Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 13, 2023.

Fifth Arab–Israeli War[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 21#Fifth Arab–Israeli War

M2102J20SG (vayu)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 21#M2102J20SG (vayu)

Tupinology[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 20#Tupinology

209 Woodland Drive[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A street address by itself is too vague to be a useful search term and too vague for a redirect to one single article. Drdpw (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Why would it be too vague? Are there other notable properties with this address? This was the article title for a couple years, from creation until just last month. -- Tavix (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is common practice to keep former titles as redirects. Especially long-term former titles. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The only mention of said address on wikipedia is in reference to the Carter family. TartarTorte 23:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. The address name may be very common, but it is quite clearly well-associated with this property; the first results for "209 Woodland Drive" in Google are all sources that mention this house. Regardless, there are no mentions of a 209 Woodland Drive on Wikipedia that do not refer to this home. It also seems like a much more likely search term and wikilinking shorthand than typing out "Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter House". ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 03:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw proposed deletion; clearly this is a useful redirect that ought not be deleted. Drdpw (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Monument station (MBTA)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate Pond Street, delete the rest. ✗plicit 14:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of a Monument station at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted as a bundle with:

and with these variations:

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of apparent mention anywhere. A couple of unreliable (user generated) sources indicate that the station was located at Monument Square in Jamaica Plain, but it it isn't mentioned there. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discuss as a group. This redirect was the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bynner Street station, and all of those redirects should be discussed together. It was an odd situation where the stop names only ever appeared on a single map showing a planned restoration of service (which never happened), and it's unclear whether the same stops were used when the service previously ran. It's tricky because the map is still floating around, making these plausible search terms, but they're unlikely to appear in the article. I'm ambivalent whether the redirects are kept or deleted, but it should be consistent for all of them. If the decision is delete, note also that most of the redirects have several variants that can be found at Special:WhatLinksHere/Green Line E branch. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pi.1415926535: Are you up for making a nomination for all the redirects together? In which case you may close this as an involved close, and make the new nomination. Also pinging Shhhnotsoloud in case he wants to take this up, either by enhancing the current nomination and bundling, or as a new one. Jay 💬 02:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay: I don't have strong feelings either way, as I indicated above, so I might not be the best person to start the discussion. I can provide a list of all the relevant redirects if someone else wants to start the discussion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisted so that other redirects can be bundled, in accordance with editors' advice above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Two-dimensional space[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was improper nomination. WP:RFD is not a board for notifications regarding discussions occurring on WikiProject talk pages. It also is unhelpful to promote the potential for discussion to occur at two different venues per WP:DISCUSSFORK, even though the nominator clearly stated that was not their intent: Opening a discussion on any WP:XFD forum is literally opening a new discussion by their very nature. In addition, it's not clear if listing this on WP:RFD promoted any additional discussion due to readers seeing the nomination. If there is a determination that WP:RFD will be the only place to discuss this redirect, the redirect can be renominated without prejudice. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formalizing ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Disambiguation_of_Two-dimensional_space. Please discuss it there, not here -- thanks! (Clarifying the nomination is for redirect "Two-dimensional space" to be retargetted to dab page Two-dimensional space (disambiguation).) fgnievinski (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Endemic flower of Azerbaijan- Khari-bulbul[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the plant is not endemic to Azerbaijan and there is already a redirect at the vernacular name Khari-bulbul. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Samsung Galaxy A22[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

deletion to replace it with an actual article about the said phone — Preceding unsigned comment added by RM12 (talk • contribs)

  • @RM12: You can just write an article (there's no need to delete it here). Blank the page, and go ahead. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I moreso think the nominator wants there to be a WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. The nominator does not have article writing experience. -- Tavix (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

PESO Model™[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is going to type in PESO Model superscript TM Tagishsimon (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tagishsimon Agree. Mcrumbine (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: This is an {{R from move}}, but the article was at this title for 5 minutes: move 1, move 2. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 10:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Anyone searching for the model is likely to type the name and will get a search result before they go for the TM character. Plus common usage is without the trademark symbol (except, of course, on its creator's website). Oblivy (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. The page move was less than a month ago and was only there for ~5 minutes. I don't love tagging pages with a CSD template while an XfD is underway but I think it'd be fine. Per nom and the page mover. Skynxnex (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC) 14:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • What criterion do you think this matches? It certainly isn't R3 as while this may or may not be useful it isn't implausible. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I was thinking WP:G6/Db-error since the person who moved the page moved it 5 minutes later and if at that time they had tagged it with that, my impression is that an admin would delete it. Skynxnex (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If the person moving the page had tagged it for G6, then it would likely have been deleted, as it would be unquestionably a mistake. However the edit summaries do not unambiguously support it being moved to this title in error. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, yes, I can see that looking again. I'll amend my !vote to delete, partly since the original page mover agrees with the nom and I don't think we really want redirects with ™ to proliferate as a general rule. Skynxnex (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Libry[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 05:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mm... unsure about this one. I can imagine that library is definitely a tricky word to spell, and unlike "hoard", typos I can see being common and therefore it would be good to account for those.

...but out of all of those, libry? I feel like anyone familiar with the word could at least get a bit more letters than that. At this point, it can be argued that "Libry" is closer in size, letters, AND sound to Lbry instead of Library. For such a short word, missing two of the 7 letters is dooming to reach a longer target. (If two letters off of a 12 letter word, that's more understandable and forgiving.) Utopes (talk / cont) 07:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to LBRY, "Libry" sounds more similar to LBRY than Library. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to LBRY per SouthParkFan2006 --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete potential misspelling of multiple things (e.g. libri in addition to everything else mentioned); correct spelling of nothing notable. Showing search results also means that the Wiktionary entry appears in the sidebar, so searchers can find the correct spelling of the word library if needed. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since this is evidently ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:XY typo. I'll also throw in Libru as being easily typo'd with y being next to u on a standard QWERTY keyboard, even though it's quite unlikely given the amount of views it gets. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Skarmory. 141Pr {contribs} 16:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to LBRY. Even though LBRY is based on libraries it seems a more sensible target than a misspelling. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Poopposting[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. The nomination itself is mostly reasonable, but the "Delete" comments have either been refuted or made vague "per above" references. (non-admin closure) Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to this page undiscussed for 30 minutes before quickly reverting back. While it may make sense to equate "shit" to "poop" in the title as equal words, there is no indication that "poopposting" is a real phrase and not made up one day through means of social media tags alone. Wikipedia is not censored, yet I have a hard time that believing if it WAS, people still wouldn't be using this made-up phrase that appears nowhere in this article (or much anywhere on the internet for that matter) to get to the target they intend. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • support deletion per "who calls it that?" cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 11:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, term doesn't exist. Not even Wiktionary has an entry on "Poopposting". SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a real word. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Toadette (Happy holiday!) 18:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Strong) Keep as harmless. Some people might expect Wikipedia to be censored. Or they might habitually censor themselves. Regardless, it is an innocent {{r from incorrect name}}. Cremastra (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm the one who undid the move by User:Silencelikeacancergrows, and I warned them for having made it. The redirect is a result of vandalism and should be deleted. Meters (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cremastra; I don't think any of the other commenters here bothered to do their homework. It's pretty standard these days to self-censor on many websites because of aggressive algorithmic censorship, and just plain old harassment; c.f. seggs, unalive ([1]), and so on. Just substituting letters with similar characters in your swear words doesn't cut it any more, and some very popular websites are known for banning and/or removing accounts for single infractions. Wikipedia doesn't of course, it's patently absurd, but I understand why someone would not want to take the chance. Replacing "shit" with "poop" , or doing so intentionally because of the aforementioned censorship, is absolutely a plausible "error", and while the move shouldn't have been done without discussion it was a long way from vandalism. See also Urban Dictionary and Reddit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. While the redirect itself may not be vandalism, moving the original article to the virtually unknown term "shitposting" was indeed an unconstructive edit. Meters (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And I fundamentally disagree with you. It was ill-advised but there is a world of difference between being a bit too WP:BOLD and vandalism. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The circumstances under which the redirect were created, as Skarmory said below, don't matter. Cremastra (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector. In addition to their excellent comment, someone may see the term on a website that does censor and look it up here wanting to know what it is. Such a person may or may not be familiar with shitposting either as a thing or as a term. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Team room[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, disambiguate. No consensus between deleting and dabbing, consensus against keeping. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 16:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Was previously a disambiguation page that was rightly deleted as G14 as none of the entries there mentioned the term either. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Just a descriptive phrase used in various walks of life and having no notability. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, has multiple meanings, such as Microsoft teams rooms, Changing rooms...etc. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete generic term for a room for a team. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify to

--Lenticel (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: use Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Lenticel (but also include locker room). Search results will not help readers find the content they are looking for: Results for team room are completely irrelevant, mostly just articles that happen to include both words somewhere in them, searching for "team room" is only trivially better - Office is the 9th result, everything else is articles about specific buildings or institutions that have a team room or in one case a room where a notable member of the US Skiing team lived as an undergraduate. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

LIst of FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship qualifications (AVC)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 20#LIst of FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship qualifications (AVC)

Category:2020 World Para Athletics European Championships[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 05:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect; not an {{R from category navigation}}; impedes category navigation on both sides, creating duplicate links   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: (Vote changed: see conversation below) The event was originally supposed to take place in 2020 and this seemed to have not been moved because category moves are restricted far more than page moves. It seems like it's largely harmless and I can see more benefit than drawback from this, especially in the future if someone is navigating the World Para Athletics European Championships categories as from 2012 the event was biennial, until the 2020 COVID postponement. TartarTorte 02:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TartarTorte: yes, article redirects from 2020 -> 2021 make sense, but the category redirect does not. If someone is navigating the categories from the articles, there are no links to the 2020 category anyway, and once they do get to the categories, they'll find strange links to 2020 on 2018 and 2021 that do not, and will not ever, correspond to any articles contained in that year:
  • 2013
  • 2014
  • 2015
  • 2016
  • 2017
  • 2018
  • 2021
  • 2022
  • 2023
  • 2024
  • 2025
  • 2015
  • 2016
  • 2017
  • 2018
  • 2020
  • 2021
  • 2022
  • 2023
  • 2024
  • 2025
  • 2026
~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I saw your response a bit ago and started doing research but forgot to reply. It would be rather nice if there was a way to indicate somehow that Category:2020 World Para Athletics European Championships could be excluded from the {{csn}}, but from my recollection of my research last week, I could not find a way for that to be possible. With that, I reluctantly support deletion as messing up the nav is worse than the benefits that could come from the few people who are trying to type in "Category:2020 World Para Athletics European Championships" into the search bar to try to find Category:2021 World Para Athletics European Championships. I'll strike my vote above and change to delete. TartarTorte 14:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

List of Commonly Used Queer Acronyms[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was draftify old content. This is a slightly unusual close, but I think it follows logically from what's been said below. There is unanimous consensus that this redirect is not suitable. At the same time, Thryduulf objects to deletion of the old content, and a single person's objection is enough to get a page restored when it was deleted non-controversially. Rather than delete here and have this draftified at REFUND, I'm cutting out the middle man. From Draft:List of Commonly Used Queer Acronyms, Thryduulf and any other users will have the opportunity to improve the content and find a more appropriate title. Or if someone wants to move it straight back to mainspace, they can do that too; this should be treated like a contested PROD in that case, with AfD as the next step. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 05:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While there are queer acronyms discussed at the target page, to my understanding there is no quote unquote list as described by this redirect's title. This was originally a standalone article before being BLAR'd into this page, although I don't know whether this redirect is useful to begin with, as I don't think this is an exact title that would be sought for on Wikipedia, and pointing at the general LGBT article with no modification I feel would be less than helpful if the search term was this specific. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert as a contested BLAR. Questions about whether the content is useful and if so what the title should be are not matters for RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've looked at the content that was blanked to make the redirect and it's no good at all. Even if we wanted a List of Commonly Used Queer Acronyms this would not be where we would start. I think I can see the logic behind the redirect, i.e. to match the redirect on LGBT (acronym), but it would probably have been better deleted than redirected. If anybody thinks that it is worth saving then a revert and an AfD would be the way to go but I don't see that ending in anything other than deletion so let's just cut that corner and get rid of it. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that cutting corners is contrary to policy which states that articles to be deleted (which don't meet a speedy deletion criterion) are discussed at AfD. RfD is not AfD and should not be used to delete article content. Whether you would personally start with this content is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, agreeing with DanielRigal. WP:BLAR stipulates that AfD should be used if editors cannot agree on the blank-and-redirect itself. There is no such disagreement in this instance—there has been no one that has made an argument for keeping the article content—thus no contested BLAR. -- Tavix (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody has been given the opportunity to comment on the article content, but since you insist on making things explicit: I support keeping the article content, at least until it has been discussed at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Editors have been given over a week so far to comment on the edit history and decide it's keepworthiness. For example, DanielRigal and myself have done just that. (Also, anyone could have challenged the BLAR since it was actioned several months ago.) You have not made an argument for keeping the article content, your argument is simply to send it to AfD—that's not the same thing. -- Tavix (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Editors have been invited to discus the redirect, they have not been made aware there is content to evaluate unless they come to this discussion about the redirect. Anyone could have challenged the BLAR... if they knew about it, which they most likely did not. Just because you disagree with my reasons for keeping the article content does not mean I have not made an argument for keeping it. The deletion policy does not permit us to delete article content at RfD, and we should not be doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the very beginning of this discussion, editors have been aware of the edit history and they can make their own recommendations about what they feel should happen to it. Because this is a redirect, should there be consensus to delete it at 'redirects for discussion', it can and should be deleted here. There's no need to bring AfD into this unless there is actually disagreement on the article content. And no, you have not made an argument for why this content should be kept. -- Tavix (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only those who have chosen to look at this discussion about a redirect are aware that content is being discussed - nowhere is that advertised. Also, there is disagreement on the article content: I believe it should be restored for evaluation in accordance with policy, you don't. What I don't understand is how you can state that I haven't made an argument that the content should be kept when I've explicitly said it should be kept multiple times and explained why on each occasion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel the discussion should be advertised elsewhere, you are free to do so. I will point out that the discussion is already being advertised in much the same way as it would if it was at AfD, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender studies#Article alerts. The article content already is being evaluated in accordance with policy, given the fact that it is under a redirect and is being discussed at the proper deletion forum for redirects. Please provide a rationale for keeping this list at AfD. You have not done this—your argument is simply for reverting in the interest of an AfD !vote. I do not support 'revert and send to AfD' !votes unless there is actually an argument to keep the article content itself. -- Tavix (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading redirect - there is no such list at the target. Also, I see the creation of this list as WP:POINTY, as the creator's earlier Commonly used queer acronyms three months prior, with the same content as this, was similarly BLARd. Editors desirous of restoring the content may want to bring that to AfD instead, and if the outcome is to keep, move it to a proper title such as List of LGBT acronyms. Jay 💬 06:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Patrick Chen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 20#Patrick Chen

File:Annavaram poster.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 06:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Annavaram refers to the town, the film is not the primary topic. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

File:Khaidi poster.jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 06:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous, as there are other titles listed at Khaidi. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

CAT:Ahmadiyya stubs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Complex/Rational 14:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The only XNR of this format that points to a particular category of stubs. This fully spelled name more-or-less defeats the purpose of it being a shortcut to begin with. There are zero similar XNRs to this, and no reason to justify the existence of an "CAT" page in article-space for this purpose. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

CAT:LYOKO[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Complex/Rational 14:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another unnecessary XNR into category space and unlikely to be preferable over searching for the actual category. CAT redirects should typically be reserved for maintenance categories that would benefit from a XNR and otherwise be generally discouraged. In this case, the cat title does not match the category itself, and is the only one in this set that does not refer to a geo topic. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

CAT:ETHIOPIA etc.[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another round of unnecessary XNRs into category space and unlikely to be preferable over searching for the actual category. CAT redirects should typically be reserved for maintenance categories that would benefit from a XNR and otherwise be generally discouraged. (Bundling this group per recommendation.) Utopes (talk / cont) 03:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

AIADMK(OPS)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 06:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB. Creator has been disruptively attempting to create an article at this title when it already exists at AIADMK (OPS). No reason for this implausibly spaced title to exist. CycloneYoris talk! 03:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Automotive strategy consultant[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 20#Automotive strategy consultant

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_13&oldid=1191214605"