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. WP:R3 applies. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• India at the India at the 2022 World Athletics Championships → India at the 2022 World Athletics Championships  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Article was incorrectly title for about 5 minutes. No use for a redirect from this former name. MB 23:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: WP:R3 (if 14 days counts as recent); otherwise regular delete as implausible TartarTorte 15:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TartarTorte. Implausible indeed. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:55, 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 retarget to Crimea#Hydrography for containing the most relevant encyclopedic information at the moment. No prejudice against creating a list article later. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Crimea river → Chyornaya (Crimea)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous. There are 4 Crimean rivers with articles (see Category:Rivers of Crimea.) CLYDEFRANKLIN 16:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Crimea#Hydrography, which discusses those four rivers, among others. - Eureka Lott 17:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Crimea#Hydrography per Eureka Lott --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the previous discussion unless someone can provide attestation as an alternative name for any of the four rivers in question. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There does not appear to be a river called "Crimea". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Crimea#Hydrography. This seems like a plauible search term for some river, so I don't see a good reason to delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ambiguous, as the nom correctly points out. No river with this name exists, and this would only serve to confuse readers. Also, the way this phrase is pronounced, it sounds almost homophonic to "Cry Me a River", which in turn is even more confusing. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless of whether Crimea river is plausible or not, Crymea river (a redirect to the same target, created by a different user) is really silly. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP, thanks for pointing this out! In the case this gets relisted, I'll add it to this, but in the (more likely) case it's closed, I'll create another RFD. CLYDEFRANKLIN 04:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Crimea#Hydrography as that target discusses topics which could be referred to as Crimea rivers. J947 † ^edits 03:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Crimea#Hydrography. Given that printed works from reliable publishers use this name "Crimea River" [1], it seems to be a likely search term even if it's incorrect & ambiguous. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify Convert to a list article, list of rivers of Crimea -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 23:24, 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 11:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Casper Magico → Te Boté  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RDELETE reasons 2 and 10. The redirect is confusing since the artist recorded many other songs. The redirect can plausibly be expanded into an article and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Muhandes (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Note that a sock had added content which was reverted. Jay 💬 16:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This isn't their only song, and is a redyes. CLYDEFRANKLIN 04:04, 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 11:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nio García → Te Boté  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Nio Garcia → Te Boté  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RDELETE reasons 2 and 10. The redirect is confusing since the artist recorded many other songs. The redirect can plausibly be expanded into an article and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Muhandes (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. See my response at #Casper Magico. CLYDEFRANKLIN 04:07, 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 keep. An RM can be opened later to switch up the article's disambiguating qualifier. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Anema (fungus) → Anema (lichen)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect should be deleted. Nothing links to it, and I doubt very much that someone would type "Anema (fungus)" into the search box! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeegsC (talk • contribs) 13:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was formerly a link from the disambiguation page (which then redirected to anema (lichen), rather than just showing anema (lichen) on the dab page) and our new outline of lichens page also linked there until we found the more specific Anema (lichen) page. Those two former links account for the traffic that shows over the past 90 days. MeegsC (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no fungus called Anema mentioned in Enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Biology experts will know better, but isn't the targeted Anema belonging to the Fungi kingdom? If so, is this redirect harmful or confusing in any way? The redirect was created as part of a page move. Jay 💬 16:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Jay I am a biology expert! ;) That's why I suggested this redirect was unnecessary. Yes, Anema is sort of a fungus. It's actually lichen, a composite organism that contains a fungal component. But this redirect is not used anywhere. Is there a point in keeping an unused redirect? MeegsC (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jay; the target is in fact a fungus with this name and was the name of the target for over a year. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, the fungus is actually a lichen. And the article Anema (lichen) has certainly existed for over a year, so the redirect (which was only on the disambiguation page) was completely unnecessary. The person who put it there could have just as easily (as I did last week) put the link directly on the DAB page! MeegsC (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Pppery. I have tagged as ((R from move)). Mdewman6 (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a lichen is a type of fungus, this does not seem like an implausible search term to me. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Presidentman, would you not just type in Anema if you were looking for the article on Anema? Why would you type in Anema (fungus)? Just wondering... MeegsC (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that Anema is a DAB page seems to answer your question. Fungus and lichen are interchangeable to the average reader. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I understand that Presidentman. But would you type ANEMA (FUNGUS)" into a search box? Or would you type ANEMA? That's what I'm asking. Because the only place that links with Anema (fungus) is the search box. Personally, I can't imagine anyone typing ANEMA (FUNGUS). But perhaps the average user is far more specific than I think. (LOL) But I'm fine with a keep; it's no skin off my nose. I won't bother tagging it for our project, because I can't imagine it ever be used. The redirect team can keep an eye on it! MeegsC (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't know. The pageviews will indicate if people are using the fungus redirect. Someone who knows anema as a fungus will look for the anema fungus search result. Jay 💬 09:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep. It's a plausible search term. Indeed the taxobox (and mycologists) places the genus in Ascomycota, which is in the kingdom Fungi. Redirects do not have to be 100% exact synonyms, nor 100% exactly scientifically accurate. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. In fact, the above arguments hint to me that the article should be moved back to Anema (fungus) since "(lichen)" is apparently an overly-precise disambiguator (WP:PRECISE). Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 11 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Baby Blast → The Simpsons Movie  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Non-notable element in the movie that is not mentioned in the target article. Dominicmgm (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is a trivial scene in the movie that would be unlikely to be mentioned in the article as it was not particularly notable to the plot itself and was not a big cultural phenomenon. As an aside, I believe the name would be properly BabyBlast; however, that needn't be created. TartarTorte 16:15, 9 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. Jay 💬 14:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Adresses of Russian Embassies changed recently → Adresses of Russian Embassies changed in 2022  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

What is "recently"? This redirect will be problematic in the future and it should be deleted. Super Ψ Dro 11:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wikipedia has been around for long enough that one could have created a French products renamed recently to describe things like Freedom fries, which while recent in 2003, is not so recent now. (N.B. I'm not comparing the scenarios of a subset of Americans being mad at France to the rest of the world being mad at Russia; they're quite different; it's just a convenient example because things were also renamed). This is a COSTLY redirect. TartarTorte 12:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is a news headline, not a title that belongs in an encyclopedia. Being an implausible search term is bad enough, but the fact that it'll become outdated in the future makes this redirect actively harmful to readers. Glades12 (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Address" is also spelled wrong. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't notice that at first, which makes this an even less plausible redirect. TartarTorte 13:04, 12 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 Trull (cards)#The Fool, Scüs, Sküs or Gstieß. ✗plicit 11:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Gstieß → The Fool (Tarot card)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RLOTE. No particular affinity between this tarot card and the German language. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Trull (cards)#The Fool, Scüs, Sküs or Gstieß: The article on Trull seems to cover Gstieß, which seems to be related to, but is not the same as, the Fool. TartarTorte 12:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Trull (cards)#The Fool, Scüs, Sküs or Gstieß per User:TartarTorte --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:00, 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 11:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• List of former GMA Artist Center artists → GMA Network (company)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Originally nominated for deletion under AfD last October 2021. Title is non sense at the redirect target, the "Lists" has no connection within the target. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No such list exists at the target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:01, 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Most viewed article → Wikipedia:Statistics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should this redirect to WP:Statistics or WP:Popular pages? Interstellarity (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as ambiguous. "Most viewed article" of what? One could presume the reader would be looking for WP's most viewed article, but I don't think "Most viewed article" by itself is specific enough. Why couldn't it be "most viewed article" of Slate or BuzzFeed, etc.? - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Statistics#Page views - I think it's fair to assume the most common intent is to find the most-viewed Wikipedia article. We don't have information on most-viewed news articles or other types as far as I know? If that's the case, then it doesn't matter if we dump someone not intending the context of Wikipedia, because we have no place else to send them. -- Beland (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unneeded WP:XNR. FAdesdae378 23:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Both ambiguous and not generally what cross-namespace redirects are for. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's referring to Top 25 report — Tazuco ✉️ 21:10, 9 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) 03:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Neural mechanisms of in-group favoritism → In-group and out-group#Neural mechanisms of in-group favoritism and out-group bias  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Obscure, long title only redirecting to a section heading. Zero pageviews since its creation on 2021-11-26. Orphan. If not deleted, it should probably redirect instead to In-group favoritism. Darcyisverycute (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 16:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The target does seem to discuss neural mechanisms of in-group favoritism * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I'm not a huge fan of redirects at such fine level of topic granularity, but this one is not implausible, and the target has appropriate content. If that content gets relocated elsewhere, then the redirect can boldly be retargeted. Uanfala (talk) 13:53, 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 retarget to Shades of green#Laurel green. This is essentially a "withdrawn". (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Laurel green → Shades of chartreuse#Laurel green  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, and doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia either. Steel1943 (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or retarget to Shades of green#Laurel green Information on laurel green has been added to both pages. It had been present at shades of chartreuse and green previously, but had been moved. FYI, it was recently retargeted from shades of green to shades of chartreuse. pbp 02:49, 9 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) 03:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Ø → Wikipedia:Purge#Null edit  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible search term. This uses the Latin O with stroke, while the symbol used for "null" is ∅. It is very unlikely that readers would look up either of these symbols, so I suggest deleting the redirect. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 00:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As it doesn't seem to be taking the place of any more pressing redirects, and seeing it's been used about once-a-day over the past year, it seems like it's worthwhile keeping it per WP:CHEAP. TartarTorte 01:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Both symbols are practically identical, so this is definitely not implausible. Also, pageviews for this redirect have been rather high since its creation in 2019, which clearly proves that this shortcut is not an unlikely search term as the nom states above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Wikipedia:∅ duly created. J947 † ^edits 10:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not implausible. —Lowellian (reply) 19:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Shorctus are cheap, and I can see the relationship to the concept of an empty set. Also only one character. Not sure how to feel about unicode symbol shortcuts as they are not easily typed by most laymen editors, but limiting or discouraging them is something to tackle as a class (if it is even something to worry about at all). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a harmless shortcut. A minority of keyboards include the Scandinavian letter Ø, but even fewer have a way to type the technical symbol ∅. I imagine people from Denmark, Norway, and the Faroe Islands editing enwiki will find this useful. Glades12 (talk) 11:34, 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.