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 02:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Afghan nationalism → Pashtun nationalism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, maybe speedy delete per criterion G1. Turn into a separate article if it meets GNG and someone with the needed background steps up. The only place "Afghan nationalism" appears on the article for "Pashtun nationalism" is a completely unsourced claim in the lead. It seems to be the equivalent of having American Nationalism redirect to White Nationalism, which would obviously be patently nonsensical. It also apparently produces nonsensical secondary results, such as "Afghan Nationalism" in the infobox of the Panjshir resistance redirecting to "Pashtun Nationalism", which AFAICT they don't even remotely have anything to do with. It would be better to have "Afghan Nationalism" WP:Redlink than redirect to something different. Intralexical (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDLINK and WP:RFD#D5 (WP:G1 definitely does not apply). The very small amount of reading I did on this subject just now suggests there is really no such thing as Afghan nationalism, but it is definitely not the same thing as Pashtun nationalism: Pashtun nationalists agitate for the creation of a Pashtun state separate from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Linking the two terms is nonsense, akin to describing Quebec separatists as Canadian nationalists (but not patent nonsense which is synonymous with gibberish). Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is still too iffy for be to be an outright keep, but what makes me wonder about this is whether or not there is such a thing as Afghan nationalism. There is Canadian nationalism, of course. If there weren't, though, redirecting "Canadian nationalism" to a prominent strain of nationalism in Canada at least passes the smell test for me. I'm wary of implying or declaring that there's no such thing as Afghan nationalism, though, which points me to REDLINK deletion. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I ... guess? It's a redirect to a political opposite, was the point I was trying to make. Describing a political movement to break up <country A> to create a distinct and separate country out of it as "<country A> nationalism" seems more like nonsense to me. I doubt that absent other forms of nationalism we would describe George Washington or Alexander Hamilton, or say William Wallace, as English nationalists.

  As for Afghan nationalism, my (brief, rushed) reading suggested that Afghan nationalism was a movement during the Great Game era to free the Emirate of Afghanistan from its role as sort of a buffer state between British and Russian colonialism in the Middle East, which culminated in the transition to the Kingdom of Afghanistan in the early 20th century, but that nationalism waned in the years that followed as the Kingdom fell in the 1970s and the country has been at war with itself and with other world powers basically ever since. Of course I'm a long way off from an expert in central Asian history, but I don't think we have an article which covers that. Pashtun nationalism is something else entirely. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose even my strained argument is more for "Nationalism in Afghanistan" than "Afghan nationalism". Let's see if we get somewhere with the draft. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't delete this redirect. I am creating a draft article under the redirect. 2409:4061:2DCF:43B5:9D5B:A001:EE4C:EC37 (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a workable approach, too. Might I suggest you draft at Draft:Afghan nationalism, and submit through WP:AFC when you think the draft is ready? What you've written so far is speedy deletable under criterion WP:A7, but using the draft namespace would give you some time to develop it more. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment while the term Afghan (ethnonym) historically referred to the Pashtun ethnicity, today, the term Afghan primarily would refer to the Afghanistani nationality. Ideally a new page will be created here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the redirect that confuses Afghanistan with Pashtunistan. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2021 (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. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Macedonian (Greek Latin) language → Aromanian language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Inaccurate redirect. Aromanian was mostly referred to as Macedonian in the first half of the past century and it is barely known as such anymore, and we already have Macedonian language, it is better to not refer Aromanian as Macedonian in Wikipedia to avoid confusion (also, Aromanians don't only live in the region of Macedonia, most of them don't even live there). Furthermore, this redirect implies that Aromanian is some kind of mix between Greek and Latin, which is false, this is a Romance language with Greek influence but also influence from several other languages. This redirect has no purpose, and I propose its deletion. Note that a similar redirect was deleted not too long ago, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 10#Greek Romance languages. Super Ψ Dro 20:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with proposer. I don't think I've ever encountered the terms "Macedonian" and "Greek Latin" to mean Aromanian, even in the older literature. --Macrakis (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen "Macedonian" being (rarely) used by Romanian scholars in the early 20th century, but not "Greek Latin". Super Ψ Dro 13:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This seems to be left over from a bit of 8 year old page move vandalism [1] from an editor that was moving pages related to the Aromanians to nonsense titles [2]. In addition to the points raised by the nominator the weird mid-phrase disambiguation makes this an unlikely search term. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2021 (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 per WP:CSD#R3: Recently created, implausible redirect wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yang Qian (table tennis ) → Yang Qian (table tennis)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible error in bracket. Sun8908 _Talk 09:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - resulted from an erroneous page move of an older article, but was only at this title for about 15 hours. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Ivanvector. It doesn't seem likely that people will search this. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 16:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom typo in transition. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:25, 18 August 2021 (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. ✗plicit 06:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Illaoi → League of Legends  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:GAMECRUFT that doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere. Hog Farm _Talk 02:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We do not create redirects for every single character in a book, video game, film, etc. WIKINIGHTS _talk 04:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Most of the 130+ redirects in Category:League of Legends character redirects to lists have the same problem. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Should at least be mentioned in plot if they are a notable character, but this is a game where they have hundreds if not thousands of named characters. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:27, 18 August 2021 (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 keep. ✗plicit 06:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Amplia → Bmobile  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Amplia is a subsidary of bmobile that offers cable and fiber internet and a couple of pages had a dead link to it so I created the redirect to serve that purpose. Joshua Shah (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now that there is a mention. Jay ^(Talk) 05:41, 18 August 2021 (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. Hog Farm _Talk 14:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Latin slang → Latin obscenity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Slang ≠ obscenities, I think that this redirect should be deleted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the two word have different meanings.--65.93.194.2 (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:R#D8 if there is no justification on what the redirect is supposed to have. Jay ^(Talk) 14:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Retarget to Wiktionary per Wikinights. Jay ^(Talk) 05:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment what do you think about soft redirection to wikt:Category:Latin slang? WIKINIGHTS _talk 18:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and per WP:RFD#DELETE, item 10. Wiktionary redirects are often helpful, but I think a cross-namespace interwiki redirect is taking things a bit too far. - Eureka Lott 04:01, 21 August 2021 (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. ✗plicit 06:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• HD 24496 Ab → HD 24496  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previously deleted by PROD due to lack of evidence of existence, but was then recreated as a redirect after it had been scrubbed from the host star's article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just put it in the category Disproven planets.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment This !vote has been indented. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Confusing and misleading without discussion of the purported/disproven planet. Compare to Gliese 581f, which has substantial discussion on the page it redirects to. --BDD (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BDD. Jay ^(Talk) 06:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not appear to exist. All references to this planet are Wikipedia mirrors, and no sources have ever been provided. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:29, 23 August 2021 (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. ✗plicit 06:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• India's → India  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I propose retargeting this to India (disambiguation) (Indias, plural?) or deletion. This seems like an unlikely typo but gets some page views. Seems potentially confusing. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 16:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If we allow this, we would potentially be allowing any possessive → non-possessive redirect, which would be a pretty significant increase in the number of redirects. It's not a very plausible search term, and the high pageviews may well be due to random bots scraping things containing the word "India". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnecessary and ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not really a plausible term for those looking for India. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It's quite an obscure term and I am not sure if anyone would search it. No one would search India's as it is statistically improbable for people to search India with ' in it.FizzoXD (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This redirect actually exists as a neat piping shortcut. Instead of using [[India|India's]], one can instead directly use [[India's]] instead. This set up is currently being employed at Adline Castelino. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Is that desirable? I've always written such things as [[India]]'s, and that's the syntax I see basically everywhere else too. Looking at MOS:PIPE there's nothing there specifically prohibiting [[India|India's]], but I'd probably remove it if I were copy-editing as potentially confusing: We don't have an article on "India's"; we have an article on "India". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, come to think of it, the "President George Washington" example at WP:NOPIPE does touch on the same principle at least. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tavix. In the abstract, I can appreciate the argument that we shouldn't encourage this, but that's a real uphill battle. People are going to create links like this. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tamzin. And if it's a redlink, then editors will notice when they mistakenly put [[India's]] and properly change it to [[India]]'s. Mlb96 (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unless there's a notable brand that uses the possessive or plural, this isn't helpful. Checking other country pages, some have possessives and some don't. Also per MOS:OVERLINK there really isn't a need to link to a possessive for "names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar" / major examples of countries. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:06, 18 August 2021 (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.