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

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Venomous Viper → Zoids#Overview  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I suggest to retarget this redirect to Viperidae. The Zoids article does not contain the term "Venomous Viper", and even if it did, it might not be a proper primary topic for the term. I also find the Venomous Vipers article name a bit dubious, but perhaps the hatnote I just added is sufficient for that one. Please note that I just created Venomous viper and Venomous vipers to redirect the lowercase terms to Viperidae. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at this capitalisation (no mention at current target). I don't think the creation of Venomous viper and Venomous vipers helps either because there aren't non-venomous vipers. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not very fond of the phrase "venomous viper(s)" either, but unfortunately, there are lots of Wikipedia articles that use it (currently Atheris, Atheris hispida, Bitis, Bitis nasicornis, Black adder (disambiguation), Cerastes vipera, Chain snake (disambiguation), Daboia, Echis, Macrovipera lebetinus, Montivipera, Vipera, Vipera ammodytes, etc.), and Google Advanced Search found 71,000 exact-match uses of the singular and 28,000 uses of the plural – even in sources that ought to know better. If the phrase is in common use, I think we should accommodate it even if we don't think it's proper. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles#Annoying redundant phrases about venom (a discussion opened by me on 3 August 2022, about 8 hours before I opened this RfD discussion). I would not object to deleting the Venomous Viper redirect, although I suppose that could either be a plausible alternative capitalization or an ((R to plural)) for an individual member of the Venomous Vipers. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:35, 8 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 as a cross-namespace redirect. ✗plicit 01:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Robert Biarnesen → Draft:Robert Biarnesen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Article draftified Pbritti (talk) 21:59, 3 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. Noting the official usage and presence of several similar redirects, a batch nomination would make more sense, though at this point also seems unlikely to succeed. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

An implausible redirect, based on a seldom used abbreviation of "Reservation". SounderBruce 21:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: The abbreviation is used by the U.S. Census Bureau here (in this PDF): https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/DC2020/PL20/st53_wa/schooldistrict_maps/c53033_king/DC20SD_C53033.pdf page 3 (PDF p. 4/5). My feeling is that the Census Bureau (a prominent organization)'s choice to use this abbreviation makes it prominent enough to make a redirect from. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Resvn" has 17,000 results on Google, most of which have nothing to do with U.S. Indian reservations. A far more common abbreviation is "Res.", which is used by plenty of mainstream media soruces. For all we know, it's an internal term that is meant to be used alongside internal codes that aren't supposed to be public facing. SounderBruce 21:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there's ambiguity about "Resvn" alone, one could make a disambiguation page on that. But combined with "Muckleshoot" (or another tribal name) there's only one possible destination in those cases. On top of that, the Census Bureau, by including that abbreviation in files available to the public, in my view has automatically made it "public facing". WhisperToMe (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per usage in an official public facing document, and there are no other competing usage for this to be confusing or unhelpful. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:07, 7 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 23:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thursday's Next Release → Kill the House Lights  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

We don't know what Thursday will release next, so why would we need this redirect here when there's not even an upcoming album on their page? To be fair, this was created on August 30 of the year of release for Kill the House Lights (when it was still upcoming and thus the redirect was still plausible), but why would it still be upcoming if it was already released back in 2007? Regards, SONIC678 21:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in the spirit of MOS:CURRENT. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:05, 7 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. Pinging BrownHairedGirl for help with AWB cleanup, ping me back when the cleanup is done and I will actually delete the page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cite article → Template:Cite news  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is unhelpfully ambiguous: it is unclear what type of article it refers to. As @AManWithNoPlan put it in a recent discussion Some editors think it means journal, while others newspapers, and yet others magazine, while the editor we were discussing it with thought that it was a special version of ((cite news)). I guess that others may think it means website articles that fit none of the above categories.
The existing uses are nearly all on talk or userpages, and should be substituted with ((cite news)) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the page Template:Cite article is fully-protected, so I have not been able to tag it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Keep because the page has redirected to Template:Cite news since December 16, 2007. It is transcluded on 422 pages, including one article. FAdesdae378 19:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @FAdesdae378: my proposal is to replace all the existing uses, so they are no reason to oppose deletion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Is there a bot that converts from ((cite article)) to ((cite news)) in article space? There being only one usage of it in article space, but it existing in many requested edits on talk pages leads me to believe that might be the case. TartarTorte 20:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If this is the case, it might be possible to have the bot work in not just article space sub out ((cite article)) for ((cite news)) and then we could delete the redirect. TartarTorte 20:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @TartarTorte: @Citation bot does such conversions. Also, I do periodic AWB runs to convert it in article space.

  However, Citation bot doesn't process talk pages, and I am not willing to run my AWB job on talk pages; too much risk of drama. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after converting to ((cite news)). Articles are not exclusive to news media; journals, encyclopedias, and magazines also contain "articles" despite not being news outlets. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after news conversion, because I agree with the nom that it is woefully ambiguous, and with Mellohi's argument. SWinxy (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I noticed a couple of other ambiguous redirects, such as ((cite study)) and ((cite technical standard)) redirect to ((citation)). Could that be a solution for ((cite article))? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tavix: it seems unlikely that editors using ((cite article)) intend it to mean ((citation)). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  However, they would be looking for a citation template, and ((citation)) is the broadest one we have. I don't see that as unlikely, so replace and retarget there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tavix: ((citation)) is indeed the broadest template, but it is relatively rare because it uses the CS2 format. What evidence can you offer that editors using ((cite article)) intended to choose the rare CS2 format? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Run bot in all spaces to replace, then delete. TartarTorte 18:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Potential closer comment I'm reading a consensus to delete here, but it looks like we have some bot-cleanup to do here first. Would anyone be able to volunteer to take care of the bot-work following a close? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, as of this moment, this redirect has 421 transclusions, so it's not too bad (not 1000+ transclusions) ... as in someone using WP:AWB manually probably could do it before the close. Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rosguill: I will happily use AWB to do any cleanup needed after the close. Just ping me in the close, specifying what is to be done. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment when I see ((cite article)) the first thing I think of is that it should be a synonym for ((cite journal)) since articles are what academic journals publish -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ye, journals publish articles. But also, magazines and newspapers publish articles, and so do many websites. Hence the ambiguity which led me to nominate this redirect for deletion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 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. --BDD (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• China in the ABU Song Contest 2020 → ABU Song Contest 2020  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Brunei in the ABU Song Contest 2020 → ABU Song Contest 2020  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Vietnam in the ABU Song Contest 2020 → ABU Song Contest 2020  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These countries intended to take part in a contest that never materialized. It is extremely unlikely that someone would need to search for an article about a country or territory that did not do something, especially when the activity itself struggles to meet notability requirements in general. The target of these redirects also does not discuss their relevance/importance other than saying the said they would have participated. This nom is in the same spirit as this recent RfD Grk1011 (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. These were used in the infobox of ABU Song Contest 2020, but because they were WP:SELFRED, I removed them. SWinxy (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 20:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete All per nom. 2405:9800:BA20:AB7A:401B:6EE7:75D8:26B (talk) 09:04, 10 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 Elmer's Products. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Craft Bond → Rubber cement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Searching shows "Craft Bond" is a brand of glue made by Elmers Glue. It is not a type of rubber cement. Since it is not mentioned in the Elmers article, best to delete. MB 05:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "Craft Bond" brand name also applies to rubber cement, not just glue. Plus I added a mention of "Craft Bond" in the Elmer's article. AKK700 05:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Elmer's Products where the brand name is now mentioned. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 14:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per CycloneYoris. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per the above. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:24, 7 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 11:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• HRH Kate Middleton → Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per the guidelines, we should avoid making "novel or very obscure synonyms for an article name." This term is rather bizarre as nobody has ever referred to the subject as "HRH Kate Middleton", a combination of her maiden name with the HRH prefix. In addition to being technically incorrect, it has never been used by any sources. She has been incorrectly referred to as "Duchess Kate", "Duchess Catherine", "Catherine Cambridge", etc. for all of which we have redirects, but unlike the aforementioned terms "HRH Kate Middleton" serves no purpose as a redirect. It is incorrect and has never been used by the media, outlets, or biographers to the best of my knowledge. Keivan.f^Talk 08:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree entirely with the nom. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:08, 7 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 closed as keep. Per Superboilles comment, the situation is very different from that in Afghanistan, see below. Waltermaid (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Constitution of Chad → Chadian constitution of 2018  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Make a disambiguation page. Chadian constitution of 2018 is Chad's eighth constitution. We also already have an article about the Chadian constitution of 1996. In future all 8 articles could be written. Waltermaid (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A more logical structure would be that used for the Constitution of France (French constitution being a redirect). There has been more than a dozen French constitutions since 1789 but the one currently in effect has the simpler name. Older versions are simply called along the lines of French Constitution of 1848. Interestingly, there is no disambiguation page (which makes sense since there's only been one constitution at any one time) but an navbox at the bottom which I think is more elegant. This being said, it's not a hill I'm planning to die on, so do as you see fit. Superboilles (talk) 09:41, 3 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. ✗plicit 04:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits → Seven dirty words  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely that anybody would search this up. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Googling shit piss fuck cunt wikipedia (as if I were a reader who remembers a few of the words at issue, but not the phrase seven dirty words) takes me to this redirect, and thence to the right article. It's a perfectly reasonable use case. EEng 05:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep stats show about one person per day using this redirect, and this exact set of words in this order are overwhelmingly associated with the target (see e.g. Google Books). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as I reckon readers would indeed seek those words, to find that page. George Carlin, you were genius. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 4 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 04:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bobux → Roblox#Items and currency  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Obscure meme redirecting to the part of Roblox about currency. Probably does not have enough notability to warrant a redirect. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Not mentioned (and not worth mentioning) at target, while meanwhile there's a New Zealand shoe brand by the same name which likely has enough news coverage to meet WP:N [2]. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft keep because there is no need to delete now. 96.18.106.49 (talk) 5:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• Delete as unused --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. When I looked at article, the currency I only see is "Robux". I can't see "Bobux" anywhere, and I don't think it is a notable enough of a synonym, at least to my knowledge of this "Bobux". Also, apparantly there is also "Bobux" as in NZ shoe brand that I don't know but happens to also exist. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:51, 10 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 04:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @ replacing A, at, or O → Satiric misspelling#.22.40.22 replacing .22A.22.2C .22at.22.2C or .22O.22  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not described at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This referred to a short section of the article that was removed in 2020. - Eureka Lott 14:29, 3 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 04:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rohit Shetty's next → Dilwale (2015 film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete redirect. Rohit Shetty's next film will keep on changing every time a new film is announced. DareshMohan (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reason you mentioned. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Capsulecap. Also, his next what, does it refer to? Regards, SONIC678 05:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An almost definitionally COSTLY redirect. TartarTorte 13:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nonsensical. CLYDEFRANKLIN 02:13, 4 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.