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 01:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Obama people → Luo people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Obama language → Dholuo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While the Obamas appear to have roots in the Luo people, this feels like an implausible search term to me, but not to the extent of requiring speedy deletion. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. First one borders on OR and is ambiguous with titles such as Family of Barack Obama and Cabinet of Barack Obama. The second comes across as just racist. (Not saying that was the creator's intention, but the most famous Obama speaks two languages, AFAIK: English and Indonesian. Other Obamas presumably speak a variety of languages. One can't reduce a family to one language in one country like that.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tamzin. On seeing the title "Obama people" I expected a target relating to individuals with a close connection to the former president, e.g. entourage, political supporters, appointees, etc., not an ethnic group that forms only part of one person's ancestry (his mother is described as being American of mostly English descent). There is no language called "Obama" (or anything similar) and Barack Obama's use of language is not notable in the same way as e.g. George W. Bush's is (c.f. Bushism). Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Obama people" would be people from Obama, Japan; not the Luo; just as Philadelphia people are from Philly -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete first redirect as vague bordering on WP:ASTONISH. I thought Obama people are people were from his administration. Second redirect is just plain confusing. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:54, 8 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 speedy delete by Anthony Bradbury under the G7 criterion. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Smallest dog → Chihuahua (dog)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Biggest dog → English Mastiff  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

For "Smallest", the target article says that the chihuahua is "one of the smallest", not the smallest, dog breed. Meanwhile, for "largest" the target article states that the English mastiff is the heaviest dog on average (with overlap with some other breeds), but is not as long as some other breeds. In the absence of a List of dog breeds by size or unambiguous front runners for either superlative, I think that these redirects should be deleted as potentially misleading. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a List of dog breeds by size? Now there's a low-hanging fruit I had not expected to remain unpicked... maybe we ought to ask the author of List of animals with humps to take on a weekend project :p

Hrrrm. As usual with these superlatives, we have the problem of whether that refers to weight, length, or height. Absent any article that presents definitive rankings for all of these, it might indeed be best if those redirects did not exist. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Elmidae, without prejudice against recreation if the mentioned article or another suitable target, such as a dedicated section on size at Dog or Dog breed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, whilst those breeds are among the largest and smallest these are not specifically about breeds, they could be about individual dogs. Cavalryman (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as vague at best. Probably keep if there are reliable sources backing the claim. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone else, I was not aware that these kinds of redirects were not allowed when created. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 13:49, 7 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, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Nekci Menij Show → Fan (person)#"Stan" fans  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target or on Wikipedia. An article at this page was previously deleted per AfD then this redirect was created afterward. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not helpful. Term is mentioned in 12th Shorty Awards, but just one mention in a list so I think a redlink is best. MB 22:33, 6 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. Noting that these were never appropriately tagged for discussion. ✗plicit 01:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2016-2021 Iranian Insurgency → 2016–2022 Iranian protests  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2016–2021 Iranian Insurgency → 2016–2022 Iranian protests  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2016-2021 Iranian protests → 2016–2022 Iranian protests  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• 2016–2021 Iranian protests → 2016–2022 Iranian protests  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's not 2021 anymore. There's a huge mess of overlapping articles, but that is beyond the scope of this RfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These are all ((R from move)) and content was at the 2021 target for basically the whole of last year so there will be external links that will be unnecessarily broken by deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ((r from move)), plausible search terms, and semantically correct: 2016–2021 is a subset of 2016–2022. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 08:18, 13 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 retarget to Beam diameter#Full width at half maximum. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Half power beam width → Beam diameter  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Half-power beamwidth → Full width at half maximum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These two redirects need to target the same page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to Beam_diameter#Full_width_at_half_maximum, for FWHM is generic enough that it could occur in an energy spectrum as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both, preferably to the more specific Half-power point#Antenna beams or (if necessary to avoid controversies) to the broader Beam_diameter#Full_width_at_half_maximum. [[Full width at half maximum] (HWHM) is definitely not a good target, as it may refer to things other than beams. Note: the articles involved were messy: HWHM didn't have sections, Beamwidth only described Half-power beamwidth, and there was a completely separate page at the synonym "Beam width"; I hope you don't mind the cleanup, as the discussion has just started. fgnievinski (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to Beam_diameter#Full_width_at_half_maximum, as the place that covers the specific topic. --Srleffler (talk) 00:06, 9 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• User talk:88.109.207.222 → User:88.109.207.222  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• User talk:88.109.84.189 → User:88.109.84.189  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• User talk:88.111.60.0 → User:88.111.60.0  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Probably unhelpful to redirect an IP talk page to the corresponding userpage. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Blank These talk pages were created when someone tried to add a sock template to the user page, but put it on the talk page, and then moved the talk page to the user page. No need to delete really, just blank the talk pages and move on. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Delete per nom. In addition, even if these IP addresses were sockpuppets of the editor the target user page claims in 2007 there is no guarantee that it still is. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf: Given 14+ years have passed, should the sock templates even stay? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The last activity on the relevant SPI case was 2014, but that related to named accounts, so with that and the modern practice of not linking IPs and named accounts I'd say there is little to no benefit in keeping them around. That's not an area I do a lot of work in so I'm hesitant to say definitely yes or definitely no. Maybe ask at WT:SPI or take them to MfD? Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Speaking only as an individual (trainee) clerk here, and not for the team, but knowing that a number of other clerks and CUs agree with me: Basically all IP sock tags are useless, non-recent ones even more so. I believe GeneralNotability has been removing some by script. That said, probably not worth MfDing just these individual sock tags; rather, we're overdue for either an RfC or a mass MfD on old IP sock tags in general. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blank (or replace with ((usertalk)) or such). User talk pages should not be redirects, but there's also no need to send them to RfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.-- Aervanath (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Thryduulf and Aervanath. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tamzin. --Heanor (talk) 16:08, 17 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. -- Aervanath (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Untitled Jordan Peele film → Nope (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Draft:Untitled Jordan Peele Horror film → Nope (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Propose deletion: "Untitled" project has since been titled, and the Untitled slot will likely be needed again with a fresh history. Page views don't seem to indicate external links will break. -2pou (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both as ((R from move))s. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both per Mdewman6. If there is a future project that is encyclopaedic before it has a name, then the redirect can be overwritten with relevant content or retargetted to a differently titled article at that time. Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Jordan Peele or Jordan Peele#Future projects. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per previous consensus that we have regularly deleted, as misleading, "untitled"/"upcoming" redirects once they receive a title or arrive. I note also that the draft redirect contains a miscapitalisation. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per above. Its very easy to just recreate draft titles or redirects if they are needed again in the future, this way we clear up the edit history of the subject.★Trekker (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per UnitedStatesian. All the "untitled upcoming project" Wikipedia article titles are always meant to be temporary. ((R from move)) shouldn't apply since the project now has title and the redirects are now innaccurate. Neo-corelight (Talk) 08:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Untitled Jordan Peele film since the target is no longer untitled, thus the redirect is misleading. However, keep Draft:Untitled Jordan Peele Horror film per WP:RDRAFT since the draft was moved to the article space directly from this title. Steel1943 (talk) 14:10, 6 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 02:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Religious authority → Theocracy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The term is wat too vague to redirect to any precise article. A "religious authority" can be a person or group who has authority within a religious (Collins), or it can be what a person or group possesses (learnreligions.com). Said people or groups are not always a clergy, as some religions, such as Jehovah's Witnesses or the Baháʼí Faith, do not have a clergy, but have a leadership to their denomination (i.e. an authority in the first sense I gave).
In any case, a redirect to Theocracy is unacceptable and can lead to sentences like at Biblical canon where it is written "These canons have developed through debate and agreement on the part of the religious authorities of their respective faiths and denominations", where "religious authorities" redirect to theocracy which is very likely not what the writer of those lines had in mind.
I recommend deletion, or maybe a soft redirect to the Wiktionary's "authority" entry. Veverve (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Veverve (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it could be converted to a setindex, for religious leader, religion scholar, and whatever article covers real power from religious sources (ie. command power in life, such as the Spanish Inquisition) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with deletion more or less as per nom. This is too vague to be helpful as a redirect. I don't think a set index article will be helpful, but I'm okay with that as an alternative. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vague at best --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:55, 8 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.