This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page · Archives

Shortcuts WP:RFD WP:RfD

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
today all (sorted) closing log
Templates and modules
today all closing holding
Files
today all closing
Categories
today all closing speedy
Redirects
today all closing log
Miscellany
today all closing
Speedy deletion
candidates
Proposed deletion
all (sorted) BLPs
Policy Process Guide Administrator guidelines
v t e

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	35	0	35
TfD	0	0	5	0	5
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	0	8	0	8
RfD	0	0	31	0	31
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

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

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

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

• Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
• Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
• Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

Shortcut

• WP:RGUIDE

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

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

This page is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons. (edit | history)

Shortcuts

• WP:RFD#HARMFUL
• WP:RFD?

Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes and Wikipedia:Moving a page § Moving over a redirect

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting[edit]

Shortcut

• WP:RFD#DELETE

See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

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

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

    • WP:RETURNTORED
    If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

Shortcut

• WP:RFD#KEEP

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut

• WP:RNEUTRAL

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at Administrator instructions for RfD

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut

• WP:RFDHOWTO

STEP I.	Tag the redirect(s).   Enter ((subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter )) at the very end of the page. Does this look too complicated? Try this semi-automated process instead: (note only confirmed users can use this) Enable Twinkle in the Gadgets tab of your preferences. Go back to the redirect page, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle menu. Fill in the form and submit it. Please do not mark the edit as minor (m). Please include in the edit summary the phrase: Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]. Save the page ("Publish changes"). If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page. If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination. If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated.
STEP II.	List the entry on RfD.  Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries. Enter this text below the date heading: ((subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.)) ~~~~ For this template: Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=. Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=). Please use an edit summary such as: Nominating [[RedirectName]] (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating). To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects: ((subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1)) ((subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2)) ((subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.)) ~~~~ If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add ((Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD)) directly after the rfd2 template.
STEP III.	Notify users.   It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the respective redirect(s). For convenience, the template ((subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName)) ~~~~ may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as: Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]] Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

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

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

May 2

May 1

Bobita

• Bobita → Farida Akhtar Babita  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Delete, because there are no sources indicating that Farida Akhtar Babita's nickname is Bobita. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2033 World Men's Handball Championship

• 2033 World Men's Handball Championship → IHF World Men's Handball Championship  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

WP:FUTURE / WP:TOOSOON / not mentioned at target. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemang Raval

• Hemang Raval → Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee#Office bearers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Person-to-employer redirect, for a person not named in the employer's article to provide any context for why the person redirects there. To be fair, they were named in the article at the time this was created, as the party's social media coordinator -- but that isn't a notable role that would be expected to get people into an encyclopedia in and of itself, so the role has been entirely removed from the section where it appeared. I have no way of knowing if they're still in that role today or not, but if they are there'd be no great value in readding their name, and if they're not there'd be even less value in adding their name as part of a complete list of all the party's past and present social media staff either -- but there's no value in retaining the redirect at all if the name isn't present in the target article. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a staff directory. We have no information on this non-notable person. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for destruction

• Wikipedia:Articles for destruction → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Unnecessary redirect: No links, nearly no pageviews. Mondtaler (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unnecessary per nom. Also, deleted articles aren't destroyed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete possibly useful but also confusing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipédia (disambiguation)

• Wikipédia (disambiguation) → Wikipedia (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Because of the presence of "(disambiguation)", is an unlikely misspelling. No inbound links on Wikipedia. Bsherr (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of Wikipedias. The current target does not include any titles with the accented é, but when this was created it targeted Wikipédia, which at the time was a disambiguation page listing the four (again, at the time) language editions natively titled with the accented é. Later that page was briefly retargeted to French Wikipedia, then targeted back after this RFD. The list of Wikipedias "serves a disambiguation-like function" so this is valid redirect, and even if it doesn't get much use it's harmless. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipédia is a redirect to List of Wikipedias. Given that, is there a need for "Wikipédia (disambiguation)", which itself has no history of being a disambiguation page? --Bsherr (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Culture Jam (mixtape)

• Culture Jam (mixtape) → Kawhi Leonard#Personal life  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 14:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:RFD#K3 as it is mentioned in the article. "No page links here" is not a valid reason for deletion IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Culture Jam" is mentioned at the target, but it's not clear that it's WP:DUE given that this was a future release teased in 2021, but which does not appear to have been published, and is cited to a press release reprint.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kawaii Leonard

• Kawaii Leonard → Kawhi Leonard  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a plausible typo, especially given the similarly pronounced Japanese term "Kawaii." The fact that no page links to this title is irrelevant, as it is reasonable for a person to search for this term. Frank Anchor 14:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a plausible typo _pbp 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible typo, adding two unique letters and taking away one. Leonard nor his name do not have any affinity towards romanji. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plausible typo, especially for those familiar with the spelling of Hawaii. Steel1943 (talk) 03:00, 26 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 16:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nba allstar 2007 mvp

• Nba allstar 2007 mvp → Kobe Bryant#2006-07 season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (though it should be refined to Kobe Bryant#Scoring records and playoff upsets (2004–2007), as the current target no longer exists). Bryant was indeed the MVP in the 2007 NBA All-Star Game, so this is not an implausible search term IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but possibly retarget to 2007 NBA All-Star Game _pbp 15:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, random conglomerations of terms are a better fit for a Google search, and will not help readers. "MVP" is only mentioned once in the sixth paragraph in the section, not a useful redirect or precedent. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Utopes. Not a useful redirect. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:48, 26 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 16:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Utopes. --Bsherr (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Utopes --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Taylor Swift

• Draft:Taylor Swift → Taylor Swift  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Pointless redirect from a supposed draft article. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - totally pointless for inclusion and drafts are rarely or not at all linked on any articles on Wikipedia. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and delete the extra text): Actually, Swan, drafts do redirect to the articles once they get approved, that's a regular part of the process. In this case, it was out of process, because the draft was created in 2019 for an article that exists since 2006. However, having a "draft:article" redirecting to "article" is commonplace by now across the encyclopedia, so there's hardly a point in deleting this. Cambalachero (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SRE, this is the standard way of dealing with these. There is no benefit to deleting, but there is benefit in avoiding RFD discussions for them. Extra text should be deleted and then the page should be tagged with Template:R from Draft. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5450:3A3:46CC:17EC (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cambalachero's explanation. This was never a viable draft, so it should have been deleted instead of redirected. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hang on, Cambalachero's explanation indicates this should be kept from that user's view, so it looks like both arguments are presented above. The removal of the extra text should not be a problem either way. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm aware. Cambalachero's explanation is a good summary of why it should be deleted. Cambalachero then pivots a bit and says there's hardy a point in deleting it, which is agreeable, but I think while we're here we might as well delete it—there's also hardly a point in keeping it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is not an WP:RDRAFT. The draft was created 13 years after the fact (in 2019) and never should have existed. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ... ish. Someone created a draft under this redirect prior to it being nominated. If need be, disable the redirect and then send this to WP:MFD. Steel1943 (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the desire to send this to WP:MFD? There is clearly not any salvageable material in the draft so there's nothing to discuss on that front. If the redirect is disabled, it would become eligible for WP:G13 deletion six months later. (Although, I don't see the point in waiting that long given that it's already been nominated for deletion). -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The 2023 IP edit should just have been reverted. But now that we're at RfD, Delete per Tavix. What I understand from SRE is it is applicable at MfD. Any draft may be boldly redirected to a corresponding article, and this avoids an MfD, such as this draft under discussion, hence was not a case of SRE. Jay 💬 17:17, 26 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 16:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reason given by Tavix. --Bsherr (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is all pretty pointless. The reasoning for keeping RDRAFTS isn't magically entirely invalidated by the fact that the redirect was created later and had no links. And yes, this comment is also pointless. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I've seen a fair number of drafts create for long existing articles and redirects like this are harmless. If having a redirect from the draft name to the article reduces that at all and gets the editors to improve the article, it'd be a net positive. Skynxnex (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Originaldo

• Originaldo → Ronaldo (Brazilian footballer)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

No page links here, also an implausible misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CHEAP. Nickname as reference to disambiguate from Cristiano Ronaldo.Homei (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it could be used to disambiguate him from Cristiano Ronaldo, but it should be a widely known nickname I think, like "R9" for example. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 20:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this unmentioned, unsupported portmanteau of a nickname. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: is used in many places e.g. reliable sources [1] and [2], and the less reliable Irish Sun. As such, plausible nickname and search term. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 30 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 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Marradonna

• Diego Marradonna → Diego Maradona  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Plausible misspelling tbh but the site would probably offer the correct page immediately. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CHEAP. Homei (talk) 20:19, 24 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 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per WP:CHEAP and doing a Google search it seems like this misspelling exists on the Internet (unlikely to be caused by this redirect, but who knows) so it could be useful. I've tagged it with ((R from misspelling)). Skynxnex (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The King of Football

• The King of Football → Pelé  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The lead states that He was nicknamed O Rei (The King). There are multiple people with this nickname in various fields (see, e.g., Elvis Presley or Richard Petty), so "The King of Football" is a plausible disambiguator. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A word in a different language that translates to "King", does not equate being designated as the ruler of the entire sport, i.e. the translation + "of football". No evidence in the article that this player is considered the king of football, and all around an ambiguous search term as this varies depending on who you ask. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I took a closer look, and the full phrase "The King of Football" is actually mentioned in one section. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:32, 27 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 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Having no links isn't a reason to delete a redirect. This term seems to be very common to refer to Pelé and is mentioned in our article. (Other places: Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar & Mbappe pay tribute to Pele, the 'king of football', [3], [4], [5], [6].) Skynxnex (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DZHH-AM

• DZHH-AM → Philippine Air Force  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If deleted, incoming links from 75 pages need to be fixed if we don't want this to be a redlink. Jay 💬 09:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP an old station that Philippine Air Force has been dated back in 1970s. It was mentioned on YouTube like this one, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjKYgmgMZB4. 2001:4454:733:4100:9DA9:E768:BA8B:C7CB (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's irrelevant if the target includes no information on the station. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• REDIRECT instead. 2001:4454:718:9400:1038:10E0:F21A:D6EE (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless sourced and WP:DUE information can be added at a target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Best cite that I got was it exists with address at the former Nichols Air Base. With that said, I don't think we have any material to work with to warrant a mention in any related articles. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Seena

• John Seena → John Cena  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Plausible misspelling tbh but the site would probably offer the correct page immediately. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CHEAP. Homei (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a reasonable phonetic attempt. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overtly on the nose with 2+ errors, can be easily found without this redirect and we shouldn't be replacing "ce" with "see". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plausible phonetic misspelling. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:13, 26 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 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all. Created in 2006 and this has come to RfD now. Not a typo. Had good pageviews, but they started dying down since 2022 for some reason though. Jay 💬 16:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I strongly disagree with @Crowsus's assessment that the site would probably offer the correct page immediately. The search results, excluding this redirect, are for John Oliver, Jon Stewart, Seena Owen, and every single article featuring the name of these people. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everyone. Also, regarding the comment above: the autofill functionality of the search bar uses Javascript, and it doesn't work if the reader has Javascript disabled or is using a device which doesn't support it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Seems like a plausible and unambiguous misspelling. I'll note that deciding if a misspelling redirect is useful won't just be counting the number of errors but also thinking if a person could plausibly intend to type this thinking it's the correct spelling (so not typo (which can also be useful) but a true misspelling). Skynxnex (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scorsesi

• Scorsesi → Martin Scorsese  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Plausible misspelling tbh but the site would probably offer the correct page immediately. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plausible misspelling _pbp 15:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CHEAP. Homei (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: phonetic spelling, so plausible search term. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:10, 26 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 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scorsezi

• Scorsezi → Martin Scorsese  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CHEAP. Homei (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, two errors is enough to delete. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: phonetic spelling, so plausible search term. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:10, 26 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 16:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japanator.com

• Japanator.com → Destructoid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 
• Japanator → Destructoid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

Target article doesn't mention Japanator. Anyone has any idea? Neocorelight (Talk) 01:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually tried digging around, including the history of the (now community banned) person that created the redirect. Maybe a troll creation? No valid reason can be found, so Delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, not a troll creation. I found this redirect by a link from another article. Neocorelight (Talk) 12:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Japanator should be bundled as well, I think? Not a super simple history. It was a sibling-ish site of Destructoid for quite awhile,[7][8] then was merged into Siliconera [9]. And so was part of Enthusiast Gaming (a possible retarget since it's mentioned there) but then Gamurs acquired some sites from Enthusiast (including Siliconera). So I think retarget to Enthusiast Gaming since it's mentioned there, including the transfer to Gamurs, and most of its system was part of that. Gamurs would be a fine (future) retarget if it's expanded. And open to other ideas if people know more (sadly lots of noise from the, hm, particular era that impacted gaming sites). (Pinging Neocorelight and Dennis Brown.) Skynxnex (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Skynxnex Please do the bundling. I don't know how to. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Neocorelight added (I think, oddly this is something I haven't done a ton of). Skynxnex (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Gamurs would be an ideal target, but if no one's gonna write a mention of Japanator then I'm fine with retargeting to Enthusiast Gaming. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think redirecting it to an article with an unsourced single line mention is a good idea. For the redirect to stay, somewhere there needs to be a cite at least demonstrating it existed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one. Neocorelight (Talk) 06:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 17:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is currently a sourced mention of "Japanator" at Enthusiast Gaming
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change in Bahrain

• Climate change in Bahrain → Geography of Bahrain#Climate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
• Climate change in Qatar → Geography of Qatar#Climate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
• Climate change in Iceland → Climate of Iceland  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
• Climate change in Yemen → Geography of Yemen#Climate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

We currently have many "Climate change in country x" titles that redirect to either "Geography of country x" or "Climate of country x". The style guide of WikiProject Climate change describe many aspects that should be in "Climate change in country x" articles that do not belong in articles about the climate or geography of country x. E.g. an article about climate change in a given country is supposed to discuss the greenhouse gas emissions that the country produces and the policies around emissions reductions in the country. The presence of these redirects discourages the creation of more complete articles so I propose that they be deleted. There are many other redirects following the pattern but I am starting with four of them to get community feedback before mass-nominating dozens. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:RFDHOWTO says that new nominations go to the top of the page. I moved the discussion accordingly. Nickps (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clayoquot: Deleting these redirects might also discourage the creation of more complete articles. Should an article about the climate of a given country not describe the effects of climate change in that country? Jarble (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Climate in country x" articles should describe the effects of climate change in that country. These redirects are not necessary to make those expansions happen. What these redirects do is leave no place to talk about the role of the country in causing climate change. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild support. If the deletion of the redirects is likely to lead to creations of new CCC articles then I am all for it (CCC = climate change in country X). I've been disappointed myself on a few occasions when I followed a link of "climate change in Country X", only to find that I was being redirected to "Country X#Climate" which then had only minimal info on climate change in that country. EMsmile (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Better a redirect to a good (or at least acceptable) article than a bad stub. In my (admittedly relatively short) experience on here, a hope that the community will passively take a hint and be nudged into doing something after a different action from you is not a plan. Good country-level climate change articles should be our goal - unfortunately, there is probably no substitute to either doing the work yourself and/or working with that country's WikiProject/most active editors if the WP is inactive. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Iceland, delete others Climate of Iceland#Climate change is a whole section dedicated to climate change in the country, and so it's sensible to redirect there. For the other countries, the target sections are generally about climate in general in those countries, with little to no content about climate change specifically, and so it's a misleading redirect, and deleting to encourage article creation is better. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:57, 26 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 15:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deputy chief ministers of Puducherry

• List of deputy chief ministers of Puducherry → List of chief ministers of Puducherry  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

no such role exists or has existed -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of current Indian deputy chief ministers which has: ..one state (Uttarakhand) and one union territory (Puducherry) have never had a deputy chief minister. Jay 💬 12:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't really see the point of redirecting it to List of current Indian deputy chief ministers, since there's no list of deputy chief ministers of Pudducherry there, either. -- asilvering (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is part of ((Deputy Chief Ministers of Indian states)). So we either remove the entry from there, and have readers wonder why is Puducherry missing, or have it as unlinked. The non-link entry will provide the only information that a deputy CM is "Not established", whereas the proposed target adds some more. Jay 💬 07:42, 28 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 15:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adriel Jasmear Green

• Adriel Jasmear Green → A. J. Green  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Nominated redirect has the wrong middle name. Jasmear has no association with the target. Red Director (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. Couldn't find this middle name as even having been suggested as his middle name. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, was misspelled. --bender235 (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flexes

• Flexes → Anatomical terms of motion#Flexion and extension  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Someone that performs a Flex, or perhaps are flexing (and/or doing the flexing (dance) all the while), can be said to be someone who "flexes". Flexion does not seem to be the only use for this term. Wiktionary or disambiguation might also be suitable here? Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Flex (disambiguation) as ((R from plural)) and ((R from verb)) -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 04:42, 10 April 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.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per ip Okmrman (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to soft redirect to wikit per cyclone 104.7.152.180 (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to Wikt:flexes per nom, which seems to be a better option than retargeting to the dab (where no items are pluralized). CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:21, 27 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 15:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Flex (disambiguation) per propositions to that effect above. There are several clearly pluralizable topics on the page. BD2412 T 16:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J.

• J. → J. The Jewish News of Northern California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

There are multiple topics at J (disambiguation) spelled with a period, and other topics not noted there that would normally be spelled that way, such as the common abbreviation for "Journal" in legal citations, or of Judge/Justice in case citations. Retarget this letter-and-period to J (disambiguation). BD2412 T 15:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to J (disambiguation) per nom. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to J (disambiguation): per nom and Senor Captain Thrawn. Skynxnex (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Harej (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyra Tierney

• Kyra Tierney → Phantasy Star IV  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

No discussion of a character called "Kyra Tierney" at the target article. Only mention on Wikipedia is at the disambig page for Tierney linking here, but the presence of a blue link implies we have content about this character, which we do not. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep. It seems "Kyra Tierney" is an actual character in the show, so it’s reasonable to expect someone searching the character's name on Wikipedia would be interested in that particular article. Slamforeman (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:00, 22 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 💬 15:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:LITTLEORPHAN

• Wikipedia:LITTLEORPHAN → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

While seemingly in reference to the pronunciation of "ANI" as being for "(Little orphan) Annie", I fully thought a shortcut with this name would have been in reference to little orphaned pages on Wikipedia. Anyone familiar enough with the WP culture of "ANI sounds like Annie therefore Little Orphan is a functional redirect", and can solve those literary gymnastics on the dime, would also be familiar enough to use one of the several other more-convenient avenues of reaching this noticeboard. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Another discussion from you about ANI redirects? What's next, you're gonna RfD WP:CESSPIT? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No. In any case, that particular title has been at RfD four times since 2009, while this was made in 2021, with only one user, and hasn't been discussed here ever. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll agree that this is a title that is implausible, I just found odd that you nominated so many ANI redirects. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I suppose I appreciate the come-around despite the opening rudeness. I promise I'm not out to kill fun! 😁 There's plenty of other titles with more longevity. ^^ Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and above. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, THIS one we can softify and tag as Humorous. The argument against Wikipedia:Room101 -- that it's actively harmful to compare ANI to a torture chamber-- doesn't apply here. This is just a cute pun. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would this page go here instead of WP:ORPHAN, with "little" being a likely term for orphan stubs? Specifically Wikipedia:Orphan#Articles that may be difficult to de-orphan, which details the "little orphans" that are hard to repair. At least Room 101 doesn't share a name with any existing Wikipedia topics that it could be confused by. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hm. I uh, somehow missed that bit. You're right in that some section of WP:ORPHAN might be a better target.

  Maybe we could disambig between ANI and ORPHAN somehow? ...I do feel like ORPHAN has greater pull probably... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• While I'd be fine with retargeting it to WP:ORPHAN, it's not really a plausible search term for that, so I'm leaning delete. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It isn't hurting anything, I doubt anybody has actually experienced confusion when trying to find info on orphan stubs and going there instead. There's no real reason to delete a mild pun that isn't causing any harm. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Retarget to WP:ORPHAN as I think would be a better target. I get the joke but I don't think it's useful for us here. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per #5 the redirect makes no sense. I don't see an argument for a retarget because the suggestion also makes no sense as the redirect is not mentioned at the suggested new target. TarnishedPath^talk 10:05, 15 April 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 💬 12:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:XY as it's a plausible shortcut for both Wikipedia:Orphan and Wikipedia:Stub (as in, a "little orphan") but isn't a useful redirect to ANI. Don't disambiguate: the "humorous" elements of Wikipedia are a walled garden for good reason. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:33, 19 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 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no real good target here. ANI is too confusing, since orphan is a common term among editors, but WP:ORPHAN isn't a great target either per Ivanvector. We don't need to keep this. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horse News

• Horse News → My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

This redirect survived CSD through a charitable BLAR. Not mentioned at the target, not likely to be mentioned at the target. Not a useful redirect in the page's current form. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was/is a site run by 4chan's /mlp/ board as an alternative to Equestria Daily. Break that down-- this is a fansite run by a subsection of the MLP fandom because the main, more-notable site used by the rest of the fandom didn't conform to that subsection's views (because... it's 4chan.) I challenge ANYONE to find a credible secondary source for this, which would be required to mention it on any of the possible non-mention targets of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom, Equestria Daily, or 4chan#/mlp/. Send it to the moon. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Hunterdon County Democrat#Sister publications. Jay 💬 09:52, 26 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 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King Karlomann

• King Karlomann → Carloman I  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

This misspelling is unique to Wikipedia, Google does not know about it. Delete. Викидим (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete two errors so unlikely misspelling --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above as an unlikely search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Carloman, a disambiguation page listing the many kings of the Franks known by the same name. The Franks spoke a Germanic language in which the kings were called Karlmann, and it's also written in Latin as Karlomanus; Karlomann is a plausible misspelling of both. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:39, 15 April 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! 03:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Karlomann also redirects to this target, which has "Karlomann" bolded in the very first sentence. It's not an error, apparently not a misspelling (either likely or unlikely), and not unique to Wikipedia. No objection to retargeting to Carloman if others think that's better than the current target. It has three Kings Karlomann and four non-Kings Karlomann, if that matters at all. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sourced mention added by Rich Farmbrough. Per Nyttend, no objection to retargeting to Carloman if others think that's better than the current target. Jay 💬 17:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Carloman. Reasonings per above. This is not a misspelling, it's just German. I don't see any reason to retarget to a specific king, since the German spelling is equally likely for any of them as far as I know. -- asilvering (talk) 03:43, 28 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 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odiogo

• Odiogo → History of podcasting#Timeline  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Redirected to the history of podcasting after an AfD, because there was no sourced content worth merging. However, it doesn't appear at the target any longer, if it appeared to begin with if the merge idea fell through. Does not seem to be a useful redirect in the target's current form. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/add mention to target. The site isn't mentioned at the target article because an editor disregarded the outcome of the deletion discussion and WP:BLARed the article instead of merging it properly. - Eureka Lott 22:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging BLARer Aircorn and the participants of the AfD - @Ansh666, Northamerica1000, Kvng, Nakon, MSJapan, Davey2010, Coffee, Enterprisey, and SwisterTwister:. Jay 💬 15:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/add mention to target per EurekaLott - The AFD was closed as Merge so why Aircorn decided to go against consensus and do whatever they please I will never know, Obvious keep. –Davey2010^Talk 15:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Not going to dig into a decision I made 6 years ago too deep. Judging from the timeframe, editnotice comment and content of the article at the time I would hazard a pretty good guess that I was working through the merge backlog and came across an article that closed as merge nearly 2 years previously, but had no mergeable content in it. A case of a bunch of editors saying merge, not providing info on what to merge and then being closed as merge without any guidance on what to merge (see Wikipedia:Merge what?). Its perfectly fine to redirect that in this case and is not ignoring consensus. Hopefully someone commenting here that it should be kept will follow through and add sourced content to the article if that is the consensus reached. Aircorn (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no mention at the target at this time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look how they massacred my boy

• Look how they massacred my boy → The Godfather  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

This redirect is categorized as follows: A meme quotation from film and television, that is not mentioned at the article. Wikipedia is not an infinite compendium of unmentioned memes. Not a helpful redirect as people who want to read about The Godfather would search for The Godfather. Specifying a meme implies a search for specific content that we don't have on WP. Delete. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, how often do people search for films via quotes? Regardless a simple search engine search will tell them the film's title and they can search for the title from there. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - stats show utility (WP:RFD#K5) and this is the correct target. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 09:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Ivanvector; people could be searching this redirect in order to find out what the quote is from. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a meme, people are attracted to the novelty, but Wikipedia isn't a collection of memes to gawk at. Searching for a phrase on Wikipedia to see the movie it comes from is an absolutely unreliable method that works 0% of the time. A google search is more effective in 100% of situations due to the usability and predictability it offers, which are two things that "typing a quote and receiving a redirect coupled with no context at the target page" does not provide. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Utility Utilization per page stats is does not necessarily indicate usefulness. Readers looking for the meme, or a context of it, will be disappointed. Jay 💬 17:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No mention at target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If you're looking for this, knowyourmeme or google are going to get you the answer. Wikipedia will not; we don't mention it at the target. -- asilvering (talk) 03:25, 28 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 15:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hornless unicorn

• Hornless unicorn → Horse  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Unicorns are not real. The article makes no mention of unicorns. It would be impossible for a hornless unicorn to be a horse because that would require a fictional creature variant to be real, which it is not and never will be. The target page does not mention unicorns in the slightest. Anyone that specifies "unicorn" instead of "horse" is likely looking for a unicorn related subtopic, instead of the general WP:SYNTH explanation for horse. Unicorn, Unicorn horn, or deletion are all preferable outcomes for this title which currently exists unmentioned at the horse page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's a valid search term, regardless of unicorns being fictional. One of the first things I found when searching was a definition on Urban Dictionary, as well as a number of images in which people refer to their horses as hornless unicorns. Using this logic, I do believe you should have also nominated horse with a horn (which points to unicorn). We also have horned horse and magic horse for consideration. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are fine titles. Urban dictionary is not a reliable source. People searching for the unmentioned "horses are hornless unicorns" meme will not receive any content at the target page, so that's another reason why a redirect would be harmful to those readers. At least with Unicorn and Unicorn horn, people can get context as to the crucial adjective of "hornless" in their search term, especially when the Horse article mentions neither "hornless" nor "unicorn". For all other cases you've provided, the article on Unicorn actually does a DEEP dive into those topics. "Magic" and "magical" comes up a bunch, and the topic of "horns" is thrown around in basically every paragraph. Nobody is confused when they type in a fictional phrase (i.e. "magic horse") and end up at a fictional article (unicorns). The same is not true of the inverse. The horned and magic horse redirects should be kept. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about urban dictionary being a reliable source, it's about whether it's a valid search term, is relatively unambiguous, and contextually makes sense. I strongly believe, based on some searching, that hornless unicorn is synonymous with a horse and fits these criteria. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible, and also already a stretch. Unicorns are a fictional species. Any variant of a fictional creature cannot be synonymous with a real creature. And especially for using such a specific term as "hornless unicorn", targeting "Horse" instead of a unicorn related article is original research. My childhood would be highly eager to see the reliable, published source that says that unicorns exist, in order for a hornless version to as well and justify this redirect targeting a real animal and not a mythology-related article. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OR? C'mon now. It's simply a reversal of a common description of a unicorn.

• Unicorn's short desc on en-wiki: Legendary single-horned horse-like creature
• Wikidata: Legendary animal, that looks like a horse with a horn on the forehead

If a horned (magical) horse is a unicorn then it's entirely reasonable to assume or draw a connection to a hornless unicorn being a horse. Again though, I urge you to do some Googling and see that it's a common thing to refer to a horse as. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just quoting what OR says: "On Wikipedia, original research means material for which no reliable, published source exists.". The term "hornless unicorn" does not appear at the target page. Moreover, it does not appear ANYWHERE on Wikipedia besides one passing mention at Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland. But definitely not at Horse. Even including a mention at the horse page would be wholly inappropriate there, as it's a real animal, fundamentally rooted in biology. The article isn't about how horses appear in pop culture or mythology, so unicorns shouldn't ever come up. Because we are redirecting a unicorn variation to a real animal, if there is no reliable, published source exists for this redirection-equation material, it is considered original research. Citing Urban Dictionary would also be considered original research, if no reliable, published source exists. A Google search funneling into various memes and the RuneScape wiki is also not a reliable source. If there is a reliable source that suggests that unicorns are a real thing, in order to justify the existence of hornless versions and target a real biological animal, then please let me know. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Unicorn: (would be open to other targets) my initial impression was to keep since "hornless unicorn" is commonly^{[by whom?]} "known" to be a jokey way to refer to a horse. But, horse doesn't mention or link to unicorn and is unlikely to ever cover this term. While unicorn mentions and links to horse and says unicorns are horse-like creatures with a horn. Skynxnex (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is simply too vague, as it may refer to a horse, or a literal unicorn that lacks a horn. But, it would also be pointless to disambiguate, as DAB pages are not a search index. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as incorrect and unused. A hornless unicorn is not a horse. Maybe it's a unicorn whose horn has been cut off, or one which was [fictitiously] born without a horn (an anomaly). But it has nothing to do with a horse. Horse article doesn't mention unicorns. If you must keep the redirect, send it to Unicorn. Leaving it as a redirect to Horse is an uncited definition (WP:OR), which is also an incorrect meaning. If it was in Wiktionary, I'd say redirect it there, but it's not. There is no article in Wikipedia which uses this redirect. There is a single article which refers to a "hornless unicorn" (linked to Unicorn), and it is a creature on a tomb monument, which can be seen here. Delete.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this isn't ambiguous whatsoever. "Unicorns aren't real" is not a reason to delete this redirect; what matters is that people know what a unicorn is, and more importantly, know what a unicorn looks like and how that appearance relates to horses. My mind goes to the word games that non-fluent people sometimes resort to when they don't know the word for something-- the anecdote of someone in a grocery store, wanting chicken, not knowing the word for "chicken", picking some eggs up, heading to an employee, and asking, "Where's the mother?" 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a description in Unicorn article: "depicted as a white horse-like or goat-like animal with a long straight horn with spiralling grooves, cloven hooves, and sometimes a goat's beard" and often "an ox tail". Far from a horse; closer to cattle. If someone wants to know what a "hornless unicorn" is, they can go to Unicorn and figure it out. Going to Horse won't help them at all, since horses don't have cloven hooves, horns, beards, or tails like that.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Huh. That's... not usually what I think of when I think of unicorns. In the modern day, unicorns really are depicted as "just slap a horn on a horse"-- after all, if you need a live-action shot of a unicorn, getting cloven hooves and an ox tail is a tall order, and the thing people notice first has always been the horn anyways. There's also the My Little Pony franchise, where unicorns are simply ponies with horns, but given a pony is just a horse with dwarfism...

My point is that that article needs some work, clearly-- it completely fails to talk about contemporary understanding/depiction of unicorns. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lunamann: Reminder... WP:NOTFORUM. This RFD is about whether or not to delete or change the redirect Hornless unicorn. You're welcome to edit Unicorn to add whatever you can appropriately source, but based on your edit history you don't actually do any content editing, but just post comments on RFDs. I can't even imagine being holed up here. You really should branch out and get more experience around Wikipedia. It's much more fun.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this falls under NOTFORUM, as people's impressions of unicorns are indeed relevant to the deciding factor of this discussion. Though I agree that one might have a source. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think My Little Pony ponies are horses either: they have no separate hooves at all, and you can't really distinguish if that's an ox tail or a horse tail, so you can't see if they're unicorns that fit the article's description. I agree that you should probably get a really reliable source that says that hornless unicorns are just horses. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Since any other action appears to be ambiguous guesswork. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A unicorn is a horse with special features, so when you eliminate those features it reverts back to its original state. The whole unicorn belief is based on the supposed magical powers of the horn. In fact, the horn is what makes the unicorn, not the horse. I rest my case. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 22:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misunderstanding about this subject which is not supported by reliable sources.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, you just have to apply common sense here. Not everything has to be used/supported by reliable sources. Urban terms are a thing. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 08:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't take your word that unicorns are perceived as just horses with horns, and most people above seem to disagree. Evidence much? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: To suggest that people will search for a member of an empty set such as a hornless unicorn is laughable not an argument which has a solid basis. Incorrect search term that is not remotely likely to searched for. TarnishedPath^talk 13:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @TarnishedPath: Laughable is an obviously extreme interpretation. I might avoid disparaging others with comments such as these. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hey man im josh apologies I didn't mean disparage. TarnishedPath^talk 05:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No worries, I understand if it wasn't meant that way. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is leaning delete but consensus could be clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:NN

• Cat:NN → Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 
• Cat:nn → Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 
• Cat:prod → Category:Proposed deletion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Honestly, I have no idea how this WP:XNR survived RfD. "Cat:" is not a pseudo-namespace. Looking at WP:Shortcut#List of prefixes, "Cat:" appears nowhere. It is not widely accepted, it is nowhere accepted. CAT:NN has existed since 2006. This lowercase version was created in 2020. The RfD said "keep because it is used widely in links" which is simply entirely incorrect. The search result provided then, showed usage of EXCLUSIVELY the uppercase variant. From a quantitative perspective, CAT:NN has 500+ links. Cat:NN has zero, besides the deletion notifications. If someone wants to campaign for the existence of a new lowercase "Cat" namespace, that should be done before the existence of these redirects. (Which as per Pandora's WikiBox, the existence of one has since introduced two more also bundled). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Misleading, found no kitties inside the namespace. More seriously, having lowerspace variants of pseudo-namespaces would be unmaintainable. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I only made this two because of the existence of Cat:NN and because using caps lock sucks on phones, you're more than welcome to speedy them under author requests deletion so we don't have to drag this out for a week. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment! I was kind of confused why those two came about. A discussion seems inevitable though at minimum for Cat:NN as that was kept a few months ago. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cat:prod averages about 2 pageviews each day, since it's convenient to just keyboard type lowercase stuff. However the search thing "redirects" capitalization already anyways Aaron Liu (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:prod was created a month ago. I'm not surprised that it gets views because CAT:PROD also gets a substantial amount of views, and people type in lowercase expecting to autocorrect by the software (which it does). If redirects are meant to optimize view-numbers, we'd get rid of capitals entirely. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The lowercase spelling is not commonly accepted and would lead to a WP:PANDORA issue. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The last 2 have been deleted as G7. Keep, don't see any harm. Queen of ♡ | speak 21:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cat:NN per PANDORA per StreetcarEnjoyer who had created the other two based on the presence of Cat:NN. Jay 💬 14:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W2000

• W2000 → Windows 2000  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

The first result I get when google searching is Walther WA 2000. There is also Hercules W-2000. Okmrman (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Hercules W-2000 as the most likely target, with a seealso link at top to Walther WA 2000. "W2000" to refer to the OS isn't really a thing to my knowledge. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 17:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate No evidence that either the software, the gun, or the motorcycle is the primary topic. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 04:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic? Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - disambiguation pages are not for manually compiled keyword search results. We have a search engine for that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neb-er-tcher

• Neb-er-tcher → Osiris  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Apparently a god in Egyptian mythology, however this god is not ever described at the Osiris article, and bears no mention. People who search this term are left confused as to the correlation between this god and Osiris. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This redirect seems to be an error on the part of the creator (User:TUF-KAT, who last edited 15 years ago). A Google search for Neb-er-tcher turns up this page, an excerpt from Legends of the Gods (1912) by E. A. Wallis Budge, describing the creation myth found in Papyrus Bremner-Rhind. "Neb-er-tcher" is Budge's archaic transcription of a divine name meaning "Lord of the limit" or "Lord to the limit", which was generally an epithet of Atum, not Osiris. Budge doesn't identify this deity as Atum, but later sources universally do so (e.g.: Raymond O. Faulkner (1937), "The Bremner-Rhind Papyrus: III: D. The Book of Overthrowing ꜤApep" in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology; James P. Allen (1988), Genesis in Egypt; Geraldine Pinch (2002), Egyptian Mythology).

The redirect obviously should not lead to Osiris, who isn't directly related to this deity. Nor should it be retargeted to Atum, because nobody refers to him by this obsolete transcription of his epithet. (Note the pageviews.) A. Parrot (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Atum per A. Parrot's finding. A published work in Modern English refers to this god with this spelling of this name; that's all we need. Someone could read that page and decide to search Wikipedia for it. Obviously it's not going to be any problem for other aspects of redirects (causes confusion, ambiguous, etc.), and implausibility is not a factor if we can prove that it's been used like this. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Since this is one of the google results for this name, we probably should redirect it to Atum. Otherwise we are perpetuating the Osiris error, looks like. -- asilvering (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further opinion on the retarget suggestion. Also notified of this discussion at the suggested target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halo 1 pistol

• Halo 1 pistol → M6D Pistol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

According to the halo wiki, there are "many different pistols used in the Halo universe". I don't think this is a useful search term, zero evidence that "Halo 1 pistol" is an alternate name for this pistol even if used by Master Chief. Wikipedia is not a search engine to figure out "what's the name of the pistol that Master Chief uses in Halo 1". Not a great precedent for titles, i.e. based on MOS:POPCULT, and franchises that reference a real model of pistol. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Halo 1 also has the Plasma Pistol, making this an inaccurate term. It's generally referred to as the "magnum" to differentiate it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• To be clear, this is specifically an alternative name redirect, intended for people who know about the pistol and it's significance, and call it this name. A google search gives a couple social media posts of people who call it that. I don't understand your last sentence. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 10:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as useful and redirects are cheap. I don't understand the nom's "Wikipedia is not a search engine" argument, and I'd love to see what policy/guideline that's based in. It certainly doesn't appear anywhere on WP:R. In fact, I might even argue that WP:R#KEEP #3 applies in this situation (and would be another reason to keep this page). Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is a search engine; readers come here to search for information, and Wikipedia has long been one of the options you can choose as your default search engine in many web browsers. But this one in particular is ambiguous (per Zxcvbnm) and search results would be better (example). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish bath

• Turkish bath → Hammam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

The target of this redirect should likely be reconsidered. The most helpful solution may to turn this into a DAB, merging with Turkish Bath (disambiguation). Reason: The term "Turkish bath" in a Western context is fairly generic and might also denote other types of steam baths, in addition to the mainly Islamic ones covered at Hammam. Since this was last discussed in 2021 (see here), a more fully-fledged Victorian Turkish bath article now exists. Other articles might also be relevant to link. Note: This came out of a discussion at Talk:Turkish Bath (disambiguation) between myself and Ishpoloni. Feel free to read there for more context & explanation. R Prazeres (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Hammam is the primary topic. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget: I don't know the correct Wiki terminology to use, but searchers from different communities seeking information on so-called 'Turkish baths' (which no longer appears as an article) could equally be looking for Hammam or Victorian Turkish baths and some type of 'See:' reference should offer these two clear redirecting link options.

Hammam is neither primary nor secondary. Hammam and Victorian Turkish baths only have in common that they are baths, and are both derived from the ancient Roman thermae. Victorian Turkish baths are not steam baths. Nor are they really, as the Hammam article states, "A variation on the Muslim bathhouse"—which is why in France and Germany they are called Roman-Irish baths.

The only guiding principle here should be: 'Save the time of the reader' Ranganathan's 4th law. Ishpoloni (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, we follow our own policies and guidelines, not library science (for better or for worse, I can't say). The guideline for how to deal with ambiguous terms (like Turkish bath) is WP:D. The first step is to determine whether there is a primary topic. One way to do that is to look at page traffic. The page traffic for Hammam shows that most people get to that page via an "other-search", such as searching for the term "Turkish bath" via an external search engine, but that only 15% of people then click away to Victorian Turkish baths from that article. We can infer that most readers were, in fact, looking for Hammam when they searched "Turkish bath". We can also look at comparative pageviews, which shows that Hammam gets far more views than Victorian Turkish baths. Then, if we've determined a primary topic, the guideline tells us to redirect the ambiguous term to that page, with hatnotes to the appropriate disambiguation pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Having had time to familiarise myself more with the often complicated Wikipedia guidance notes, I now believe that the most equitable solution is the one suggested above by R Prazeres, ie, to change the current Redirect into a DAB, merging with Turkish Bath (disambiguation). This could either be based on the existing one or, perhaps preferably, like the Mercury page example given in the guidance notes. I believe this is a solution on which we should easily be able to reach consensus.

Reasons:

1. Of the 22 reasons for a redirect given on Wikipedia:Redirect the overwhelming majority relate to different forms of words, grammar, punctuation, etc. Not one exemplifies a redirect of one subject to another subject.^[a]

2. On Wikipedia:Disambiguation page the three important points seem to be:

(a) naming articles so each has an unique title, eg, Hammam and Victorian Turkish baths;

(b) making links so that a term points to the correct article;

(c) "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." (My emphasis)

Proposed resolution:

Change the current Redirect into a DAB, merging with Turkish Bath (disambiguation)

An allied matter:

In case there are Western European readers of this Wikipedia, there should be Redirects < Irish-Roman baths and < Roman-Irish baths > Victorian Turkish baths. Ishpoloni (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Turkish Bath (disambiguation) per nom. -- asilvering (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 14:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baak film redirects

• Baak (Telugu film) → Aranmanai 4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 
• Baakghost → Aranmanai 4  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Both of these redirects have no point. Both these redirects (Baakghost and Baak (Telugu film)) along with Baak (Telugu Film) were initially created by SenthilGugan as Articles for the Telugu dubbed version of Aranmanai 4. After seeing no need for another article, when there's already a primary article and an Afd the pages were turned to redirects. But, there is no need these many redirects, as not even the Google recognizes these names. I only included two redirects because, the other one has already been Rfded. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Vestrian24Bio, what's the reason for nominating this redirect for deletion? I could be missing a potential problem with it; but, from what I can see, this title is mentioned at the target under Aranmanai 4#Release. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 11:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am typing it; please wait for me to post it. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, sorry - I was confused as to why the redirect was nominated without a rationale, but that makes sense. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 11:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fine 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It's Baak. See this. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting that the above !vote was made underneath the entry for Baakghost, before the two nominations had been combined - see [10]. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 12:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to Chavismo

• Opposition to Chavismo → Venezuelan opposition  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Term not found in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 10:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:RFD#K4. Result of a page move that happened a few hours ago. "Anti-Chavismo" is also given as an alternative name in the lead. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Anti-Chavismo" is not "Opposition to Chavismo". Per your argument WP:RFD#K4 to quote the policy "Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links ... Links that have existed for a significant length of time ... should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them". This is clearly not a redirect that has existed for a significant period of time. TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting that you skipped over "redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason" when quoting from the RfD guidelines! Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; you'll find plenty of references if you focus on "opposition to chavism", and those can be worked into the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aku Type

• Aku Type → Gameplay of Pokémon#Pokémon types  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

what cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i did some looking, and it's a word in some languages, and could refer to the fire, water, electric, and dark types, given some mental gymnastics, but it's mostly an informal-ish first person pronoun. no idea what basis i think this should be deleted on, but i want this gone cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's the japanese name for the dark type StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:31, 29 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! 08:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokédex (Sinnoh)

• Pokédex (Sinnoh) → Gameplay of Pokémon#Pokédex  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

retarget to the list of gen 4 pokémon? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Sinnoh Pokédex doesn't only include Gen 4 pokémon, but it isn't unlikely that someone would be looking for these specifically when typing it. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:22, 23 April 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! 08:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Pokémon

• Bird Pokémon → Gameplay of Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 
• Bird Pokemon → Gameplay of Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

not sure if this is referring to bird pokémon (like corviknight and the worse corviknight), in which case i'd say retarget to the list of pokémon or delete (more so delete) or to the unused bird type, in which case redirect to missingno without a second or first thought cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Big One (earthquake)

• The Big One (earthquake) → San Andreas Fault#The next .22Big One.22  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28#The Big One (earthquake). However, multiple sources prove that "The Big One" does not only refer to the anticipated mega-quake in Los Angeles, but also refers to a similar feared one that can devastate Metro Manila, the Philippines. Here are some of the reliable sources that prove "The Big One" is not just a U.S. thing: from Rizal Medical Center, from DOST, from Inquirer.net, from Manila Bulletin, from a World Bank blog, from Philippine Star, and from Manila Standard Today. This redirect should be made as a disambiguation page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Master

• Pokémon Master → Gameplay of Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

• Pokemon Master → Gameplay of Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 
• Pokémon master → Gameplay of Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

is this really the best place to target, as opposed to pokémon masters ex? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Ash Ketchum. Pokemon Masters is entirely separate from the concept of one, and that game doesn't use the terminology beyond the title to my knowledge. The concept itself is almost entirely associated with Ash, so I'd suggest a retarget there. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Ash Ketchum: per Pokelego999. This exact phrase Ash is the best target and isn't a bad place to jump into other aspects of Pokemondom if this isn't what the user expected. Skynxnex (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Pokémon

• Legendary Pokémon → Gameplay of Pokémon#Legendary Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 
• Legendary Pokemon → Gameplay of Pokémon#Legendary Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 
• Legendary pokémon → Gameplay of Pokémon#Legendary Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 
• Ledgendary pokemon → Gameplay of Pokémon#Legendary Pokémon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

maybe retarget to the list of pokémon as with mythical pokémon? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to match Mythical Pokémon as per Cogsan. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just noticed the 4rd one has a minor spelling mistake, should it be deleted? i'd say delete cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cogsan: To be clear, are you !voting to delete all four redirects, or just Ledgendary pokemon? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just the 4rd one cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 16:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of Pokémon per others due to the anchor no longer existing. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuno Miles

• Yuno Miles → Comedy hip hop#History and examples  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

PROD'ed but redirects are ineligible for that process. The original PROD statement was: Redirects to an article that doesn't mention Miles. Appears reasonable to me, this person doesn't seem notable enough to be mentioned in the target article as far as I can tell and I don't immediately see a good alternative target. Pinging original nominator: @Frankoceanreal. Tollens (talk) 07:36, 23 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, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This redirect used to target List of hip hop satirists, which was BLARed in March 2024. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 10:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think there may be potential for a Yuno Miles article, as I've seen him building traction recently and can find at least some coverage so far, but it's not quite enough that I'd want to jump on making one right away. In the meantime, we do not have a good redirect target for him, so this should go. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, turns out there is a draft which was started two days ago, so maybe we'll see this turn into an article soon enough. Regardless, I still say delete. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hazeltown

• Hazeltown → Haselstauden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

This is not attested anywhere, and its addition to the article was solely referenced to the article's "version history". 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just added a ((cn)) at the target. The article was titled Hazeltown and mention has been there right from the first edit in 2008 - Keep as long as the mention is there. Jay 💬 13:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: any thoughts on keeping the redrect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to lack of attestation; just because something has been there since 2008 doesn't mean it's right. (Of course, just because something cannot be cited doesn't mean it isn't true - but it does mean we should exclude it and the redirect from Wikipedia until we're 100% sure). --GnocchiFan (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Province of Bessarabia

• The Province of Bessarabia → Budjak  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 
• Province of Bessarabia → Budjak  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Nonsense redirects. Bessarabia is a region in Eastern Europe. Budjak is a subset of it. Super Ψ Dro 12:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to Bessarabia Governorate. "Province" appears to be an alternative translation (see [11], [12], etc.) - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In both links you gave province is not capitalized, there is no proper names but a descriptive combination of words. There was also Bessarabia Governorate (Romania) by the way. We could disambiguate but I see it as really unnecessary. Also, come on, The Province of Bessarabia is completely implausible, it should be deleted. Super Ψ Dro 23:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Does it matter if it's not capitalized in the specific sources I found? It will still be a plausible search term. I thought about disambiguation, but I think the hatnote at the proposed target is sufficient. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the key word in the nominating statement is: "is". Bessarabia is a larger region in Eastern Europe. However, it appears that it was a smaller Turkish province/governate/eyalet, from the late 15th century through the early 19th century. Here's the article as it stood before being redirected in 2005:

  The Province of Bessarabia or Besarabya pashalyk in Turkish, was an Ottoman province from 1478 to 1812. Its size varied, however by 1600, it included the towns of Cetatea Alba, Izmail, Tighina, and Kilia.
  The Ottoman Province of Bassarabia was annexed by the Russian Empire in 1812, along with all Moldovan territory east of the Prut river, which the Russians governed jointly in one single Russian province of Bessarabia.
  The Ottoman Province, only, is more or less the same size as the territory of modern-day Bugeac, which is currently part of the Ukrainian Odessa oblast.

  This is uncited but sounds plausible, and it aligns with the bit in Budjak#Name and geography (i.e., the redirect's target) that uses the name historic Bessarabia. There are sources such as this 1927 book (about the Russian annexation of the province) and this 2019 book (about ethnicity, but summarizing the pre-Russian state, in which Bessarabia was vaguely delimited but generally congruent with Budjak), and "province"+"bessarabia"&pg=PA59&printsec=frontcover this book (which confirms Izmail was part of the province of Bessarabia when the Russians took the province from the Ottomans, before they gave it to Moldovia) that verify at least parts of it. At any rate, though I'm unfamiliar with the history of this area, it appears that it's not "nonsense", but merely a detail of history that is not widely known. Consequently, we should probably keep this redirect, and probably improve the target article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Bessarabia given the ambiguity of several historical provinces being named "Bessarabia". Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winged spear

• Winged spear → Bohemian earspoon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Between Corseque, Spetum, and the fact that this redirect is not mentioned in the current target, it's not clear which subject readers are desiring to locate when searching this term. (However, used to be a section at Polearm#Winged spear, a section which was present in 2012, but was removed at some point that year.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit the Bohemian Earspoon is not the most obvious redirect. Winged spears are probably ancestral to the spetum and corseque too. If I were to plump for one, it would probably be spetum. But there is an argument that a separate article or article section on the weapon would ultimately be preferable. Be hard to make it above a start though. Monstrelet (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, makes me wonder if the section I linked which existed over a decade ago should be restored, or even used to overwrite the nominated redirect with an article. Steel1943 (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link baiting

• Link baiting → Clickbait  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Deletion, link baiting differs from clickbait to the degree that the redirect is misleading. Link baiting does not have the deceptive nature of clickbait. ^[1] Acalc79 (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose I could ask how you're defining "link baiting?" 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

apparently, the difference is the target demographic

clickbait is for general #ContentConsumers™ who love consuming content. for examples, uh, open up youtube and go to incognito mode

link bait is for creators, to try to get them to advertise, sponsor, or otherwise promote your slop. for an example, get offered a raidy shady sponsorship i think

so my pedantic ass would say delete unless a section or article on link bait can be made cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The term is ambiguous. Link bait can mean both "clickbait" as well as "content designed to attract incoming links". We have no content to link to for the latter meaning, so there is nothing to do for now. Paradoctor (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete to encourage article creation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Paradoctor, but without prejudice to dabification/hatnoting if the term is added to another article in the context of digital marketing/SEO. The Wiktionary page includes examples of the term link bait being used in both contexts, but we don't currently seem to have an article which mentions the term in an SEO context. While WP:PRIMARYRED states that [t]he existing article is not automatically the primary topic in cases where other uses of the term are red-linked, it also states that MOS:DABMENTION still applies - and, as Wikipedia doesn't currently seem to have a mention of the term in the SEO context, DABMENTION isn't met - meaning that a disambiguation page for the term (by my understanding) couldn't currently exist. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 11:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of appommatox courthouse

• Battle of appommatox courthouse → Battle of Appomattox Court House  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

The misspelling combined with the miscapitalization make this not very useful. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Courthouse" and "Court House" are variant spellings, and it isn't too surprising that someone would type it in lowercase. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Appomattox is also misspelled. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, didn't catch this. Yeah, delete in this case. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Enby's initial opinion on lowercase and spacing. Appomattox/Appommatox swaps the doubled characters with m for t, so isn't an unreasnable misspelling, as this isn't a common word. Tag ((R from misspelling)) -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is this a reasonable ((R from misspelling))?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - plausible misspelling, cheap, and has existed since 2008 (engaging WP:R#K4). WP:R#CRD states that we should consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones; and so, in the absence of evidence of ambiguity or other harm caused by this redirect's existence, my !vote is to keep. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 11:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - "courthouse" is not a misspelling, it's an alternate spelling, and the double-m in Appomattox is a plausible error. As for capitals, the first letter is capitalized in every page title (it's a technical restriction) and otherwise many readers don't bother typing capitals in the search bar. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 30

Radio-Canada

• Radio-Canada → Canadian Broadcasting Corporation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Disambiguate. Radio-Canada can mean a few things, none of them being its English equivalent (though I guess it can be with enough of a stretch). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for LilianaUwU: What other things could Radio-Canada mean? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ici Radio-Canada Télé, Ici Radio-Canada Première (those two being the main ones) and Radio Canada International, as well as their headquarters at Maison de Radio-Canada. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. From the history, I see that I created this redirect more than 20 years ago (!), and at the time Wikipedia was only a few years old and its content was less extensive than today. I think there weren't any articles about Radio-Canada at the time, so this was probably just a placeholder redirect which I forgot about long ago. Thanks for taking the initiative to fix this. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:PTOPIC - Radio-Canada is the well-known-in-English French name for the subject covered at Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (branded "CBC/Radio-Canada" per the first sentence). Hatnotes are provided to link to articles covering specific divisions of Radio-Canada. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panther Memorial Stadium, McBee

• Panther Memorial Stadium, McBee → McBee High School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

No longer mentioned at the target after a 2012 merge/redirect AfD closure. A high school's stadium does not need to be a redirect to the school if the stadium has no discussion at the target page, although the history may need to be dealt with. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on dealing with the history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paramount Television International Studios

• Paramount Television International Studios → TIS Productions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Per the outcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3#Paramount Television International Studios, where incoming links were the hurdle straight after a page move, I've given it enough time for the actual targets and/or rdr targets to be sorted out. The reason or rationale is the same as its/the original listing. Intrisit (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Paramount International Networks#Production company where the relevant context/history of this company is detailed. It also points to TIS Productions at that target, though the two do not appear to be directly linked anymore and this company is not mentioned at the original target. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 18 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) 18:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goulash (magazine)

• Goulash (magazine) → Harrow School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

This is a local(?) satirical(?) magazine published by a boarding school. Zero standalone notability, existed as two sentences that were BLAR'd immediately into the school it was published from. No mention of "goulash" anywhere at the target page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mention No redirect. To be honest, I doubt if this magazine is even real. Couldn't find anything in Jstor and Gscholar Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's probably real, honestly, but just so local that it has no electronic archives, as many a student magazine do 😅 Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to The Harrovian and unlink there. Jay 💬 09:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 18 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) 18:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ELLIS, DICK

• ELLIS, DICK → Dick Ellis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

No affinity for ALL CAPS. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's common for encyclopedias and other reference works to begin an entry with the title in all caps. This page on another wiki cites Ellis' article in the Dictionary of British Intelligence, and the article apparently uses ELLIS, DICK rather than Ellis, Dick or Dick Ellis. Maybe you'll try this version if you've not used Wikipedia much (or if it's been a while), or you may copy/paste it into Wikipedia from somewhere else that uses the all-caps. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I created this in response to this request: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive234#Redirect_request. I have no strong view re whether or not it should be kept. WaggersTALK 10:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as WP:CHEAP and not sufficiently "weird" to qualify for WP:RCAPS in my opinion. Pinging User:Tom Pippens (who made the request linked above) as a courtesy, but they have not edited since 2012, so I doubt they care at this point. --NYKevin 22:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:RCAPS. While I can see Nyttend's argument that Ellis, Dick should redirect to Dick Ellis, I'd like to point out that this website's search functionality is CaSe InSeNsItIvE, save for when two titles are only different by capitalization (as per WP:DIFFCAPS). We don't need to keep allcaps redirects; if one feels that a "last name before first name" redirect would be helpful, it would be more helpful with some lowercase letters. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not everyone uses the search page to find articles. Plausible capitalisations are useful for other reasons (e.g. someone typing or copy/pasting text into the URL bar, like I do), so we have a category for them with tens of thousands of entries. Nyttend (talk) 21:36, 23 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) 18:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CHEAP, as an ((avoided double redirect)) of (newly created) Ellis, Dick. Seems like a harmless ((R from alternative capitalization)) - not everyone uses the search bar; but even if everyone did, I'm not convinced that this redirect is problematic/would warrant deletion. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 19:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pluri-

• Pluri- → Plural  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 
• Pluri → Plural  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Pluri indeed means plural, but the current target is about grammatical person, and this prefix is used in other contexts (eg. plurinational, plurisexual, etc.) and it's not mentioned in the target page either. It could be dabified in line with multi. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:46, 20 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) 18:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finite dimensional Hilbert spaces

• Finite dimensional Hilbert spaces → Category of finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 
• Finite dimensional hilbert spaces → Category of finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

The current target may be too technical for the search term. Alternatives could be Hilbert space or Euclidean space (or Euclidean space#Technical definition). Also note that the singular Finite dimensional Hilbert space, or the more correct hyphenations Finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces/Finite-dimensional Hilbert space do not currently exist. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 20 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) 18:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal tart

• Royal tart → Adventure Time season 2#ep35  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Should delete as to WP:FANCRUFT. BaduFerreira (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As a redirect, this is valid. The concern of FANCRUFT may be taken up at the target article. Jay 💬 18:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 16:47, 28 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) 18:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pawanism

• Pawanism → Pawan Kalyan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

No mention of "Pawanism" at the target page. 7 years ago, it was said that "Pawanism isn't notable on its own, but should be discussed on Pawan Kalyan" in an edit summary. However, it is not. There are multiple people named Pawan on Wikipedia; "Pawanism" is too vague in its current state. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:47, 21 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) 18:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the term is related to him. [13][14][15] I don't see harm in keeping the redirect and adding a short note somewhere in the page, although admittedly I'm not quite sure where it'd fit in. Golem08 (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkblood

• Pinkblood → SM Entertainment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 
• PinkBlood → SM Entertainment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 
• Pinkblood (band) → SM Entertainment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 
• Pinkblood (group) → SM Entertainment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 
• Pinkblood (South Korean band) → SM Entertainment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 
• Pinkblood (South Korean group) → SM Entertainment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

No substantial mention of "Pinkblood" anywhere on Wikipedia; is only stated once in a citation on a different article. If this is a possibly notable group, seems to be worthwhile to keep as a red link to encourage article creation. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Per this article from the Korea Times [16], this is what I could find on Pink Blood from SM. While there might be an argument to keep the first 2 redirects after using the info from the article to expand the SM Entertainment article, the remaining redirects should be deleted as Pink Blood is clearly not a future kpop group but rather a made-up term for fans of SM Entertainment. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 11:13, 25 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) 18:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackahuahua

• Jackahuahua → Jack Russell Terrier#Post-World War II  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Dog breed redirected at a 2008 AfD, seemingly been unmentioned at the target for over a decade. It's misleading to maintain breed redirect for a dog type that holds zero information on Wikipedia. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could go to list of dog crossbreeds but that page doesn't mention it; however, it's only had 3 views in the past 30 days which probably includes me looking at it. I don't think this designer dog breed has much notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 22 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) 18:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easing function

• Easing function → Inbetweening#Digital animation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

Without a mention of "easing", making this already not a great target, there's also no mention of a "function" at the target either. While the page admittedly talks about an "ease-in" and an "ease-out", this is not necessarily an "easing function" and several other topics deal with "easing" as well. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easing function is a common term in computer graphics, see [17] [18]. Maybe there's a better redirect target, or a new article is warranted, but this was the best I could find. 11wx (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 22 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) 18:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]