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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Sand battery → British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph Company#Sand battery  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The current usage of "sand battery" is for a electrochemical cell filled with sand wetted by electrolyte. However, it is popularly a type of artillery battery [1], and a type of thermal energy storage sytem. The historical usage of the telegraph battery isn't more prominent that the military usage, found in many different wars in several continents. Thus this should either retarget to artillery battery or point to wiktionary. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Given there is no "sand battery" on wiktionary and three claimed meanings here that are fairly independent of each other, it sounds like a disambiguation page might be the way to go unless someone has convincing evidence of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However, all of that is predicated on resolving User:Spinningspark's observation that those other two meanings (artillery and thermal-storage) actually mention this term. DMacks (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wikt:en:sand battery, built cotemporally with this RfD -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No idea why my wikt search didn't find that:( But a dab-on-wikt for topics that have enwiki articles seems a poorer solution than a dab-on-enwiki. DMacks (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Make DAB. This appears to be in the news right now e.g. [2], so this is a likely search term. As far as a target for the electrical storage battery, it is mentioned in List of battery types but without any elaboration so that is admittedly a poor target; perhaps by the time this RFD closes someone will have written something more substantial. MB 23:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There was this version [3] which was reverted -- 02:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Those other meanings' entries, with refs, seem like reasonable content for the target articles. Just need to move them there, and then we have a real DAB here rather than a setindex-like thing. DMacks (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Use hatnotes. I'm not convinced that the artillery meaning is a genuine term of art describing a distinct type of battery. It looks to me more like a descriptive adjective for its location, much along the lines of "hill battery" or "trench battery". Much more common locations for artillery, but neither currently go anywhere on Wikipedia. That leaves only one other meaning. Use of the term for thermal storage, despite turning up on the BBC, is comparatively rare and mostly in quotes. Looking at gbooks results, they are still mostly for the 19th century electrochemical cell. That puts the electrochemical meaning as the primary topic. If the term is added to thermal battery then a hatnote at British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph Company#Sand battery could be added. The primary meaning may well change in the future, but per WP:CRYSTAL we should no assume that. It seems more than possible to me that better materials than sand will be found and used in the future as the technology takes off and this may turn out to be a short-lived neologism with no lasting notability. SpinningSpark 07:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Dabify with the entries in this version of the article [4] and a link to the wiktionary entry. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Disambiguate using the modified dab I added below the redirect. The dab now follows MOS:DABONE and brings us a little closer to the spirit of MOS:DAB; including the artillery meaning isn't really abiding by MOS:DABNOENTRY since it isn't mentioned at Artillery battery and the 3 instances of its appearance in other articles are just single mentions of the term regarding specific examples with respect to artillery, but it should really be included. Perhaps a cited definition can be added in one of the articles like Artillery battery, Shore battery, or Coastal fort. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Hexose#Aldohexoses. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 2,3,4,5,6-pentahydroxyhexanal → Glucose  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Pentahydroxyhexanal → Glucose  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• (CH2OH· (CHOH)4·CHO) → Glucose  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• (CH2OH* (CHOH)4*CHO) → Glucose  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This name applies to any aldohexose, not just glucose. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Hexose#Aldohexoses: Per nom TartarTorte 19:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget per TartarTorte (aldohexose is a redirect to Hexose#Aldohexoses, so the logical "redirect to aldohexose" idea of the nom would by a double-redirect). If this redirect winds up changing, we should likewise change these other redirects:
  • Pentahydroxyhexanal→Glucose
  • (CH2OH· (CHOH)4·CHO)→Glucose
  • (CH2OH* (CHOH)4*CHO)→Glucose

to match. DMacks (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should be obvious that the target would be the same as the linked redirect's. Thanks for pointing out that there are more. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have formally added these related redirects to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:School → Template:Infobox school  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete redirect as there are no current transclusions. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. No problems with this redirect have been identified. Being unused isn't a valid reason for deletion. - Eureka Lott 00:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The name of the redirect template doesn't infer that it's an infobox. Could lead to misuse. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per Eureka Happy Editing--IAmChaos 20:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Non-"infobox" prefixed templates should never be used as redirects in articles for infoboxes. We have standardized on this name and it makes it clear to everyone what type of template this is. Additionaly, there are many other templates this redirect could fit just as much, if not more, including Template:School-stub, Template:Schools and others. Gonnym (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that this was the infobox template until it was moved via copy-and-paste in 2005. Deleting it could create issues for people digging back into article histories. - Eureka Lott 22:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep as effectively an ((R from page move)) per EurekaLott. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Rose (disambiguation). Consensus seems to have switched to retargeting after that idea was brought up. Two relists have attracted only retarget votes. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• R.O.S.E → ROSE Online  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is a similarly titled target R.O.S.E. which is an album by Jessie J. Not sure why the redirect exists without the period at the end. Delete. Not a plausible search term. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep, retarget if the current target is not considered appropriate then. I created it because I had seen it in Google search results without the period the end; I would not have done so if I had not seen it, but as it was years ago, I'd be damned if I could find it again. There are plenty of acronyms where periods are left off the end letter but kept only between the letters; S.O.S for instance is one; U.S is another. It's a bit of a stretch to say it's "not plausible" when some readers clearly type acronyms like this, hence similar redirects. Ss112 22:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• It is, as always, hard to Google for a punctuation variant, but this forum thread from 2006 does suggest that this punctuation is not-unheard-of. So I'd say keep as a WP:SMALLDETAILS distinction from R.O.S.E.. If the article is deleted before this RfD closes, I'm undecided as to whether the redirect should go too (it would be speedied G8 if not for the active RfD, after all), or whether it should be retargeted to the album. I lean toward deletion in that case, absence evidence that this punctuation variant has been used to refer to the album. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  IMO both R.O.S.E. and R.O.S.E should be redirected to Rose (disambiguation). The inclusion / exclusion of the period is so small and minor it could easily be missed particularly as R.O.S.E. the album is likely to attract a different audience to R.O.S.E the game. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Rose (disambiguation) due to lack of primary use. Veverve (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget ot Rose (disambiguation), where multiple uses are listed, and for all uses initialed as ROSE, pedantically grammatically can use R.O.S.E. and R. O. S. E. , for which this is a minor typo variation by omission -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget ot Rose (disambiguation) per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 18:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Cleanup-serious → Template:Multiple issues  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused and confusing template redirect - having multiple tags on an article does not imply "serious" cleanup, we have all kinds of cleanup templates for minor issues. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete This name is misleading – ((Multiple issues)) is supposed to take parameters to describe the issues (a plain "this page has multiple issues" with no elaboration is near-useless for finding pages to clean up), whereas this redirect's name implies that it's a single cleanup tag. --ais523 03:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as misleading. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 18:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:Unencyclopedic → Template:Notability  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Hopelessley ambiguous template redirect - pages can be unencyclopedic for all kinds of reasons, e.g. inappropriate tone, being an unsuitable topic, being an unsuitable format, ... I don't think "lacking notability" is remotely synonymous with "unencyclopedic", it's quite possible to have an encyclopedic article on a non-notable topic. I propose replacing the handful of uses and deleting. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete I interpret this redirect name as implying something along the lines of the templates in Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup#Style of writing, and the current target doesn't fit that. However, this sort of cleanup benefits from a more specific tag explaining what exactly is wrong – as the nominator says, the name is hopelessly ambiguous, and leaving this name as a red link may encourage people to check the template index for the appropriate template to use instead. --ais523 03:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: Not interchangeable titles. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 04:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopedic is not the same as non-notable. There is WP:NOTNEWS for instance. If we want a template of that name, it should explicitly say what we consider to be unencyclopedic, not redirect to somewhere else. SpinningSpark 19:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete for lacking a good target, due to the utterly vague meaning of "unencyclopedic". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 no consensus. Procedural concerns aside, editors remain divided between deletion and keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Shep Unplugged → Shep Messing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

During Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shep Unplugged, the nominator repeatedly rebutted comments by other users because none of the sources provided are simultaneously reliable and support the name of the talk show. I was likewise unable to confirm this title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Close per WP:RENOM. The AFD was closed eight days ago. There's no sense in re-litigating this now. If you have an issue with the closure, please bring it to WP:DRV. - Eureka Lott 14:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I disagree this is a renomination, this is a fundamentally different question. The AfD asks whether or not there should be an article on the topic, the RfD asks whether or or not there should be a redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. There are only two potential outcomes here, should the discussion continue. Participants rehash the same issues already discussed (which is already happening), and:

1. The discussion reaches a different conclusion than the AFD, contradicting the !voters in the recent discussion and potentially opening up more avenues for controversy; or
2. It reaches the same conclusion, after expending unnecessary time and energy to end up exactly where we started. - Eureka Lott 01:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have any problem with the RfD finding a different result than the AfD. It seems in the AfD, participants got hung up on WP:ATD without realizing that a redirect is problematic, and/or assumed there would be material to merge and a redirect would then be cromulent. However, that did not occur and we are left with the unfortunate situation we now find ourselves in. Bringing the issue to RfD is a Good Thing because participants then get a chance to rectify the problem: either find sourcing for this to add a referenced mention of "Shep Unplugged" to the target or delete the redirect. I offered a "conditional delete" because, from what I read, I am optimistic that such a sourced mention can be added (which would be the "same conclusion" case you mentioned, but with the benefit of improving the target article which is never a waste of time or energy). Clamoring for a premature close to this discussion on shaky procedural grounds does not help bring this to a amicable conclusion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, does not qualify as a WP:RENOM and doesn't need to be dragged to DRV. LaundryPizza03 and I were 100% unable to prove that "Shep Unplugged" even so much as exists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shep Unplugged participants who have not commented already: Mrschimpf (talk · contribs), Oaktree b (talk · contribs), Star Mississippi (talk · contribs), Kvng (talk · contribs), Skynxnex (talk · contribs), Sammi Brie (talk · contribs), Starship.paint (talk · contribs), and Dream Focus (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Please don’t violate WP:CANVASS. 47.23.40.14 (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for not deleting ("They have a potentially useful page history", "They aid searches on certain terms", and "Someone finds them useful"). Here are three comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shep Unplugged that support retention of this redirect:
  1. From Skynxnex: "The evidence I've found is a New York Red Bulls fan blog post from April 2008 that mentions it, [5](archive: [6]): MSG.com's Video Library (Check out Shep Unplugged, a recap of the Revs match, and more). Sadly, it appears that MSG Networks pretty completely have lost/scrubbed basically all content from before ~2018 but the original Wiki article seems earnest enough plus the non-Wiki sourced blog post makes it seem to have existed."
  2. From Sammi Brie: "There's definitely enough circumstantial evidence to prove that this thing existed, but at no time should it have ever been labeled as notable, and the fact it falls in the 2000s (the pre-social-media, few-live-websites-today "dark ages" for this type of search) does not do any favors. I submit a forum post from 2008: He has also been the lead analyst for the MetroStars and the re-branded New York Red Bulls of Major League Soccer for several years. During these broadcasts, Shep hosts a segment during halftime entitled Shep Unplugged. Shep is usually outspoken during this segment about league issues and global soccer news."
  3. From Dream Focus: "I found him mentioned here http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2007/07/conflict_of_interest.html with a comment statement about his "unplugged" segment. I believe it was a real thing. Not enough information for a standalone article so just redirect it."
  Cunard (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Cunard: “Someone finds it useful” only applies if sourced information is added and same for “it aids searches”, and arguably the first thing you said onlyapplies if sourced information is added at the target. 47.23.40.14 (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Close per Eureka Lott (WP:RENOM), and if not, Keep per Cunard. starship.paint (exalt) 09:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete same reasons as above. Oaktree b (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks, @Cunard for the ping. I think the redirect should remain as sites confirmed that this segment existed. Thanks, Cunard, for aggregating those links that were presented in the AfD. The RBNY post is a blog, but the link is to the network's own site. I wasn't able to access a media site on the internet archive, but it's possible one of the other archive sites would have it. If offline sources are (and should be) OK, there's no reason to penalize a pre-social media show whose web format didn't archive well. The segment was by no means notable, which is why no one at the AfD was arguing for a keep, but it makes sense to help the reader learn more about Messing's career. This is not a BLP issue.

@LaundryPizza03 the nominator repeatedly rebutted comments by other users because nearly every !voter disagrees with him doesn't make him repeating himself and utterly bludgeoning the discussion have more weight. I'm not sure who you're so against a redirect existing @TenPoundHammer when we know Shep Messing had a broadcast career that included the MSG halftime show. It helps the reader and doesn't harm Wikipedia for this to exist. Star Mississippi 11:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So a blog pointing to a link that isn't in the Wayback Machine is considered sufficient evidence? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The link is in the wayback machine. The media content is not. Star Mississippi 15:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

True, but if there is no content about this in the article, it should be deleted. None of the keep votes address this fact. 47.23.40.14 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Nine people said to redirect it, two said to delete it, it was closed as redirect. Dream Focus 11:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Conditional delete unless content on this subject is added to the article. As of now, if I were to be seeking specific information on "Shep Unplugged" I would not be able to find it at the place I was redirected to, which is problematic. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete This would be better as a WP:DRV, but what Tavix is saying is (1) critical and (2) missed by the keep voters: if no place in the article mentions this, it is a misleading and unhelpful redirect. The only rationale for keeping is based on the previous AFD, but that doesn’t factor in WP:CCC, and the redirect policy of making sure there’s information at the redirect, therefore it shouldn’t have been redirected without information being added. 47.23.40.14 (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Found the policy - WP:R#DELETE bullet #8. This redirect can be readded if sourced information is added to the main article. 47.23.40.14 (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pinging Donaldd23 from the AfD, which may well have been an honest omission by Cunard when he pinged the participants. I don't know if this was the basis for 47.23.40.14's CANVASS violation statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Jay: Same IP as before. That was not the basis for canvassing, the fact he deliberately pinged editors who mainly sided with him is why I said it was canvassing. 12.119.134.66 (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12.119.134.66, I found only one omission, who I pinged in my relist. From the list of participants who have not commented already, which editor are you alleging he omitted? Jay (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m not claiming an editor was omitted, I’m claiming it’s clearly partisan to deliberately ping 8 editors who agreed with him and only 2 who disagreed to try to tip the outcome, especially when they all go behind WP:RENOM, when it has been shown it does not apply. These editors in particularly have not seen WP:R#DELETE bullet point #8, the reason favoring deletion.70.183.136.26 (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

70.183.136.26, how is it canvassing if no editor was omitted? If someone else has got the point 47.23.40.14/12.119.134.66/70.183.136.26 is trying to convey, please pitch in. Courtesy ping the AfD closer Northamerica1000. Jay (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It’s still a biased ping, even if no one was omitted, if 80% of the pinged editors voted for Cunard’s outcome. It must be limited, non biased. 70.183.136.26 (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see how "biased ping" is different from WP:CANVASS. I also didn't get It must be limited, but I'll try to stop this thread here. Jay (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per Cunard. The deletion seems like wikilawyering here. If material is needed in the main target, I do not see why that can't be done. We have processed AfD discussions with merging that was not done instantly. – The Grid (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per my original vote. I don't think there's anything harmful from keeping it. Redirecting to a page which shares part of the name makes clear that it's connected to them. Point 8 at WP:R#DELETE is just "unlikely to be useful" and I think the exceptions apply as equally as well. Skynxnex (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Same IP as the ones above. Do you really think that it’s that commonly typed to have a misleading redirect. Only around four people use it a day, or 94 people since the 18th of June. That isn’t that much use. As such, I doubt it’s really that useful, as it is probably getting excess attention due to the RFD. As such, I don’t think it’s that useful. There is also no content on it at the main article and honestly it’s so fringe that including it would violate WP:DUE. I would, after reading this article, oppose any information on this, which means a redirect is harmful. 75.99.68.66 (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 without prejudice to further discussion of the scope of Sinitic languages on its talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Chinese languages → Sinitic languages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I am unsure about having this page redirect to Sinitic languages, because Sinitic potentially includes the Greater Bai languages which is generally not associated with the term "Chinese".

I would like to retarget this page to Chinese language per the above, but that page states that Chinese is a group of languages instead of a single one, making this page a potential move target for it. Should we move that page, however, this redirect blocks such a move, leading to this nomination. NasssaNser - T 14:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• NasssaNser, this was discussed at Talk:Chinese language#Requested move 26 April 2015 which resulted in no action. If you still want this, propose a new move request on that page. If there is consensus to move a request can be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves for a WP:ROUNDROBIN move. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Procedural keep. The target article says that's where the term should go, and Alexis Jazz has pointed out there has already been a discussion on the issue. A request to change the redirect needs to be consistent with what the articles are currently saying. This request is not and so is wrong venue for the issue. SpinningSpark 19:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 18:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Uncle Clarence → Clarence Thomas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I was just correcting broken redirects that resulted from vandalism page move of the Clarence Thomas article and came across this one. It is recently created but isn't the result of a mistake, misnomer or typo so I thought I'd bring it to RFD as it seems as inappropriate as moving the Thomas article to a new title that has now been revision deleted from the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - Despite this nickname being overtly offensive and racist to Justice Thomas (a fact that disgusts me personally), it is a verifiable nickname rooted in sourcing. WP:R#DELETE mentions that redirects that are "offensive or abusive" should be deleted; however, the concern of that guideline does not appear to be directed towards redirects of this nature, just stuff like a hypothetical redirect saying "Clarence Thomas sucks". Additionally, non-neutral redirects are considered permissible, especially when covered in reliable sourcing (see WP:RNEUTRAL: perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. and if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral). I see no reason why this nickname shouldn't simply fall in the non-neutral camp. As I said before, this nickname has rooting in sourcing. It's mentioned in the NY Daily News (which is a green lighted source at WP:RSP), Hollywood Reporter, BET, and Fox News. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per checkers. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, it is not a significant enough nickname to be used in the article. Perhaps it could be documented at Clarence Thomas#Public perception? If that were to stick, then I would be at a keep. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. This is pretty much the same case as the deletions of Lyin' Ted, Little Marco, and Crooked Hillary. All the articles linked are about the same thing: that Samuel L. Jackson called him that in a new tweet. The standards for reporting on things celebrities do are rock-bottom low. We'll need some proof this nickname has legs, is widely used and notable enough to be encyclopedic. Otherwise it just looks like Wikipedia is endorsing calling him "Uncle Clarence" (I don't like the guy, but sheesh). Nohomersryan (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per above. Not significant enough to be mentioned in article. MB 16:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.