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 00:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sid Salter → Supertalk Mississippi#Personalities  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• On Deadline with Sid Salter → Supertalk Mississippi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target anymore MB 23:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The three redirects to Supertalk Mississippi from a non notable radio station manager's name; ex presenter's name and the name of an ex show go back to a web of redirects and user pages masquerading as article pages created by sockpuppetry in about 2010 in the User:Arpierson1993 case. The names at the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Arpierson1993 there and those user pages are particularly interesting. None of the three terms redirected currently are mentioned on the target page (nor is there any material likelihood any reasonable person would consider the material on the page might relate to them) and it doesn't seem very likely to me they should be in the future. When they appeared before it was only as entries in long lists of non notable radio station employees; non notable former employees, and non notable defunct shows that formerly filled the page with trivia, spam station promotion and vanity listing of employees names. It is not remotely likely any wikipedia user would want to search for Supertalk Mississippi using the terms in these redirects. Sid Salter seems to be a PR professional working for Mississippi State University where any redirect for him should have gone if he was mentioned on that page but he doesn't seem to be anyway. The redirects being considered are not referenced by any material article page links nor does there seem any reasonable chance of losing useful links to old page material by deleting them. I created much of the content currently at Supertalk Mississippi but have no COI to declare. Indeed I have never set foot in Mississippi or the United States. I listened to the station whilst editing its Wikipedia page and found it interesting. <aside>It does seem to me there is a weak parallel between the legal case reported at Supertalk Mississippi#College athletes' image rights where Supertalk was accused of pinching college athlete's image rights for its own commercial benefit and this situation where the firm's PR team built a web of redirects and bogus article pages using the names of staff and ex staff as a link farm to promote its own wikipedia page.</aside> I am grateful to User:MB for placing these pages in the list to be considered for deletion.Ed1964 (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2022 (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 00:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bob Sullender → Supertalk Mississippi#Personalities  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target anymore. MB 23:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The three redirects to Supertalk Mississippi from a non notable radio station manager's name; ex presenter's name and the name of an ex show go back to a web of redirects and user pages masquerading as article pages created by sockpuppetry in about 2010 in the User:Arpierson1993 case. The names at the category Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Arpierson1993 there and those user pages are particularly interesting. None of the three terms redirected currently are mentioned on the target page (nor is there any material likelihood any reasonable person would consider the material on the page might relate to them) and it doesn't seem very likely to me they should be in the future. When they appeared before it was only as entries in long lists of non notable radio station employees; non notable former employees, and non notable defunct shows that formerly filled the page with trivia, spam station promotion and vanity listing of employees names. It is not remotely likely any wikipedia user would want to search for Supertalk Mississippi using the terms in these redirects. Sid Salter seems to be a PR professional working for Mississippi State University where any redirect for him should have gone if he was mentioned on that page but he doesn't seem to be anyway. The redirects being considered are not referenced by any material article page links nor does there seem any reasonable chance of losing useful links to old page material by deleting them. I created much of the content currently at Supertalk Mississippi but have no COI to declare. Indeed I have never set foot in Mississippi or the United States. I listened to the station whilst editing its Wikipedia page and found it interesting. <aside>It does seem to me there is a weak parallel between the legal case reported at Supertalk Mississippi#College athletes' image rights where Supertalk was accused of pinching college athlete's image rights for its own commercial benefit and this situation where the firm's PR team built a web of redirects and bogus article pages using the names of staff and ex staff as a link farm to promote its own wikipedia page.</aside> I am grateful to User:MB for placing these pages in the list to be considered for deletion.Ed1964 (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Legoktm (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates → Wikipedia:Database reports/Transclusions of non-existent templates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Reverting page move test/page move vandalism Schierbecker (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2022 (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 00:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• TikTok war → 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The creator of this redirect cited this New Yorker article, but I'm not sure that's enough. The destination doesn't mention TikTok, so someone searching for it might be served just as well by TikTok, and it's also likely to age poorly, as future wars will also be fought on TikTok assuming the platform survives. Lastly, my read of the media coverage is that "first TikTok war" is being used more as a descriptor (e.g. "it's the first war fought on TikTok") than as a proper name (e.g. "I fought in the First TikTok War"), and as such I don't think it makes as much sense as a redirect. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 31#WarTok. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 21:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot see how this serves any useful purpose. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a costly crystal ball. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:42, 18 August 2022 (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 Longest words. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Big words → Technobabble  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not synonymous. Delete unless a better target can be identified. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Retarget to Longest words. I think it could be deleted, but Long words currently redirects to Longest words, so you could argue Big words could follow the same format. I'd personally be happy either way. – DirkJandeGeer щи 21:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to longest words per DirkJandeGeer. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to longest words per above. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to longest words per DirkJandeGeer. Icabobin (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to longest words as plausible synonym. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:00, 15 August 2022 (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 00:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• He can't keep getting away with this → Sam Hyde  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Generic phrase. Linked to Sam Hyde per this KnowYourMeme submission of dubious reliability, but even if taken as fully reliable, it appears to have originated on Breaking Bad and only sometimes is invoked with reference to Hyde. Deletion seems more appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 14:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He really can't be getting away with this! SWinxy (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2022 (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 00:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My god, what have I done? → Once in a Lifetime (Talking Heads song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's a line in the song, but it's also a generic phrase. Deletion seems appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Countless songs [1] and other creative works [2] contain this phrase. WP:NOTQUOTE precludes making a set index or disambiguation page listing those works. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a far too common phrase that can't reasonably be targeted anywhere. TV Tropes isn't something I usually cite, but the trope page dedicated to this exact phrase should say something about how generic it is. Glades12 (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2022 (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. Without prejudice against recreation should any of these come to be mentioned in the target article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Leijurv → 2b2t  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Pyrobyte → 2b2t  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Popbob → 2b2t  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• ITristan → 2b2t  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Created with the edit summary Fairly notable player on this server, but they are not mentioned in any capacity at the target. Delete unless a WP:DUE mention can be added at the target (a brief internet search is not encouraging). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think it's good practice to not mention users in server articles like 2b2t. Only an image credit from Windows Central but more mention by PC Gamer. Still, since they aren't mentioned in the article (and shouldn't), the redirects should be deleted (Leijurv has been notified on his talk by nominator). SWinxy (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's worth noting that I decided against nominating 3 other username redirects that are mentioned: Hausmaster and James Rustles rather prominently, FitMC probably should be nominated on WP:R#DELETE #10 grounds. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (thanks rosguill for the mention) Wow, I didn't even know I had an article, that's super cool!! (even though it's a redirect, and even though said redirect is nominated for deletion lol). Anyway, I'm not mentioned in the article, but a few of the cited sources mention "Leijurv". A WP:DUE mention could, theoretically, be added. I'm mentioned five times in this one, and this one credits me for the heatmap. I didn't add myself to the article because that's self-serving COI, so I left it up to others, and I still do. Up to y'all! Leijurv (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Leijurv, delete the others as long as a mention of his contributions to Nocom is placed in the article. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. I see there is a desire to keep Leijurv, and this is conditional to having a mention at the target, but no one is up to add the mention, and I don't know enough about the subject for it. If others have to go, so will Leijurv. Jay 💬 13:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not like these solutions are mutually exclusive; the redirect can be recreated after adding a mention at any time. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The reasonable place would be in adaptive tracking system programmed by Leijurv, a member of Nerds Inc., (the addition being in bold). I won't add this myself because COI but perhaps someone else will. I believe it would be due with respect to the amount of coverage given to Nocom in the article, relative to mentions of me in the source. Leijurv (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  tbh I don't think that we should. We've gone without it for the past year, and, no offence, its addition would be self-serving. SWinxy (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2022 (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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ground Zero (record label) → Metal Church  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ground Zero is mentioned once in the target article, in the infobox, which doesn't strike me as sufficient for the redirect to be useful. It's hard to find mentions of the record label using the search, but a cursory look didn't show up any plausible alternative targets. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2022 (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 00:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• St. Pissed the Fuck Off → St. Anger  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target or any other article, which is unsurprising as Google shows me a total of three results for this phrase, which seems to be a made-up nickname for this album. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: made-up nonsense --FMSky (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:42, 16 August 2022 (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 00:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Transformers Untitled → Transformers (film series)#Future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is an "untitled" future project listed at the target page, but the use of the phrase like this is both unlikely and could assume there is a project by this specific name. (The redirect was an article for a day in 2012, and the content looks as though it refers to Transformers: Age of Extinction.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – another unnecessary redirect for a no-longer untitled film, not to mention that this is not the correct formatting for untitled films. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Transformers" isn't even primarily a film series. It is a toyline, with cartoons, comics, novels, movies, etc -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as yet another costly and misleading future work redirect. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Restore the original page. No need for a prolonged discussion. Being Bold. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 04:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I declined R3 (implausible, recently created redirect) speedy deletion. I think that the disambiguation page now at Gasper (disambiguation) should be at Gasper, reversing the original move to make this a redirect by TatesTopG. ((Nihiltres |talk |edits)) 18:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and restore the DAB page - "Gasper" as a term for cigarettes seems to be super informal and not used in any of our articles, so useless as a redirect. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is a sex term, it refers to a person who likes to be strangled. We have an article on that topic, erotic asphyxiation. RETARGET to erotic asphyxiation -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move Gasper (disambiguation) back to the base title per Praxidicae. Anything which meets WP:DABMENTION can be added there; for everything else (like any obscure regional or subcultural slang meanings), there's wikt:gasper. Clearly neither slang meaning is WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT here [3][4]. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2022 (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. Refined to Prestwich#History which is where the mention was added. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Polefield appears to be an area in or near Prestwich, but isn't mentioned in the target, or in any other article in sufficient depth to be worth retargeting. My inquiry at the target talk page didn't reveal any interest in adding a mention to make this redirect useful to the reader. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polefield is a well-attested historical place - see https://prestwich.org.uk/history/places/polefield.html. Polefield House didn't survive the 20th century, and I suppose it is all built over now. Has become a street name. Simple removal of the redirect is not the best solution here. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles Matthews: If a sourced mention can be added to the target I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination. In cases like these I make a point of beginning a talk page discussion before going to RfD in the hopes of arriving at that outcome. But having a redirect that fails to take readers to any relevant information is, in my view, worse than having no redirect at all. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My attitude is that typing here is less constructive than typing on the target page. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate because this is where redirects are supposed to be discussed. But to Arms & Hearts' point, I agree: If the content is added to the target page, this redirect could/should continue to exist, but if not, it should be deleted. (So, to make my "vote" official: delete unless a mention is added to the target page.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Its in what is now the unparished area of Prestwich[5] (select 19th century) but I'd suggest it needs to be mentioned if kept. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, anchor redirect. I have added a sentence to Prestwich#History about Polefield, using the existing VCH reference. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Charles Matthews, looks good to me. Happy for this to be closed, assuming no objections from Steel1943 or Crouch, Swale. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes I'm fine with closing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Go for it. Steel1943 (talk) 05:24, 18 August 2022 (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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Schooner Virjen de Covadonga → Spanish schooner Virgen de Covadonga  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Spanish schooner Virjen de Covadonga → Spanish schooner Virgen de Covadonga  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Useless misspell. Spanish speakers would laugh at any native that made this error. Super Ψ Dro 11:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think a J for a G is a plausible misspell. Good thing this is not the Spanish Wikipedia, over here we don't have to deal with this rude hypothetical Spanish speaker. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TartarTorte 14:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, non-natives are allowed to misspell! Jay 💬 14:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Per WP:CSK#1: withdrawn by nominator; nobody else has commented. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Microsoft Office 2002 → Microsoft Office XP  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This version of Office is little to not referred to as this at all, also, this office suite was released in 2001 and not 2002. Colgatepony234 (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay never mind, withdraw this redirect discussion because I did not look deeper into the page first and see that everything there is called "2002". Do not relist. Colgatepony234 (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2022 (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 11:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2022 Hoover Dam exposion → Hoover Dam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

implausible search term. 2022 Hoover Dam explosion already exists as a redirect. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's pretty pointless to have a redirect.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Implausible misspelling, and also the term "exposion" could to the act of exposing something like a secret, while "explosion" refers to the act of something combusting/blowing up. Colgatepony234 (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this redirect is purely a typo I made. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:17, 14 August 2022 (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 11:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A.M.U. PUBLIC SR. SEC. SCHOOL → Punahana#Education  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible search term. The school isn't even mentioned in the target article. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as having nowhere to go. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. This outcome had slight majority support, and would be the default outcome in a no-consensus close, but I do find rough consensus here. 7 out of 13 participants were at least open to this outcome, and of the 6 opposed, the one straight delete argument was not very strong, while the five retarget !votes were split between 2 Geographical distribution of French speakers, 1 that or Culture of France, and 2 a restored Francophonie. No camp made a stronger argument than any other as to why their preferred target should be considered primary, strengthening the case for disambiguation. Furthermore, most !votes against disambiguation were made prior to Lenticel's suggestion of both DABbing and restoring Francophonie.

On that note, I find a weaker but extant consensus to restore Francophonie. The matter was addressed by a minority of participants, but received no opposition among those who addressed it. Since the previous decision to BLAR Francophonie was a bold decision and not the product of any consensus, this is more than sufficient agreement to revert that BLARing. Any further discussion of that page's fitness to be an article should occur at AfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• French world → Organisation internationale de la Francophonie  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I do not think it the redirect describes its current target. This redirect formerly targeted Francophonie prior to it being retargeted to its current target by a bot after Francophonie was blanked-and-redirected towards Organisation internationale de la Francophonie back in 2020 after a brief edit war of sorts. Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest retargeting to Culture of France, as 'world' is larger than just language; unless the specific intent is 'French speaking countries' in which case Geographical distribution of French speakers might be appropriate with a ((redirect)) hatnote to Culture of France. --Bejnar (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no such thing as a "French world". The only thing that the countries belonging to Organisation internationale de la Francophonie have in common is that their citizens speak French. JIP | Talk 18:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete closest article that might be a target is Organisation internationale de la Francophonie but I think that's pushing it. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate to the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, French-speaking world, French colonial empire -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or disamb - French world is a strange way to describe it.Gusfriend (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: most of the Francophonie is not France. There is no good retarget. As a second choice, DABify as per 64.229.88.43. Veverve (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a plausible search term for someone looking for the parts of the world that have/have had French linguistic and/or cultural heritage (c.f. Francosphere). The lead of the article says it "is an international organization representing countries and regions where French is a lingua franca or customary language, where a significant proportion of the population are francophones (French speakers), or where there is a notable affiliation with French culture." - i.e. exactly what someone will be looking for. There is also a hatnote to Geographical distribution of French speakers. Disambiguating per the IP is my second choice. Thryduulf (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or disambiguate - If kept, I think it should be as an "R to avoid double redirect" to Francosphere. But it would be fine also to disambiguate it per the IP and I think Francosphere could target this DAB page as well. A7V2 (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Geographical distribution of French speakers. That's what I think about when I hear "French world". Btw, English world goes to English-speaking world, whereas French-speaking world already targets that (Geographical distribution of French speakers) article. Let's be consistent. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @A7V2 @Thryduulf @Veverve @Gusfriend @Lenticel @JIP @Bejnar so you can consider my argument above. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't oppose this but I don't feel strongly about it either. I think I'm indifferent between my above two suggestions, your suggestion and the suggestion below about Francophonie, but definitely with a preference against deletion. A7V2 (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Francophonie and retarget there. The concept is wider than the organization and the restored article would give a brief but nice overview of the subject. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nominator comment: Out of all the options presented thus far as alternatives to deletion, I think this one makes the most sense, especially considering the questionable WP:BLAR the former target was subject to. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Francophonie and then convert the current redirect to a dab between that article and Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, Geographical distribution of French speakers, and French colonial empire. I think all suggestions have merit so I'll just bundle them up in my revised vote.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the best suggestion I've seen and gets my support. Thryduulf (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Francophonie and then convert, per Lenticel. Icabobin (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget “French world” to Geographical distribution of French speakers. “French world” seems to be short for French-speaking world which already redirects to that same target (see this YouTube educational video which equates “French world” to “le monde Francophone”). By analogy, consider English. English world and anglophone both correctly redirect to English-speaking world instead of redirecting to Anglosphere, because “Anglosphere” involves cultural and historical ties to England whereas “English world” and “anglophone” are just about language. I would support “Francosphere” redirecting to Organisation internationale de la Francophonie (OIF) because “Francosphere” implies historical and cultural ties to France; the OIF dates back to 1970 and it includes some member states who have nothing to do with the French language (e.g. Mexico). Francophonie usually refers to the people or countries who share in common the French language, but it is sometimes used to refer to the OIF, so that’s a tough one; I’d redirect to Geographical distribution of French speakers but put a hatnote atop that target explaining that the organization of France-affiliated nations is at Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2022 (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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-veg joke → Off-color humor  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Nonveg joke → Off-color humor  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"veg" content (only relevant to India) has been removed from the article QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The edit where the section was removed was justified as "only relevant to India", which is not a valid rationale to remove content from an article with no region-specific subtopic. In short, the content should not have ben straight-up deleted without discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Veg" content has already been restored. Also, what the heck is "only relevant to India"? Go to Conservapedia if referenced non-white content offends you. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The redirect is relevant even if limited to a certain geographic location. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:36, 14 August 2022 (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.