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

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Peri-peri (Portuguese source) → Peri-peri  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Spelling mistake, implausible redirect. Sahaib3005 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Implausible search term. I initially had no clue on what the spelling mistake was (since there's no apparent "mistake"), and it turns out to be the word "source”, which was meant to be "sauce” as found on the correct version Peri-peri (Portuguese sauce), and was moved by a now banned user in 2019. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a likely search term, and no internal links to this page. Chumpih. (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unlikely synonym --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:06, 17 December 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. Jay (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• SuperStation, Inc. → WPCH-TV  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"SuperStation, Inc." is not mentioned at the target, and may be ambiguous. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete in the absence of some evidence preseted showing that Superstation Inc. actually own or owned Peachtree, this should go. Best I could find was this bizjournals piece but it's not conclusive. And Superstation Inc. was set up in 1979, but the bizjournals article states it became a superstation in mid 80s. They're both based in Georgia. But still it inconclusive evidence to justify the redirect. Chumpih. (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Chumpih: This was indeed the licensee name from 1979 to 2017. See [1] and [2]. It is sometimes rendered "Superstation, Inc." (no CamelCase). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for sharing this info. It's likely that I'm missing something, but the links you presented appear to reference WTBS and WTCG, but not WPCH . Is there something that links Superstation (with whatever caps) to WPCH? Chumpih. (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chumpih: Same station with different call signs over the years. Honestly, though, I even doubt this is a likely search term! Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sammi Brie: Thanks for that. I aee this now, so there is evidence that links Superstation with the call sign. I've modified the suggestion to Weak delete accordingly, and yes, I agree that it's an unlikely un-WP:NATURAL search term. Stats suggest nobody uses it. Chumpih. (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not currently mentioned in the target; the only real connection is that this was the subsidiary of Time Warner (and before that Turner Broadcasting System) that held the station's license and trademarks. From what I've found, the entity actually still exists in modern-day AT&T-owned WarnerMedia, holding trademarks related to the TBS cable channel (that's not a coincidence, as TBS grew out of the old pre-2007 national distribution of WTCG/WTBS; indeed, that's why the company, and formerly the station and cable channel, even used the word "superstation"); even that doesn't seem worthy of any redirect. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:48, 18 December 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 12:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bob Shannon (Radio) → R. J. Adams  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This has a capitalisation error and is not consistent with Bob Shannon (radio personality). I suggest delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While I'm technically the "creator" of this, it's solely as the result of a page move to correct a title that was originally created and miscapitalized by somebody else. At that time (2007), the rule was that the redirect resulting from a page move of a misspelled or miscapitalized title still had to be retained for GFDL attribution reasons regardless of its actual value or lack thereof as a search or link term — but that rule has long since been deprecated, and such redirects now only need to be kept if they're genuinely useful. But this isn't; anybody who actually typed these words into the search bar would get the correctly capitalized version anyway, so the miscapitalized one isn't needed. Bearcat (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:12, 15 December 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 retarget first and second to Canonical. No consensus for the third. Jay (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-canonical → Apocrypha  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Non-canonical books → Biblical canon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• Literary canon → Western canon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget all to Canon (fiction), as all titles more closely relate to canon in literature/fiction than their current targets. I wouldn't expect Biblical canon when wikilinking, and they might not represent a WP:WORLDWIDE view of the topics (though I have no idea of the topic). Non-canon and Fictional canon redirect to Canon (fiction), making Non-canonical differ. For Literary canon, I suggest the already-existing hatnote in Canon (fiction) suffices to navigate to Western canon if they are looking for it. If Literary canon is kept (because of the large number of links to it), the hatnote distinguishing it with Canon (fiction) should stay. SWinxy (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all - the current redirects are the best, not least because the proposed new one, Canon (fiction), is mostly about modern popular literature. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to disambiguation page Canonical. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• support The terms are more relevant to fiction in general, not just Jewish mythology and its fairy tales. Dimadick (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to the dab page at Canonical. There are many equally plausible things that could be being searched for here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all first two first only to the dab page at Canonical, I agree with Thryduulf. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is just nonsense - Canonical is a train wreck of a page, and redirecting a noun like "Literary canon" to a lengthy (rather over-lengthy) disam page for an adjective will almost always be a bad idea. "Non-canonical books" is a basic concept in Biblical studies, but must be extremely rarely used for other types of fiction - see this search. Google struggles to find any uses that aren't about the Bible. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canonical looks like pretty much every other disambig page, I see no train-wreck. I guess no one would object if you sorted it alphabetically, putting Religion above Science (plus ça change !). Literary canon is certainly a special case and I withdraw that part of my agreement. [It needs a separate discussion, it certainly should not redirect to Canonical (disambiguation) and certainly not to Canon (fiction). Canon (disambiguation) maybe but that seems pointless atm if just ends up going to Western Canon anyway.] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per talk:Canonical#Not a dab page, I have seen the error of my ways and repented. That part of reply withdrawn. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting results from 'general' google search for plain "non-canonical": Science trumps religion. Searching books.google has similar results if we include Linguistics under Science. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, for "non-canonical" in science contexts, but how can you justify "Non-canonical books", where all these fall away? Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I (or anyone) want to do that? You may as well just specify "non-canonical books of the Bible" and be done with it, since "of the Bible" maybe taken as read. Ah, ok, at which point I realise that I missed the thrust of your argument: the specific redirect in question is "non-canonical books", not "non-canonical" + "books". Hmmm, I think you have a valid point, which I accept. Another one bites the dust. Two down, one to go. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget first two to disambiguation page Canonical. Oppose retargeting literary canon, which is almost always used to refer to the Western canon. –Ploni (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget the first as ((R from antonym))&&((R from adjective)) to Canon (basic principle). Retarget the second as ((R from related term)) to Canon (basic principle). Retarget the third also to Canon (basic principle). English Wikipedia is not the Christian Wikipedia, this current schema is biased towards a Christian userbase. The largest English speaking country in the world is India, which is largely Hindu, and not Christian, so this is not a proper use of redirects. Both Canon (disambiguation) and Canonical (disambiguation) appear at Canon (basic principle). In entertainment, "literary canon" refers to the books, while you have "cinematic canon" referring to the films of a media franchise. In general culture [3] "literary canon" refers to the general body of literature that the common culture of a country is associated with. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the "Non-canonical books" are of great interest to Judaism too. I don't think the term is used at all in Hinduism. You have to twist definitions somewhat to say "The largest English speaking country in the world is India"! Indians form a significant part of our readership on the en:wp, but certainly not the largest group. Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So we will bias the generic redirects on Wikipedia to favor IslamicJudeoChristianity above other concerns? As Indians form a significant portion of the readership, that is a very good reason why these redirects should not be biased towards Western Civilization and IslamicJudeoChristianity. "India" was an example used. "non-canonical books" (and similar terminology) are in entertainment, especially when part of a media franchise's corpus is decanonized by the Intellectual Propery Owner when moving forward with new major works. All generic redirects should be generic, and not implicit Christian/American/British redirects. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects should serve the readers who encounter the redirected term. In the case of "Non-canonical books" this is almost certain to be someone reading a biblical or related article. Can you find any Indian topic where Non-canonical books is used as a redirect? I bet not. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects should not favor one group of the readers over other groups of readers. If multiple topics on Wikipedia cover concepts of the terminology from different cultural/regional contexts, then no single region should be favored. "Non-canonical books" is not just the content of Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible and other IslamicJudeoChristian apocrypha. As you can see all over the entertainment sector, non-canonical books/literature/history, can refer to works of fiction in media franchises, or the literary canon of a culture. Fractality and Variability in Canonical and Non-Canonical English Fiction and in Non-Fictional Texts [4] [5][6] -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So apart from the first, non-RS fan sites, none with anything to do with religions in India, so a red herring then. If at some future date any of those result in an actual article, we can revisit but right now their relevance is not obvious. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a red herring, it is an example of an English speaking region that is not Christian or Judaic. We should keep in mind that the world is not solely IslamicJudeoChristian, and should never think that all redirects should default in this manner. If we are discussing canonical religious works of Indian religions versus non-canoncial works, we have all manner of such [7][8][9][10]; my examples were indicating that non-canonical books extends far beyond religion, entering works about fiction canon. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for uses within Wikipedia, ie where a redirect might actually be used. I don't think there are any relating to Indian religions. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget first two to Canon, the DAB Canonical doesn't link to Canon (fiction) or Western canon, just Biblical canon. Keep the third (and hatnote); that is a different meaning for "canon" in literary canon. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canonical (disambiguation) should only link to articles containing the word 'canonical'. Canon (fiction), Western canon and equally Biblical canon, do not belong there and never did. The should only be listed under Canon (disambiguation). I will move Biblical canon now: if hard cases make bad law, then irrelevant cases make even worse law. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appears to be less support for the nomination of retargetting to Canon (fiction), and while there is partial support for the Canonical disambiguation page for some redirects, there is opposition to it as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all to Canon (basic principle), I think. Second choice, retarget the first two to Canonical and the third to Canon (basic principle). Oppose keeping the third one at Western canon; the phrase "literary canon" is also used to refer to other literary traditions, e.g. [11]. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the second per Johnbod, possibly convert it to a disambiguation page if any other particular books are an equally likely target (which I do not expect). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the second (90% of the time this phrase "Non-canonical books" is used in the religious context), Retarget third to Canon disambiguation page (literary canon refers to Western canon far more than canons in fiction; alternatively, creating a new short disambig page is acceptable too), create disambig page for the first - Non-canonical probably needs a separate page from Canon. SnowFire (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget non-canonical and non canonical to canonical as ((r from antonym))s and list any pages there as necessary. Also amenable to separate disambiguation page if the necessary items cannot be incorporated well into the canonical disambiguation page. Neutral on the others. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose third - the Western canon page should instead be renamed literary canon and western canon should be redirected to it - half the page already has nothing to do with the "the West" anyhow - car chasm (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to allow the November 25 log page to be closed. It's worth mentioning that this discussion is still ongoing, and new suggestions have recently emerged after the second relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget all to Canon (fiction) as WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs. Add a hatnote to Canonical. I would be okay with keeping keeping literary canon targeting western canon, but feel more strongly about retargeting the first two. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:43, 18 December 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) 23:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:First Italo-Ethiopian War → Template:Campaignbox First Italo-Ethiopian War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused redirect from 2007. Nothing uses this redirect. Platonk (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:56, 14 December 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ethnic groups in Ethiopia and the Ethiopian Diaspora → Template:Ethnic groups in Ethiopia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A redirect remnant from a page move/rename. Nothing uses this redirect. Platonk (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - was at this title for almost 6 years, and I'm generally uncomfortable with deleting redirects from moves when the other article was there for quite a while, as it could break things that aren't obvious. Hog Farm _Talk 18:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I didn't notice the intermediate page move. Hog Farm _Talk 04:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnecessary. Hog Farm, the template was at this title for less than an hour [12] [13]. – Uanfala (talk) 01:33, 26 December 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 soft delete as unopposed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ethiopic Supplement → Template:Unicode chart Ethiopic Supplement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Template:Ethiopic Script → Template:Unicode chart Ethiopic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Template:Ethiopic Extended-A → Template:Unicode chart Ethiopic Extended-A  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Template:Ethiopic Extended → Template:Unicode chart Ethiopic Extended  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Template:Ethiopic → Template:Unicode chart Ethiopic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

1 of 5 similar redirects created on the same day in 2013 by a now-inactive user. None are used anywhere. (Ethiopic, Ethiopic Extended, Ethiopic Extended-A, Ethiopic Script, Ethiopic Supplement) Platonk (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I merged those five discussions with the exact same rationale, since I don't really see why they should be discussed separately here. Hopefully that'll facilitate the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 06:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:56, 14 December 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 retarget to Lambda Omega#Alpha Sigma Delta Sorority. -- Aervanath (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Alpha Sigma Delta sorority → Theta Upsilon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Jax MN with the reason "There are now two virtually identical redirects for this dormant group. This one was made in error, as it skips a merger. The other redirect is preferable" FASTILY 02:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT - There were a flurry of mergers of small fraternities and sororities during the Great Depression. This group, Alpha Sigma Delta, merged into Lambda Omega, which is the preferable REDIRECT. That REDIRECT is already created, with a set of parentheses around the word "sorority". The article for Lambda Omega then links to Theta Upsilon, properly showing the progression of mergers. To clearly understand which group was absorbed by which, and in what order, this duplicative REDIRECT - the one without parentheses around the word "sorority" - should be deleted. Thanks! Jax MN (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Lambda Omega#Alpha Sigma Delta Sorority consistent with Alpha Sigma Delta (sorority). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Thanks. But note the retargeted page then becomes simply a duplication of Alpha Sigma Delta (sorority). Keeping the one without the parentheses would lead to more confusion since they'll both show up in a search. See? In this case, I'd favor just deleting the errant REDIRECT: Alpha Sigma Delta sorority. Jax MN (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but that's not one of the WP:RFD#Reasons for deleting. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright. I'm more familiar with AfDs. The deletion of this REDIRECT doesn't seem like it should be problematic. How otherwise should I propose or effect deletion? I was advised AfD was incorrect, so I opted for RfD. Here, a "retarget" seems inappropriate, and un-helpfully duplicative. I appreciate your help with this. Jax MN (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Shhhnotsoloud. Nearly identical titles are allowed when it comes to redirects. There is no problem with duplication. When the nom says the redirect was created in error (in 2009), and skipped a merger, I think what they mean is the target is wrong, not the title is wrong. What Shhhnotsoloud proposes is to target both redirects to the same place. So there should be no confusion in search listings. Jay (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I get that, and am not trying to be difficult. The difference between the two is so absolutely minor, that it is just litter. Typing "Alpha Sigma Delta" in the search field brings up two redirects: one properly goes to a subheader of the Lambda Omega page, while the other jumps ahead to a later merger partner, Theta Upsilon. Confusing things further, that bad redirect I'm trying to get rid of may have been recently moved from "Alpha Sigma Delta sorority" to "Alpha Sigma Delta sorority Iaqua", where "Iaqua (Eye-aqua) is an original club name - I didn't notice that fifth word before. As part of the Fraternity and Sorority Project, the syntax we have landed on uses the parentheses around the word "sorority" IN THIS CASE, because that's a modifier that helps us avoid ambiguity. I could provide a longer technical discussion if you wish. We know of other societies of that name whose modifiers would be "(fraternity)" or "(SUNY)" or "(Oakwood)". We have a cascading method to manage this. I fully understand why multiple redirects are fine for common misspellings, etc. But in this case, even with Shhhnotsoloud's retarget suggestion, we get a duplicative term that comes up in the search, which confuses readers with an unnecessary variant. I'd very much prefer that we delete this redirect. Jax MN (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand that the redirect's format goes against the syntax established by the Fraternity and Sorority Project, but I doubt if you will get much support for deleting it on that basis, since it is not a standard reason for deleting. I assume the original title predates the sorority project's syntax rules, so while you will have control of newer redirect titles, cleanup of older titles may not be justified. Eventually, search results are for readers, and they, unlike editors, may not be expected to be syntax-aware. Jay (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Shhhnotsoloud and Jay. Harmless and useful. The fact that it lacks a parenthesis on the disambiguator is irrelevant, a minor mistake which does not warrant deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thank you all, sincerely, for taking the time on this. At base, a redirect would be helpful. But can you tell me, is there a function that allows redundant, multiple redirects to fall off of search results? This is a small, long-dormant sorority that merged, merged again, and merged again after that. It doesn't need to suck up all the space in the search field with redundant redirects, which actually work against our aim of clarity. As I can tell, now there are three redirects that ought to point to the correct target of Lambda_Omega#Alpha_Sigma_Delta_Sorority, if not all be merged into the first example. These are:

• Alpha Sigma Delta (sorority) (correctly targeted, correctly named)
• Alpha Sigma Delta sorority (ill-named, mis-targeted and redundant)
• Alpha Sigma Delta sorority Iaqua (ill-named, mis-targeted and redundant)

Should other articles be written, such as for these other groups we are tracking...:

• Alpha Sigma Delta (fraternity) (local - Miller-Motte College), men's general
• Alpha Sigma Delta (Oakwood) (local - Oakwood), Christian, African-American, women's religious d.
• Alpha Sigma Delta (SUNY) (local - SUNY Brockport), women's general

...how do we ensure these won't be crowded out by the mistargeted and redundant redirects for the (sorority)? Thank you so much (Jay, Shhh and Yoris) for carefully considering what I've written here. Jax MN (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The search we use is CirrusSearch and technical queries about searching can be asked at Help talk:Searching. Jay (talk) 17:45, 21 December 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. Jay (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Adrian Hipkiss → Boost Drinks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Propose deletion of redirect that meets WP:RFD#D10. The redirect title is the name of an otherwise random/normal employee of the target company. The redirect (the named person) is otherwise not notable and the target article contains no information on the subject (the named person) whatsoever. An WP:EASTEREGG. Guliolopez (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Enwiki has no substantive detail about the subject. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, while Hipkiss is mentioned in the article, in the title of one of the references, he could have held jobs in any number of companies for all we know, so that there is no natural redirect target. Geschichte (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since there are arguably other Hipkisses of greater notability, but sorry to say none quite meet WP:NOTE. Chumpih. (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:00, 16 December 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.