Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 17, 2024.

Middle School S[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 25#Middle School S

Stussy S[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. There is stronger support for keeping Stussy S than Super S Stussy. As various instances have been presented which use the latter name to refer to this subject, I've added a mention of this name to the article. (non-admin closure) Utopes (talk / cont) 05:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, I propose to delete all. Veverve (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 1st (Neutral 2nd). The symbol does genuinely get referred to with that first name, and it's a plausible-enough search term for it. No harm in keeping that first redirect. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide a reliable source for your claim? Veverve (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Video by LEMMiNO that attempts to track down the origins of the symbol, that brings up the name "Stussy" for the symbol at the 2-minute mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQdxHi4_Pvc Article by VICE that attempts to track down the origins, and early on mentions this name: https://www.vice.com/en/article/gqkj5j/that-s-thing-everyone-drew-in-school-what-is-it Article on this topic by KnowYourMeme, which refers to it as the "Super S Stussy" and has near 800k views: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/super-s-stussy Article here on Wikipedia, which for some reason, I wonder why, goes to the lengths of mentioning the fact that the symbol is not a logo of the company Stussy, and then mentions that Stussy uploaded a video that referenced the symbol. The symbol gets referred to with this moniker often enough that I'm surprised the article doesn't mention the name in the first sentence, the way it does "Cool S" or "Universal S". Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      All are WP:SPS but Vice; those SPS are not WP:RSs so I will not even check whether the two expressions are actually present in them or not. The Vice article does not mention "Stussy S" nor "Super Stussy S". Again, please provide a RS for your claim. Veverve (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Did you look at the Vice article? In fairness, the author does not themselves claim that this is called a Stussy S, merely that someone believes that it is called that (""It's the Stussy 'S,'" exclaimed Ramona, one of our producers."). But this is precicely the kind of thing that therefore makes a good redirect, but doesn't necessarily need mention in the article. A7V2 (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep in mind what we are here to do. This is a redirect- the main criterion for a redirect's existence is not "is this factually accurate with reliable secondary sources", but "would a reasonable human being type this into the search bar and expect the target to show up". I'd say the KnowYourMeme article is the most powerful source here, in this case, despite the self-published nature of the article, because it itself would make people believe that this is the primary name of the topic, and has 800K views, which means a statistically significant number of people have seen it. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stussy S, no opinion on Super S Stussy. Clearly this is a name used to refer to this, and we would be doing our readers a dis-service by not taking them to what they are looking for. The standard of usage for redirects can be much lower than for article content (after all, there is unlikely to be reliable sources using a plausibly mis-spelled name). In this case there is evidence online, for example the Vice article given above, and on [1]. A7V2 (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 04:18, 22 February 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).

Graffiti S[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 25#Graffiti S

Sloan S[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 23:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:20, 17 February 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).

Pointy S[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 25#Pointy S

Skater S[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 23:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:18, 17 February 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).

S thing[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 23:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Way too vague, not used as a synonym of the article. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:17, 17 February 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).

Ottomans[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 Ottoman. (non-admin closure) Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 12:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The history of this redirect indicates this went back and forth over the years, but it doesn't seem like it was ever properly explained or discussed. Ottoman, the singular form, has been disambiguated since 2004/2005. The article this points to right now has a big hatnote about it, so it stands to reason that we should disambiguate the plural as well, by redirecting it to Ottoman.

However, there are now 903 incoming links to it (!) so I figured we should have an explicit consensus, rather than just unilaterally dumping this into the collective lap of Onel, Rodw and all of our other diligent disambiguators. :) --Joy (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the singular Ottoman per nom. See also: WP:PLURALPT. Veverve (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment - I have no strong view one way or the other about whether this should be kept as is, or changed to target Ottoman, however I think if kept, the hatnote should be modified to provide a link to Ottoman (as it currently does not), and if changed, then Ottoman should have a direct link to Ottoman Turks. A7V2 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @A7V2 agreed. I had removed the explicit link back in July '23 [2] in favor of this plural; in retrospect I should have just addressed this incongruity back then. --Joy (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ottoman per WP:PLURALPT since there is no good reason not to. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:22, 24 February 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).

Oink! (computer game)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 24#Oink! (computer game)

Woke agenda[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) Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 12:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This term appears in hundreds of Wikipedia articles, but (surprisingly) never once at the current target. The article for "Woke" never mentions the word "agenda" to begin with, although there are similar topics present. R without mention does exist, as does RNEUTRAL, but bringing here for further input. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now as an {{R without mention}} and perhaps {{R with possibilities}}. I think the current target is probably the most plausible one. I'd assume people searching for this term are seeking a definition of "woke." - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely shouldn't be encouraging article creation for this term when not even wikt:woke agenda is live. It's also not linked from anywhere in the first place. J947 ‡ edits 05:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Or possibly, there's a better target than the current target? Steel1943 (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; as the creation summary says, all this phrase amounts to is an extension of the base word. With no other plausible targets, it's a textbook {{R without mention}}. J947 ‡ edits 05:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The template {{R without mention}} adds the page to Category:Redirects to an article without mention, which is a maintenance category, meaning the goal of the category is for it to always be empty due to representing a maintenance backlog. Per that category's very existence, either we find a way to integrate the phrase of the redirect into the article (thus allowing the redirect to be removed from that category if it is in the category), we find where we can retarget the redirect, delete the redirect. Another editor put it best: Placing a redirect into Category:Redirects to an article without mention is just kicking the can down the road. Steel1943 (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we need to split the category into redirects that need to be fixed and redirects that don't need to be fixed, as there exist redirects that are not mentioned explicitly but where the content is such that the reader finds what they are looking for. We don't change the encyclopaedia to suit our maintenance processes, we change our maintenance processes to suit the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Or just don't fill the category with redirects that should be deleted due to no clean way to mention them in an article in ways that anyone will put effort into resolving. Which ... also improves an encyclopedia ... Steel1943 (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except many of those redirects shouldn't be deleted. Deleting things that shouldn't be deleted is the exact opposite of improving the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Which is getting into a opinion/philosophical discussion which may or may not be related to this specific redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947, Presidentman and my comment immediately above. This takes readers to the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2024 (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, Duckmather (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say that while gay agenda has a dedicated article (which makes it a fair target for these types of titles), woke agenda does not, nor is there any agenda ever addressed at the current target. If woke agenda and the woke article were "synonyms", it might be more appropriate. However, due to this being a right-of-center exclusive neologism, it might appear to be a different, uncovered topic altogether with no dedicated content on Wikipedia.
Although now that you mention it, it could be more logical to target an "agenda" based article instead of a "woke" based article, as the use of "agenda" would imply agenda related topics, but I'm not completely sure about that front. Gay agenda doesn't mention "woke", so maybe there isn't anything down that avenue... Utopes (talk / cont) 09:26, 21 February 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).

Wikipedia:BADHOUSE[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 17:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded redirect, created thanks to a misunderstanding at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-12-04/Comix. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A misunderstanding? The user wanted the redirect! Are you referring to the smiley face at the end? Also, another user sent that it could be a redirect there. - The exclamation mark Master ofexclamation mark  Magenta clockclockHedgehogsMagenta clockclock (always up for a conversation!) 14:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems like a perfectly plausible way to refer to the target essay. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems a reasonable shortcut absence of any ambiguity. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:44, 18 February 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).

Dratini and Dragonair[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) Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 12:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why is it not the full evolutionary line? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; the Dratini section only mentions Dratini, the Dragonair section only mentions Dragonair. Without overlap or shared info, WP:XY. There wouldn't need to be a combination of any two Pokemon as a redirect, and this is inconsistent as its only 2/3s of the evolution line. Deletion seems fair here, not a helpful redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC) Never mind, Keep as an R from merge, both Pokemon being at the title is good enough for a redirect, making this situation not ordinary. No need to lose the history of an otherwise well-put-together article. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CaptainGalaxy 13:06, 17 February 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).

Fuzzy tree[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 05:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copy of another redirect that doesn't need a capital t cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: A difference in capitalization is not enough reason to delete in my opinion. If anything, this should be bundled with Fuzzy tree and evaluated as viable search terms. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "Fuzzy Tree" not mentioned at the target, nor does "Pokemon" come up when searching it externally. Would also delete "Fuzzy tree", but not sure if that was the nom's intention. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I assume this redirect is about Sudowoodo? --Lenticel (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both "Fuzzy tree" redirects; I cannot figure out what it's getting at. Sudowoodo isn't even fuzzy; it's a rock! Maybe redirect to Future Dust, on which it is a song? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bundle Fuzzy tree here, and then delete both after a week. Jay 💬 15:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled with Fuzzy tree as suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose retarget in favour of search results such as at Fall webworm and partial matches of the term Fuzzy Tree Fragments. Jay 💬 13:57, 23 February 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).

Sneasel EX[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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

implausible search cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Appears to be a viable search term based on a short time on Google. It's a variation of that Pokemon from what I understand. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    looking at the redirect's history, it's an old trading card and... that's really it. not even notable among generation 3 ex cards cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck my vote. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we have no information about Sneasel EX. This is not a 1:1 alternate name, so people typing this in would expect to see information about the EX, of which we have nothing. Leave this one to Bulbapedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Utopes, WP:RFD#DELETE says that not being mentioned is appropriate only "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name". That doesn't seem to be the case here, or in several of the other Pokemon-related noms. IMO – and I think my view is not a minority – we actually do want readers to find the best information we have on a given subject, even if we don't have very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatamIdoing (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Even if we don't have much" We have nothing though. Sneasel and Sneasel EX are two different topics, one is a character and the other is a trading card, only tied together by the IP that is above them both. Not a single mention on Wikipedia per [3], meaning this can't be verified as an equal synonym under WP:V. The only suitable avenue for keeping would be to send this one over to Wikibooks at Wikibooks:Pokémon/Pokédex/Sneasel#Trading Cards, but I don't think we need to bend over backwards just to say that "the trading card exists". Wikipedia isn't the place to compile every Pokemon TCG card as a redirect to the character where it never is even brought up. An article about a card would need to point at a Pokemon Trading Card Game#Card types-related title before a list of Pokemon that doesn't even acknowledge the TCG, much less EX cards. No similar redirects exist. Bulbapedia is (and should be) far more reliable for this sort of thing. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cogsan, I wonder what your standard for "implausible search" is. The page views stats show that someone actually is using that redirect, a little less than once a month on average. I think "implausible search" is meant to mean something close to "zero times per decade" than "once a month". Did you happen to look at the actual use of any of these redirects before nominating them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatamIdoing (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This particular page was redirected in 2007, which was before all y'all's time, but right after The Great Pokemon Wars. WP:RFD#HARMFUL recommends against deleting redirects that are "reasonably old". A redirect that is older that some of our editors certainly counts. Therefore, we should keep this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it's actually worse than that
    it's on three main, equally informal bases
    • have i, as a long time pokémon fan with too many eyes on too many sides of the pokémon community, ever seen anyone care about a given topic (in this case, an unremarkable card for a pokémon that has been stuck in the gen 2 limbo of things that are usable but not much else for its entire life) in any way, shape or form?
    • is there a chance of this info ever leaving the depths of bulbapedia?
    on all cases, the answer seems to be "no", for reasons that boil down to the gen 2 and 3 reception of the pokémon beginning and ending at "what games is this thing from anyway?". ignore the fact that that's not three cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 01:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete miscap to an obscure card (Sneasel ex) and a partial match to another obscure card (Rocket's Sneasel ex). Normally miscaps aren't an issue but Pokemon ex and Pokemon EX are several generations seperate from each other and might cause confusion. --Lenticel (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, Utopes, and Lenticel. Remember the reader. -EX appended to a Pokemon species name marks this as a name of a Pokemon TCG card. Someone interested in either card that matches the "Sneasel EX" moniker (Sneasel ex, or Rocket's Sneasel ex) would not be interested in this redirect, which has no information on any Pokemon TCG product and only gives rudimentary info on the species in general. As Utopes put it, leave this one to Bulbapedia. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 10:34, 17 February 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).

Shukle[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Editors remain divided between keep, retarget a disambiguation page, and deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 05:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

implausible typo cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't even realize there was another term with this title; updating to retarget to Shuckle per Peter. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete now that the misspelling has been shown to be ambiguous, but oppose "retarget to Shuckle" since there are no subjects on Shuckle that are spelled this way. Yeah, it could be a misspelling for either one of those, but then readers are going to be pigeonholed into thinking this misspelling could be for only those subject. No thanks, let Wikipedia's search function do its job instead. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, a Wikipedia search for "Shukle" hints that there may be a need for a currently nonexistent article for a subject that could be titled Shukle (name). Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Shuckle. It's plausible but should go to the disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel. Plausible misspelling of multiple topics, that cannot be entirely covered by the dab. Jay 💬 15:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Shuckle per User:Peter James. It could easily be a misspelling of "shuckle" regardless of which "shuckle" is meant. It's not specific to the Pokemon. JIP | Talk 19:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This is actually the nickname of a specific Shuckle (available through in-game trade) in Pokémon Crystal. I think it's exceedingly easy to get confused by this one as a player, probably moreso than for example "Volty" in the same game. While playing, I had to do a double-take whether it was even a nickname, haha. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the Shuckle DAB as per JIP, Peter James, and Utopes. Maplestrip/Mable does point out that this not just a plausible misspelling, but an actual in-game name of a specific named Shuckle in Pokemon Crystal... however, I agree that it should be taken to the DAB. Said DAB immediately points anyone looking for the Pokemon right to the current target, anyways. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 15:13, 20 February 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).

Pokemon hitmonlee[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 24#Pokemon hitmonlee

Saidon (pokémon)[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. Jay 💬 09:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copy of another redirect with a lowercase p for some reason cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: A lowercase p in Pokemon isn't a good reason for deletion. Redirects are WP:CHEAP. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are exactly 912 redirects that contain (Pokémon), the correct version as a proper noun. For redirects that contain (pokémon)... there are just 10. Pokemon is always capitalized, and the software automatically corrects the capitalization differences when seaching. There's no rhyme or reason to those 10's existence, just a random selection among the thousands of Pokemon pages. Completely unpredictable, unnecessary, adds zero worth, and would not exist in an ideal world. This redirect is valueless and encourages title clutter simply by existing. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hey man im josh (assuming that the target is for the correct Pokemon). Capitalisation variants are completely plausible redirects, there is no harm from their existence, someone found it useful enough to create (and they're unlikely to be the only one) and deletion will not benefit the encyclopaedia in any way. The number of similar redirects that exist is an irrelevant WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Let's not start doubling up on the Pokémon redirects by including different capitalizations; Wikipedia's systems solve this automatically for articles like this. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Capitalizations like this are trivial to create and I really don't think an alternative capitalization is WP:PANDORA. As far as article titles go, it's about as reasonable a modification as can be made. If there's interest, I'd be more than willing to create the redirects myself with AWB. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, you would probably also want to make "[name] (Pokemon)" and "[name] (pokemon)" (so without the accent). All of these cases are automatically resolved by Wikipedia's search systems, so I don't see the point. It's as fine to keep this as it is to remove this, but it feels like a waste of resources (however minor) to create 4000 new redirects that don't really affect any users. but if someone else thinks that these redirects are a good idea, then why not I guess. They can come in use when typing out Wikipedia URLs directly. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh: Perhaps you should ask at WT:VG for broader consensus on the idea of creating these redirects, regardless of how this specific discussion gets closed. I think there would be broader interest in the topic. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:46, 19 February 2024 (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! 09:36, 17 February 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).

Polygonz[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 24#Polygonz

Allied angles[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 25#Allied angles

Dependencies and other territories[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. Jay 💬 09:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the word "dependency/ies" is apparently a synonym for the target subject, the use of the phrase "other territories" is unclear in what it refers to. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Other territories can include things like the British Overseas Territories. WCMemail 08:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the problem right there: "can" doesn't mean "always". The use of the word "other" can potentially make the reader believe they may find more at the target than that, such as any type of topic listed/identified at Territory. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: Per my response above, I think I may have found a possible target: Territory#Types ... since it literally lists the subject of this redirect. However, I think deletion may be better still since there's a chance someone may be looking for something else. Either way, do not keep. Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, these are vague terms, but generally if someone is looking for dependencies Dependent territory is the article covering what they are looking for and covering a bit of the terminological confusion. CMD (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I saw this at the last relist, I considered advocating for Steel1943's alternate proposal of retargeting to Territory#Types, but that section is so badly/confusingly formatted I just left it alone... so I will say neutral between keeping at current target or retargeting to Territory#Types, but I don't support deletion as it seems like someone searching this would in either case be taken to something more or less what they were looking for. A7V2 (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. In this context, "other territories" almost assuredly means "territories other than dependencies". Territory#Types removes pretty much all vagueness as the target lists the types of territories. But I still can't get over my gut feeling that it's below the threshold of plausibility to be useful as a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 02:36, 23 February 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).

Sfio[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. (non-admin closure) Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 12:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding the history, this redirect is confusing because "Sfio" isn't mentioned at the target, and a better target of French Section of the Workers' International exists, to where SFIO redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to French Section of the Workers' International or the disambig page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, QueenofHearts 04:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The target already has a hatnote. Regarding the nomination, Shhhnotsoloud why do you say "Sfio" isn't mentioned at the target? Are you referring to the specific capitalization? I see that external sources refer to the library exactly as "Sfio" with S capitalized, although at the library creator's page David Korn (computer scientist), it is mentioned as "sfio" (all lowercase). Regarding the primary topic for "SFIO", SFIO (diambiguation) without a primary topic was created on the same day (in 2006) and by the same user who turned SFIO into a redirect. The DABPRIMARY may be resolved by initiating a WP:RM of SFIO (diambiguation) to SFIO. Jay 💬 08:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jay: Yes I do mean that exact capitalisation. It is confusing to have Sfio target an article where "Sfio" isn't mentioned, when SFIO redirects somewhere else. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have changed the case at the target. Jay 💬 16:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same question as before.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 06:09, 17 February 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).

Seels[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 Seel. (non-admin closure) Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 12:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

implausible pluralization cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

note: also initially made as vandalism cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Seal as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of Seals, for which it is a highly plausible misspelling. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget: Per Thryduulf. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Seel is a DAB but it doesn't appear to list anything countable so redirecting to the DAB with the "a" probably makes sense. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Seal per above. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Crouch, Swale's comment about the current target being the only plural "seel" with that spelling, or retarget to Seel. I would have to believe that if someone spells the word this way, they are doing it intentionally. At least lead them to the page with the matching spelling prior to deciding they meant "seal". Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • From comments in the other discussions, it looks like plural forms of Pokémon species are plausible, so retarget to Seel. The other disambiguation pages are linked (directly or indirectly) from there. Peter James (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to Seel or Seal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Seel as per Peter James. The other option- Seal- is easily accessible at the end of Seel, and Seel is the one with fewer differences from "Seels". Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel as the only countable entry of the Seel dab. Tag with {{R from plural}}. Jay 💬 13:45, 23 February 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 atheists, agnostics and other nontheists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 08:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

It's been over 5 years since I nominated these and got a result of "no consensus". Well, I ran across these again and saw the same issue: All of these redirects have WP:XY issues since agnostics are not atheists. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I looked back at the previous RfD, and I see that it's been over 5 years since I argued in favor of keep. I made the point back then, and I think it's still valid, that when editors have discussed this terminology on talk pages of the lists, we keep running into the problem that a lot of the listed people describe themselves in multiple ways. On the other hand, we do have List of agnostics, so in this case, the WP:XY problem actually leads readers to the wrong place. So for that reason, I say delete all. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More specific thoughts on individual items?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...What!?!? Is this relist intended to cause a WP:TRAINWRECK??? Steel1943 (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all or delete all. I don't have an opinion on the usefullness of these redirects, but I don't understand why people who do would have different opinions about any individual ones? Either they're all helping readers find the content they are looking for or none of them are. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all because of the XY issue raised by the nom and Tryptofish. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:XY. These are different topics and treated differently since List of agnostics exists. -- Tavix (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC) (copied from previous discussion.)[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).

CCFL inverter[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 25#CCFL inverter

Logarithmic cosecant[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 💬 13:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem to be explained anywhere. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Logarithmic sine" just means the logarithm of the sine. This was historically important because multiplication and division were expensive calculations for human calculators; taking logarithms turns multiplication/division into addition/subtraction, which is significantly easier. If you look at old trigonometry books you can find trigonometric tables with logarithmic values. Unfortunately Wikipedia's articles about trigonometry and its history are mediocre and extremely limited, and this is not currently explained anywhere on our site. –jacobolus (t) 23:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation; I have no objections to keeping the redirects if relevant information is added to the target (or related articles such as Sine and cosine etc., where some redirects could be retargeted). However, I don't think a reader is really helped by the redirects in the current state, when there is no explanation given (potentially, this could even fall under WP:XY). 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should ideally be redirected to a section of history of trigonometry or trigonometric tables or some similar page with a proper explanation of this topic. It was one of the major innovations in trigonometry of the 17th century. Unfortunately we don't currently discuss it at all. The only articles linking to these (redirect) pages are History of logarithms and Henry Briggs (mathematician). –jacobolus (t) 23:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: I would delete all the listed redirects. The possibility that these were once of interest is not sufficiently notable. I see value in redirects (or articles) for versine, haversine, and other single-word terms, but these dual word phrases, such as "logarithmic tangent", are easily understood by looking up their parts separately; and having the redirect does not ease that process. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 01:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to keep these given the current lack of a good target describing them. It would be fine to keep them (or restore them at some later time) as redirects if a relevant article or section were added explaining why they were/are valuable concepts. –jacobolus (t) 02:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is reason to keep them, because they do not point to a "wrong" topic, and they help to shape infrastructure for future contents and allow to link to them and to use reverse loopup more efficiently.
I see them as "flow concentrators" to improve and expand contents in a more structured way. Wikipedia is work in progress, and some people are more aware of lacking infrastructure whereas others may have better detail knowledge or language skills to write the prose. We could build a great encyclopedia together. Unfortunately, some people are more concerned with eliminating (only-)temporary unevennesses in the current distribution of contents by deleting still rough spots instead of building on them. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of these have existed for over 7 years (almost 20 for one of them), so that is quite a broad interpretation of temporary. You are free to build[...] on them, but right now I am indeed concerned by readers begin provided irrelevant information to what they are looking for. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As has been explained, these concepts were important for numerical work on trigonometric functions, and were tabulated extensively. See WP:CONTN: the current situation is not particularly problematic from a mathematical point of view. It would be easy and better to add a couple of sentences to trigonometric function. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep all of them. As jacobolus and Charles have already pointed out, these combined functions are historically highly relevant and can be found in many old math books - and as an encyclopedia, we have the duty to preserve the knowledge of the past for generations to come (because it can help to better understand the present and to improve the future). Actually, they are still important today, but people no longer "think" of them as compounds (although that would sometimes be helpful).
Yeah, we better should have them explained somewhere in this or another article (and I hope somebody will add a sentence or two for a starting point where more info can accumulate over the years - I unfortunately are swamped with other work at present), but since their title is a subtopic of the target article already, the redirects are not misleading anyone "as is". --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But they are not remotely helpful either – if you are searching for "logarithmic sine" you are most likely to be familiar with trigonometric functions already (if not, chances are you are not familiar with logarithms either, in which case this is an WP:XY situation as explained above), while not being sure about the specific meaning of a (dated, as you explained) term. The target page does not answer that question. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have now added a sentence about these functions to the History chapter of the target article. This is meant to define a starting point for more material to accumulate over the years (there's a lot more to be added), and potentially to split out into a separate article when enough contents have accumulated. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of first hits when searching for "logarithmic sine" point to a rather different log-sine function involving integration of the natural logarithm of a trigonometric function [4] [5]. This could be a source of confusion with the aforementioned historical use, and the latter topic AFAICT is not covered on Wikipedia. As such, I would lean towards deletion either for being ambiguous or to encourage new article creation; hatnotes could be added as necessary in the latter case. Complex/Rational 18:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not. We don't delete stuff just because a term may be ambiguous and we haven't covered all meanings yet. The solution is to disambiguate ambiguous terms, and if we haven't a target for the alternative meaning yet and there really is a risk for confusion, we just add a footnote to the existing contents explaining that there is an alternative meaning. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But to address the concern, according to MathWorld these functions appear to be related to Clausen's integral and the Clausen function (at least the term logsine integral, which is sometimes used as an alternative name for Clausen's integral, is used in the article). I have therefore meanwhile added disambiguating hatnotes. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:58, 7 February 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) 20:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - these are legitimate search terms and all the deletion rationales are issues that should be resolved by editing, not deleting. Rlendog (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally I disagree; unless somebody actually does resolve the issues by editing (rather than only saying that they should be) such redirects ought to be deleted as to not suggest having content where there is none (whether it should be there is irrelevant to that) – recreating them once content is added is a trivial task. However, in this case one participant luckily did add the relevant information to the article (thanks), so the "issue" can be deemed resolved (and the argument is no longer important here). 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would really appreciate it if someone actually finds some sources that discuss these functions. Duckmather (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, four RS are not enough, User talk:Duckmather? I think this is meanwhile a case of snow-keep. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:02, 19 February 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).

Beast in other media[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 14:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what this redirect is meant to refer to due to the use of "other" and since the target page is a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the ambiguity of this title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Duckmather (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The title is pretty much useless as it first doesn't define which beast is meant (the Marvel Comics character, the faerytale character, the Biblical demon, a carnivorous animal in general?) and second doesn't define what "other media" is. No incoming links. There is no relevant page history to preserve as the redirect was created by a page move. JIP | Talk 19:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate – per A7V2. Currently this is way too vague.
TLA (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, per "other media could mean literally anything depending on which beast you're thinking about". this reason is also why i don't think a disambig would work cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 15:01, 18 February 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).

Chaoxianzu Koreans[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 26#Chaoxianzu Koreans

LGBT rights in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 08:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the target might appear reasonable at first glance based on title alone, the target article doesn't actually appear to cover LGBT rights in the SADR whatsoever. As such, I think this is a case of WP:REDYES, where we might want to leave it red in order to inspire someone to write an article on that. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. As far as I've been able to tell, we don't have any content about this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 00:45, 18 February 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).

HOW CONSTITUTE A COMPANY IN HONDURAS?[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 (with a small dose of WP:SNOW). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how this redirect is useful. This should be deleted per WP:RDELETE#4. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like broken english to me. Theooolone (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was originally created as a personal essay which was soon marked for speedy deletion, but for some reason the deletion was declined and this was turned into a redirect instead. Not related to the target article, no incoming links, implausible search term. JIP | Talk 19:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a plausible thing for people to use as a search engine query, but not a plausible redirect title on Wikipedia. How to constitute a company in Honduras would make a good redirect if we had content that answered the question, but it doesn't appear that we do. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not mentioned in target. DOESN'T NEED TO BE IN ALL CAPS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bad English, in all caps. Properly written, it would be "How do I constitute a company in Honduras? - Master of Hedgehogs (converse) (hate that hedgehog!) 12:07, 20 February 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).

Icon (secular)[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 Icon (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Icon (computing) is a better target, I think. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:46, 17 February 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_February_17&oldid=1211743275"