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 Deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury under WP:G3 (non-admin closure) Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Qoi fish → Koi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Proposing deletion. This redirect appeared briefly in Qoi disambiguation page, even though it is not real by the author's own admission. From the first edit in version history: "(This article was entirely fictional and used to dupe a grandparent in a game of Scrabble.)" Research verifies this is not a valid word. Nidaana (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G3 per creators own comment in the page history. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per G3. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:51, 6 June 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 no consensus. The votes are fairly evenly split with a slight leaning to delete, and I agree this is sort of a WP:POINTY redirect, but don't see that it's doing any harm, especially if it's a valid search term. No objection to changing the target. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Left-wing fascism → Fascism#Position in the political spectrum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Red fascism exists, and the section Fascism#Position in the political spectrum does not cover what one would expect by typing "Left-wing fascism". I feel maybe the redirect should be either retargeted to Red fascism, or turned into a DAB with Red fascism and Fascism#Position in the political spectrum. Veverve (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The original article was deleted because there is no body of literature to explain the notability of the expression. Basically, six authors had written "left-wing fascism," but they all meant different things and did not refer to one another. It's like the term large fish. Each person using the expression will have a different meaning and there is no notable topic. TFD (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it has different meanings? What? I don't understand how anyone could have a problem with Left-wing fascism redirecting to Fascism. Where else would the reader learn about what "left-wing fascism" is (and its various meanings) other than the article Fascism?
    Delete because there is no notable topic? Double what? Since when do redirects need to be notable? I mean, kind of the point of redirects is that they're used for search terms that don't have a notable topic... like left-wing facism... Are you new to RFD? :-P Levivich 16:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - "Left-wing fascism" is discussed at the target, "Fascism#Position in the political spectrum" (search for "fascist left"). It is not discussed at the proposed new target, "Red fascism". As far as I know, it's not discussed at any other potential target except the current one. Readers who want to know what "left-wing fascism" is will find out by reading about it at the article "Fascism". I don't understand what the problem is. Also note the nom has been TBANed from "Russia" at AE. Levivich 16:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, in line with the decision of the latest AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Left-wing_fascism_(4th_nomination). --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...delete per the AFD where two out of four delete voters suggested a redirect, which is why I created this redirect? Levivich 04:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The outcome of the discussion was "delete", not "delete & redirect". --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Delete" does not mean "delete and do not redirect", and no one objected to redirecting. Redirect was suggested partway through by one voter, and the only other voter to vote afterwards agreed. We could ping everyone who voted and see what the think. I'm still baffled that anyone would want to delete this redirect. Why erase this term from the encyclopedia, it's an obvious search term, and readers should be pointed to somewhere that explains what it is (and isn't). "Cuz the AFD" is a pretty poor argument. What is your substantive objection to this redirect? Levivich 05:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pinging the participants in the AFD in case they want to comment here: MjolnirPants, DanielRigal, Inadvertent Consequences, Slatersteven, Cdjp1, and Generalrelative. Levivich 15:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. I have commented below. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that we have Daniel and Slater's comments below, we can say that out of the 4 delete voters in the AFD, only 1 says this redirect should be deleted. That doesn't determine the outcome of this RFD, but I think it negates the "in line with the decision of the latest AfD" rationale. Levivich 03:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it seems a bit forkey, a way of keeping "left-wing fascism" by hook or by crrok. I am also unsure the target mentions it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the reader searches for "left-wing fascism" or clicks that link the first thing they see when they're brought to the target is Most scholars place fascism on the far right of the political spectrum., which is exactly what they should see when they search for "left-wing fascism". Do you not want to educate readers that the mainstream view is that fascism is not left-wing? We don't accomplish that by censoring the term, by removing it entirely from the encyclopedia. Hook or crook my foot. You seriously think I'm trying to say fascism is left wing? Ffs, SS. Levivich 16:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no real idea what you want, what I do know is this has been an issue in the past. I suspect that if this redirect is kept it will be an issue again, for exactly the reason you state "I wanted to find out about the truth behind "left-wing fascism". If we said something about it in the target (as in "experts agree fascism is not left wing" (or some such)), the fact is we do not. So we are (in effect) invot9iomg people to add something about left wing fascism. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • What problems? This redirect has existed for a year, we've had no problems. And the target does say fascism is not left wing, I just quoted it. Sheesh, how is "fascism is right wing" not the same as "fascism is not left wing"? There's a whole section in the fascism article called "position on the political spectrum", which is the target of this redirect. I honestly don't know what you're talking about when you say the target doesn't talk about it, when there's a whole section devoted to it. Levivich 16:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• NOT delete. I know this is not one of the normal options but my !vote really is "NOT delete". There are multiple arguable options here, including the status quo, but deletion is not one of them. My "tentative delete" vote on the AfD was based on the awful state of the article that was proposed for deletion not a desire to expunge the term completely. In fact, I said that "it may be that there is scope for a valid article on this subject". If somebody searches for the term then we need to give them what they want. The problem is working out what that is. Some may be chuds, or those bamboozled by chuds, looking for anything to support the idiotic belief that fascism is left wing. For them, the current target is perfect. It explains where fascism really lies in the political spectrum. Far from legitimising this silly phrase, anything we can do to funnel people searching for it towards the truth of the matter is worthwhile. (There is a lot to be said for deliberately making redirects so that anybody searching for edgelord terminology gets pointed towards accurate information that will help to deflate whatever misconceptions caused them to do that specific search.) Others may be looking for something more specific without knowing the correct term to search for e.g. Red fascism or Strasserism. I don't think we can guess which of those they want so a retargeting to Red fascism would be arbitrary and almost certainly unhelpful to more people than it helps. I am not against a disambiguation page but it absolutely must prioritise the current target as the main item if it is to be valid. It would also need careful watching to prevent anybody morphing it back into anything like the awful mess that got deleted, as well as to keep an eye out for general POV pushing. Maybe it is more trouble than it is worth? I'm not sure so I'm not going to advocate a specific outcome here. I just want to be clear that my delete !vote on the AfD was specific to that AfD and does not carry over to this discussion. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, probably The term is highly problematical and I'm not sure that a satisfactory article on the topic could ever be written. The target doesn't actually mention or explain it. Also, note in passing the article about a book called Liberal fascism which in its lead says: "...the mainstream view among historians and political scientists that maintains fascism is a far-right ideology" . I'd lean towards delete, else add more content at the target plus a redirect hatnote to Red fascism and Liberal fascism. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not delete Keep. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is getting a reputation for left-wing bias and when students, researchers and the general public discover that articles offering counterarguments to Wikipedia’s ‘perceived wisdom’ are being deleted irrespective of their merits they will assume bias and be correct.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think I have ever seen anybody talk themselves into the right answer for wronger reasons. ;-) DanielRigal (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Fascism#Fascist as a pejorative, that section does talk about fascism in regard to communist states. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Levivich and DanielRigal, the information at the target is informative to a reader searching this term, as it both explains the RS consensus perspective of where fascism is positioned on the political spectrum, and provides additional context on the use of fascism as a pejorative for non-rightist authoritarians. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think Levivich and DanielRigal's arguments are very compelling but ultimately founder on the the question of utility to the reader in the absence of a mention in the target. Redirects don't have to be mentioned in the target in absolutely every case, but I struggle to think of a case where it wouldn't be necessary, or wouldn't lead to avoidable confusion, for the name of a political concept to point to a target where that concept isn't directly discussed. This is compounded by the fact that there is a body of scholarship on "left-wing fascism" unrelated to right-wing both-sides-ism or Jonah Goldberg-type nonsense (I'm thinking mostly of work by Jürgen Habermas), which could be covered in the encyclopaedia but isn't; given we don't have any encyclopaedic coverage of that topic or related topics, we're better off making the reader aware of that rather than pointing them to something tangentially related and without a mention of the term. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with the nom and TFD that this is an ambiguous subject. Keeping the redirect at the current target will not help readers reach Red fascism, although refining to Fascism#Fascist as a pejorative (one of the proposed targets) will. Agree with Laterthanyouthink and Arms & Hearts that the current target does not mention or explain the subject, and is more problematic than useful to the reader. While I agree with the spirit of DanielRigal's NOT delete, the alternate option of disambiguation does not arise as none of the potential targets (including Fascism#Fascist as a pejorative or Fascist (insult), which was also the suggestion of the 2nd AfD) have a mention of the term. Delete so it can come back as a possible broad concept article. Jay (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous relists have been productive so I'm hopeful one more relist can wrap this up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While "red fascism" as a conceptual label for radical authoritarian socialism (particularly types associated with militant nationalism) is something that's intellectually valid, I think (and I strongly disagree with the notion that the label is just a political slur), the redirect as it stands shows the reader a place with serious information discussing how fascism in general fits in the broader left-to-right political spectrum. I'd rather expand that article than otherwise change things. Deletion is the wrong call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per arguments above. The topic isn't covered in this section so a redirect elsewhere (maybe Red fascism) is probably more appropriate. The "Fascist left" spoken about is very context specific aspect of Italian fascism and is not what most people would be looking for when searching this term. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A valid search term for those who are confused about the definition of fascism, probably due to the perjorative sense. This redirect properly informs such a person that "left-wing fascism" is an oxymoron. I definitely wouldn't disagree with the redirect being pointed towards Fascism#Fascist as a pejorative instead (as I noted, I think the term would be searched by those encountering the perjorative version), but as this is the very next section after the current redirect section target, I don't think there's a problem. Both targets are clearly visible, and I think the higher target is more informative. Fieari (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, second choice retarget to Red fascism. Both pages address the (real and alleged) interaction of fascism and left-wing ideologies. While having the term "left-wing fascism" mentioned at target would be preferable, the important thing with a non-neutral redirect is to point the reader somewhere that explains that term's non-neutrality (and if applicable its factual wrongness), and both of these targets do that (again, the current better than the alternative). There are many other non-neutral, problematic, and misleading terms that have been kept at RfD in the past, and I do not see this one as exceptional. And to address a few other arguments made: On the delete side I don't see it as relevant that this page was deleted at AfD when it was an article, since the concerns are totally different for a redirect; while on the keep side I don't think we should be making decisions based on what Fox News thinks of us. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This seems like an exercise in righting great wrongs, and it could go in either direction. Either it's an attempt by right-wing sympathizers to spread the notion that fascism isn't only connected to right-wing ideologies, or it's an attempt by left-wing sympathizers to fight back against disinformation attempts by right-wingers trying to change the definition of fascism. Or maybe it's both at the same time. Either way, it's a useless, pointy redirect. We don't typically create redirects and point them to things that they're not, so that we can educate people about common misconceptions. Like, we wouldn't create a redirect for Carnivorous vegetarian → Vegetarian in the hopes that the reader sees that "vegetarians are people that don't eat meat" and clears up any confusion. That's just not what redirects are for. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:55, 21 June 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 23:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Crossgates,seamer → Crossgates, Scarborough  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete: badly formed Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Satyrus of Elis → Satyrus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Satyrus of Elis" appears nowhere in Enwiki and I'm not sure a redirect to the disambiguation page is helpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note d:Q20165817, so this is a real person with pages on other wikis. Probably delete under WP:REDYES Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per IAmChaos. A7V2 (talk) 00:10, 9 June 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 Satyrus the Peripatetic. ✗plicit 23:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Satyrus of Athens → Satyrus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think the footnote at Cleopatra Eurydice of Macedon infers that Satyrus of Athens is supposed to be Satyrus the Peripatetic, which may be a better target than the disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cited text of Athenaeus is pretty clear that the Satyrus mentioned is the one who wrote a biography of Philip and so the Peripatetic. I’d just make the change as this seems uncontroversial. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy retarget per above. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:38, 6 June 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 23:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Ghani (2021 film).jpg → File:Ghani (2022 film).jpg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The film did NOT release in 2021. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but will explain a bit more. The film was originally meant to release in 2021, but was pushed back to 2022. Checking the history of the image, there seems to have been a poster with the old 2021 release date, but it was replaced with a 2022 poster. The 2021 poster was deleted, presumably as unused NFC. The 2021 image file name shouldn't have redirected to the 2022 poster because they are two different posters. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per User:Mellohi! --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:FILEREDIRECT and the precedent that film redirects are kept when the film gets pushed back. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:FILEREDIRECT. From a search the only difference between the two posters seems to be the date at the bottom? I don't see why this poster was moved at all, it doesn't really seem to strictly meet any of the criteria at WP:FMV/W, a film planned for a 2021 release date having it's poster at a (2021) disambiguator seems like a reasonable enough situation to me, even if it was delayed to a 2022 release. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IP Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per IP's findings. I'm also noting WP:FILEREDIRECT --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:00, 6 June 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 no consensus. However, retarget to Hip hop music as a target better than the current one. Jay (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Musical Genres/Hip → Rapping  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Hip" isn't listed at List of music genres and styles so I assume "Hip" isn't a music genre. Like its sister below, this redirect has been around a while, but this one isn't useful and might be misleading. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the only reasons to keep a redirect with a malformed title like this would be to keep useful old history and possibly preserve old links, but none likely apply (the page had content for less than an hour in 2001 before being quickly redirected.) eviolite (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This seems totally useless to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not useful as a redirect, but it was probably the original title of Hip hop culture and now contains the first version of that article after it was imported; could it be moved or imported to the history of that page? 86.141.247.208 (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as ambiguous and confusing, but with the caveat that this requires us to ignore WP:RKEEP, which explicitly identifies old redirects from subpages as a type of redirect that should be kept. If there's consensus to delete this it might be worth seeing if there's consensus to revise that guidance page; I think the idea that anybody's going to stumble across a link to this in the wild and follow it is probably negligible. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Hip hop music as an ((R with old history)). This is consistent with WP:RKEEP. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Brainulator9. I agree it's not the most plausible title, but since it dates back to 2001, it should ideally be kept for attribution purposes. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to consider late retarget proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with the Retarget per the two latest !v-s. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hip hop music so we can turn up the music and dance to the drum beats. AKK700 07:01, 12 June 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 23:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Atatürk's socialism → Ulusalcılık  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Neologism that doesn't appear to have any traction in English or Turkish (I searched for "Atatürkın sosyalizm" and "Atatürk sosyalizm"; the latter framing lends some results on Google Scholar, but appear to be relating to Atatürk's personal politics rather than Ulusalcılık). N.b., the current articles for Ulusalcılık on both en.wiki and tr.wiki describe an ideological phenomenon that took place after Atatürk's death; "Kemalist socialism" would perhaps be an appropriate redirect, "Atatürk's socialism" is not and should be deleted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Immigrant racism → Nativism (politics)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Somewhat WP:SURPRISE-ing, as the search-term suggests racism by immigrants, not against immigrants. Deletion seems appropriate for lack off a suitable target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 18:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as creator, might instead redirect Racism against immigrants to Nativism (politics). iWillBanU (User:Mattx8y) ^{what did i fuck up now} 00:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy under G7 Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Both immigrants and native-born citizens can express racist views. Deletion is the right call. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:02, 8 June 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! 11:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Cyanide gas → Hydrogen cyanide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Retarget to Cyanide per number of possibilities that the term "cyanide gas" would refer to other gaseous cyanides. 2405:9800:BA20:AB7A:103A:27C:F917:D4F1 (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT per my comments at the previous Rfd: this term most commonly refers to the current target. Nothing has changed since the last Rfd; an IP bringing the same nomination with the same rationale when the consensus is clear is a waste of everyone's time. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per mdewman Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:33, 6 June 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 no consensus. The more relists, the farther away we get from a consensus. Some want to delete, some want to soft redirect to Wiktionary, some want to revert the redirection, some want to retarget to more relevant articles. It isn't clear which action is the best to take. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Social unit → Level of analysis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was merged to level of analysis, but over the years, any mention of the term 'social unit' was removed from the target. The merge discussion (see talk page of both mentioned articlsS) was not attended - only the proposer suggested it and then carried out the uncontroversial merge. My query is inconclusive on whether this topic deserves its own entry, and as for the merger, I think unit of analysis would be better. Anyway, I am not sure what do; the current redirect is pointless (again, the target doesn't mention it), but deleting it would result in a loss of a past article without an AfD. Redirecting to unit of analysis is not ideal as that article also doesn't mention this. The old article did have some reliably referenced content, and I am frankly tempted to suggest restoring this pre-merge version, which could be AfD if anyone so desires. In either case, this redirect is currently not sustainable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: extremely vague expression. Veverve (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore pre-merge/redirect version. (The link given by nom is wrong though, it gave me an error: "This site is only available in Mainland China.") Second option, Refine to Level of analysis#Analytical levels in social science and tag as ((R without mention)). I found it useful as it lists the social units present at different levels of society. Jay (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The term is simply so vague and general that I can't see making anything useful out of it. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to wikt:social unit. Searching on Google Scholar, I wasn't able to find any literature analyzing the usage of the term social unit, which means that the best we can do is redirect the reader to a dictionary definition. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect per Rosguill (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Special:Permalink/475960620 and send to AfD. That venue is better suited to decide whether this should be an article, interwiki redirect, redlink, or something else. This was only ever redirected as part of a merger, and if none of the merged content survives, then the solution ought to be to restore. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague and likely to cause confusion. I don't object to restore/AfD but don't know if it's worth it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The 2012 merge (see the "discussion") was a bold action, and so was the 2015 removal (in several unexplained edits [1]) of the merged content. Anyone should be free to boldly revert any of those two actions, and there's nothing requiring sending the restored article to AfD (though Rosguill above has cast doubt on its notability). Deletion is not an option because of the article content in the history that no-one is arguing should be deleted. Deletion, together with redirecting to Wiktionary, should be off the table for another reason as well: we already have an article on the topic right here on Wikipedia: Unit of analysis, as noted in the nomination. It may not currently have explicit mention of the term "social unit", but I can't see how this fact could possibly confuse readers: the article's title and first sentence are about "units", and the second sentence explicitly sets the context as being "social". Just retarget there, and leave the door open for further changes whenever someone makes another big bold edit. – Uanfala (talk) 12:14, 3 July 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 05:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• History of institutions → Institution  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It does not seem as though the target article contains any specific information about its history. Readers searching this term will not find what they are looking to find. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - the section on Social science perspectives does obliquely discuss the historical formation of institutions at a very theoretical and abstract level. I'm uncertain as to whether that's enough to satisfy a reader or whether deletion to encourage article creation would be preferable. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article ought to exist as its own topic. I think... thus, well, it appears best to have the text red. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:REDYES Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. AKK700 23:17, 11 June 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 disambiguate. With the film as primary topic, added hatnote to the terrorist case. Jay (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• L'Affaire Lafarge → The Lafarge Case  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Current target is a 1938 crime film, but according to The New York Times, it also refers to a corporate scandal currently discussed at Lafarge (company)#Terrorist financing. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 15:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget - I agree that this should go to 'Lafarge (company)#Terrorist financing'. Perhaps a hatnote is in order. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which would be the primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and disambiguate with a hatnote. In French, it appears based on fr.wiki and Google Scholar results that the primary topic is still overwhelmingly the 19th century Marie Lafarge case that the 1938 film is based on. Searching French news online, while a few sources use "l'affaire Lafarge" in the context of the 2017 scandal, about half the time they appear to be using the phrase to refer to Lafarge itself [2] (i.e "the Lafarge company"), and not the scandal. A reader searching for this term on en.wiki is almost certainly going to be looking primarily for the film, whose original title is L'affaire Lafarge, and other intents should be included there as a hatnote. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:03, 5 June 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.