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. 17 days went by and still no mention in the article. Nabla (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Lauren Bloomstein → HELLP syndrome#Notable cases  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Added to link to the HELLP syndrome page. No other evidence of notability. JFW | T@lk 20:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep redirect. In my view. Bloomstein is not notable enough for a separate page, but is worth of listing as a case study, and hence having a redirect from the name. Bloomstein was the focus of a news article: Martin, Nina; Montagne, Renee (May 12, 2017). "The Last Person You'd Expect To Die In Childbirth". NPR.. The importance of this case was also made by Biosthmors and User:Vaticidalprophet at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Maternal mortality, alluding to further literature; they have gone so far as to suggest stand-alone pages for her death. Klbrain (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• So. If she were mentioned at the article, this would be a pretty clear keep to me. She's notable enough to be a plausible search term, but not notable enough to be a WP:REDLINK candidate, and the circumstances of her death are thing she's best known for. However, I see that the nominator removed the reference to her in the HELLP article a minute before filing this RFD. And an ((r without mention)) from a person's name to a medical condition isn't ideal. And I kind of agree with JFW that that sentence wasn't doing anything for the article; I also agree with Klbrain, though, that content on her could belong in the article, just in a more fleshed-out form. So, I'll try to keep an eye on how the underlying content dispute goes, but if I don't comment here again before this RFD closes, the closer can record this as a conditional !vote: keep if she's mentioned in the article at time of close; delete with no prejudice against recreation if she isn't. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that the nominator removed the reference to her in the HELLP article a minute before filing this RFD ...well, that's just a spectacular move on the nominator's part, isn't it? (As mentioned on WTMED, I'm confident there's enough here for an in-depth stand-alone Death of Lauren Bloomstein. I don't think it's a WP:REDLINK situation per se, because Lauren Bloomstein wouldn't be the page itself, rather a retargeted redirect.) Vaticidalprophet 22:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all honesty I removed the mention from the HELLP syndrome page first because I found it illogical to mention the name of a single victim of this dreadful condition. The argument for notability strikes me as circular: her ordeal was mentioned in an article that uses her mostly as an example for the wider problems around maternal mortality. Rather than emphasising her name and the outcome, I believe emphasis should be placed on broader efforts to reduce maternal mortality. JFW | T@lk 14:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is essentially a WP:BLP1E situation in which a person is only notable because of the manner of their death. If the only information we have on the person is a redirect to their cause of death, WP:BLPPRIVACY applies and this should not be on Wikipedia. Iff something is written about her later then this can be recreated, and/or WP:REDLINK applies. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a policy nitpick, 2017 date of death means that BLP/BDP doesn't apply. WP:BIO1E still does, though (although at least by its letter it doesn't apply to redirects). -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 16:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bloomstein died in 2011, so well outside BLP range. Vaticidalprophet 16:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Ah, that's what I get for not RTFA. (Well, I did R it, or at least S'd it; just apparently not that detail.) So yes, my nitpick (maybe upgraded to an outright quibble) stands all the more then. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 17:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      You're right, I do often mix up our living persons and not-living persons guidelines. I'm going off-book here: people, whether alive or dead, deserve some degree of dignity. Lauren Bloomstein was a real person, with real hopes and dreams, with real feelings, with a real life and real people who knew her and loved her. If the only thing that we can write about her is what amounts to trivia about her death, we should just not write about her at all. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree with you as a moral matter. Hence my split !vote. If the redirect aids navigation to a place where someone is mentioned, then it should exist. But if it's an ((r without mention)), then editorial discretion comes into play, and the morality of how we treat the recently deceased (by a colloquial definition, not a BDP definition) is part of that discretion. I really wish people had waited to resolve the underlying content dispute here before taking it to RFD. It's always annoying to have parallel discussions. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 18:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There has been no movement at the target, so unless there is a mention, this will be a Delete. Also, the discussion at the medicine project has been archived, so there is nothing more that can come out of it. I do not know enough about the person or the subject to add a one-liner. - Jay ^(Talk) 16:13, 16 June 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Covid-19 disclaimer → Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Wikipedia:Covid-19 disclaimers → Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unused and misleading - target page does not mention COVID-19. While the disclaimer obviously applies to COVID-related content, as it does to all medical content, the redirect gives the false impression that the target page contains information specific to COVID-19. We may as well create WP:Lung cancer disclaimer, WP:Strep throat disclaimer, WP:Broken arm disclaimer and so on... Spicy (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom, and also that not everything related to Covid-19 is medical. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 10 June 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Costa Rica women's national under-20 football team → Costa Rica women's national football team  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete to encourage possible article creation. Not mentioned at target, and we've deleted many of these types of redirects in the last year or so. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to encourage article creation. Seany91 (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to encourage article creation. GiantSnowman 08:54, 10 June 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. Was included and referenced in the article. Nabla (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Babe (video game) → Babe (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of a game at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minimal connection with the original film. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added information and a reference about the video game based on the film. Aqua3993 (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aqua3993: The reference you added doesn't appear to establish that the game is actually tied to the film, and also doesn't seem to be a particularly reliable source. If you can find a better source, I'd support keeping. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 09:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was an actual Video game based on this particualar film and you can find video game footage on youtube. With that said, it needs to be established whether the game should only be mentioned on film is article or be its own seperate article DoctorHver (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add a related media line. You can use this Gamesindustry.biz press release post from Mastertronic Group: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/new-range-hits-europe-like-a-blast-of-fresh-air AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Used this to add a mention. - Jay ^(Talk) 18:53, 14 June 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 no consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:ROSE → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 117#Rosenberg resolution  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not sure why there should be a shortcut to a single discussion on a WikiProject talk page from 6 years ago. Perhaps it was at the time expected to be an influential precedent in some way, but the shortcut has never been used, and now risks cluttering search results; someone might be looking for a WikiProject on Guns N' Roses, the Wars of the Roses, etc. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 21:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a WikiProject discussion used as precedent when discussing whether fictional characters need standalone articles. If there is a more pressing need for the shortcut, feel free to repurpose it. Otherwise it remains a useful shortcut. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 02:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I agree with the nominator's "surprise" argument as to the relevancy of WP:ROSE; there is no tangible connection between "Rose" and "Rosenberg" so it isn't a useful shortcut. In any event, the outcome of that discussion does not appear to have gained support and traction as a guideline or precedent, it was never even curated as a coherent essay, and it is only ever brought up whenever the original proposer of the discussion participates in discussions about notability of fictional topics on occasion. AfD discussions almost always cite WP:GNG and/or WP:NFICTION whenever the notability of a topic is in dispute. Wikipedia:ROSENBERG is perfectly adequate if any other editor other then the original proposer wants to look up the original discussion for informative purposes. Haleth (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the shortcut's inscrutability. I agree with all of Haleth's points above. – The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 20:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:AINTBROKE. It's useful to someone as a redirect to that discussion, and no competing use has been suggested. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• ReTarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by flower/Women named Rose. There's also Wikiproject Romance and Wikiproject Guns n Roses. But I think the WiR page meets the name the best. (I scrolled through waaay too many project pages to see what might be out there lol. Mostly AfDs, FACs, SPIs, and various usernames that had "rose" in them.) - jc37 23:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not opposed to that personally, but we typically don't retarget WikiProject redirects unless the target project has asked for it. I don't recall exactly what the rationale is but I do remember this coming up somewhat often. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per Ivanvector —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep only because there is no guideline on what kind of shortcut should not be created. Suggestions on the alternate search keywords (Guns N' Roses, the Wars of the Roses) and targets (Women named Rose, Wikiproject Romance) were not convincing for me. - Jay ^(Talk) 08:59, 16 June 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. Nabla (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Typo that you can only make by hitting keys in the wrong order; not the sort of thing where we're helping readers who think it's spelled this way. Too WP:COSTLY, as this would also justify Rtuck, Trukc, etc. Delete. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 01:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it is a simple transposition error. And as "teh" uses over the internet indicate, such transpositions are not uncommon. The existence of the redirect does not mean that we are encouraging creating others, rather that it already exists as a redirect. WP:NOTDICT Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so it is not telling people to spell it the way the redirect does, as the target doesn't spell it that way either. Tag it as ((R from typo)) (already there) and ((R unprintworthy)). It seems WP:CHEAP to me, unless you can show some other target that is equally or more likely. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I initially refrained from commenting on this one due to the existence of trcuk.org. However, there doesn't seem to be information on the site about that organisation, so it's best to keep. After all, it's a pretty common typo. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We don't need to create lots of redirects for typographical errors: type "trcuk" into the search box, you immediately get "Did you mean: truck" and lots of links with the word "truck" in them. These redirects are pointless: search engines can cope easily with single letter transpositions and direct you to the correct article. DrKay (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They aren't pointless if they help readers find what they're looking for in less clicks. What is pointless is deleting them. We may not need to create these redirects but we definitely don't need to delete them. This RfD existing creates more maintenance than the redirect ever would. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 21:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:R#D8. Implausible typo, recently created, should have been a speedy delete. The Truck article has been there for about 20 years and we didn't need a made up typo redirect until last month. Jay (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the contrary, it's a very common typo. That satisfies K5. "Well other people would have done it" is not a very convincing argument, in fact rather self-defeating. I am aware it was a few years ago, but I created Altanta, faintly surprised that no one had created it previously. The fact is that few editors create redirects for common typos, despite their high use. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible typo and could mess with searches for "TRC UK" companies. Not common enough to be searched like Untied States AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete c and u are at opposite ends of a standard QWERTY keyboard, so implausible typo. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a transposition error, not a 2×fatfinger error, so a different kind of typo. Just as how the internet is replete with the spelling "teh" even though "e" and "h" are not next to each other -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 20:04, 14 June 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Holocaust in Romania → History of the Jews in Romania#The Holocaust  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I suggest deletion of the redirect in order to promote article creation. This is an important topic in Romania's participation in WW2 and in WW2 as a whole (Romania was Germany's main collaborator in the Eastern Front and had an important community of 600,000 Jews before the war). I believe this article shouldn't be a redirect but a red link so people don't assume this has a page and just ignore it. Super Ψ Dro 13:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is already to proposed to split the section off into it's own article and deletion is not required to accomplish this, but while the redirect exists it takes people looking to read about the topic to the information we have about it rather than assuming we have nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf's reasoning. A split proposal will be enough to make it into its own article. Does not need to be cleared off unless there's been edit warring. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:05, 10 June 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 12:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft:Untitled The Walking Dead spin-off → The Walking Dead: World Beyond  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Draft:Untitled Walking Dead spin-off → The Walking Dead: World Beyond  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Currently there is an "Untitled Daryl & Carol spin-off series" listed at The Walking Dead (franchise), but regardless, a franchise can always have "untitled spin-offs" in the making. This isn't helpful leading to a specific series. Gonnym (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete these probably should have been bundled in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 5#Untitled The Walking Dead spin-off. Anyway redirects from draft are editor focused, and the title should be available for drafts on a new topic. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 01:21, 10 June 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 Gibberish. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Gibberish language → Gibberish (game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The current target talks about the language game, mainly played in North America. "Gibberish language" should retarget to Gibberish because the proposed target talks about the gibberish language (speech) in general, including fake words without any actual language. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Gibberish (disambiguation) and disambiguate there. Seems overdue to have a dab page with the multiple hatnotes at Gibberish, and targeting this there would cover confusion between the game and the general topic. Absent that, I would support retargeting directly to Gibberish per nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Gibberish which disambiguates other uses with a hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Gibberish. Gibberish is a particular use of language. Gibberish language is an ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)); it should intuitively point to Gibberish as it pertains to language, not a game; that would be a surprise. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• retarget to Gibberish] per the above. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 9 June 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.