryduulf. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per my comment above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the prior AfD. There was support for deletion at the AfD, but because of a keep vote (for a different entry), and an opinion about the improperly bundled nomination, it was closed as no consensus. One of the comments suggested redirection, which was subsequently done, and per nom, this fails as a redirect. Also bundle Lake Madera Country Estates with this. Jay 💬 05:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because there was support for deletion doesn't mean that we get to declare the lack of consensus for deletion wrong or invalid - after all there was also opposition to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow for consideration of late deletion proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If by opposition, you meant the redirect vote, then thats what is being discussed here as a pointless redirect. Regarding the correctness or validity of the lack of consensus , we're not declaring anything but trying to provide an explanation. Jay 💬 08:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is still opposition, and the closer found no consensus to delete. If you want to challenge that closure then policy allows you two places to do that: 1. the closer's talk page, and 2. WP:DRV. Also, declaring it wrong or invalid is exactly what we would be doing by deleting it here (this comment applies to all these similar discussions). Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Yanes (brand)[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 💬 09:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No brand called "Yanes" discussed at the target article, nor anywhere on Wikipedia for that matter, to the best of my understanding. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Discord kitten[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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was removed from the List of Gen Z slang article, leaving it mentionless as a redirect to a page with no useful information about the subject. "Kittens" are not mentioned at Discord either, making it not worth pointed there, so I feel it should be deleted until there's a reason to recreate it with content at a particular page. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE delete this. Seeing this in my pages created feed is horrifying. B3251 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Thank you veddy much[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15#Thank you veddy much

Kansas City Cowboys (20th century baseball)[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) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zero mention of "Kansas City Cowboys" in any context. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Stefan Diös[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 💬 09:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am presuming this is a poker player, based on the category and this now-banned socks other redirect creations without any mention at the target page. Even with that being the situation though, it having the "Disney fandom" category and pointing at this target baffles me. Not mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia (apart from Stefan (given name), where it has the description "Swedish professional translator, quarter-professional writer, and semi-amateur poker player"). Utopes (talk / cont) 19:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Saraswoti Pokhrel[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. This is a combination of a SNOW deletion and a G5 deletion, with a touch of R3 too. JBW (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name of a Nepalese politician that does not appear at the target page. A sock hijacked an existing redirect to create a page for this politician, but since swapping the pages back to their original location, there isn't any reason to keep this as a result. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment User:Utopes with the page history mess now fixed I see no reason why Saraswoti Pokhrel should now be retained. The target article gives the Sanksrit as Sárasvatī-nadī́, so it does not appear to be an R from alternate language and this title is not mentioned at that target. As 2001:DF7:BE80:11E:3521:AA51:4A2F:EC94 was also blocked for violating a block/ban see [2], that leaves you and I as the only good-standing contributors in the page history. I don't really think either of our edits are substantive, but even if they are, I'm OK with requesting a G5 with our edits covered under G7 if you are. I guess you could just link to this discussion in that request. On the other hand if I'm missing a reason for the redirect to exist and someone chimes in here with a keep rationale then feel free to do nothing. It would be kind of pointless to delete a redirect under G5 only to immediately recreate it for being useful. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:24DE:F159:39FF:48EF (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Has now been tagged with G5. Because the pageswappage and edits at both titles, I figured I'd at least post the circumstance to RfD, under the pretext that if it gets CSD'd while listed here, so be it. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for helping to clean this up. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:24DE:F159:39FF:48EF (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

StarWonderers[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 23:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but it looks like this is... the name of the Airline's safety video on YouTube? I can't think of a time where we have pointed names of YouTube videos at related subject matters, especially when the word "wonder" doesn't appear anywhere at the target page. I could be missing context though, but it doesn't seem very helpful if unmentioned. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the redirect creator left a handy link on the talk page [3]. Copying and pasting that text into Google Translate backs up what googling the name suggested - the safety video is quite likely notable (at least for a section) having won multiple awards and gained attention outside of its niche - and certainly it's not just a typical safety video. I can't think of a time where we have pointed names of YouTube videos at related subject matters I don't have examples from YouTube off the top of my head, but we redirecting the titles of notable works to the articles about their creator or other appropriate target is routine and there is no reason why YouTube videos would be any different. However, the issue the nominator is correct about is that there is currently no mention at the target, or anywhere else I can find on en.wp. Thryduulf (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The key qualifier with my statement is the fact that it's a one-way relation, evident from the article not mentioning that it has a safety video in the first place. It's not a requirement to talk about the safety video, and if it's won awards then it likely could have a place, but in the current form it does not even acknowledge its existence, which is what my statement targets in regards to related videos. If the two (in this case YouTube video & airline) were intrinsically tied together, I'd expect to see the contents bound in some fashion where even if it doesn't mention "StarWonderers" directly, it at least has something sufficient that relates the two, such as the awards or similar. With no mention currently, that does not seem to be the case. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as not useful. May be recreated when we have mention at the target. Jay 💬 09:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Software humour[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 16#Software humour

Softqloud[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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 09:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A competitor? A subsidiary? I'm quite confused about what this is, as this company is not mentioned at the target article. No mentions of "soft" or "qloud" either.

Looking up on Google, there seems to be some relationship between these two, with the first headline being "Softqloud...terminated its contract with ArvanCloud". But if the contract has been terminated between these two, then to my understanding these aren't synonyms. It's confusing regardless, I feel. Nothing about this subject on Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 18:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Negerpunk[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 💬 09:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful that people using this search term will be looking for ID3. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This appears to be a term that is potentially racist in German. The only viable target I could see is List of ID3v1 genres, which mentions it; however, it has no context for it other than it being a genre of ID3 that was selectable from the predefined list of genres in v1 in Winamp. TartarTorte 13:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

" '—And He Built a Crooked House—' "[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 💬 09:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a remnant of a 9-minute temporary page name on 1 June 2023‎. It has a very strange formatting of single quotes within double quotes separated by spaces. There are no other titles like that in the entire English Wikipedia. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Spider-Man (2018)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 23:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous, other Spider-Man media released in 2018 like film Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse Indagate (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Marvel film[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) TartarTorte 13:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering whether the list is the primary topic or this should target to Marvel Studios instead? NotAGenious (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Marvel Studios#Films, there are different lists this could refer to. Yoblyblob (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Marvel Studios#Films has no content other than a hatnote to the current target, so it does not seem like a useful target to me.- Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is the correct target. "List of films based on Marvel Comics publications" is another way of saying "list of Marvel films". InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a valid redirect pointing to the correct article, a list of all Marvel films, which are not exclusive to Marvel Studios. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per InfiniteNexus and Trailblazer101. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Lithp[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) CycloneYoris talk! 19:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If someone was seriously intending to reach a page about lisps, they are not going to type lisp as it would sound with a lisp, i.e. as "lithp". This redirect is two letters off of a 4 letter title-word; this is not a plausible accidental misspelling. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is getting some traffic, and is a very common humorous pronunciation respelling of the target - one that I can see non-native speakers using for example. The only other use of any prominence is a joke programming language described as "less known" even among the set of joke programming languages and rightfully not mentioned on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Not a plausible accidental misspelling, but a word that someone might search for if they read it somewhere and wanted to know what it was. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Tenties[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 14#Tenties

Idealistic Nation[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 💬 09:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Used to be a redirect towards a now removed article of The Princeton Progressive, deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Princeton Progressive. With that being out the picture, the remaining title of "Idealistic Nation" doesn't have a home, and could probably be deleted. While it is a "general title", I can't foresee it being a helpful search term for wherever it could get forced into. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

OTCA[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 14#OTCA

Smoke in the air[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 💬 09:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target page doesn't mention "smoke". While I'm quite sure this is a piece of military jargon, searching for this title on Google in quotes mainly just returns results for there being smoke... in the air... and talks about air quality when there's smoke in it, as well as a map of fires for smoke in the air. This does not seem like a phrase exclusive to the target article. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke in the Air is also a 2015 comedy about teenagers. I have no idea if it is notable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete could be about jet engine trails, rocket trails, smoke signals, wildfire, etc -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Family Guy pipeline[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 💬 08:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Used to be a mentioned phrase at the article that used to be sludge content, but since the contents were merged to copyright infringement and social media in mid-September, these titles no longer have a place as redirects, possibly... 😶‍🌫️ Utopes (talk / cont) 08:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

YouTube guru[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15#YouTube guru

List of things named after King Faisal[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 14#List of things named after King Faisal

Trade War with China[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 16#Trade War with China

What are you rebelling against? - Whaddaya got?[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 💬 07:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The hyphen used to signify a break in the quote, followed by the use of a subjective spelling of "whaddaya", means that its too inconsistent to nail down in a useful title. While this quote exists in two different parts at the target, the unlikely weaving of both with this required style and misspelling makes this implausible and not worth maintaining, from my point of view. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per previous discussions. Redirects of trivial quotes are unhelpful to readers. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Guys, I'm eating junk food and watching rubbish, you better come out and stop me![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 💬 07:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Junk food" and "rubbish" are not mentioned at the target article. Because this quote is never actually discussed anywhere on Wikipedia, it doesn't need a redirect. People interested in searching for "Home Alone" would just type in that as a search term, not a random line from it that nobody would expect to be a redirect, especially with no mention at the target page to justify it. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per previous discussions. Redirects of trivial quotes are unhelpful to readers. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Aspen Academy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 16#Aspen Academy

It's like a finger pointing away at the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory[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 💬 07:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "moon", "concentrate", "heavenly", nor "glory" are mentioned at the target article. It isn't even the right quote because the actual quote is "to the moon" from the movie, but neither are plausible search terms to begin with and nothing about this quote makes it seem it needs to be a redirect, and without context of why this redirect exists, it is not helpful to readers. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The quote is wrong. The quote is "...It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory." I think that with a quote of this length and including punctuation, the "It's" instead of "it is", makes this pretty implausible as the highest likelihood it seems of someone searching this is via copy-and-paste, but not with it's instead of it is. TartarTorte 14:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous discussions. Redirects of trivial quotes are unhelpful to readers. And it's way too long for anyone to plausibly type in the search bar anyway. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

They call me: 'Mister Tibbs'[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 In the Heat of the Night (film). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 06:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"They call me" is not mentioned anywhere in this article (the word "me" isn't mentioned at that), and even if it was, the colon and single quotations is too highly specific of a format that makes it highly unorthodox and unlikely to be useful Utopes (talk / cont) 06:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Oh Man! Oh God! Oh Man! Oh God! Oh Man! Oh God! Oh Man! Oh God! Oh Man! Oh God![edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 14#Oh Man! Oh God! Oh Man! Oh God! Oh Man! Oh God! Oh Man! Oh God! Oh Man! Oh God!

2-dimensional space[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15#2-dimensional space

2-space[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15#2-space

Fictional history[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 14#Fictional history

📗[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15#📗

List of Mississippi's congressional districts by HDI[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 03:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Human Development Index tabulation at the target. Included in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Alabama Congressional Districts by HDI, but was not deleted as it was not bundled properly. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Missouri's congressional districts by HDI. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural, second redirect was not properly tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

API (redirects and miscellaneous)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 16#API (redirects and miscellaneous)

World's largest automakers[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 List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 04:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is a {{R with history}} as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's largest automakers, but it does not seem as though the current target is the appropriate target. For one, the name of this redirect does not make a clear whether or not it refers to countries, or companies, or etc. In regards to the aforementioned, some articles exist such as Automotive industry by country and List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production, but even then, it may not be clear where this redirect should target to be the most hefty for our readers, given it does not seem like either of the aforementioned pages have any such a list of what a "large automaker" is. Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production as the most consistent definition of "large automaker". ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's still not entirely clear where this redirect should target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Line (video)[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 Scan line. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does not seem the subject of this redirect is adequately explained in the target article. Some related articles I found are Scan line and Video line selector, but I'm not sure which one is more relevant to the subject of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, far too vague. Someone searching for one of these topics with just the word "line" needs to refine their search. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. My first thought was progress bar, honestly. Too vague and unhelpful as a search term and too many potential targets that wouldn't make sense to disambiguate. 〜 Askarion ✉ 23:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Scan line. There are 11 video-related articles using this redirect so, no, it is not too vague. ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Scan line per Kvng. Thryduulf (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Scan line per nom and others. Redirects are also used for linking, not just for searching. Jay 💬 09:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_7&oldid=1190937301"