Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)
XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 0 6 17 61 84
TfD 0 0 2 4 6
MfD 0 0 1 3 4
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 10 12 22
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

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

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

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

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

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

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Tag the redirect(s).

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

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

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

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

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.

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

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

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

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

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

Current list[edit]

June 17[edit]

Emigration from North Korea[edit]

This may refer to multiple topics. I propose to retarget it to Category:North Korean diaspora. GZWDer (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. The pages included in the category more throughly covers the topic. Ca talk to me! 12:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historic church[edit]

Anyone using this term is likely looking for the general topic of historic church buildings rather than this specific church. Historic building is itself a redirect to List of heritage registers. I'm ambivalent regarding whether this redirect should also point there or just be deleted. Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't keep as is This is a {{R from move}}, the target article was created at this title and stayed there for 7 weeks but that was back in 2006. While it will surprised nobody to learn that "historic church" appears in many, many articles it surprised me to learn that the redirect and its target are the only times it appears in the title of pages in the article namespace. I'm honestly torn between retargetting to the list of heritage registers (on the grounds that it's better to keep the revision history where we can, and that is a better target than the current one) or deleted (on the basis that it's too generic a title to be a good disambig and the heritage registers list is two steps removed from the search term so not the most helpful). I don't support keeping it as it is, but that's about the only thing I'm sure of. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- History of the church exists (as a redirect to History of the Church). Historical church does not exist. Church history and Church History both exist, but as separate pages! — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Thryduulf that this is too vague to be kept as is. Delete or retarget to List of oldest church buildings, which is the target of Oldest church. Jay 💬 14:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollies' Greatest Hits (1968 West German album)[edit]

I can't find anything in Enwiki about a 1968 album, here, or at The Hollies discography (which in any case would be a better target). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Thryduulf - looks like that's the intended article BugGhost🪲👻 09:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hollies' Greatest is a British album released by Parlophone. Per the edit history, the West German album was released by Hansa Records. The track listings are also different, which all but confirms these are different pressings. -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find any non–user generated sources, but I'm fairly certain that the West German album and Hollies' Greatest are in fact separate (they seem to have separate covers for one), so that is not a good retargeting option. Retargeting to the discography would be a good option if it was on there, but it's not, and I know too little about the area to properly search for sources to add it to the discography. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GWR network[edit]

Where could this possibly lead to? The original GWR (current target), the modern one, GWR (disambiguation), Great Western Railway (disambiguation). Who knows... Otherwise, it can be deleted since its too ambiguaious JuniperChill (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a plausible search term that could refer to the network of multiple of the railway companies listed at Great Western Railway (disambiguation), possibly (but I don't know how likely) the network of flights operated by Aura Airlines and possibly the radio network of GWR Group. Either retargeting to the existing Great Western Railway (disambiguation) with a hatnote to one or both the other two, or a separate disambig page are the best for readers here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we should include Aura Airlines as while that is the ICAO airline code, I don't think anyone refers it to that (and also a relatively obscure airline), just as the code for Greater Anglia is officially (de jure) LE, but it's most commonly (de facto) shortened to GA instead. Maybe retarget to GWR instead? Since idk what should happen, we should wait for other users to see. JuniperChill (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are only two entries on the GWR page that could plausibly have networks and which do not appear on Great Western Railway (disambiguation) (the airline and the media group), but there are multiple railways that have networks which are listed on the longer-titled dab page but not at GWR. So if a separate dab page is not the chosen outcome, Great Western Railway (disambiguation) is, in my opinion, a better target than GWR. Obviously there is no need to take action before other people have had a chance to express their opinions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I (the nom) would Retarget to Great Western Railway (disambiguation) then. With a hatnote saying:
    {{redirect|GWR network|the airline with the ICAO code|Aura Airlines|the radio network|GWR Group}} JuniperChill (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the retargeting proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JuniperChill: We don't put hatnotes in disambiguation pages. Jay 💬 15:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean we don't, but don't we *do* have See Also sections? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing @Jay / @Lunamann if consensus is to retarget to Great Western Railway (disambiguation0. JuniperChill (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant population[edit]

Procedural nomination for speedy deletion candidate, as requested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 17. jp×g🗯️ 03:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simple search term leads to a section that has detailed information about the search term. This is textbook redirect usage. Ca talk to me! 09:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 18:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: If it goes to the list, someone will see "populations of Proboscidean species" and could get very confused, whereas the prose and elephant pictures under the Status section are clearly relevant. Also I would add "R with possibilities" as I could see the section expanding and describing the individual populations with prose - the "notes" column in the list article is quite detailed. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed Proboscidean to elephant, which matches the title. -- Tavix (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom (programming language)[edit]

Tom and List of programming languages only lists one programming language called Tom or TOM – Tom (pattern matching language) – so I suggest retarget, delete, delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mwwv converseedits 16:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PANDORA should not be used; see user:Lunamann/Please, put Pandora back in the box
That said, support these actions; save for the citing of WP:PANDORA, all of this seems correct to me. (WP:CONSISTENT can support the deletion of TOM computer language on its own.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to note that the last discussion on double disambiguation that I know of (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 14#INTDABLINK of redirects from incomplete disambiguation) ended in no consensus, so unless things have changed without my knowledge and none of those redirects have been deleted since, there is not a consensus against double disambiguation. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Networking Working Group[edit]

This article, which I created, uses an incorrect title. I moved it to the correct title but the redirect is not a name ever used in sources for this topic, so it's not a plausible alternative name that could justify a redirect. No articles link here. Propose deleting it to avoid confusion or it becoming a Wikipedia reflection on the Internet Whizz40 (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Umar ibn Sahlan as-Sawi[edit]

I am not good at Islamic naming or there about but I can find any clue with this particular redirect. It is also a near close and unlikely when searched on web browsers. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This might be the same person. An expert in Persian might help with https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/ابن_سهلان_ساوجی Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the internal link version of that external link, fa:ابن_سهلان_ساوجی, since we can do that. Steel1943 (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good place to check for these kinds of things is OCLC. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as confusing, since there's no evident connection between the redirect and its target, and we don't even know if both are the same person. CycloneYoris talk! 20:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not know any Arabic nor Arabic naming conventions, but the two names might refer to the same person. Encyclopædia Iranica lists him as EBN SAHLĀN SĀVAJĪ, Qāżī ZAYN-AL-DĪN ʿOMAR. The two names identify the same father and have similar first names (Omar and ʿUmar). Ca talk to me! 07:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia[edit]

Editor-coined term for a since-merged series of events. Not in usage anywhere outside of Wikipedia mirrors. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This is not a named event nor are the events that the former article referred to independently notable. No good reason to keep this. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this has prior article history and is a {{R from merge}}. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to preserve history, as content from the page continues to exist at the current target. signed, Rosguill talk 19:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arado Ar 196/Userbox/Userbox Yuri fanatic[edit]

Same as Gay Communist Anime Userbox redirect Ahri Boy (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arado Ar 196/Userbox/Global Gay Communist Anime[edit]

Unused user subpage Ahri Boy (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


fan speculation for its english name, on the same vein as laxbe which i nominated a little under (or was it over?) a month ago. unlike laxbe, i found a few results, but they pretty solidly established this as a fan name that was dropped in favor of its admittedly inferior official name cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if a reference to this as a fan-name is added. If it has a few results it seems to be a decently plausible search target, however niche. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Plenty of edits to the target during the time of this discussion, but none related to the redirect topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science Update[edit]

Not mentioned at the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target subject unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be related to a website called Science Update. Their about page states that they are an "re-incarnation" of an AAAS-produced radio show of the same name. Ca talk to me! 09:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Few minutes of searching around on old newspapers in newspapers.com did not give anything substantial, though I did find a Boston Globe Issue. With the Common Sense Media source, a mention might be able to be added. Ca talk to me! 13:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 18:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention not yet added to the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Previous target P Sharp was PRODded. No mention of anything related to P♯ in the current target. Either delete or retarget to ♯P. Nickps (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The redirect should have been {{Db-redirnone}}-ed after its original target was deleted ... if it weren't for a bot retargeting the redirect after the deleted article was converted to a redirect prior to being restored and deleted anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, do not retarget to ♯P. For what it's worth, I do not believe this is a likely or helpful misspelling of "♯P", given that the nominated redirect has already been proven to mean something specific, given the nominated redirect had a valid target with a title match previously. Steel1943 (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to #P as, at the very least, a plausible typo. Frank Anchor 10:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm changing my !vote to delete per Steel. P♯ and ♯P are different things and P and P have some uses in math as well. Any potential for confusion is not worth it. Nickps (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glory Hallelujah[edit]

Fairly common phrase (I thought of Battle Hymn of the Republic); redirect to this relatively obscure song would likely be surprising. May merit a disambig page instead. Rusalkii (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic? Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This redirect is simply incorrect. It stems from a misinterpretation of a redirect in a paper encyclopedia printed over 100 years ago. Druysk is an agrotown in Vitebsk Oblast, Belarus, near Braslaw. It is situated over 200 km away from Kaunas, Lithuania. The mixup arose because the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) contains the following entry:

DRUISK. See Kovno.

However, this just refers to the fact that Druysk belonged to the Kovno Governorate of the Russian Empire, an administrative division which covered a fairly large area, including Braslaw and its environs. For confirmation of this fact, one may consult this 1864 map of Kovno Governorate. Druysk (Друйскъ) is in fact the easternmost labelled locality on the whole map, found within the yellow-green (i.e., primarily Orthodox) region centered around Braslaw (Браславъ).

The Jewish Encyclopedia does this with other localities as well. For example, the entries for Dusyaty (Dusetos; Russian: Дусяты Dusyaty) and Eiragoly (Ariogala; Yiddish: אייראַגאָלע Eyragole) also redirect the reader to Kovno, and the entry for Eishishki (Eišiškės) points to Wilna.

What's even more confusing is the online version of the Jewish Encyclopedia hosted on StudyLight.org, cited in the previous RfD discussion, which includes full entries for these redirect entries that just transclude the content of the redirect target, without any indication that this is what's happening. Thus, the entry for Druisk is identical to the entry for Kovno, except for the header; the same applies to Eishishki and Wilna, and so forth.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I would like to solidify the argument for deletion by showing that other written sources that talk about “Druisk” are in fact referring to the city in present-day Belarus and not using it as a synonym for Kaunas.

  • Cholawsky, Shalom (1998). The Jews of Bielorussia During World War II. Routledge. ISBN 9057021935.
    "Druisk" is mentioned alongside other towns in Belarus (e.g. Braslav, Glebokie, Dolhinov) and eastern Lithuania near the Belarusian border (e.g. Swienciany, Podbrodzh). None of these locations are near Kaunas.
  • Lokotko, Aleksandr; et al. (2013). Tourist Mosaic of Belarus. Belaruskaya navuka. ISBN 978-5-457-63663-7.
    “Druisk” is described as being in the region of Braslaw, listed alongside other nearby Belarusian localities such as Opsa and Ukolsk. Again, this description definitely does not apply to Kaunas.

By the way, in the course of researching this, I also noticed that EiragolyEiguliai is probably another incorrect redirect. As mentioned above, this refers to Ariogala (here's a source to support the identification), not the Eiguliai neighborhood of Kaunas whose name is pretty different anyway. I hypothesize that the author of this redirect also created it based on the Jewish Encyclopedia, but in that case tried to make sense of it by finding a part of Kaunas with a somewhat similar name. (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the redirect creator's talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination in Nova Scotia[edit]

Redirect from the general to the specific, the redirect is a much wider topic than the target. Fram (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, was just about to nominate them for deletion myself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I made a mistake then feel free to delete, I'm not contesting the redirect deletion. --MrHaligonian (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nothing to do with medical misconduct scandals implied from title BugGhost🪲👻 16:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying in Nova Scotia[edit]

Redirect from the general to the specific, the redirect is a much wider topic than the target. Fram (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I made a mistake then feel free to delete, I'm not contesting the redirect deletion. --MrHaligonian (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment in Nova Scotia[edit]

Redirect from the general to the specific, the redirect is a much wider topic than the target. Fram (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I made a mistake then feel free to delete, I'm not contesting the redirect deletion. --MrHaligonian (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S.K. Umesh (Retired SP)[edit]

"Retired SP" is not a reasonable unnecessary disambiguator. —Alalch E. 10:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English Constitution Party[edit]

Target has no information about this organisation Kevin McE (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has the information that it has stood in at least one UK Parliamentary election. JASpencer (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the link can only be found in other places where it has stood/is standing in an election. One learns absolutely nothing about the party, its history, its policies or its leadership by following the link: it is an apparent link to details that are not provided. JASpencer is the user who created the redirect. Kevin McE (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:RETURNTORED - If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. BugGhost🪲👻 13:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BugGhost, better to keep it as a red link for an article to be written in the future. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Tagged by CaribDigita in May but not correctly nominated. According to him, Can be deleted, site not online.. --MikutoH talk! 00:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Were these ever domains used by Google? If so, keep, if not, delete. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No mention of those links in Google/DDG, and bb isn't even a valid top-level domain. Ca talk to me! 04:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment .bb is the real ccTLD for Barbados, so if these domains have existed (they don't now anyway), they must have been Google's mirrors for that country. google.ca (for Canada), google.de (for Germany) and many other parallel sites exist and follow the same pattern. Glades12 (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres[edit]

Delete to encourage article creation, similar to all other individual event redirects created by a now-blocked user Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 16[edit]

Double Disc Album[edit]

Technically not useful as the redirect Double disc album (the correct spelling) already exists and MediaWiki isn't case sensitive. Killarnee (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...what? I often use the URL bar to type in my searches, and if I make a capitalization error there outside of the first character, it doesn't take me to the correct place. Keep as MediaWiki is case-sensitive, and I'd recommend withdrawing unless you want to go against the precedent of the entirety of Category:Redirects from miscapitalisations. (WP:RCAPS is also worth mentioning). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I often use the URL bar to type in my searches, and if I make a capitalization error there outside of the first character, it doesn't take me to the correct place.
    Here's a tip: While the URL bar is case sensitive (and has to be; we have plenty of articles where case is relevant; see MAVEN vs Maven), the Search bar isn't, unless there are extant separate articles for each capitalization. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that much, but it's a habit that's hard to break. I do it while knowing the search function is better; who's to say there's not people that do it while not knowing much about the search function? Besides, this excerpt from WP:RCAPS shows some other areas where case-sensitivity is important: While Wikipedia's search function is generally case-insensitive, these redirects aid linking from other articles and external sites. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Was created as a duplicate of article Horrorcore but couldn't find any sources (checked Ngram and Scholar too) for this spelling. Killarnee (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - redirects are cheap, unambigious where it's intending to go. If the redirect existed in the first place then the user wouldn't have gone to the trouble of trying to create a duplicate article. BugGhost🪲👻 13:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plausible spelling variant that a reader could search for. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 United Kingdom government formation[edit]

The page to which this page redirects mentions nothing about any formation. So this redirect is at this moment misleading. Dajasj (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Men in the Philippines[edit]

Doesn't look like a good redirect. Could not find other countries redirecting "Men in (country)" to their respective citizens and/or nationals. Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Several pageviews per month (600+ in the last year), and I can't find a better target. Appears to be useful. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. Per WP:R#DELETE #10, the current target provides no information about men in philippines in particular, only as a people. Deleting would encourage article creation for the counterpart of Women in the Philippines.
Ca talk to me! 05:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ca. The topic is relevant and likely notable, so having a red link is better than sending the reader to a much wider topic that doesn't mention it in detail. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus[edit]

The subspecies of P. m. melanoleucus is distinct from P. melanoleucus; for example, see P. melanoleucus's range vs. P. m. melanoleucus's range. As a result it is harmful to have a redirect from one to the other; this would imply that they are the same. ReadItAlready (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the Pituophis melanoleucus article is currently the best place to direct readers for information on P. melanoleucus ssp. melanoleucus. It distinguishes the subspecies of this snake and even describes differences in the ranges of the subspecies. ― Synpath 03:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a redirect from a subspecies. P. m. melanoleucus is included in P. melanoleucus, therefore it makes sense to redirect the former to the latter. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zine Tseng[edit]

WP:RDEL#10. This redirect was created by an indef blocked user, and does not link to any article. The subject person has already landed a main role in a high-profile Netflix series and had multiple personal interviews, which suggests the article currently meets GNG on the borderline and once they receive another notable role, they will likely pass NACTOR as well. The subject person is very likely to warrant an independent article, while 3 Body Problem (TV series), a project they were involved in, has zero coverage of their life or career. Therefore, I think this redirect does not have a reason to exist and should be deleted per WP:RDEL. Prince of EreborThe Book of Mazarbul 10:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vllatava River[edit]

Multiple typos, implausible typo of plausible misspelling "Vlatava", unused, nonsense for native speaker, also "Vllatava" not found by global search. Should be deleted. —Mykhal (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Well, nonsense for native speaker subreason might be somewhat misleading, as the word Vltava itself does not have (other) meaning in current Czech, too.) —Mykhal (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BoBoiBoy Galaxy: The Movie[edit]

There's no movie titled "BoBoiBoy Galaxy: The Movie". M S Hassan (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to BoBoiBoy: The Movie BugGhost🪲👻 13:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 15[edit]

Islamic Salvation Party[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: the page is no longer a redirect

Draft:Immanuelle/Draft Staggering[edit]

Useless WP:XNR. The page obviously should have never been moved to draftspace in the first place as it is not a draft. No need to leave a redirect after moving it back to the correct namespace. (I wasn't sure if WP:G6 applied so here we are.) Nickps (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah I'm fine with deletion here. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no reason for this redirect to stick around. If the page didn't belong in draftspace, then this redirect shouldn't exist either. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's at least tens of similar redirects. Assuming that this redirect gets deleted (for other reasons than G7), the other ones should presumably be deleted too, though I haven't individually checked each of them for substantial page history or pageview oddities. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza death camp[edit]

Delete for obvious severe neutrality concerns. There's also "Gaza concentration camp" and "Gaza extermination camp" which I'm too lazy to include at the moment. Anonymous 19:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or retarget to Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present). We have lots of non-neutral redirects, and some of them are indeed quite offensive. But I don't see how these ones in particular do any harm. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 21:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for NPOV, per nom. Longhornsg (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Retarget to Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present), per WP:RNEUTRAL, redirects do not need to be neutral. The term has seen some use [2][3], however I am not sure if it qualifies as common use. However my suggested retarget contains more information about deaths in Gaza strip. Ca talk to me! 08:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, I've updated my vote. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 08:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per Ca. As mentioned, WP:RNEUTRAL dictates that redirects do not need to be neutral; not only are redirects much harder to see (your average reader isn't going to use the "what links here" tool), but also, if someone were to use a non-neutral search term for whatever reason (for example, "hey, I've heard this term being batted around, what the heck are people talking about?"), we shouldn't keep them from reaching the information we have on the topic.
I agree that the Gaza Humanitarian Crisis article is a better target than Gaza Strip. However, barring the retarget, I would prefer keep over deletion. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, Lunamann, in your example, the person would not actually learn anything about the term and simply be redirected to a vaguely relevant article. You are certainly right that being useful is more important than neutrality when it comes to redirects, but the fact that the redirect has had exactly one view barring yesterday, having been around for about a month, does not help its case on that end either. Anonymous 18:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per Ca. BugGhost🪲👻 12:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skymont (microarchitecture)[edit]

Delete, deprecated, WP:CBALL, check the talk pages for the complete rationale Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – this redirect is definitely 'obsolete' as "Skymont" now officially refers to the E-core architecture used in Lunar Lake, see sources here: [4], [5], which is completely different to the Cannon Lake processor series. The "Skymont (microarchitecture)" redirect is especially misleading, as Cannon Lake is a microprocessor series, not a microarchitecture, which are two highly different things. Though, I should mention that this redirect doesn't need to be deleted per se for someone to create an article about the Skymont E-core architecture; you can just simply overwrite the redirect with an article. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 14[edit]

Partisan movement[edit]

Retarget to Partisan or Partisan (military). My impression is that "Partisan movement" is a generic concept that does not imply Yugoslavia. For example, it could refer to Italian partisans, among others. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but add a hatnote. Searches indicate that the current target is the clear primary topic for this term, but there should be a hatnote either to an existing dab page or a new specific one. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cat poison[edit]

There's no content about cat poisons in the article, and very little about toxicity of foods to cats in either this article or Cat food. There's a couple sentence stub in the article history, but I doubt it would survive AFD in its current form, so I think this can just be deleted, because I don't see a good retargeting option that I can think of. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could potentially redirect to Cat health#Toxic substances Traumnovelle (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just missed that. Redirect to Cat health#Toxic substances. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per Traumnovelle and Skarmory. Anyone looking for what might be poisonous to cats via searching "cat poison" would be well served by this new target. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per above, straightforward retarget. Ca talk to me! 05:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pkiro Wrokestling[edit]

This title is not a plausible error for "professional wrestling", to put it mildly. My searches for "Pkiro Wrokestling" didn't turn up any meaningful results, though weirdly a Facebook account mentions it.

However, it would appear that this redirect has "non-trivial page history". Its original content is identical to a past version of the main article (01:06, 12 April 2008). My guess is that the user who created it was upset that their "professional wrestling is fake" version of the article had been reverted and decided to surreptitiously create a fork by messing up with the title. Anyway, while I agree that pro wrestling is not a genuine sport, delete this redirect for being patently implausible and for not having page history worth preserving. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any substantial page history it has is, as noted, already preserved in the history of Professional wrestling. It's not a genuine sport because it's a theatre performance. Full-contact, no-holds barred, theatre. Calling it fake is like going to a stage play and calling Macbeth fake, like yeah, it is, but is that really the point?? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Temple Pilots (1994 album)[edit]

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

List of celebrities in The Simpsons[edit]

The title seems ambiguous over whether it should refer to guest stars in the series (in which case it would redirect to List of The Simpsons guest stars (seasons 21–present)) or in-universe fictional characters who are celebrities (the current purpose of the redirect). Xeroctic (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's CAF qualification[edit]

I call for a deletion of this title as it isn't/wasn't its proper name for it. Created by now-inactive user who was at first unsure about a proper titling of this article. Intrisit (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this is unambiguous it seems harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the redirect is in a standard form and therefore likely searchable. GiantSnowman 18:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GiantSnowman's response. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Megabucks (slot machine)[edit]

There is no mention of "Megabucks" at the target, meaning that this redirect is confusing or unnecessary. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Lim[edit]

This redirect should be deleted, as all it serves is to redirect the Singaporean Basketball player Kelvin Lim to the completely unrelated criminal Kelvin Lim Hock Hin. There is no relation mentioned anywhere online or on Kelvin Lim Hock Hin's page. JubaTuba (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a WP:PTM and nom clearly lays out how it could be harmful. I will note that unless someone makes an actual page for Kelvin Lim, this issue will still persist in a form-- the search results pulled up by searching Kelvin Lim will still likely have Kelvin Lim Hock Hin at the very top of the list due to it being a partial title match. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nom has not established notability of the basketball player. There's no case for REDLINK, since this is a valid alternate spelling of the name for the criminal. It is his "English name" in the Singaporean context. If the basketball player gets an article, then this can be revisited. -- (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for safety. If someone is named Kelvin Lim, it could be devastating if someone googled their name and got this page. This is a WP:BLP-adjacent issue. Fieari (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current target article's person is named "Kelvin Lim", it's right there in the infobox. Does that mean we need to delete all redirects to all criminals? Make criminal biographies impossible to find? What if there's some other person who is named "Kelvin Lim Hock Hin without an article somewhere in the world? Does that mean we need to hide this biography? There are many people in the world who share names with criminals. That's just life. People get harrassed at airports all the time because they have the same name as someone on the no-fly list. These incidents sometimes show up on local news. WP:NOTCENSORED Wikipedia is not censored. -- (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because practically there was no other person on a Wikipedia article with the same name by the way. But I still understand your reasons (all of them are valid) to nominate this for deletion or something, and I accept it even if the result is delete. Alternatively if in the future, another Kelvin Lim made his way into Wikipedia as another unrelated article, I suggest we can still revive the redirect to include the same Kelvin Lims into a sort of disambiguation page. --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 06:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Besides, I checked the Wikipedia and search on Google, but I did not find a Wikipedia page about the Singaporean basketball player who got the same name. --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person has an English given name "Kelvin" and a surname "Lim" and a Chinese given name "Hock Hin", thus this is a valid redirect from the "English name" rendering of his name "Kelvin Lim". It is a valid redirect. There is no other topic article on Wikipedia who uses this name. Alternately, disambiguate with Kelvin Lim Yong Sheng, a Singaporean field hockey player and silver medalist at the Field hockey at the 2007 SEA Games. Kelvin Lim Leong Keat, a sailor who won gold for Malaysia at the 2001 SEA Games, Kelvin Lim Kok Peng, a Singaporean zoologist, for which the species Tioman Island rock gecko (Cnemaspis limi) is named for. Kelvin Lim, the defence lawyer in the Orchard Towers double murders case and Koh Swee Beng case and Yishun triple murders and Murder of William Tiah Hung Wai case. Clearly the basketball player isn't more notable. -- (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this basketball player also called Kelvin Lim Hong Da / Hong Da Kelvin Lim / Kelvin Hong Da Lim / Lim Hong Da / Hong Da Lim ? [7][8]. Because, that should be the name of the basketball player's article then, and not just "Kelvin Lim" -- (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per and NelsonLee20042020. "Kelvin Lim" is a name that Kelvin Lim Hock Hin used - it's listed in "Other names" in the infobox, and he is referred to as just "Kelvin Lim" 5 times in the body of the article. Whether or not there's also a basketball player who has a similar name the redirect is valid and correct. If the basketball player ever becomes notable enough to get an article and it's also asserted that they are recognised by the name "Kelvin Lim", then maybe a disambiguation page can be created - but for now it's fine as-is. BugGhost🪲👻 11:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 13[edit]

Talk:COVID-19/Current consensus[edit]

Not a useful redirect Wow (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Useful page history. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rhododendrites. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restore and mark historical per Tavix and Steel below is a much better idea. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Until very recently the page looked like this, but I redirected it to preserve history (not sure if WP:MFD is better, but the ones sent there were never used IIRC), and then Wow sent it here. I redirected it because (1) it has not been transcluded at Talk:COVID-19 for quite some time (not sure when it was removed), and (2) all three points are clearly outdated. Point 1 mandates using text that is not used anymore, including the long-disproven claim that COVID-19 is not airborne. Point 2 is about not using the "current" template; this is obviously pointless now. Point 3 refers to a gif that appears nowhere in the present version of the article; it was clearly superseded at some point. All 3 points are from March and April 2020, hence over four years old. Crossroads -talk- 17:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a redirect is unwanted, how about just slapping a {{historical}} template on the page and call it a day? -- Tavix (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, restore and mark historical was my vote, but then the edit got lost with a real life interruption. Steel1943 (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and mark as Historical as per Tavix and Steel. Seems like a better method of preserving history while still making it clear that the points presented are outdated and unused. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh Guide Association[edit]

Bear with me. This was originally an article by the now-blocked editor User:Kintetsubuffalo, which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazakh Guide Association. After deletion it became a redirect to Scouting and Guiding in Kazakhstan, pretty much a disambiguation page with only one blue link, to Organization of the Scout Movement of Kazakhstan. That Scouting and Guiding in Kazakhstan would be a redirect to the Organization article is fair--but the rest of that content is just not of encyclopedic value, and the "Guide Association" material has only this as sourcing, a primary Girl Scout document which doesn't even mention the association. So I have turned Scouting and Guiding into a redirect (in three steps, explaining why), but this is not a valid search term/redirect. The very existence of the term is already questionable: Google offers nothing but things derived from Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this as per WP:REDLINK and WP:2R. Scouting and Guiding in Kazakhstan being pruned down to a redirect is valid; Kazakh Guide Association then becoming a redirect to Organization of the Scout Movement of Kazakhstan isn't, given they're presumably two different organizations. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


"Matriotism" not mentioned in target, let alone the British flavour. Matriotism itself redirects to Cindy Sheehan, where it is also not mentioned. This article claims she "founded a movement" called matriotism, but redirecting to her (American) article would not be appropriate for this redirect in any case.

Possibly Matriotism should be retargeted to Frances Payne Adler, the coiner of the term, and then British matriotism retargeted there as well? But that's a bit of a stretch. Overall, in favor of deletion of this redirect (and retargeting Matriotism). Rusalkii (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusalkii: I have taken the liberty of adding Matriotism to this nomination. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Adler's claim is dubious at best. See this 1894 publication. Perhaps wikt:matriotism (uncapitalized) is the way to go (for 'matriotism'), as it also lists 1894 as the origin. Matriot does not exist. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete British matriotism as we have no good target. Crosswiki Matriotism to wiktionary, which was a very interesting read actually; the diverse cited meanings and dates for those citations kinda tell a story in and of themselves! Fieari (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut butter burger[edit]

I cannot find any references referring to the target as such. However, on third party search engines, I did find recipes for burger sandwiches containing peanut butter and a ground beef patty, which is not what the target article is about. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. It's the Elvis sandwich. The article is about that. They sold peanut butter burgers at Sonic Drive-In for a while there. It was just a variant of the Elvis sandwich. Here is where the article discusses peanut butter burgers. Noah Tall (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about you but around here peanut butter burgers have nothing to do with Elvis. It's your standard burger, but you replace the sauce/mayonaise/condiments with peanut butter. E.g. [9] "PEANUT BUTTER BURGER: Fresh beef patty, peanut butter (on both buns), lettuce, tomato, onions, pickles, cheddar cheese, and bacon."
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure, Noah. Here's an article about the Sonic peanut butter burger, and it clearly has a ground beef patty and no bananas in sight. Also, the "discussion" in the article regarding peanut butter burgers is a single sentence, which could be easily removed from the article without breaking the flow of the article, only states that "burgers done Elvis style have become increasingly popular in the United States", and whose only source given is this recipe for an Elvis burger. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth mode of transport[edit]

No mention of modes of transport being numbered on the target page. the phrase "fourth mode of transport" doesn't appear to have a common specific referent, though there do seem to be four common modes of transport generally talked about. google gives lots of quizzes about "what are the four modes of transport", but they don't seem to have any particular canonical order. "Fourth mode of transport" has only 3 hits, all of which talk about adding a fourth mode to some existing network. Rusalkii (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague. I'm getting GSearch hits ranging from the hyperloop and mobility as a service to walking as the fourth mode of transport. --Lenticel (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep "4th mode" is a generic term to refer to a non-traditional form of transport that is supposedly to take the world by storm, and become the next regular transport mode. As such the target covers various modes of transport, so people should be able to look for some unusual or non-traditional form of transport from those listed at the target. -- (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unmentioned. If the IP is correct, and "fourth mode of transport" is a term for "the next great currently-nontraditional form of transport that WILL take the world by storm, I promise, don't look at all the failures before us", then this being redirected to Modes of transport is a bad idea-- someone searching for "fourth mode of transport" would be ill-served by being given an article about modes of transport in general, with zero information on the term in question. WP:REDLINKing would be better help-- inviting someone to write an article about, say, the history of the term, what forms of transport have attempted to use the term as their claim to fame, et cetera. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intruder alert[edit]

Well, giving this some thought, I do not think this is correct. The phrase is not mentioned in the target article, and most likely readers searching this term are intending to either find some topic related to Alarm or a quote from some media ... which the latter can be difficult to pinpoint since there is apparently a lot of media that reference an "intruder alert" either in context or a quote. Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

insert berzerk joke here per the discussion three entries below this one. also delete as too widespread for a primary topic but too unremarkable on its own for a disambig cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 20:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Worth noting that Intruder is a DAB page, and probably wouldn't be a good target for this redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby and Sapphire[edit]

it pains me to say this, but the pokémon games don't seem to be the primary topic for mentions of those two specific minerals together. torn on retargeting to garnet (steven universe) as she's a fusion of the characters known as ruby and sapphire, to the list of steven universe characters as it includes ruby and sapphire, or just deleting, but will lean towards retargeting to the list cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Dublin Bay North by-election[edit]

Under WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL. As Spleodrach said, this by-election may never happen. Until it does, we don't need a page for this, or for the other vacancies which may be confirmed by this evening. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intruder Alert! Intruder Alert![edit]

"intruder alert" currently redirects to trespasser. don't think this line is or can feasibly be primarily associated with berzerk quite like... all the other lines. google's results are confusing, but mostly seem to point to assorted movie lines and an achievement in a lego batman game. a little torn on voting for retargeting or deletion, but will lean towards retargeting cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A quote used in several media sources that would be improper to redirect to Trespasser since it's probably most famous as a quote. (Hmm ... I wonder if this quote is on Wikiquote ... haven't checked yet, not sure if I will.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Okay, so I searched Wikiquote, and this phrase appears in several places. Yeah, best to delete as vague. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    how confusing would it be if all those instances coincidentally happened to be references to berzerk? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking the same thing ... but then I would assume that the phrase was a notable topic, which means WP:REDYES would apply. I mean, our princess is in another castle! Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too vague for anything, search function would be most helpful here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 02:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical music[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article. The target article mentions used of technology, but the use of the word "technical" is not exclusive to technology. In addition, if the word "technical" is meant to refer to technology, then arguably the most technological-heavy music genre is Electronic music. Probably best to delete this vague redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as vague, as this could refer to techno, electronic music, literally any song more complex in structure or production than a nursery rhyme, and jazz cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cogsan sums it up well BugGhost🪲👻 16:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bienver metal[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what these redirects are meant to refer. Third party search engines do not seem to know what this means either ... given the top results I receive when looking up this phrase relate to Justin Bieber. Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP — Czello (music) 18:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nonsensical topic. Thanks,NeuropolTalk 18:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Telling google I really do mean "Bienver metal" when I put it in quotes finds only this redirect and derivatives. Thryduulf (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can confirm the above. I also checked out what "Bienver" on its own went to, and it seems this is a common name in some part of the world. My bet is that someone with this name, or a fan of someone with this name, wanted wikipedia to say that their name was synonymous with heavy metal. Fieari (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above editors' findings --Lenticel (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under the influence of alcohol[edit]

Unlikely search query Mondtaler (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 17:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Turbo[edit]

The Porsche Taycan 'Turbo' models don't actually have a turbocharger, it's just a namesake for a higher-performance model of a car. In that sense, it's kinda misleading. I did a google search, and 'electric turbo' doesn't seem to be a common nickname for the Taycan Turbo models either. Now, looking at retarget options, there does exist electric supercharger (I know technically there's no such thing as an "electric turbo" but that's what {{R from incorrect name}} is for), but having a look at that article, there also exists electrically-assisted turbocharger, so I'm not sure where to retarget it to. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 17:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate the term can also refer to electric-motor-assist power boost (ie. hybrid vehicle with electric assist drive mode, to add power to the gasoline engine's power output) as "turbo" can just refer to a power boost. -- (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


For some reason, the Hungarian name of a TV show was redirected there in 2007, without explanation. It's obviously unused, nor are other language names for the same TV show redirected, and there is practically no reader traffic. Diacriticless variants were created next year by bots as well. Joy (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conjunctival pallor[edit]

while this is a key symptom of anemia, this redirect does not lead to the actual topic, rather a cause of the symptom Thanks,NeuropolTalk 13:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Is there another disease that causes conjunctival pallor? –LaundryPizza03 (d) 14:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's only really observed in anemia, but this is because it is mostly looked for when diagnosing anemia. Thanks,NeuropolTalk 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anaemia isn't a disease, it's a symptom of many diseases. I am not aware of any condition that causes it aside from anaemia but I still see it as a bad redirect. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anagrams as establishment of priority[edit]

Scientists of the early modern period often encoded key discoveries as anagrams to establish priority before publication. These should all target Anagram#Establishment of priority, or they should all target the relevant topics they encode: Rings of Saturn#History for the first two, and Hooke's law for the latter. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 12:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 1 and 2, neutral 3** – This is fascinating. I think this article describes the anagram itself the best. It's not a particularly useful redirect, but you can imagine someone hiding this specific anagram as an easter egg in some work, in which case this redirect would serve very well. The third one is only explained in a note, which makes me more happy to delete. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused. You created Aaaaaaacccccdeeeeeghiiiiiiillllmmnnnnnnnnnooooppqrrstttttuuuuu only to immediately RfD it? Tercer (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing nom's thought process was, "Well, I made this redirect, but I'm not sure if it should point where Smaismrmilmepoetaleumibunenugttauiras points or if it should point analogously to where Ceiiinosssttuv points (which would be Rings of Saturn#History), so I'll just bundle my new redirect in with these two confused redirects as an RfD". 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the target seemed to be the biggest question. I think we should simply make the target wherever the nature of the anagram is best explained. Further needed wikilinks are there. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All should point to the Anagram article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget/keep all three to Anagram#Establishment of priority, where the purpose of these anagrams-- how they're constructed, what they mean, and why they were made- are discussed at length. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurt (Witt Lowry song)[edit]

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

June 12[edit]

Orange star[edit]

Retarget to K-type main-sequence star per WP:DIFFCAPS and WP:PTOPIC: the star type is far more important and has more long-term significance. Cremastra (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig. There is no clear primary topic on Wikipedia, with both current and proposed targets being in use alongside Multiple working#First-generation. On Google there is a clear primary topic but it's plants not any of the preceding. Looking closer there are at least three different types referred to an Aglaonema, Ornithogalum dubium and a Hosta cultivar. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to K-type main-sequence star Stellar classification#Class K per WP:DIFFCAPS and WP:PTOPIC. For the plant names above... if the google hits Thryduulf mentioned qualify as WP:RS, then the information should be added, and Orange Star (with the title case) should be made into the disambiguation page (and a hatnote on the K-type main-sequence star should link to it). However, without the title case, I don't think the plant names would really count here, and capitalization matters. This is reliant on the google hits being reliable sources, however. Currently, closest mention is that Ornithogalum dubium says it is sometimes called a "sun star", not an orange star. Fieari (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter whether uses of a term are in reliable sources or not, only that they are used. In the case of most of the hits I have no idea if they are reliable or not (it's not a topic area I'm familiar with) however the Royal Horticultural Society is definitely reliable. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was a matter of being a redirect directly to one of the flowers, I'd agree that a reliable source is not needed, just evidence of use... but for creating a user-facing disambiguation page, I'd think we do need a reliable source. (Please correct me if I'm wrong though, I try to be aware of wikipedia policy, but I don't know everything.) Certainly we'd need a reliable source to put it in the articles directly, and it would be flat-out weird to have a disambiguation page pointing to an article that didn't mention what the DAB says. Fieari (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left at note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening. Hopefully editors there will be able to assist, although it doesn't give the opinion of being very active. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if this redirect is retargeted, it should point to Stellar classification#Class K as {{R from avoided double redirect}}, because K-type star redirects there. Because the title of the redirect is 'Orange star' and not 'Orange main-sequence star' or 'Orange dwarf', this could also refer to subgiant, giant or supergiant stars, so it should not specifically target K-type main-sequence star and should go to K-type star (or in this case where K-type star redirects). InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point! I'll adjust my !vote above. Fieari (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I watch at the horticulture and gardening project, and I came here from Thryduulf's note. My impression is that the plant names, as common names, are not as useful as search terms as the Latin binomials, so I would go with retargeting the redirect according to the astronomy nomenclature, whatever that may be. It might be fairly common to refer to the Ornithogalum that way, but I think it would be somewhat atypical for Aglaonema, and downright bizarre for Hosta. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, with Orangestar, and with a see also section for at least Orange knobby star, Orange Rising Star Award, Orange sun star, and Orange County Blue Star. BD2412 T 20:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Lawrence[edit]

Per the page view comparison of the current target, the nominated redirect, and Doug Lawrence (jazz) (which I have since moved to Doug Lawrence (musician), which is now included in the page view analysis), it really does not seem as though readers searching "Doug Lawrence" are intending to locate Mr. Lawrence. I'd recommend disambiguate since it is not clear that readers are looking for the jazz musician either. Steel1943 (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French-speakers outside of Quebec[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The redirect has a different target than it had during the RFD in 2019, but still has the same problem: The redirect is not exclusive to Canada as there are French speakers around the world, like in ... France and Louisiana, neither part of Canada. Steel1943 (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Canadian French, "Francophones hors Québec" refers specifically to French speakers that live in a Canadian province or territory that is not Quebec.[10] It does not apply to those living in other countries. That being said, this is en.wiki, and I don't know if English-language sources use "French-speakers outside of Quebec" in this sense. 162 etc. (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnarock music[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving it unclear what this redirect is meant to refer or identify. The closest subject I could find for this title is Ragnarock, but given that is an article about a record label whereas this redirect has seemingly always targeted a page about music genres, I do not believe readers would be trying to find the record label when searching the redirect's title. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ragnarok (disambiguation)#Music as per Nurg, seems like the most useful target BugGhost🪲👻 11:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Beetlejuice sequel[edit]

Delete per WP:UFILM. The target subject no longer untitled, and the article was moved to its current title in February 2024, 4 months ago, which is greater than WP:UFILM's 30-day minimum. Steel1943 (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Once again the point of UFILM is not that we wait exactly 30 days, but that we wait until the redirects have ceased being useful (30 days being the bottom end of the typical range of time when that occurs). In this case it's still being used on more days that it isn't indicating that the redirect still holds value and the nomination is premature. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    <1 pageview average over the last 30 days seems like its utility has been passed now. And 4 months = 4 * 30 days, which is well over the minimum time established. Steel1943 (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See also my reply above regarding page views. 12 views in 30 days is closer to minimal than the 27 you are claiming above, but double figure views spread pretty evenly through the 30 days strongly indicate utility. That it's been longer than the minimum time means nothing other than it's been longer than the minimum time, as I explained in the comment you are replying to (did you read it?). There is no maximum time - if it's useful (which the evidence shows it still is) then it should be kept, regardless of how long it's been. Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for validating that my page view claim contains factual information. Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GSK (talkedits) 18:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. I see no valid reason for deleting and "someone finds them useful" is good enough for WP:R#KEEP. Delete it once the film is released or another is in production, when the redirect might cause confusion with the next film. Daask (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding revisiting this when "...another is in production...": That means this redirect should exist for an estimated average of almost 40 years!? I may no longer be able to care by then for multiple reasons. Steel1943 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible search term.★Trekker (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence shows otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UFILM, no longer untitled post 30 days. -- Tavix (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Thryduulf's "it's useful to someone" argument, which is a valid keep reason. Fieari (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


A quick explainer on the history of this redirect: Initially, Raisi had been a redirect to Raisi, Razavi Khorasan (an article about a tiny village). Later on, I moved the article to its present title, intending to disambiguate the base title. However, I then noticed that Raisi (disambiguation) already existed, so I made a request at WP:RM/TR, which was promptly fulfilled. Thus, Raisi became a dab page, with Raisi (disambiguation) a redirect to it. In the last chapter of this saga, IP user 2601:646:8003:6B20:894E:7841:319C:88CA redirected the page to Ebrahim Raisi, so the page Raisi (disambiguation) was automatically retargeted as well. However, since it has (disambiguation) in the title, it's eligible for deletion under G14 if kept as is.

I see two (or maybe three) options out of this strange pickle:

  • Firstly (and what I advocate), we could restore the dab page at Raisi, and retarget Raisi (disambiguation) to Raisi. This restores the previous status quo.
  • Secondly, we could have Raisi as a redirect to Ebrahim Raisi, and Raisi (disambiguation) be the dab page. I have at least two issues with this: firstly, that Ebrahim Raisi might not pass ten year test, despite his newfound fame due to his death. Plus, here's also the technical history of attribution when dabbing Raisi (disambiguation). However, if there's enough support for it, I could see this work.
  • Thirdly, and the option I'd oppose the most, we keep Raisi, speedy delete Raisi (disambiguation), and handle disambiguation via some sort of massive hatnote(s) on the article Ebrahim Raisi. The reason I'd oppose this so much is because the hatnote(s) would have to be enormous - the previous dab page had ten entries, plus one see also.

Anyways, yeah, this is complicated.

Duckmather (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1: Restore Raisi as a disambiguation page. Ibrahim Raisi was not primarily known by that name, so WP:DABPARTIAL applies. --Ahecht (TALK
23:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think option 2 is best. The late president is certainly the primary topic here and most likely was even before his death. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2, even if the president doesn't hold that much power compared to the Supreme Leader, he is still the primary topic here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the hatnote on top of the village article is actually correct, and there is substantial ambiguity about what a toponym of "Raisi" means in Iran, we should keep a disambiguation list. The location of the list, whether at the base name or separately, depends on whether the average English reader strongly associates the term with the person. It looks like we already have articles about Heshmat Raisi and Ahmed Naser Al-Raisi, so this word is not uncommon in anthroponymy. I'd err on the side of caution and put disambiguation at the base name, and observe traffic patterns for a few months afterwards. If we see that the preponderance of readers go for the single person, then we go for the redirect. Because of the recent death of the proposed primary topic, there's obvious WP:Recentism here. --Joy (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just noticed that old content of the Raisi disambiguation page lists even more people, and has for a couple of years before this recent incident. [11] had no edit summary whatsoever and should have been reverted first. --Joy (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholid Diocese of Down and Connor[edit]

Unlikely misspelling of "Catholic" not commonly found in the world, or in comparable redirects to any other of thousands of diocese with articles in Wikipedia. BD2412 T 23:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Catholid is a common variant of Catholic. [12][13][14] Ca talk to me! 23:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ca: Is it really a "variant", or just a scanno/typo (e.g., [15])? Whatever it is, it's certainly not "common". For example, Newspapers.com gets about 70 million hits for "Catholic" and 11,000 for "Catholid", but almost all of those are immediately apparent as scannos. BD2412 T 01:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point. The examples I cited appear to be errors. However, I think it is still a realistic misspelling since it can be also viewed as a missapplication of the suffix -id. Ca talk to me! 13:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize this is a bit of stretch, so I am crossing out my earlier keep; weak delete. Ca talk to me! 14:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- unlikely typo, and per WP:PANDORA. (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this is a single-character typo that is literally right next to the 'correct' letter on the keyboard and thus satisfies the test of WP:RTYPO. In addition, WP:PANDORA should not be used; see User:Lunamann/Please, put Pandora back in the box. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How can it be figuratively right next to the correct letter instead? In any case, this article title has 35 letters on it. A typical letter on a QWERTY keyboard has on average, roughly 5 adjacent other symbols (not including the space bar here). That means that there are about 2910383045673370361328125 possible one-letter-off typos for this article title alone. This one only exists because someone happened to make it when creating the article before it got moved, leaving a redirect in its wake. It's thus not a useful redirect. And RTYPO even says "This page describes some past practices; it does not prescribe mandates for the future." There's no real need to keep this; it just pollutes article space and the search bar. (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How can it be figuratively right next to the correct letter instead?
    2910383045673370361328125 of possible one-letter-off typos for this article title alone
    This is irrelevant as per WP:OTHERSTUFF; pointing out how many "similar redirects" can be made does not and cannot be a measure of how useful a redirect is. (This is also simply a restated WP:PANDORA argument, so User:Lunamann/Please, put Pandora back in the box still applies.)
    RTYPO even says ""This page describes some past practices; it does not prescribe mandates for the future.""
    It's still what I feel to be the most relevant test we have considering the only thing wrong with this redirect is that it is a single letter off. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the IP. When you have this long of a title, a single-character typo becomes less useful, especially for something where you switch hands from the previous character (OLI are on the right hand, and then you switch to left for C/D). It's not like United Stated, where the error is at the end of nine letters all typed by the same hand, and thus more likely to make. It's also not like "Cath0lic", where the characters are both adjacent and somewhat similar in appearance. Also, because it's so much longer, probably many people visiting this article will copy/paste the title from somewhere else, unlike my contrary examples, which are short enough that almost everyone would just type them. Finally, check the dictionary for "literally"; it contrasts with "figuratively", which wouldn't make sense here, so you didn't need "literally" at all. Nyttend (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a turn of phrase, idk why y'all are getting so hung up on my use of the word 'literally' x3 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That same dictionary also lists "literally" as a synonym of "really", or "actually". The word literally helps to place emphasis on one's words. Ca talk to me! 16:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Plausible typo as demonstrated by Ca above, which makes it a valid redirect. I likewise reject pandora arguments, as redirects are WP:CHEAP. The questions should be "Is this ambiguous? Is it harmful? Will it cause confusion? Is it implausible?" and the answer is no to all. Fieari (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IRC +10414[edit]

Procedural listing; a previous RfD was closed with a consensus to retarget, but InTheAstronomy32 has reverted this. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a misspelling. I changed the redirect target because i believe that 'IRC +10414' is a misspelling of IRC -10414 and is the better redirect target so far. An article about this star likely will be never created due to notability issues. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Two-Micron Sky Survey per previous RFD. IRC +10414 refers to this star, not IRC -10414, which is this star. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was never an article, and it isn't mentioned at either target. No pageviews in the last month. I really don't see how this redirect is helpful. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed with Presidentman here and Kusma from the prefious RfD, but I'd like to add that the naming scheme of the star is very intentional (from Two-Micron Sky Survey: index consists of two numbers - declination rounded to multiplier of 10 degrees, with sign, and star ordinal number within declination band) and if you typo the sign you should expect to be taken to a different star or nowhere. ― Synpath 23:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per the consensus of arguments in the previous RfD, which I find more compelling than the alternatives. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not mentioned at Two-Micron Sky Survey, and people looking for the other star and making the typo might believe that the star actually doesn't have a standalone article, while a red link can be more indicative of them having made a typo. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it isn't a usable misspelling since it is a different star. That star is not currently in Wikipedia. so either stub up an article, or delete the redirect -- (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An article about IRC +10414 is likely to be never created, it is just a faint Mira variable that fails WP:NASTRO. Deleting also would not be helpful, it is better to retain this page as a redirect to IRC -10414 since it is a plausible misspelling. 21 Andromedae (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metal (group)[edit]

Could also refer to subtopics of Chemical element or Periodic table. However, I'm thinking the best course of action is delete since I do not believe retargeting this redirect to Metal (disambiguation) is a feasible resolution since there doesn't seem to be sufficient entries there that relate to this redirect, and I'm not sure if they belong there either. Steel1943 (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I...probably agree? I'm not entirely sure what this redirect is supposed to be alluding to. Do they mean "metal group" in the same way you'd allude to a heavy metal music band as a "metal band"? If that's the case, the disambiguation of it makes no sense. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Revising to Delete. As mentioned below, it looks like this was simply a WP:BLAR that was a quick-fix for eliminating a bogus article many years ago. Sergecross73 msg me Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like the page started as a joke article. It's too ambiguous to be redirecting anywhere. Nurg (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are too many interpretations for Metal (group). They could be looking for a specific metallic group in the periodic table (such as Alkali metal aka Group 1 element), or under the misconception that metals are themselves a group in the periodic table. They may be looking for heavy metal bands in general, or for a specific band called "Metal" that does not have an article yet. To vague to have a redirect to anywhere specific BugGhost🪲👻 11:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ambiguous, especially due to the unique relationship this word has with 'group' in varying contexts. No good section at Metal (disambiguation) either. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: For what it's worth, the only band named just "Metal" (and not "metal" plus other words) is from Australia, they started in 2006, released an album in 2013, and... that it. It's even unclear if they're still active or not. In any case, they will likely not pass the threshold of notability. It may have also meant "Group (metal)", as in "heavy metal band" ("Grupo" is sometimes used in Spanish to talk about rock bands, but although that word translates to English as "group", that specific meaning does not). If that was the idea, it was so badly written that it is useless as a redirect. Cambalachero (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


A redirect in Hindi language, I don't think anyone is going to search Baalveer in hindi on English Wikipedia. M S Hassan (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom's rationale. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is the Hindi name for a Hindi television series, so there is sufficient affinity that this is not a straightforward WP:RFOREIGN case. Whether it useful though, I'm undecided. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is definitely a useful redirect. I don't see any reason to delete it. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is unambigous and directs readers to the correct location. Many people use Wikipedia in Hindi-speaking countries. They may have forgotten the correct romanization in English. Ca talk to me! 12:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ca Baalveer is a simple name and easy to remember in its romanized form. Given its straightforward transliteration, it's unlikely that users will forget its English spelling. Additionally, this article exists on Hindi Wikipedia, which caters to users searching in Hindi script. Therefore, maintaining a Hindi script redirect on the English Wikipedia seems redundant and unnecessary. M S Hassan (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    wp:rlang says it's fine if something is notable in and/or originates from any given language are fine to keep so for example, "brasil" is a perfectly usable redirect to brazil, as that's its name in whatever language brazil uses, but Брази́лия wouldn't be as fine, since it's in a completely unrelated language (in this case, russian). so keep per that cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Michael Aarons[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete (G6) as unambiguously created in error

Bible Videos[edit]

List of films of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Bible Videos doesn't seem like the appropriate target for such a broadly-named redirect. ~Awilley (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguate. keeping would feel like if "music video" redirected to iosys, or if "fast food" redirected to mcdonald's. there's really no point in redirecting a basic concept like this to a single entity cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 02:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify as per Thryduulf. While it's true that Google points to the LDS as "primary", that's something I find baffling-- Surely at the very least Veggietales or The Prince of Egypt or any number of other mainstream, more-generally-Christian videos and films would be primary over the Mormon videos. The lists Thryduulf grabbed have links to those films and more. Good work! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 11[edit]

Rich young man[edit]

This phrase is rather generic, and is at least ambiguous with the concept of the Trust Fund Baby. BD2412 T 13:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm a little surprised at myself on this one, but a simple search (I know, not the best indicator, but still) gave me pages and pages of nothing but the bible thing, although often as "rich young ruler" instead of "man". I'm not convinced that anyone looking for Trust fund baby is likely to use this particular phrase, as that's a pretty stock term itself. Maybe Richie Rich instead, but that's reaching :). (Side note, it looks like even that doesn't exist, but that the all caps version was originally a redirect to a boy band that recorded a song of this name, and not probably especially useful otherwise.) (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with hatnote: Rich young man redirects here. See also Trust Fund Baby. or something like that. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's kind of neither here nor there for this particular discussion, but I'd oppose a hatnote per my reasoning above. Not only that, but I think Trust Fund Baby should be G6ed in favor of Trust Fund Baby (song), making the hatnote moot anyway (leave a hatnote there for the law article if you want). Especially in light of WP:DIFFCAPS, and given that it's hard to imagine anyone would use this term looking for the other. (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Keep with hatnote: I made this redirect as I had often heard that passage referred to that way (without "Jesus and the"), and I figured some others would have the same. I think I was searching on Wikipedia and was surprised no page for this person existed. I have only really heard the term "Rich Young Man" used for the story of Jesus (off-Wikipedia, I am a Theology professor, so my experience may not be universal). User:Lunamann's suggestion of a hatnote seems fine in case someone became confused searching for "Trust Fund Baby" using "Rich Young Man." >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 21:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trust Fund Baby is just a handy stand-in redirect at the moment. There are many rich young men, whether by inheritance or other means (e.g., Justin Bieber types, or even child actor). I would not be averse to a hatnote, but I feel like there must be a better solution for pointing readers to other kinds of people who are young, wealthy, and male. BD2412 T 23:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but with hatnote pointing to Trust Fund Baby per above --Lenticel (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though consensus for keeping has formed, it's still not entirely clear if a hatnote should be added to the current target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above, this is the WP:PTOPIC by a landslide. But, on that note, I don't really see a need for a hatnote on this one. The primary topic is such a primary topic that it is excessively doubtful anyone searching it is looking for anything else. (Feel free to disagree with me, but you asked for people to weigh in, so...) Fieari (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes sense. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 18:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no hatnote. No one looking for Trust (law)#Beneficiaries (which is where Trust Fund Baby lands) will reasonably be trying to get there by searching "Rich young man". Someone being a rich young man has no direct implications a trust is involved at all. BugGhost🪲👻 10:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 United Kingdom general election[edit]

Redirect was originally set up as a redirect to Next United Kingdom general election at a time when it could have been held in either 2024 or 2025. Now that it has been announced that the next election will be held in 2024 and with the United Kingdom having five year terms, it is very unlikely there will be a 2025 election. Propose deleting. Broanetar (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. 2025 is not 2024. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Wikishovel (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of United Kingdom general elections#21st century. There was much speculation in reliable sources that the election would be in 2025, so it's not an implausible search term. However there isn't any real discussion of this in the article so that isn't a good target. If we take people to the list of elections then they can find whichever one it is that they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Cremastra (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget agree with Thryduulf, not unreasonable to assume people will search for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwinnspeed (talkcontribs) 06:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf, deleting it doesn't really make sense, anyone ending up there either made a typo or is looking for the 2024 general election. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current target discusses that the date was potentially to be in 2025. Oppose retarget to List of United Kingdom general elections#21st century, that list does not contain any information about a 2025 general election. Is there any actual confusion with another election? The table ends at 2024... -- Tavix (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now - there's been headlines that mention a 2025 UK election, such as: [16], [17], [18], but they are all referencing same topic of the 2024 election, just with a different/questioning date of it arriving. It's reasonable to think there are people who believe it's happening in 2025. After the election has happened, I would fully support deleting the redirect but for now while there's still potential confusion, the redirect should stay. Agreeing with Tavix re: the List of United Kingdom general elections#21st century redirect, it's unlikely the searcher wants information about any other election. BugGhost🪲👻 09:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not mentioned in the target. Mia Mahey (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:REDLINK. From what I can tell, this is some sort of annual year-end sales event from the company. Sources can be found as to its existence (including Forbes); that being said, we don't currently have any information concerning this event in our Toyota article; nor has there been information on it since the June 2007 creation of this redirect. The fact that the name "Toyotathon" contains the name "Toyota" severely cuts the plausibility of someone searching "Toyotathon" and being happy with information on Toyota at large-- if they wanted information on Toyota at large, they'd search for Toyota. No, if they search "Toyotathon", they want information about that event, info we don't have. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnotable marketing WP:SEO. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lunamann. It is definitely marketing but I have no opinion whether it's notable or non-notable, but while we have no information on it the redirect is misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - They've been using the slogan since the 1980s so it's a bit difficult to see as trivial for the subject. Certainly not advocating assisting them in their marketing efforts, but a pretty simple, neutral "The company has used an ad slogan called 'Toyotathon'" could be done pretty easily if anyone is interested in saving the redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 01:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Evacuation Day[edit]

Not mentioned at target article. Only appears in the article for June 11 which is not a date listed anywhere in the target article. DrowssapSMM 20:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created this redirect as a replacement for the piped link [[Public holidays in Libya|American Evacuation Day]] in June 11.However, if there's no evidence that this day exists as a public holiday, I'm happy for it to be deleted. (And if so, the link in July 11 should be removed too.) Colonies Chris (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are lots of sites that list "American Evacuation Day" as a public holiday on 11 June, but nothing that stands out as definitely reliable and independent of Wikipedia. This Indian Express article could be used to verify that it is (or at least was) a public holiday but doesn't give a date. It isn't listed at [19] but it's unclear whether that is a complete list or just ones of relevance to the Aviation authority. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Stand Off[edit]

This is not mentioned in the target article. Third party searches are not really helping matters to identify what subject these redirects are meant to refer either. On one hand, searching "The Stand Off Netflix" on some third party search engines returns results for miniseries Waco: American Apocalypse; however, I was not able to find any information stating that miniseries was known previously as "The Stand Off". In addition, there is also the subject at Standoff (film), made in 2016 ... but, there is also a different film which we apparently do not have an article for, which was also made in 2016, called "The Standoff" [20] starring Olivia Holt. Probably best to delete these unless a strong connection can be made between these redirects and at least one of the aforementioned subjects (or one that has yet to be created.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further research, seems the subject of these redirects is not the miniseries Waco: American Apocalypse. According to an article written a few years back [21], apparently, the subject is about a screenplay (probably intended to become a film) written by Mark Heyman, but in that article, there is no mention of a subject by the name of the nominated redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to the dab at Standoff where two films are listed. "Stand off" is obviously a very plausible search term for most things listed at the dab page, "Stand Off" equally so for at least the media productions and the Canadian community. Similarly "The Stand Off" and "The Standoff" are both completely plausible search terms for the other, but what about for things without the definite article? My gut feeling is that it's not impossible for someone to misremember the name of the media productions, but I'm not familiar with any of them hence the "weak". Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Model (film)[edit]

Yet another potentially failed WP:CRYSTAL. Per third party search engines, seems as though Netflix bought the rights to produce a film based on the short story Mika Model around 2019, but then after that news ... nothing else really since on third party search engines. In addition, Mika Model is currently a redirects towards Paolo Bacigalupi, the author of the short story; However, the only mention of "Mika Model" on Paolo Bacigalupi is mentioning the short story exists, not even identifying what the short story is about, and there is no mention of a film by the name "Mika Model" there either. Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi from Rio (film)[edit]

Delete per result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Mimi from Rio. (Unfortunately, I just noticed the existence of this redirect; if I had noticed it back then, I would have bundled with the previous discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Business[edit]

Besides the target section not existing, this does not seem like a plausible synonymous phrase for the target article's subject. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, there seems to be a mention of a television series named Lady Business which ran in either 2012 or 2013, a fanzine named Lady Business, an episode of Nurses (Canadian TV series), and reversing the words results in a band named Business Lady; however, the TV series and the fanzine do not have articles, and the band's name is the words reversed. Steel1943 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryland Adams[edit]

Following the relevant AfD discussion that was closed with a decision to Delete the Ryland Adams article, and rejecting the motion to create a Merge or Redirect link instead, a Redirect was nonetheless created, in direct violation of the decision. The Gnome (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reading the discussion, while the ultimate result was outright deletion, nobody really made any headway towards actually refuting the idea of merging, and nobody brought up the idea of turning it into a redirect to existing material whatsoever. Either way, once such a deletion takes place, there's really nothing stopping someone from making a new article or redirect unless the thing gets salted, and equally, nothing but page protection can stop someone from grabbing text that used to be on a deleted page and adding it to another article as a posthumous "merge" (besides, well, how easy it is to GET said info)-- and not only should we only reach for the protection tools if a pattern develops of disruptive editing at a specific title/article, but also, said protection tools don't ever guarantee that something is locked in stone for all eternity, as someone can still always argue for a change somewhere.
As for the actual redirect itself, it redirects to the current place on Wikipedia that we have information on the subject. I'd say it's a good redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are essentially re-judgint a discussion closed with an explicit reasoning. The closer did not bother with any alternative suggestions made, and they did not have to. A closure that does not address any and all suggestions made does not mean that contributors can use that as an excuse to bypass the decision. We might as well ignore all decisions outright. As to what might happen if the decision remains implemented, we cannot proceed under criteria of fear. We have adequate measures in place to address and confront miscreants. As to "arguments," we can only say, bring them on, by all means. -The Gnome (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I... what!?!?
  • re-judging a discussion closed with an explicit reasoning
user:Liz closed this with simply "The result was Delete." There was no followup comment whatsoever-- no "We should also salt this", no "Don't make a redirect/merge", no "Don't recreate the article even if you find good sources", nothing. This can, and should, simply be interpreted as, "The article in its current state should not be on Wikipedia. If someone would like to take the resulting WP:REDLINK and do something else with it, feel free." That is a normal, valid method of interpreting an AfD result like this.
  • We might as well ignore all decisions outright.
Oh no, feel free to do that. Decisions should never be flat ignored. However, that doesn't mean that they should be given more weight than necessary. The article as it stood was deleted. It's not here anymore. The "article" currently in its place is just a redirect.
  • As to what might happen if the decision remains implemented,...
...that's why we're here, this is a redirect in RFD--
  • ...we cannot proceed under criteria of fear. We have adequate measures in place to address and confront miscreants.
--And here's where you lose me entirely. Fear!? Miscreants?!?! Who the heck is holding a gun up to your head!?? This is just a redirect! ( 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Note that the connection to the Target Article is simply a personal relationship between the two individuals one decidedly non-notable; a tenuous reason for keeping a name extant in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The AfD discussion did not "reject the motion to create a merge or redirect" it concluded to delete without any significant discussion of either - indeed the only comment that mentioned either option was supportive. There was a consensus that there should shouldn't be a standalone article about this person, but we can and do have content about him on another article so we and readers gain by making it easy for that to find. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) typo fixed Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where was this consensus to have a stand-alone article on "Ryland Adams"? And since when suggestions in an AfD have independent importance after they have been implicitly yet clearly rejected? We witness every day AfD's whereby the decision favors a minority of suggestions, due to their quality and/or policy-based arguments. We completely ignore the implicitly rejected suggestions. A closer is not obliged to go through every suggestion, lest they otherwise gain in substance. -The Gnome (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure that was a typo on Thryduulf's part (should -> shouldn't). I've done that before when typing too fast. Fieari (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was indeed a typo, thanks for point it out. I've now corrected it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A delete consensus on AfD does not preclude creating a redirect to information we have on the named subject, nor does it preclude recreating the article with proper reliable sources and/or fixing whatever flaws the original deleted article had. It does preclude recreating the article verbatim as it was, or with only minor non-substantial changes. Recreating the article as a redirect only is a substantial change, and again.... we have information on the subject! It's in the target article! This is a perfectly valid redirect! Fieari (talk) 03:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


article about Iran village (not a city like said!) called Gahru even doesn't mention "Kahru". And Kahru to be reserved to Estonian village Kahru, Rõuge Parish Estopedist1 (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget according to nom. None of the Romanization of Persian mixes up the letters <k> and <g> for the same sound. Ca talk to me! 11:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valinor Hills Station[edit]