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 (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ykpaihcbka moba → Ukrainian language  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible Faux Cyrillic title with inconsistent lettering ("b" is used for soft-symbol ь and /b/ б), deletion seems appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bndanntn per nom. It might cause confusion for those who aren't familiar with the Cyrillic scripts. Regards, 3BYKOBA678 20:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sonic678: what is Bndanntn? Jay (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's "Видалити" ("delete" in Ukranian) written in the inconsistently lettered Cyrillic style. Hope that helps. Regards, SONIC678 15:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in the spirit of redirects without diacritics. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Latin l.c. h for Cyrillic н doesn’t even make visual sense. People might type things like this for fun, but not for searching, where they would romanize, e.g. Ukrainska mova. —Michael Z. 17:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_17#Bbnrapckn for fake transcriptions of Български and Ελληνικά. Only 17 pageviews in 41 days. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:43, 4 February 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 01:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Get Stickbugged LOL → Phasmatodea#In human culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• GET STICK BUGGED LOL → Phasmatodea#In human culture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Apparently based on some meme that is not in the article at this point. It was put up for deletion before, but by some sock--I am not a sock. The even more useless GET STICK BUGGED LOL needs to be cut also. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have added GET STICK BUGGED LOL to this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• When I closed the previous RfD for the first redirect, I was tempted to immediately re-nominate this, but decided to let it come up organically rather than be tied to a rather annoying sockmaster. I'm glad that that's what's happened. There's no mention at the target, so delete unless one is added. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 11:56, 30 January 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 01:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Cats in the history → Cultural depictions of cats  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect seems to be unclear in what it refers due to the use of the word "the". Is it referring to the history of how cats came to be (possibly Evolution of the domesticated cat)? Is it referring to the history of cats with humans? Seems too vague. Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as implausible due to the "the"; there's no particular affinity for that grammatical error, and it would be costly to maintain the many other redirects that could be justified by keeping it. Second choice synchronize with whatever the outcome of the History of cats RfD is. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:18, 30 January 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. As unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Neuroretinitis → Cat-scratch disease  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is mentioned in the article, but the redirect is referenced as a symptom caused by the subject of the article. Search engines show the subject of the redirect being a symptom in human eyes, and thus not the same topic as the subject of the article. I looked around a bit on Wikipedia, and the best retargeting option I could find is Diffuse unilateral subacute neuroretinitis; however, the aforementioned article seems to be a subtopic of the redirect's subject rather than the subject itself. Unless the retargeting option seems the best option, delete per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 17:23, 29 January 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 01:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• English–Wear infection → Cat-scratch disease  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• English-Wear infection → Cat-scratch disease  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection between the two terms unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I can find no usage of this term anywhere. A7V2 (talk) 04:11, 31 January 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 01:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nyaa~nyaa → Purr  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Though this may be a sound that differs from its target and may be able to be retargeted (possibly to Cat communication), the use of a tilde (~) in the redirect title makes it an unlikely search term since the tilde is not used in most English phrases/words, and as far as I can tell, this isn't a foreign translation, but then again, cat communication in general is not specific to any language (WP:FORRED). Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't look like a tilde (it neither is atop anything nor looks as if a letter is missing below it); rather, it looks like a swung dash. This, commonly called nami, is the commonest Japanese-script equivalent of the en or em dash of English, and in Japan is also commonly used in quasi-English (e.g. the titles of pop songs) or other roman lettering. Nyā or nyā-nyā (though normally not romanized but instead in Japanese script) is a common Japanese representation of a cat sound. I don't see why a redirect from a Japanese representation (let alone one that's oddly spelt) is helpful. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 30 January 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 01:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Etale theta function → Frobenioid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Used in the titles of a referenced publication and mathoverflow post, but not described at target per se. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:33, 29 January 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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Test → Template:Uw-test1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a redirect to Uw-test1 warning template, but there are 3 levels of test editing warning templates and can refer to multiple sandbox template Vitaium (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On multiple wikis, "template:test" refers to a first-level warning, since that is used most and usually applied before further warning levels. I'm not sure why this should be different on the English Wikipedia. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 1234qwer4. This the expected behaviour. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: This redirect should be kept for historical reasons. There was a template here from the early days of Wikipedia that was merged with the newer templates a few years ago. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 02:08, 1 February 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. Unhelpful redirect and potentially confusing with the novelist. Jay (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Justin Go → Michelle Alyssa Go  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RFD#DELETE #10 Happy editing--IAmChaos 08:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or create article - Keep per WP:CHEAP or create article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The target subject is notable for their death, and nothing else. The likelihood of the name of one of the subject's parents being used for any reason on Wikipedia is so unlikely and unhelpful that this the title is helpful neither as an article nor as a redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Valid ((R from relative)). ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These type of redirects are retained too often. In some cases, such as this one, the connect between the two subject is so unnotable that there's a case where retaining the redirect may potentially hinder the benefit of using Wikipedia's search function to locate other articles. (However, with that being said, I will change my "delete" to "weak delete" due to the fact this rcat template exists.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disregard the struck text; Tamzin's thought process on this mirrors mine, and I don't think this redirect is helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - @IAmChaos:, you stated that "Justin Go" can be made into an article. If this can be made into an article, why should we delete something that has no higher use? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes, we do sometimes have ((r from relative))s, but the existence of that template doesn't overcome the basic expectations of a redirect. We have no meaningful content on Justin Go, so this isn't useful in that regard. And it seems very unlikely that anyone looking for the article on Michelle Alyssa Go would remember her father's name but not hers, so this isn't a plausible search term. Thus it serves no purpose but to potentially confuse, misleading both readers who might think we do have meaningful content about this Justin Go and readers who are looking for information on this Justin Go or some other. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tamzin. A7V2 (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tamzin and Steel. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:49, 6 February 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 00:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• حفظ → Hafiz (Quran)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

the redirect is to "a term used by Muslims for someone who has completely memorized the Quran. " The word حفظ means preserve. I don't see it as a plausible search term for the target. This editor means well, but I think I'll drop a note on their page about redirects. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. According to wikt:حفظ one of the less common meanings of the term is "to memorise", although this is the only meaning given for Egyptian Arabic and South Levantine Arabic, but nowhere does it note this specifically relates to the Quran. ar:حفظ redirects to a disambiguation page. The 6th listed page that is not also a disambiguation does interwiki to Hafiz (Quran), but other meanings such as Soil conservation and Environmental protection seem equally valid without context so this does not make a good search term on the English Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Urdu wikipedia, حفظ redirects to that wikipedia's equivalent of Hafiz (Quran).VR _talk 21:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:XY. 2405:9800:BA31:F6:9592:104:4E5D:50FD (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. @Doug Weller: and @Thryduulf:, the term "حفظ" is widely used to refer to the memorization of the Qur'an. Just google its transliteration "hifz" or "hifdh", and the top results all refer to Qur'an memorization. This word originates from Arabic, yes, but is widely used by non-Arabic speaking Muslims (such as myself) to refer to the memorization of the Quran.VR _talk 21:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The transliterations are irrelevant here. All that matters is whether an English speaker seeing "حفظ" out of context will get to relevant information by searching for it on the English Wikipedia, and the result of my investigation suggested that they won't. Thryduulf (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom et al Happy editing--IAmChaos 08:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Hafiz, a disambiguation page with Hafiz (Quran) at the top as a common use. (See wikt:حافظ#Etymology 2) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Thryduulf. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:50, 6 February 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 Pinterest. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinterest Marketing → Social media marketing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The page was created to showcase marketing of the company, it is irelevant to exist as a standalone article or redirect and all pages have been unlinked DownTownRich (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or retarget to Pinterest): The uppercase "M" makes me want to delete it. If it wasn't for that, I would say to retarget it to Pinterest, which does include a discussion of (lowercase) marketing. The Social media marketing article does not mention Pinterest. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Pinterest as plausible search term but I have concerns on the uppercase "M". --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:09, 29 January 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 03:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Deeper muscles of the neck and back → Cat anatomy#Muscles  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As Alex.tan explained WAAAAAAAAAAAY back in August 2005 when moving this to the correct title Deeper muscles of the neck and back (cat), this thing's target was "written for cat anatomy, not human," so it doesn't make sense to redirect this term there. Not sure if there's a better target, maybe an appropriate section of List of skeletal muscles of the human body? See also the January 28 discussions for Great muscles of the head and Integumental muscles. Regards, SONIC678 02:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's rarely used, but this is ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and as the nominator of the discussions for Great muscles of the head and Integumental muscles; I somehow missed the nominated redirect while I found the aforementioned two. Steel1943 (talk) 17:47, 29 January 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 01:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bloodless Revolution (Rhode Island) → Theodore F. Green#"Bloodless Revolution"  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I created this redirect, but based on discussion with User:Eggishorn it may not be sufficiently notable to warrant a page.

The term appears to be consistently used by historians/politicians in Rhode Island (Google Books search), and according to one book may be taught in Rhode Island schools (see image 3 here), but there may not be many people searching for this term in the context of Rhode Island history. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 02:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• From what you're saying, it sounds like some people will find it useful, and that's enough as far as RfD's concerned. Sometimes we're a bit stricter on questions like "Will a nontrivial number of people find this typo useful", but when it comes to a printworthy redirect, nonzero utility is enough in my opinion. If someone who was taught this as the name for the incident in school is writing an article and looking for something to link to, having this come up as a redirect in the VE link dropdown will benefit the encyclopedia. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful and searchable. Jay (talk) 05:53, 5 February 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.