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. There are three possible targets including the nomination. Jay (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• O͞o → List of Latin-script digraphs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, but described at Pronunciation respelling for English#Notes and Phonetic notation of the American Heritage Dictionary, so possibly retarget to one of those? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the pronunciation respelling page.  Nixinova   T   C   19:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Close back rounded vowel as the sound that o͞o represents in the pronunciation spelling systems that use it (at least according to Pronunciation respelling for English. eviolite (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A new target has been proposed as of late...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to OO until such a time that a better target arises for it. Seemingly a combination of U+4F, U+35E, and U+6F. Originally considered suggesting a refine ro List of Latin-script digraphs#O but that is seemingly no better than the other suggestions which have been put forth. If it can be demonstrated that this is nonsense because of the 'COMBINING DOUBLE MACRON'—"bar"—character above the letters, then perhaps deletion is due. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:35, 24 November 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. As ambiguous, vague and unclear. Jay (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• SUV attack in 2021 → 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car rampage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete there have been many SUV attacks in 2021, several in Afghanistan, Nigeria, etc. This also doesn't distinguish between using an SUV on attack and being attacked in an SUV, both of which have happened many times in 2021. And SUV carbomb attacks. And political attacks on SUV usage for environmental destruction -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Far too ambiguous for a dab. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Why would anyone attack a SUV? WWGB (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a lot of hate for SUVs, especially in urban areas, from many environmentalists and cycling activists (at least in the UK). Others may choose to attack an SUV because of its occupants. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as ambiguous, we shouldn't assume everyone wants the US article. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Vague and unclear title. --Sable232 (talk)
• Delete per everyone else. Love of Corey (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Huggums537 (talk) 00:16, 1 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. Unopposed deletion request. Jay (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Orthodox Archdiocese of Classis → Orthodox Diocese of San Giulio  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This name is not mentioned in the article or on the official website of the diocese. I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 19:02, 23 November 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. Unopposed deletion request. Jay (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Tryst With Destiny (film) → SonyLIV  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target or List Of SonyLIV Original Programming, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDLINK. Seems to be a notable film based on the reviews I saw in my search. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:08, 29 November 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 per WP:SNOW. Early closure given the overwhelming consensus for keeping this redirect. There's no point in prolonging this discussion if consensus is already clear as day. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Darrell Brooks → 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade car rampage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect violates WP:BLPCRIME, as Brooks has been accused, but not charged or convicted with anything. As BLPCRIME says: For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the redirect, the subject has been indicted with 5 murders by the police. Here is an example from WBBM-TV (CBS 2 - Chicago): "Suspect In Waukesha Christmas Parade Tragedy, Darrell Brooks, Charged With Murder; He Has Long Criminal Record".^[1] Unless you have a new policy whereby all indicted persons are going to be damnatio memoriae from Wikipedia moving forward. Other than that, the redirect is a useful way for Wikipedia readers to find useful content on Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• BLPCRIME contradicts this. That other articles do this doesn't make it correct. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article is going to mention his name and say that he has been accused of committing a crime. This information is verified and of wide public interest. So I think WP:BLPCRIME can't be used as a justification to delete a redirect when somebody becomes nationally notorious for their actions through news media reports. WP:BLPCRIME is for crimes that do not cause the subject to become notorious (i.e., the great majority of crimes). This case is one of the valid exceptions to the rule. Jehochman ^Talk 12:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously true. His name is widely reported in association with a notable event. He made himself a public figure when he (allegedly) drove through a crowd, just like Nikolas Cruz made himself a public figure when he opened fire at a school. Nikolas Cruz was mentioned on the Stoneman Douglas shooting page as soon as it was released, well before a conviction had been secured. That's the standard for high profile crimes: the alleged perpetrator is named on the page if the name has been widely reported by reliable sources. Bueller 007 (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. People will use, and continue to use, this search term to find information about a person who is only notable in the context of an event, and their notability in relation to that event will not diminish even if they are found not guilty of any crime. There is therefore no reason not to take readers to the neutral article that contains information about them. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is simply stating a fact that Brooks has been charged, and that fact is widely disseminated by reliable news sources. What we cannot do per BLPCRIME, unless he is convicted, is call him a murderer, say that he committed the crime, that he was the rammer, etc. Stating the fact that Brooks has been charged means there is enough to sustain a redirect, so it should be kept. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't think that the redirect, in itself, violates WP:BLPCRIME. However, I believe it would be more appropriate to send the redirect to the Accused section of the article, as this would solidify that he has been accused, but not convicted, of any crimes at this point in time. --kewlgrapes (talk • contribs) 18:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per User Thryduulf, Tavix, and others. Moncrief (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The driver has been matched to the man taken into custody and that without doubt is Darrell Brooks. The criminal aspect can be debated but he absolutely was the perpetrator. InverseZebra (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Indictment is the gold standard for BLP-appropriateness of redirect. Not conviction. See WP:DEATHOF#Redirecting — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per kewlgrapes's arguments. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep At a certain point, the name will be added to the article, even though he may not be public figure. That is why the policy says "must seriously consider not including", rather than saying "must not include". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • His name is already in the article. Moncrief (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep By allegedly driving through and killing at least six innocent people (including one 8-year-old child) in an event which has made international news, he has become a public figure. Naturally, he has the right to presumption of innocence and due process, so we need to make sure the redirect goes to text which makes it clear he has only been arrested and accused, but not (as I type this) convicted. Samboy (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Darrell Brooks has been arrested as the perpetrator of a deadly act of violence that has received media coverage around the world. By the very nature of the fact that his name is centrally associated with the topic of the article itself, it would be counterintuitive if one were to bracket the name — [[Darrell Brooks]] — and only see a redlink. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:56, 24 November 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 13:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Zoe Margaret Colletti → Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

She was in different films, why redirect to this? It contains almost no information about her. 92.213.13.12 (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I moved this entry to the top of this list. New entries go on top at RfD unlike on talk pages. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 21:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As could be looking for any of her films. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:56, 25 November 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 13:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ISO 639:none → Zxx  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target of the redirect is already a dab page, but I think he should re-redirect the other pages. Did Q28 make a mess today? 10:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The best information we have about the zxx code is in the table at ISO 639#Relations between the parts which, especially if we were to add an anchor to the relevant row (the second last) would make a better target than either ISO 639-2 or ISO 639-3 (cf WP:XY), but the disambiguation page at zxx does provide a very simple explanation (but could do with a link to the section of ISO 639 also) and so is also better than either of the -2 or -3 articles. However none of these targets include the word "none" in a relevant place, which might be confusing? I am seeing evidence of "none" used in the real world though so I'm opposed to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear what decision needs to be taken…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Requested input from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Redirecting to this disambig page doesn't help get a user closer to the content they're looking for. (Besides the fact that with only two items on it, why isn't this handled via hatnotes?) It's not clear what a user might be searching for with this term, but if it's about ISO-639 (how could it not be?) then after deletion, ISO-639 will be the top result for such a search, so no inconvenience to the reader wrt number of clicks. As for Thryduulf's comment about evidence, can you please add what you are seeing? What I'm seeing for this search] is very close to nothing, and certainly nothing helpful. (Dropping the minus-wikipedia term demonstrates that almost all results for this search are at Wikipedia itself, and that's definitely not what we want when someone searches for an expression.) All of this argues for "Delete". Mathglot (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Found this one oddball result from LoC, but it has to be a mistake (see first table row). Mathglot (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "ISO: none" means there is no ISO code, not that the ISO code is "none". We don't need to link s.t. if that s.t. doesn't exist. And as Mathglot's find shows, "ISO: none" or "ISO: (none)" could refer to any language that doesn't have an ISO code. I suppose we could rd it to "ISO:MIS", but better IMO just to delete. — kwami (talk) 08:25, 26 November 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 13:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Cryokenesis → H2O: Just Add Water  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Cryokenesis is a misspelling of Cryokinesis, which is a superpower to manipulate ice. One of H2O's characters apparently has this power, but 'Cryokenesis/Cryokinesis' is never mentioned at the target. This R was created when some H2O fan made a poorly-written unsourced article about how the power was used in the show, another editor redirected it to the show instead. This could WP:ASTONISH someone looking for an article on the fictional superpower; we wouldn't redirect X-ray vision to Superman. There are three possible actions:

1. Create article about this power (this isn't needed as Wiktionary has a page on this word)

2. Delete

3. Retarget to Cryokinesis on Wiktionary

(JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 02:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to Wiktionary entry per nom. Plausible misspelling. Deletion would bring about no benefit in my opinion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The correct spelling was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of superhuman features and abilities in fiction, which is what this redirect should have been pointing to anyway. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Xezbeth. If we had material at Cryokinesis, it would make sense to point it there. Retaining a misspelling of a nonexistent target isn't helpful. - Eureka Lott 15:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Xezbeth. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:55, 24 November 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 13:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, plus it doesn't get very many pageviews. We don't want to mislead readers into thinking there's encyclopedic content on this character when none exists. Regards, SONIC678 17:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Funnily enough, "low pageviews" and "confusing readers" appears to be a contradictory argument. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:00, 25 November 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.