The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• M O O N → The Stand  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• M. O. O. N. → The Stand  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• M-O-O-N → The Stand  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• A-Prime → The Stand  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't see any relevant content in the target article. The last redirect formerly targeted a subtopic article which had a mention of the term, but that's been lost in the merge. I would assume some of the first three redirects could be retargeted to Moon (disambiguation) to match MOON, but the dab page doesn't seem to have a single entry where the word is in upper case. – Uanfala (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The lack of a mention in the article makes these redirects confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Restore and send to AfD. At this point the case for deletion is one that should be considered at AfD as it hinges on assessments of notability of a pre-existing article subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Brian James Gage → Gil Mantera's Party Dream  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Two editors have flagged this article (Brian James Gage) as a non-noteworthy person and redirected the page to Gil Mantera's Party Dream as apparently, the subject played one show with them before the band officially started. I feel if the author is in fact deemed non-noteworthy then his article should be deleted instead of redirecting to a band he was never a member of nor did he contribute anything of significance to the band once they were formed. I tried to nominate for deletion, but it was overturned and was sent here for discussion or consensus. I nominate for deletion unless author is deemed noteworthy which doesn't seem to be the case any longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takemehome2night (talk • contribs)

• Comment I've fixed the formatting of nomination and tagged the redirect as appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as mentioned in the band's history / origins, and no others by this name to disambiguate. If you're trying to stay where he should have an article or a redirect, then restore and bring to AFD. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I actually follow this author and have kept up with the page over the years. I thought it should stay since it's been active apparently since 2008. Anyway, other editors flagged him as non-noteworthy which I have no quarrel with, but the redirect seems inappropriate. So if that's the consensus that author is non-noteworthy, then I fully disagree with the keep on the redirect vs. deletion. The subject was not a member of this band, and the "Background" citing him as playing one show with them is anecdotal with no sources. Not to mention the band's page is flagged as "fan perspective". I'll pipe down if people disagree, but I still say either the article stays sans redirect or it is deleted. _signed, Takemehome2night ^talk
  • Then you should revert to the article and nominate it at AfD. The article content will not be deleted here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I tried reverting it several times from the redirect which I assert is erroneous, but then editors just reinsert the redirect. So I guess I'm in the minority on how it should be handled. I even nominated the page for deletion which I think is more apt if the consensus is not a notable person, but that was overwritten as well. So it seems we need an editor with more clout than me to access proper action. I still say redirecting the page to a band the author basically had nothing to do with and is not a member of is the wrong choice. Takemehome2night (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article, and hash it out at WP:AFD if desired. This is a clear failure of WP:BLAR by Onel5969: the article was redirected, but the redirection was objected to, so this needs to go to AfD to get a proper resolution. RfD is not a back-door to deleting article content, so the advice to take it here was also faulty. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as a valid redirect, since they are mentioned in the target. Not sure how BLAR is failed in this instance, since nowhere in that guidance does it indicate that if a redirect is reverted, the article should go to AfD. What it says is that consensus needs to be reached.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Onel5969: The article was already redirected by Praxidicae, and was reverted. That goes into the If editors cannot agree... part of WP:BLAR, where the suitable forum would be WP:AFD because that is where concerns about the notability of articles are handled, especially long-established articles like this one. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that, but nowhere in BLAR does it state that after a redirect is reverted the only choice is to go to AfD. What it does say is that consensus should be reached. One editor thought a redirect was warranted, another didn't, hardly consensus. What occurred subsequent to my re-doing the redirect appears to be along the proper lines, the editor who disagreed with the redirect, brought that redirect here for discussion (after it was explained to them where they needed to bring it). BLAR, unlike DRAFTIFY, does not state that any opposition to the move requires restoration of the article. And then AfD if necessary. That's all I meant. If BLAR is meant to say that, then it should be changed to reflect that interpretation. My thought is that it purposely doesn't say that, as there are many times when simply re-instating the redirect is appropriate, for example restoring a redirect after an article has been redirected as a result of an AfD, or re-adding wholly uncited material with no regard to WP:BURDEN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well you're technically correct that it doesn't say you must go to AfD, but of the options provided it's clearly the best option in this instance. Think about it this way: the status quo in this case is a article, not a redirect—and its fate should be decided likewise. The concern provided in the edit summary is one of notability, and AfD is uniquely qualified to handle that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and send to AfD. It's clear that the dispute here is that editors cannot agree whether this person is notable enough for an article, which is not a question RfD can answer but which is the principal purpose of AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Section 8 (record producer) → We Paid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Although mentioned, Section 8 has produced more records than just this one. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow (upcoming video game) → Snow (2019 video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Battletoads (upcoming video game) → Battletoads (2020 video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Similar to other redirects recently nominated here, both of these games have released, and are thus no-longer upcoming. TheAwesomeHwyh 14:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No longer upcoming. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both since they were already released. Also see WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 18#More (upcoming "film name") redirects. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Shitshow → Year of the Snitch  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While it is the name of the song, it is also profanity, particularly "s***". I propose the title be redirected to that with a hatnote about it. It was also the term used by CNN when describing the 2020 presidential debates. Aasim (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what the nominator is proposing but I think there are two good options: Keep the redirect if we think the song is somewhat notable and otherwise Soft redirect to wiktionary: wikt:shit show. Pichpich (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I am proposing this title be redirected to S***. Thanks for asking. Aasim (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Awesome Aasim: Why are you censoring the word, yet you still had to type "Shitshow" in order to nominate it, and also type "shit" out in order to pipe the link to be "s***"? Self-censorship of this kind on Wikipedia is very bizarre. You're not going to get in trouble if you don't censor the word; WP:NOTCENSORED. Ss112 06:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not super comfortable typing out profanity unless if it is absolutely necessary, like when making this nomination or when quoting someone. It is my own personal preference, some may like it, others may not. But there is no rule saying that we can't self-censor.  :) Aasim (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or repoint to wikt:shit show per Pichpich. The CNN soundbyte wouldn't even rate a mention on a Wikipedia article, so not sure why that was brought up. It was like a "oh, they said that" moment for about a day, then everybody was over it—I don't see why readers would still be out here searching it on Wikipedia because a CNN anchor said it weeks ago. Ss112 06:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are several mentions of "shitshow" in Enwiki and Serach gives better results, noting that Shitshow (song) exists and correctly points to the current target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The current target reflects the only content we have for the term. All other mentions are parts of quotes. If more targets emerge in the future, this can become a disambiguation page. - Eureka Lott 16:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A disambiguation page for this would be useful, allowing the user to choose to read the Wikitionary entry for the word or read about the song. The swear word should not be removed because of WP:NOTCENSORED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Félix An (talk • contribs) 18:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not saying remove the profanity. If you look at my above comment, you can see that I am not comfortable using these words unless if it is absolutely necessary. Still, we are mostly adults, and in an encyclopedic context we should remember WP:NOTCENSORED. But out of an encyclopedic context it is not super professional as far as I know. Aasim (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak disambiguate (putting the list of options here because an edit filter prevents me from drafting it on the redirect page itself) or delete so we can show the search results themselves per Shhhnotsoloud. Given that Wikipedia mentions multiple (albeit non-notable) topics by this name, I think a ((wiktionary redirect)) would be worse than just deleting and showing search results. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 05:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the disambiguation page suggested by 61.239.39.90. CapitalSasha ~ talk 14:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate: As there are multiple options for this, including the Wiktionary definition and the other highlighted above. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per WP:G6. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dieppe Mark, Montreal → Dieppe Park, Montreal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Deletion. Page created by me a few days ago. Typo when creating page. Immediately moved it to target name. QuentinQuixote (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the page with ((db-error)). I think you can do that in the future instead of using RfD. Aasim (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.