Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 8, 2024.

EduTok[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. Withdrawn, thanks for adding a description! (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 05:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "EduTok" portmanteau at the target page, nor are there mentions of "edutok" anywhere on Wikipedia as a whole. No content about this subtopic means this redirect is not helpful. People who want to read about TikTok would have searched that directly instead of EduTok, and its existence as a redirect implies we have something about EduTok which we do not. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serves me right for making todo redirects. I have now added a sourced sentence in the article explaining the relevance to the subject. Arlo James Barnes 01:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Arlo, who has swiftly and roundly rendered the argument presented by nom moot. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the weirdest way I've seen "!keep as a mention has been added" written. Not sure why you needed to specify: "Arlo was quick to absolutely dismantle the position laid out by the [good faith] nominator"; was not deep enough of an RfD to use that specific cut. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:57, 9 April 2024 (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).

Echo Ranch Bible Camp[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 23:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "Echo", "Ranch", "Bible", nor "Camp". Was created as a redirect by the closing admin of its AfD (after deleting the rest of the history??). The AfD, bearing in mind, received 6 votes to delete, 2 to merge, 2 to keep, yet not a soul suggested to redirect it without a mention, but that's exactly how the AfD was closed as. It looks like the admin deleted the page, created it again as a redirect, and said that "nothing is worth merging, but feel free to add it to Auke Bay, Juneau if you want". Nothing was added. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing was merged because even by 2008 standards, there was nothing worth merging and I don't see anything online now that indicates this camp merits a mention in the town's article. It was probably borderline G12, although it was in quotations so not technically a copyvio. Star Mississippi 00:40, 9 April 2024 (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).

Drinkin About You[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 23:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "Drinkin About You" at the target page, nor are there any mentions of this title on Wikipedia. Seems to be a song, but is never alluded to in the text; we don't have content about it. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:24, 8 April 2024 (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).

Drew Curtis' FARK.com[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Drew Curtis' FARK.com

Dream Catching[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Dream Catching

Disputed Kings and Queens of Narnia[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 23:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no disputed kings or queens at the target article. "King" appears never, "Queen" appears once, "Disputed" appears never. Existed for 2 weeks in May 2005 as a list of 10 names created in one edit with no other context. This was apparently merged, but I don't see any trace of any of these names even by July 2005? Does not seem to be needed or useful nearly 20 years later. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only have we not used this list before, it's also straight-up inaccurate; the only other source I can find that has a list of the kings and queens of Narnia is here, and of that, the only match at *all* between the two lists is that Swanwhite appears twice as Swanwhite I and Swanwhite II, Jadis is on there with the same ruling years of 900-1000, and... Miraz at the very end. That's about it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2024 (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).

Dark Mountain (logo)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Dark Mountain (logo)

Dark Deco[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Dark Deco

Cut fingering[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 23:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mentions of "cut fingering" at the target page, nor anywhere on Wikipedia. The page for this fingering does not make any mentions or references to "cut", external searches are primarily about cut(s) and finger(s). Utopes (talk / cont) 21:32, 8 April 2024 (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).

Clean vocals[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Clean vocals

Chief harbourmaster[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mentions of "chief" at the target page. While harbourmasters do have the ability to be [chief] harbourmasters, mentions of this term on Wikipedia can be navigated like so: "Person X was the chief harbourmaster, who...". There wouldn't be a need to add "chief" to the title itself, as we have no content about chief harbourmasters on Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Harmless; this mostly gets someone where they'd want to go, and I don't think there would be much reason to take them somewhere else. I'd like to note that the history indicates that this is the result of a rather interesting sort of BLAR/merge-- it was *ported to Wiktionary* (presumably because the old article was a WP:DICDEF), then BLAR'd entirely when the Wiktionary page it was moved to ended up (presumably) deleted. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Harmless and points to the right place. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A mention at the target is desirable, but not strictly required to be useful. This is just one of those cases where it's not required. A person searching for this wants to know what the job is, and will learn about harbourmasters at the targeted page. It's not a stretch to ask them to put 2 and 2 together to figure out what it means to stick the word "chief" in front of the job title. Fieari (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a recognised position that will be searched for, but doesn't merit a stand-alone article (or one hasn't been written yet). Chief Accountant is the same, and not specifially mentioned in Accountant either. - Davidships (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2024 (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).

Brut up[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 23:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Was tagged as A11 immediately but was converted into a redirect as an alternative to deletion. This phrase bears no intentional mentions on all of Wikipedia. People who want to search for the cologne would be using the title of the cologne, not the act of applying it. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. A quick Google search (to see if this was the result of an ad campaign) only mentioned alcohol, with the top result being an IPA made to taste like brut wine, made by a company whose only mention on Wikipedia is an entry on the DAB for Against the Grain, and (pointed to by the DAB), an nonlink entry on List of breweries in Kentucky. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2024 (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).

Template:Independent MPs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Template:Independent MPs

Brain sex[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Causes of gender incongruence#Brain structure. Refined current target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "Brain sex" at target article. Without a definition at the page, this becomes confusing, especially so with the existence of a Brain Sex redirect, which exists for a topic that we do have content on. Because this seemingly isn't covered/defined anywhere else on Wikipedia at this time (besides content about "brain/sex differences", an entirely different topic), this should either be a redirect back to David Jessel#Publications (which is where it targeted from 2009 to 2021) or a red link to encourage article development. Or content added somewhere. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This could be refined to Causes of gender incongruence#Brain structure. @Utopes:, this is referring to the idea that transgender or nonbinary people could have brain features that are atypical of their birth sex. Kk.urban (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refine as per Kk.urban. I'm not entirely onboard with the idea presented in this article (and the section does need some cleanup), but the refinement does pipe readers where they want to go. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2024 (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).

Ace Deuce[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Ace Deuce

Academic School[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 💬 10:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The title "academic school" is not mentioned at the target. People searching for Plato's Academy have a plethora of more viable redirects, than something as generic as "academic school". If never referred to as this, this doesn't seem helpful.

Schools seem to generally be academic by default? With a variety of schools at School (disambiguation) about all sorts of non-academic topics, someone might try to specific "academic school" as a specific adjective to end up at School. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: as I noted in the previous discussion, linked above, "Academic School" is one of the alternative names of the subject. If it's not mentioned, it probably should be. It's not clear to me that anyone searching for this title expects to find modern schools that are academic, as opposed to non-academic, but if so that can easily be addressed with hatnotes. This strikes me as a solution in search of a problem. P Aculeius (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this and other names to the lead, along with a hatnote pointing to "school", in case anyone searching for that arrives at Plato's Academy by mistake after following this redirect. I don't think it'll happen that often, but now there's a link to "school" if it does. And now "Academic School" is mentioned at the target. P Aculeius (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2024 (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).

Borgarthings-Lov[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 00:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a code of laws presumably associated with the Borgarthings thing. Not mentioned in the article. I expect it would be appropriate to add, but while not present the redirect is confusing. Mentioned briefly at Blót, but I don't think redirecting there is appropriate either, as it's just given as an example in a list. Rusalkii (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2024 (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 Barbie: Dreamtopia episodes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This title was created by a banned user for a supposed batch of episodes for the target indicated, which later turned out to be a series of shorts. Half a decade later, this title serves no purpose as it's currently and merely a redundant redirect, so requesting deletion. Intrisit (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the target includes a list of episodes of Barbie:Dreamtopia. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By looking at the article, the "episodes" are split; whether it's the shorts or the series. If they were there, I wouldn't have listed this entry here. Intrisit (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure quite what you are saying in your most recent comment. If you are arguing the episodes should be a stand-alone list then that's something to discuss on the article talk page, if that gets consensus then the redirect can simply be overwritten. It's true that people could be looking for either the shorts or the web series, but whichever it is they will find that content at the target (it's why I didn't recommend refining the redirect to point at a specific section). Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, this is the page for discussion - not argument, so I'm surprised to see a text from you saying "I'm arguing..." For layman's context sake, the "they" word in "If they were there,..." means the episodes in question. As I said in my nomination, this rdr was created but it currently serves no purpose - as in it points to which portion within the target article? The shorts or the series? That is the question behind this nomination. Also, to prove my position, have you looked at the target article thoroughly? I listed this entry here to see, get and gain consensus on the redirect title's worthiness in the average WP visitor's mind since its creation. Even if you did help point this redirect to its specific section within the target article as you're stating, the content in that target article has changed so much to the point where it would like bordering on the trajectory of the numerous rdr nominations you've commented and/or voted on. Simply put, we have no clear path where to fit this rdr other that it been redundant, to which I call for deletion. Intrisit (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am using the word "argue" in the sense of "presenting a viewpoint" not "have a quarrel". As for the rest of your comment, I have explained why, in my view, the title is a useful search term and that the current target is the correct one. Both the shorts and the series would be equally plausible things for people to be looking for, but by targetting the top of the article they will see the TOC and can pick whichever one they are interested in. Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the redirect is useful per Thryduulf. Disagree that the redirect serves no purpose because it does not point to a section. The nomination is not clear on why it is a redundant redirect. Jay 💬 16:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm citing most article titles with the "List of ... episodes", some of which are redirects to their main articles, as my clear rationale of it being redundant, although true it doesn't point to a specific section in-article. Also citing WP:G5, stating a "creation by a blocked or banned user", no matter how useful. Intrisit (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get the "redundancy" argument. It appears you are saying that "List of ..." titles that point to its corresponding article, but not to a section, are redundant. How? The creation of the blocked user was already deleted. This is a remnant redirect from a page move, now pointing to a different article, hence not a strong case for G5. Jay 💬 17:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Target contains exactly what this page used to, this is basically a redirect from merge. Not to mention that the title is unambiguous as to what it points to. If you REALLY want to get nitpicky, you could refine it to the section, but I don't really see that being necessary. Fieari (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the history of this rdr, this/there is no merge. If I could refine this rdr to its specific section as you're stating, I wouldn't have listed this here in the first place. Intrisit (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2024 (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).

Delete![edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. signed, Rosguill talk 18:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word "delete" is only mentioned once in passing, never with an exclamation point, and never referred to as a possible chant of such word. Because the word "delete" is very often stated on its own, as a command verb, this stylization I feel can be used in many other contexts present on the Delete disambiguation page. There is currently not a strong justification from the Cyberman article's content to prioritize this usage over the others. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:48, 24 March 2024 (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! 07:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems implausible that someone would search for "Delete!" and expect a redirect to Deletion. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • EXTERMINATE - I find it implausible someone would look for the punctuated term in the first place, and the pageviews seem to bear that out, with ~5 hits every five days or so. Confusion with other, equally-plausible search targets per Redrose also leads me to think deleting it is better. If someone's looking for deletion, Delete works just as well and doesn't include the bang. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 04:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! per others. Oppose retargeting the dab. There is nothing at the dab to justify the exclaimed title! Jay 💬 17:10, 15 April 2024 (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).

Colonia Ulpia Traiana[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Colonia Ulpia Traiana

Faulty thinking[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 16#Faulty thinking

Colon Bracket[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of emoticons. signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A vague name that is not mentioned at the target page, yet can reasonably imply other punctuation topics. The history is possibly the most 2005 of them all, created in 6 edits by an editors' only 6 edits. However, it has dubious usefulness as a redirect here. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of emoticons: It is not mentioned at the current target but is mentioned here StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Okmrman (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of emoticons per Streetcar and to be consistent with :) and :(. The "spelled out" version is more useful than the character version because of the wiki's technical issues with titles starting with ' : '. Jay 💬 15:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to try to get firmer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of emoticons. Ambiguous as it could be :) or :( but both are emoticons and the list is more useful than the main article. No other target identified. Peter James (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2024 (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).

Mullhausen[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Mühlhausen (disambiguation). signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a correct spelling without diacritics (which will be Muehlhausen). This is not a popular misspelling either, Mullhausen is usually a family name. WP:R#DELETE #8 or #2. Викидим (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems to be a family name but also a place name - two mentions in Wikipedia and both possibly refer to Mulhouse but I'm unsure so possibly better to link to the disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambig page Okmrman (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2024 (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).

Luxury home[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. The opening of a DRV rather confused this discussion, and the lack of participation for over a month and a half precludes any consensus being formed. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After the merging of Luxury real estate into the general article, the redirect of "luxury home" does not appear to be super useful as it does not bear a mention at any location. Additionally, while the plural version may indicate "multiple homes" being sought, it doesn't seem specific enough to target something besides what the singular version does. Looking at these two options side by side in the search bar, it's a shot-in-the-dark for readers to figure out where each'll go. Perhaps there's a better alternative, because neither status quo seems necessary currently. (I'll mention that "luxury homes" was repointed to the category in 2020 by a user later blocked for NOTHERE). Utopes (talk / cont) 06:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is the "merge", then, a back-door delete? I've seen this done before, deliberately or accidentally. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    • It wasn't a merge; it was redirected as a result of AfD (though I don't actually see any policy-based reasoning in that discussion). --Paul_012 (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough: Thanks for the catch! To clarify, were you referring to the merge of luxury real estate, or luxury home? As this only concerns the "home" titles, there shouldn't be any issue that loses the luxury real estate history, and wouldn't be a backdoor delete of that, unless there was something else that you were referring to. The other title of Luxury Home had a miniscule existence before becoming a "Luxury real estate" redirect, although admittedly I did not catch that in my first go with this nom (I was mainly looking at the lowercase two, and then bundled the uppercase once I realized it existed). Utopes (talk / cont) 06:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restoration of the previous target - Luxury real estate, may not be an option per the recently concluded DRV. We have so far only one vote suggesting targetting all to Real estate "for now" probably pending the discussion of Luxury real estate, but with that now out of the way, we can re-view this RfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:45, 8 April 2024 (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).

Preservation of the saints[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Perseverance of the Saints. signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This redirection is inappropriate. "Preservation of the saints" is a process that can intervene in various theological scheme : it can be conditional and then refers to conditional preservation of the saints, or "unconditional" and then refers to Perseverance of the saints and may referred to Eternal security. However, "Preservation of the saint" is absolutely not used as a substitute for "eternal security" in common language. Telikalive (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JFHutson I propose this disambiguation page:
Perseverance of the saints
See also :
Conditional preservation of the saints
Telikalive (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that Perseverance of the saints will become a disambiguation page? That would imply that the content at the current Perseverance of the saints is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Perseverance of the saints," which seems obviously incorrect. -- JFHutson (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Jfhutson: Of course not. Preservation of the saints would be a disambiguation page, with this content:
"Perseverance of the saints
See also :
Conditional preservation of the saints"
Telikalive (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see. It sounds like you agree that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "preservation of the saints" is Perseverance of the saints, which is why you list it first and have Conditional preservation of the saints as a "see also." But under WP:ONEOTHER, when there is a PRIMARYTOPIC and one other possible meaning, you do not create a DAB page, you use hatnotes. I don't think hatnotes are appropriate here, because I don't think Conditional preservation of the saints is a possible meaning of "Preservation of the saints" on its own, but that could be hashed out separately from the redirect decision. As long as you agree that the PRIMARYTOPIC for preservation of the saints is perseverance of the saints, we should retarget, not dabify. -- JFHutson (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jfhutson Yes, I agree with you that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "preservation of the saints" is Perseverance of the saints. I was not aware of WP:ONEOTHER. Yes I think we can redirect as you said. ----Telikalive (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you strike your disambiguate above and bold your retarget viewpoint, the emerging consensus will be clearer for the closer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dabify or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Perseverance of the Saints per JFHutson. Sproul (2016) uses the term repeatedly to emphasise God's side of the perseverance equation, as discussed above. And it is not just Sproul. The primary subject here is the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, and that page contains mention of this. Lacking any sources showing a similar theological use in another theological tradition, that is the best target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sproul, R. C. (6 September 2016). What Is Reformed Theology?: Understanding the Basics. Baker Books. ISBN 978-0-8010-1846-6.
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).

No chance in hell[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 17:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A theme song mentioned once at the target. Not enough substance to warrant a redirect and not the primary topic. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:53, 30 March 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) 14:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify as per IP user. Okmrman (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2024 (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).

Raindrops on the Open Road (ROTOR) - EP[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be a useful redirect. Has previously been tagged for R3. BangJan1999 00:06, 29 March 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) 14:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, implausible stylization and two separate methods and styles of disambiguation make this unlikely and not needed. Easily identifiable even without the consideration to: use parentheses, acronymizing what's already been typed from the last five words, ending the parentheses before spacing - dashing - spacing and including "EP". Utopes (talk / cont) 22:53, 8 April 2024 (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).

SpaceX Mars propellant plant[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 18#SpaceX Mars propellant plant

Immigration control in Russia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 16#Immigration control in Russia

Sam Boughton[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect. We never have articles for failed candidates unless they are notable, not even as redirects to the seat they failed to win. If we do have articles for failed candidates who haven't been elected to any office prior to failing to be elected then again they have to be notable (e.g Katherine Deves is notable because of her outspoken controversial views and her political activism, plus her preselection itself was controversial). Sam Boughton isn't notable and he was Labor's unsuccessful candidate for Terrigal (a seat the Liberals retained). I'm not sure why this article was even created in the first place but I think it should be deleted per notability guidelines and for consistency with every other article. 37.0.81.236 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Per WP:RFDHOWTO you're supposed to marktag the redirect you nominated. I did it for you. Also something seems messed up here considering the "add new entries" comment is below the nomination but I'll let someone who knows what they're doing fix that. Nickps (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC);edited 00:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed that. Thryduulf (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. Now, I don't like rewarding work with more work but something else I noticed is that since I tagged the redirect on March 30 UTC, the link in the RfD notice sends people to that day's log. Is that fixable? Nickps (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, and done. For future reference you can use the days=n parameter of the rfd template to do this automatically, n is number of days before the current day the redirect was nominated, e.g. for to tag a redirect nominated yesterday (or to add a redirect to a discussion on yesterday's page) use {{subst:rfd|days=1|content=.... Thryduulf (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom, but I wouldn't be opposed to restoring the article which can be sent to AfD if desired, but it has just a single source in a BLP [1]. A7V2 (talk) 00:11, 2 April 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) 12:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for consistency.
Schestos (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

-)[edit]

A handful of emoticons structured like this are targets to either Emoticon or List of emoticons. In this case, these are all have the nose and mouth, although the eyes don't appear for technical reasons (but do at the page). I'm not seeking deletion, but rather that the difference in targets may be unexpected. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems harmless enough, and they do successfully get you where you need to go, even if they look a little ugly while doing it. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes So... you're seeing utility in navigating readers to these two topics, but would prefer for the internal search engine to do that instead of short-circuiting to one of the two? Why? --Joy (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both smiling emoticons, frowning emoticons, and slash emoticons are discussed at both the general emoticon page, and at the list of emoticons page. Among this particular set where the emoticons are structured nearly identically, the difference in targets does not seem expectable. Nothing about ":-/" would make someone think they were going to a list instead of the general page about emoticons. While still ongoing, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 11#XD (Emoticon) has signaled that the overarching list might be a preferable target for individual emoticon redirects. (I'll emphasize in the nomination that I'm not seeking deletion here.) Utopes (talk / cont) 15:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I admittedly missed the fact that they were going to different places. I'd point them to the list, as per Utopes. (This would be a Retarget for everything but :-/ ) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes it would be best to actually say where you want to retarget, because this made me think you want to delete them. --Joy (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: I didn't, and still don't have a preference on where to retarget these. I indicated in the nomination that -/ and -\ had different targets despite being the same type of emoticon, and was describing this being an issue coupled via subsequent nominations I was planning/setting up when writing this. Your response came before I completed the set. (Meant to say this earlier). Utopes (talk / cont) 06:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it makes sense to keep them consistent. Why not just WP:be bold and pick one of the two options? :) --Joy (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These redirect eixst due to technical limitations - specifically page names cannot begin with a colon, leading colons are ignored in search strings (so e.g. "-" and ":-)" lead to exactly the same place) and have a technical meaning in links (e.g. for interwikis) so e.g. -) and -) ([[-)]] and [[:-)]]) lead to the same page. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:25, 31 March 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) 12:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all to list of emoticons Okmrman (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget the relevant ones to List of emoticons. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

;-;[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of emoticons#Eastern. signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another set of emoticons with unexpectedly different targets. Using semicolons as eyes, but switching the mouth style, does not seem logical to have a difference in topics here, between the list and the general page. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refine all to List of emoticons#Eastern. Might as well have the best of both worlds. Alternately, one could make an anchor on the appropriate part of the list and target there, although it's close enough to the top of the Eastern section that it's not hard to find from my suggestion. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:32, 31 March 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) 12:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

')[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of emoticons. signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another set of two emoticons, and in this case I'm really not seeing why :') would go one way and :'( would go the other. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Target both to the list, they both show up pretty early there. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:31, 31 March 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) 12:32, 8 April 2024 (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).

Burnie board[edit]

No mention of the word "burnie" at the target article. To that effect, there is only one mention of "burnie board" on Wikipedia, which is in the List of buildings designed by architect John Dalton, as the Burnie Board Residence and Administration Building. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the history of the camelcase redirect contains an external link [2] which explains the connection "A 1960s advert for Burnie Board – it appeared in an Australian magazine in 1963. [...] 'Burnie Board' is a type of hardboard or Masonite. The Burnie Paper Mill (1937–2010), Burnie, Tasmania, produced paper, high-grade sawn timber and sheet material like 'Burnie Board'" and multiple other web hits also back up that it was also a type of or similar to masonite, but everything seems to indicate it was a product only or primarily of the 1950s-60s so I would expect most reliable sources to be offline. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Thryduulf's findings. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Is "burnished" close enough to "Burnie" that we don't have to add an explicit mention of "Burnie" to the target article? feminist🩸 (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom, unless a mention is added to the target. I would support keeping the camelcase redirect if it were an {{R with old history}}, but considering that it was created just a few months ago, then there isn't any valuable history to preserve. CycloneYoris talk! 23:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The advert shown in the external link clearly stylises the product name in camelcase, making it a plausible and useful search term. Therefore either both should be kept or both should be deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 31 March 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) 12:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now and tag with {{R with no mention}}. If Burnie board is a board similar to Masonite, then it is not really a subtopic, but if it is a type of Masonite, then it is. Jay 💬 06:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that that's a maintenance rcat, not a "keep and categorize" rcat. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't follow. Jay 💬 05:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably that "R without mention" is not a permanent solution. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, hence the for now. Jay 💬 07:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If a mention is not added after over a month of being at RfD then it never will be. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just want to reiterate to the closer that this should absolutely not be kept at the current target. "Burnie" appears at zero locations throughout the article, "burnie board" is never implied, and a mention exists at List of buildings designed by architect John Dalton. R without mention will never counter a mention, so it should go there in the meantime if anything, although I prefer deletion here honestly. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pppery; R without mention just kicks the can down the road. Queen of ♡ | speak 14:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Los Bajos, Chile[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 23:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to determine why this redirects here: there is no mention in the article. Spanish wiki has an article but English wiki articles Los Lagos, Chile and Los Lagos Region don't mention it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the page history is unreferenced, and I don't see any claims w/ sources on es.wiki that could be used to verify it in short order. signed, Rosguill talk 18:12, 15 April 2024 (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).

Loule Cross Country[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) Utopes (talk / cont) 04:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't work out why this redirect points to this article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 8 April 2024 (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).

Firestone (Pern)[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. I see a rough consensus to delete prior to the relist. signed, Rosguill talk 18:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, a fictional... rock apparently, from a series of books. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better solution found. This, admittedly, is an {{R with history}}-- it was a 2007 era article stub, that was merged into Pern... which itself was BLAR'd at AfD for non-notability. I'd go into the old version of the Pern article to see if anything might be salvagable for re-merging into Dragonriders of Pern, to potentially have a sourced mention of Firestone at the Dragonriders article... but User:Sgeureka, when BLAR'ing the Pern article, also deleted its history?? I didn't even know that that was possible, most BLARs I've seen retain the history...
Given the alternative-- the 2007era stub that was merged into Pern-- was an unsourced stub and thus has little if anything of value, I can't truly recommend keeping. Not that we should have this anyways, per WP:CRUFT... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as AfD closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pern ("delete and redirect"). Most people wanted to see it deleted; there were calls to turn it into a disambiguation page. I (probably) based my decision to delete before redirect on not wanting to muddle the history of a future dab page. A redirect seemed sensible in the meantime. The former article was almost exclusively unsourced in-universe PLOT. – sgeureka t•c 11:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:37, 8 April 2024 (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).

7.92[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#7.92

Eddie Yongming WU[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Eddie Wu. The creation of an article at this title during the course of discussion has significantly changed the circumstances of the redirect's suitability. signed, Rosguill talk 18:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First page or so of Google search results entirely about the cofounder and new CEO of Alibaba Group Eddie Yongming Wu, who we don't have a page on. He's mentioned very briefly in the main page, where he is linked as Eddie Wu, which also redirects to this martial artist. Likely should have a page, but in the meantime this redirect is highly confusing and should be deleted (and probably Eddie Wu as well. Rusalkii (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; as nom stated, search results are dedicated entirely on the businessman and not the target of the redirect. Also not mentioned in article. Toadette (April Fools Day!) 04:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note the all caps "UW", which makes the redirect implausible and unlikely search term. Toadette (April Fools Day!) 04:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "surname in all caps" convention is sometimes used in international contexts, as a way to clarify when name order may not be clear. (English typically puts the surname last, whereas Chinese typically puts the surname first.) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to Alibaba Group, where this person is mentioned. The current target is clearly erroneous, and a look at the page histories shows how this happened. We briefly had an article about Eddie Yongming Wu, CEO of Alibaba, at the title "Eddie Wu", and this redirect was created with that as its target. The article creation was reverted, making "Eddie Wu" a redirect to Wu Kuang-yu, and a bot "fixed" the double redirect, which now points to a target that's clearly wrong. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as per Mx. Granger. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget We clearly need a page for Eddie Wu as CEO of Alibaba group. I did try to create one a while ago but I copied too much. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Wu&oldid=1189206113 Maybe retarget to Alibaba group until this needed page is created. Better would be if someone wants to rewrite this attempt. C-randles (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made the most superficial start to the Eddie Wu article (as it really is necessary to have). Others are encouraged to improve it. J947 ‡ edits 05:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, or retarget to the new stub at Eddie Wu?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:19, 8 April 2024 (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).

John B. Clark[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to John Clark. signed, Rosguill talk 17:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced the current target is the true primary topic over John Bullock Clark; John Bullock Clark Jr. is also a factor as well. The best outcome here would be to dabify. I would do this myself but the current redirect is from 2004 and has always had the current target so I would like more eyes on this before making the change. It's been a couple years since I was frequently active at RFD, so apologies if dabification requests are no longer considered within the norm here. Hog Farm Talk 00:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate (dabify) or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to John Clark. John D. Clark and John W. Clark also redirect there and have a similar number of possibilities. John Brown Clark and John Blades Clarke receive an equal number of (22 pageviews per month), Bates and Bullock are also comparable to each other but in the 600-800 range, no solidified PTOPIC. Not an annoying long list, if worried about length the redirect could have an anchor, but doesn't need one. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:18, 11 April 2024 (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).

Catherine, Princess of Wales cancer diagnosis[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. Nominator withdrew. No one thinks that this redirect defined by this name and this target should not exist. The nomination rationale was that under the redirect there was a copy of the entire contents of the deleted article that the redirect had previously targeted, and the outcome of the AfD was that the page history should remain deleted. The revisions containing said copied content were deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=161249708. WP:RD1 was cited. This RfD is not a suitable forum to discuss this particular application of WP:CRD. The change of circumstance moots the deletion rationale. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 11:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this redirect created this among over 20 others pointing to the now deleted page, "Where is Kate?" All but a couple of these have now been deleted under WP:G8 because the target was deleted. But in this case, I felt that this redirect (and one other) were reasonable search terms that should redirect to Catherine, Princess of Wales#Health, and made that change. However, this one is problematic, because the creator of the redirect twice copied in the page history from the deleted article and immediately reverted it on this page. This page history therefore contains a WP:COPYWITHIN (one of which had to be repaired) from a deleted page, and the terms of the attribution license may not be met, as the attribution has now been deleted for everyone except for admins. I would not object to this being deleted and immediately recreated, but I do think the redirect should be deleted. I note that while I felt the redirect was reasonable, it is certainly not necessary. Anyone trying to type this text into search will find the target article before they finish typing, and if they search the full name without a redirect, the target page will be the first hit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a redirect. It's harmless and unambiguous. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the statement? Are you saying it should be kept asis, with history? or would you think delete and recreate without the unattributable COPYWITHIN would be better? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Admittedly, your statement is confusing. You say the redirect is reasonable but also that it should be deleted and immediately recreated. Applying Occam's razor, it seems to be the easiest solution here is just to keep it, perhaps as an {{R with history}}. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I apologise for my lack of clarity. The reason for listing here is primarily to get the history deleted. Usually a redirect with history is retained, as the history is the work of someone, properly attributed per the creative commons attribution license. In this case the history is not properly attributed, and should not have been copied there. It represents a breach of the license under which we share our work on Wikipedia. So deletion and recreation is fine with me, but doing nothing is not, because it leaves an unattributed COPYWITHIN. Thanks again for your consideration. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this an argument for WP:REVDEL rather than deletion? I'm not sure if it would fall under RD3 or RD6, but the problem is you're in RfD where people are supposed to be evaluating the appropriateness of redirects, not a problem with the history. --JFHutson (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like the revisions were just REVDELed, so I don't think there's a problem anymore.-- JFHutson (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate, or simply change the visibility of the edits in question. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination - Ingenuity has now revdelled the edits in question, as per the suggestion of Lard Almighty and JFHutson. There is now no need to delete and re-create, so withdrawing this. Thanks all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2024 (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).

Comazant[edit]

This is supposedly another name for this fire. I could not find any evidence of this externally. Onwiki did not particularly help, as not only is this title not mentioned at the article, it is also not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia! I did a search and almost all my results were for "Comozant"; gave this a look on Wikipedia and got nothing. From there I refined my search to just "Comazant", and the only thing I got for all of the first page of my search engine was Comazant being the publisher of a book titled "Captured" by India Blake. Nothing about the fire. And at the end of the day, with zero mentions on Wikipedia including at the target, this title would not be helpful to readers who are left confused about the relationship between St. Elmo's fire and Comazant, as no connection is established between them. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Appears to be a misspelling of comozant, which is apparently a D&D monster made of St. Elmo's fire. Implausible search term, and violates WP:LEAST regardless (if I was searching for comozant, I'd probably be wondering if the D&D monster was lifted from real mythology and want info on that... lacking real mythology, I'd probably expect a list of D&D monsters). Fieari (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Latin term used by Galen in De Comate[4], and subsequently in English[5][6][7] ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 09:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't this be another reason to delete then, per deletion reason #8? "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." This is a Latin word or phrased used in a non-English language historical document. I found no English language sources using the word. Fieari (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fieari, the three latter sources are all explicitly English language sources using the word either directly or with reference to English language speakers ?! ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically:
    • "When seen on shipboard at the extremity of a mast, it is called by the French and Spaniards St Elmo's fire, and by the English sailors a comazant
    • 1749. Waddell, in Phil. Trans., XLVI. 111. A very hard Storm of Wind, attended with Thunder and Lightning … and sundry very large Comazants (as we call them) overhead...
    • 1751. Franklin, Lett., Wks. 1840, V. 224. In Captain Waddell’s account of the effects of lightning on his ship, I could not but take notice of the large comazants (as he calls them), that settled on the spintles at the top-mast heads, and burned like very large torches (before the stroke).
    • 1753. Phil. Trans., XLVIII. 213. We have heard all our lives of St. Helmo’s fire … and of the comazants of our mariners.
    • Helen’s Fire (feu d’Hélène), a comazant called “St. Helme’s” or “St. Elmo’s fire” by the Spaniards; the “fires of St. Peter and St. Nicholas” by the Italians; and “Castor and Pollux” by the ancient Romans.
    ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per WP:RFD#DELETE#8. Very obscure synonym which is unmentioned in the article. According to the OED, it's a variant of corposant, which is a term which is used in the article. If a mention were added we could keep it, but it's obscure enough that I don't think there's a great deal of benefit. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, wait a few months. It was not long back that {{R with no mention}} was added. Jay 💬 16:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If something's been pending at RfD for this long without anyone bothering to add a mention then nobody ever will. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central Food Hall[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Tops Supermarket. signed, Rosguill talk 17:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of a "Hall" at the target article in capacity, much less a "Food Hall", even much less a "Central Food Hall" no less. Currently not a helpful redirect to a target that is already twinkle-tagged to the brim, even after securing an illustrious central title. Has a couple other unmentioned redirects too from a presumably removed section. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Tops Supermarket as an avoided double redirect to Central Food Retail, which operates the brand, and remove the circular link that would result. Don't know what the "securing an illustrious central title" bit is supposed to mean; Central Group is simply the name of the subject. As for the article issues, those concerned may just want to revert the article to the last good version before the extensive COI edits on 24 January 2022. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was making an offhand comment about this topic being "central", I'm sure there's a lot of groups/food halls that are central but this just happens to be the central and it's actual name, yea. None of that actually matters to the RfD so I've now strucketh, was interested in the central organization topic/idea. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on retargeting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:15, 8 April 2024 (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).

Bitness[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 soft redirect to Wikt:bitness. signed, Rosguill talk 17:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The suffix of "ness" does not appear at the target article, and by extension neither does "Bitness". Without a definition this term does not currently feel like a great fit as a redirect. "Bitness" has mentions across wikipedia in various scenarios, and also a Wikt:bitness entry, but perhaps staying on WP-side is more preferable for this term. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My guess had ben the bit numbering used in the documentation (1-wordlength, worlength-1, 0-(wordlength-1), (wordlength-1)-0), but that's not how Wikt:bitness defines it. I would say tha either bitness should redirect to an article or section that defines bitness, or the redirect should be removed. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no ness in the whole article. Seems to me that bitness is short for Bit endianness which is a redirect to Bit numbering#Order. Since redirects aren't supposed to redirect to a redirect (though I am not sure why) seems that it should redirect to Bit_numbering#Order. I will let someone else actually do it, though. Gah4 (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment my first impression is this should be about endianess; however a websearch indicates this term is defined as the basic CPU architecture word size; or the word-size used by compiled software (ie. 16-bit program) -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. The topic will never amount to more than a WP:DICDEF, and we have no article we could link to that provides one. It is a legitimate term in computer science jargon, so deletion would be inappropriate, given the existing Wiktionary entry. It has an entry in Barron's Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms, 10th edition, 2009, ISBN 978-0-7641-4105-8: the property of using a specific number of bits. For example, a single-precision integer and a double-precision integer differ in bitness. Bloomsbury's Dictionary of Computing appears to also have an entry, but I couldn't verify directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 17:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:13, 8 April 2024 (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).

Antiscarp[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 soft redirect to wiktionary. signed, Rosguill talk 17:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A term not mentioned at the target disambiguation page. In an effort to possibly boldly retarget, I confirmed that "antiscarp" was not mentioned at any of the pages listed at the dab. It was not. I searched onwiki for any mentions of "antiscarp", and the only related definition I could find was two pages that said "antiscarp, or an uphill-scarplet". Great! So I just have to target antiscarp to wherever scarplet points! I search that, and "scarplet" is an unmentioned redirect to the same disambiguation page. No use of "scarplet" at any of the linked pages either. Basically, this is a circular cross-definition of scarplet and antiscarp, only used to refer to each other, point at the same disambiguation, and are unmentioned everywhere else on Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Crosswiki to wiktionary - [8] is more useful than anything we currently have on wikipedia, I think. Google also says that antiscarp is the name of a record label, presumably a small non-notable one. If it becomes notable, the wiktionary link could become a hatnote. Fieari (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would it be feasible to soft redirect both to Wiktionary?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:11, 8 April 2024 (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).

Deplorable[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15#Deplorable

Disorganized[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 06:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised by this redirect because a thing does not have to be a chaotic system (in the sense of chaos theory) to be "disorganized". Maybe retarget to wiktionary? (I was hoping we had an article on the general concept of chaos, but I don't think we do.) Duckmather (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Physical chaos is not disorganized. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ultimately, it's a vague search term and I don't think there is a good target for it. None of Order, Disorder, Order and disorder or Randomness seem like good fits to me, as the meaning of the word is too narrow for the DAB pages and too broad for the articles. I'm not sure when soft redirects to Wiktionary are appropriate, but I remember reading somewhere that its a way to salt redirect pages that are deleted and recreated as redirects. I don't think that's the case here. ― Synpath 06:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Family Ties (Fat Joe album[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was created as a duplicate article in one edit, converted into a redirect in the next (by the person who was creating the set of pages for this album). There does not seem to be any history worth salvaging from this implausible redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a related, unrelated note: It looks like Family Ties (Fat Joe and Dre album) was converted into an article in 2019 (from a redirect), and was the source of a BLAR with Family Ties (Fat Joe album), which was created in 2018 and contains earlier history. At least, that's for the page titles NOW, which shifted during a 2020 round robin swap. In either situation, it looks like the correctly-titled version was already an article that existed, seemingly, as the history from Family Ties (Fat Joe album) (currently a redirect) predates the error(?) Utopes (talk / cont) 01:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2024 (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).

Dune (1984 film and 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 03:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another set of lowest viewed redirects that are missing a closing parenthesis. None of these titles have an affinity for missing parentheses, making this batch unpredictable and implausible to seek and spell. None of these titles have substansive history, and have never contained content. They have only existed as redirects. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. If I remember correctly I created Michael Davis (juggler a while ago because it was a red link on another page. If I knew what I was doing I would've just corrected the link, lol. I can G7 it if you wish. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, useless and wrong. BD2412 T 01:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Per nom. Fieari (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I made the Children’s Village one on accident while trying to do something similar to a technical move. I’m assuming others were made with similar intentions. Roasted (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. A reader who forgets the ')' should get a 404 and mutter "ah, right." Alternatively, I suppose an unbalanced '(' could be automatically closed; are there any article titles that legitimately contain unbalanced delimiters? —Tamfang (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than things like ( and (: ? DMacks (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Why are we even being asked? These are typos that need fixing. Maproom (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Utopes: (and others) - As OA of some of the WP:Redirects noted above, it's *entirely* ok wth me to do whatever is decided in the final WP:CONSENSUS discussion - these WP:RDRs were made as a way of linking to Wikipedia (and thereby extending the range and benefit of Wikipedia to others) from External Websites (like FaceBook), which drops the ending ")", this problem has been fully described and discussed on the WP:Village pump (technical) at VP-Archive204 (a Must-Read); VP-Archive180; VP-Archive162 - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See precedent here at which good arguments were made both for and against similar redirects but the outcome was Delete. Certes (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the case for the missing closing parenthesis, isn't the issue with transcription within MediaWiki? If it's the opposite with external websites having the issues, they are redirects not serving the site's best interest. – The Grid (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: Per nom / existing precedence. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom, unnatural and not often used typo redirects StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above --Lenticel (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:RDAB and the existing precedent from so many RfDs. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unnecessary. One missing parenthesis is not enough to justify a redirect when the search function already autos to these results anyway. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_8&oldid=1221300947"