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 00:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Spit kingdom → Killa Kela  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention in target. Not mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - according to the article Killa Kela, Spitkingdom (no space) is a "collective" that he formed. Spitkingdom should probably be created. A7V2 (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Jalen Folf (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's easy to see that this is a modification of "Spitkingdom" which is mentioned. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:34, 2 May 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 00:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bob Vylan → Killa Kela  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not the same person. No other plausible sensible target. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a mention in the target, as well as a few other articles, but nothing more than a name listed. Should be redlinked to encourage article creation if notable. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. None of the mentions make a good target. Bad idea to redirect artists to other people with whom they collaborated once. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 06:00, 2 May 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 00:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sister Isle → Barbuda  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Google Scholar and internet search results suggest that this phrase can equally refer to other islands, including Ireland ([1]), Tobago ([2]), and Gozo ([3]). Ireland seems to be the most common referent, but given the broad usage deletion may be more appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Peter Ormond 💬 19:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This term is used in nearly all cases when referring to the island of Barbuda, Keep. CROIX (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This can be seen in nearly all government references, and newscasts relating to the isle. CROIX (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. My first page of Google News results is evenly divided between Tobago and Barbuda [4]. I also see the occasional use about Guernsey from newspapers in Jersey [5]. The Sister Isles Iguana is not from any of the above. In any case this is too vague and location-dependent to refer to any one island, and is not suitable for disambiguation given the lack of any pages meeting WP:DABMENTION. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:36, 2 May 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 00:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Gold Leasing → Gold as an investment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Gold leasing → Gold as an investment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Accumulation of gold → Gold as an investment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Methods of investing in gold → Gold as an investment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Types of gold investors → Gold as an investment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Buy gold → Gold as an investment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Gold dealers → Gold as an investment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Gold dealer → Gold as an investment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

These redirects should all be deleted because they open a Pandora's box for its users. For example, we don't have Accumulation of silver redirecting to Silver as an investment to describe the mindset of silver "stackers", or Methods of investing of silver or Types of silver investors to describe the various ways silver could be invested in or the mindset of silver investors (though I acknowledge the would-be value of such a redirect). The last 3 redirects open a Pandora's box that's even bigger - they might as well expect Buy baseball card or Baseball card dealer to redirect to Baseball card. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all by default. Pandora's box is a terrible arguement—redirects should be judged by their own usefulness, not based on the (non-)existence of other redirects. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Close and renominate separately where there's an actual reason for deletion. Gold leasing and Gold Leasing probably fall under WP:R#D10. At the other end of the scale, no reason whatsoever to delete methods of investing in gold which is directly covered by Gold as an investment#Investment vehicles. The others could swing either way, but a bunch of "keep this because A but not that because B" votes will be hell for the closing admin. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's no policy reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:37, 2 May 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 and moot, the target article was deleted. ✗plicit 00:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Urban division → Prince Albert Urban Schools  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The article, now at Prince Albert Urban Schools, was originally located at a page named "Urban division". The name "Urban division" is too generic for a page redirecting to "Prince Albert Urban Schools". Eyesnore 18:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The school article was at this title from its creation in 2005 until November last year so I would suggest deleting it may cause problems with external links to it and at the very least if it had stayed here all that time it suggests its perhaps likely enough but I do agree its too ambiguous especially since its lower cased. Would making it a DAB with Urban area since in England BUASDs could perhaps be called "urban divisions"? Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: way too vague. Veverve (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps put this discussion on hold until we see if the PROD gets contested (or it survives AFD) since if the target gets deleted this discussion will be moot unless a different target is desired. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I moved the page last year to the sensible name. Someone searching "urban division" could be looking for any range of things, and I guess most people wouldn't be looking for the school district (even if the article is kept). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate or delete If the article survives AfD, Urban Division should probably become a disambiguation page for terms that are more general and appropriate. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 22:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too vague, and has a lot of other meanings besides just one school district in one Canadian city. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 7 May 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. I consulted WP:FILEREDIRECT before performing this close, and am comfortable determining this as a delete outcome given FILEREDIRECT's wording that In most cases the file redirect should remain, which I interpret as not precluding deletion if valid reasons exist for deletion, but rather as providing guidance for performing the file move itself. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Kathputli (1971 film).jpg → File:Kathputli (1957 film).jpg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is NOT for the 1971 film but 1957. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for being misleading. NotReallySoroka (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it's incorrect. Peter Ormond 💬 19:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:FILEREDIRECT. It refers to the wrong film, whatever. Anyone confused can be aided in their confusion by checking the page history and seeing this RfD. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 09:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this hides the correct file -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh? This redirect isn't eligible for ((Db-r4)), so I'm not clear what this means since Commons:File:Kathputli (1971 film).jpg doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It makes finding the correct file inappropriately difficult. It hides the existence of File:Kath Putli 1971 film.jpeg -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:FILEREDIRECT since it is a policy and since it exists. Steel1943 (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A deliberately wrong name making finding the actual topic located at a similar but different location is the definition of a bad policy result. It directly fails WP:RDELETE #1 The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named @via the search engine. #2 The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted. #5 The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...And WP:FILEREDIRECT exists for technical reasons for keeping a redirect that have absolutely nothing to do with the redirect title or usefulness, so your point is invalid in respect to WP:FILEREDIRECT. If you have an issue with WP:FILEREDIRECT, start a discussion to get it repealed. Steel1943 (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that reason is WP:NOTGALLERY violates one of the uses of Wikipedia, by making it a gallery for non-free files. All the targets are non-free files, any off-wiki usage of non-free files by making Wikipedia file server is highly questionable for copyright reasons. FILEREDIRECT seems to direct us to violate copyright law. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Let's not be hardliners here and try to keep nonsense redirects because ancient history. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to File:Kath Putli 1971 film.jpeg or delete. The status quo is misleading, these are separate films. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:41, 4 May 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 00:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blue Line (Staten Island Railway) → Staten Island Railway  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Fundamentally misleading redirect. The Staten Island Railway does not have multiple lines, but this redirect, by using the term "Blue Line" implies multiple lines exist. Should be deleted as misleading. Ditto for Blue Line (New York Staten Island Railway). The words "Blue Line" are not once used in the target article, either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Made up nonsense. Just because the SIR is colored blue on the New York City Subway map does not mean anyone actually calls it the "blue line" in any fashion. oknazevad (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The SIR neither has nor is a blue line. Vcohen (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a made-up term and does not seem to be based on anything other than the railway's color on a map. Epicgenius (talk) 17:42, 2 May 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 11:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Chakwood → Cinema of India#Chakma  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There was an article at this title, about films in the Chakma language, claiming that there is a Chakma language film industry, and that it is colloquially known as "Chakwood". However, I cannot find sources showing either of those things: there are Chakma language films (produced in different countries) but nowhere is the development of Chakma cinema discussed as a concept, and the name "Chakwood" is only mentioned in Wikipedia mirror websites as far as I have been able to find. It seems like a case of an enthusiastic new user trying to make the term popular through Wikipedia, a couple of years ago. I moved the article to Chakma cinema, suppressing the redirect, but the redirect was recreated. bonadea contributions talk 12:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an ((R from move)), given that the article existed there for over two years. Users should only use suppressredirect when that suppression falls under a set of criteria, none of which applied. You have held the right since 2016, when it was apparently accidentally granted by Kudpung. This was a misuse of the tool. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow, that was really uncalled-for, and I sincerely hope never to have to interact with you again after this discussion ends. Could you condescend to addressing the actual reason I brought up in my nomination, or is it more important for you to to piss on my back? You do realise that things fly under the radar for years in Wikipedia, right? From my point of view, that a madeup term has existed in the encyclopedia for a long time does not automatically mean that it should continue to be used here. Unless you are aware of independent secondary sources supporting the term "Chakwood", I don't understand what the rationale could possibly be for keeping it. --bonadea contributions talk 21:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bonadea: I stated it was "accidental" because the log summary seemed to be referring to NPR rather than page mover. I've struck it since it was unnecessary; sorry. My argument for keeping is based on WP:RFD#KEEP criterion #4: given that an article existed at that title for over two years, the reasons for keeping are even greater than if it had been a redirect for all its life. While the term may be incorrect, deletion of the redirect would break external links elsewhere (as you've stated, the mirrors have taken to the term too – the ship has unfortunately sailed). I assume that you wanted to suppress the redirect according to WP:PMRC#7 (basically an R3 CSD), but that only applies when the page is a recent creation. The redirect can be, in addition, tagged as ((R from incorrect name)) to make clear the status of the term. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as ((R from move)) per Sdrqaz. The redirect should not have been suppressed when performing the move. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe suppressing the redirect did not follow the letter of the law, and I probably deserve a sizeable trouting for that. But an incorrect suppression cannot possibly be a reason to keep an incorrect redirect! The former is a behavioural error, but the latter is a matter of misinformation to Wikipedia's readers. --bonadea contributions talk 20:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You're missing the point. The reason it shouldn't have been suppressed is the same as why it should be kept: because an article existed at this page for over two years, so a redirect exists in its place to not break any external links that developed. It may be an incorrect name, but it can be categorized as such, and the costs of deletion outweigh the costs of keeping. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as an R from move. Redirects don't need to be correct as they are not "public facing" like articles and article titles. A7V2 (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, K4. Proof that links were broken. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 09:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an R from move. In cases like this, in which a name is incorrect, you can tag the incorrectly named redirect with ((R from incorrect name)). As for the redirect itself, ((R from incorrect name/doc)) says: "There might be the occasional case where an incorrect name is still a good search term." – Epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 2 May 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 Siege of Chernihiv. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Chernihiv breadline massacre → 16 March 2022 Chernihiv breadline attack  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Same as below: the 3 March 2022 Chernihiv bombing also killed many civilians waiting on a breadline, so it's an ambiguous redirect. Super Ψ Dro 21:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the former title of the 16 March 2022 Chernihiv breadline attack article. Retarget to Siege of Chernihiv, where both of the above are discussed, and tag it as a ((R from ambiguous term)). - Eureka Lott 00:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That target is too ambiguous and is simply unnecessary. It's the same as if I made a redirect out of nowhere titled "1 March 2022 allegations of Belarusian involvement in the Siege of Chernihiv" just because there's a paragraph on that in the March section. Super Ψ Dro 08:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's avoid setting up straw men, please. This redirect exists, has incoming links, is receiving traffic, and is a plausible search term. We should handle this like any other ambiguous term. - Eureka Lott 14:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Siege of Chernihiv where both incidents are covered. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:30, 14 May 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 Siege of Chernihiv. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2022 Chernihiv breadline massacre → 16 March 2022 Chernihiv breadline attack  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The 3 March 2022 Chernihiv bombing also killed many civilians waiting on a breadline, so it's an ambiguous redirect. Super Ψ Dro 21:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Siege of Chernihiv where both incidents are covered. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:30, 14 May 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 move to 164th Division (1st formation) (People's Republic of China) without leaving a redirect. All arguments for "keep" were specifically for the edit history to be retained, but not why the history should remain at the current title. The only other comment was for a suggested location for the edit history to be moved (164th Division (1st formation) (People's Republic of China)). (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 164th Division (1st Formation)(People's Republic of China) → 5th Division (North Korea)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:REDLINK BilledMammal (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There used to be an article here before it was blanked and redirected, so REDLINK doesn't really apply. The target is apparently the successor unit to the one indicated by the redirect and is described in some detail there. If a redirect to that section is unsatisfactory, restore the article, without prejudice to anyone bringing it to AfD to reach consensus on what best to do here. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to preserve history. MarioGom (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move the edit history to 164th Division (1st formation) (People's Republic of China) (note the spacing, and capitalization) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 09:53, 1 May 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 restored article. Without prejudice to AfD. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mana (Anglo-Saxon) → Mana  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is incorrectly targeted, and I don't think anything else at Mana (disambiguation) is specifically Anglo-Saxon. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Send to AfD. This existed as an article between 2009 and 2017; it also survived a WP:PROD in 2015. The only meaningful thing we can do is to restore the article and send to WP:AFD. Restoring without AfD-ing is off the table because of the serious concerns on the talk page. Retargeting could work in principle, but I don't see relevant content anywhere, there's certainly nothing explicitly about mana at Anglo-Saxon paganism. – Uanfala (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and AfD per Uanfala. A7V2 (talk) 03:27, 2 May 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! 07:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• G.I. Jane II → Will Smith–Chris Rock slapping incident  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Doubtful search term Happy Editing--IAmChaos 07:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: unrelated, misleading. Veverve (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: solves no problem; bound to cause problems in future. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as ((R from search term)) / ((R from quote)) it is exactly what set off the incident. And a likely phrase to search for our article. I see no problems in the future that could related to this, as there's been no sequel in decades, and the incidence of females in combat zones and fighting roles in the U.S. military is no longer a rarity, so not a likely topic for a movie theme, unlike in the 1990s or the 1980s movie "Your Mother Wears Combat Boots" (which isn't even a phrase of insult anymore with so many women serving) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this was the joke that lead to the incident. I'd consider redirecting to G.I. Jane if there were actual information about a potential sequel, but there is none. I'm not sure what problems this would cause in the future; if a G.I. Jane sequel enters production, this would target that film. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per K5. I think that this is a somewhat exception circumstance though as WP:CHEAP does not apply here as insinuated by Willondon. I think that Willondon brings up a good point in that this could cause some confusion for a bit if we hit a point where G.I. Jane II is a movie that is announced but is in a period of limbo before the movie itself is notable enough to be on wikipedia. Having said that, without overtures towards the development of that movie, it seems that people searching this term will be most likely looking for this. TartarTorte 12:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the points made in favor of keeping above. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Kav Kav → Ryan Kavanaugh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Is this notable? Less than 20 views, with half of them on the day that the page was created. I didn't want to R3 it because a) I could be wrong, and b) I don't really know what consensus is on the term "Recent". Happy Editing--IAmChaos 07:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete This is a completely innappropriate redirect. It's a obscure reference to one of his lawsuits which linked "kav kav" to Kavanaugh, clearly made to be insulting rather than for redirecting users. Pabsoluterince (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Obscure reference to this source. Certainly not a helpful redirect and surely created to spite the subject. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per abovementioned findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as explained above. Popoki35 (talk) 02:34, 3 May 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 Stoopid. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Stopid → Stupidity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Misspelling that has had 0 pageviews in the last 90 days, compared to 1151 for the correctly spelled Stupid and 19815 for the target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it could also be a typo for stoopid, a slang spelling of "stupid" -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget. I think Stoopid is a better target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:46, 2 May 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Inbound marketing → Product management#Inbound and outbound  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The article was deleted at AFD after redirect was considered & not taken as the discussion's outcome. The redirect was boldly created about 6 weeks later. It has no inbound links from any article. Cabayi (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your point. Apokrif (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The AfD discussion did not choose this target, which in any case does not contain the specified section and is generally unhelpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate basically as a copy of the Outbound marketing dab. Jay (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it can be demonstrated that inbound marketing can refer to the two concepts listed at Outbound marketing, or other titles to be disambiguated. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 11:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Supreme Leader of Myanmar → Chairman of the State Administration Council  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused, and does not appear in sources. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: while the expression has some uses in English, it is to refer to Aung San Suu Kyi and seems more like a spontaneous moniker than an official or de facto title. Veverve (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The expression appears in some sources like this Jakarta Post article referring the the chairman as a Supreme Leader. It has appeared in usage referring to polities within Myanmar like the Wa State and to refer to Aung San Suu Kyi by less-than-reliable sources. Essentially unusued outside of the one Jakarta Post article and is not commonly used at all. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 22:39, 4 May 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. The problem with discussions like these is that they inevitably turn into competing strains of "ILIKEIT" arguments. That's not a criticism of the participants: Unlike in most RfDs, with these shortcut ones we're a bunch of Wikipedia editors, discussing a navigational aid intended for Wikipedia editors. Of course it turns into "This is what I'd rather". As BDD says, there are cases here for both no consensus and disambiguate. If I were to close as no consensus, I'd still default to disambiguating, so the only difference between the two outcomes is one of when it would be appropriate to review this decision.

No one seems that enthusiastic about disambiguating, but the only argument for any particular target that picked up much traction was to keep for backward compatibility—but that still was distinctly a minority sentiment. When many/most comments are based on individual preference (again, not a criticism), there's really not much to do but follow the majority. Numerically this is 8 DAB, 3 keep, 1×3 for separate retargets. That's an outright majority for DABbing, and getting any kind of outright majority is rare in discussions that run this long. So, given that most arguments are of roughly equal quality, I do find a consensus to disambiguate. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:S → Help:Searching  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources, which is possibly the most important resource for newcomer content writers. Currently, WP:S is basically unused, way under the shadow of the main shortcut H:S. Excessive numbers of shortcuts defeat the benefit of shortcuts.

In contrast, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources is probably the most important, undervalued section in the whole of the project for new content writers, and it has shortcuts that are hard to remember. This would be a much better use for WP:S.

If this is not shot down for a reason I don't expect, I will advertise this discussion on the relevant pages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to disambiguation page. A section of a subpage is too specialized for a one-letter shortcut. WP:S could mean a lot things and a cross-namespace redirect to Help:Searching is not the most natural. WP:S has a lot of incoming links but nearly all of them are from alphabetical lists of all one-letter WP shortcuts without saying where they go, so changing it doesn't break those uses. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Making a disambiguation page out of something that is essentially never used is just silly. Is the aim to make sure that such a high value shortcut remains unused?

  A section of of a subpage may sound "specialised", but this is part of the point. It is not "specialised" but centrally important to the most basic editor function on the project, writing content. This section, currently WP:RSPSS, is way out of balance in terms of how important it is to the prominence of its location. A single-character shortcut may be sufficient to fix that, and will certainly help. I considered suggesting WP:RSPSS be spun out to its own page, but decided against this, because, despite its standalone usefulness to content writing, its maintenance is extremely detailed and it should be boldly edited by newcomers without reading the extensive context present above.

  WP:S could mean a lot of things, but current doesn't. And what better meaning to give it than Sources for content? -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we pick a Sources target then it should be the same as WP:SOURCE and WP:SOURCES, meaning Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. I'm fine with that. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had looked at that and gave it some thought. In terms of Policy, WP:SOURCES is the root of policy on sources, but it is extremely limited to policy-wonk-thought, and it is not very good, notably in how it fails to adequately cross reference WP:PSTS (Primary, secondary and tertiary sources). Limited to Policy theory that is not immediately practical. It is a partial blurb on the theory that undies the source rules. In contrast, WP:RSPSS is the end result list that edits should consult.

The shortcuts are not meant to be a content guide, but quick reference memorable shortcuts. Editors on the ground do not a quicker reference to the non-practical section of WP:V. They need it to get to the sources cheat sheet, WP:RSPSS.

Also, having multiple catchy shortcuts pointing to the same thing is another waste of catchy shortcuts. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since this redirect has targeted the current page (or a redirect towards it leftover from page moves) since 2007. At this point, due to targeting the current page for about 15 years, there's too much potential for links in edit summaries to be broken in the event the redirect is retargeted. If necessary to disambiguate "S", Wikipedia:S (disambiguation) could be created, but that may be overkill; it may be better to just add a hatnote for 1–2 other possibilities that "WP:S" could refer to, and call it a day. Steel1943 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While I could not check ancient edit summaries, I did check many incoming links, and they are basically all junk. This shortcut was made without much thought, and never given any use. More than half seemed to be complete mistakes. If a future wikiarcheologist (like me) wants to discover what was going on with an odd talk page pipe, then it will be facilitated by the edit to the redirect including a link to this discussion. Archaeology doesn't mean "preserve everything", it is good enough to keep records.

  Putting a hatnote on pages that WP:S could point to, or has ever pointed to, is completely nutty if you note the pageviews. Nobody uses WP:S. Hatnotes make clutter in the prime real estate of the page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• disambiguate per Prime Hunter -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Steel1943 and Do not disambiguate as that makes the shortcut useless for everybody. I've spot-checked a number of the incoming links and they either refer to the current target, WP:SOURCE (which is not the proposed target) or are part of a list. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Thryduulf. Agree, "Disambiguate" makes it useless for everybody, but "Keep" keeps it useless for everybody (a never used redundant option to the better H:S)

  I spot checked many incoming links, and many are mistakes, many are to an old ~2007 target, and all are unimportant. There basically never was any editing where people had a reason to write the wikilink WP:S as a shortcut to the help page for searching, it was silly then, and has been silly for many years. There are certainly far far more mistaken incoming links than intended proper uses (I found none).

  What is your desired outcome? That WP:S is forever junk? SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate - the existing incoming links suggest that the current target is not particularly useful. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate (draft available below the redirect). I've checked about a dozen incoming links: a third of them seemed to intend WP:SOURCE, a few were for Help:Search and the rest were for either WP:Summary style or WP:Synthesis. Definitely no prospect for a suitable target here. As for the objection that dabifying will make the shortcut useless for everybody: whatever target is otherwise chosen, the majority of uses will be wrong, and that's worse than being simply useless. SmokeyJoe, for the list of perennial sources, won't it make more sense to instead usurp WP:LPS or WP:PSL, or use WP:S/P (for Sources/perennial)? – Uanfala (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Uanfala, the point about draftifing making it useless for everyone is that it keeps it useless, as in "unused". No one will benefit a disambiguation because no one uses it. Of the incoming links that you checked, did you note how old they were, and where they were coming from? From around 2007, and from fairly confused talk threads, which I think was mostly because WP:S was never a recommended shortcut for anything, and the only uses it got were from people being careless. I checked a lot more than a dozen.

  It is currently available with no modern baggage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Here are all the existing uses where the shortcuts is piped [6] and where it's used on its own [7]. – Uanfala (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources because I like the idea of syncing it up with WP:SOURCES. I agree with Rosguill that the current target is not particularly useful, but I also agree with Thryduulf that disambiguating at this title would make it useless for everybody because it would no longer function as a shortcut. I do like Steel1943's idea of creating Wikipedia:S (disambiguation) which would catch the incorrect linkages and those who guess wrong. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Tavix, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources already has WP:SOURCES, and that section is not particularly useful, unlike my proposed target, which is very useful, should be used by every newcomer, and lacks a good shortcut. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate, don't retagret as that will mean links for searching in discussion pages will end up at the wrong place. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you give an example of such a link? Of the many I looked at, none were meaningful. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - Projectspace shortcuts are ambiguous by their very nature. This long-standing single letter redirect should not be tampered with through retargeting or made to lose its function through disambiguating. This shortcut has pointed to content regarding searching since c. 2007. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. Probably the most common search term. The others don't seem that common. interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 23:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per the drafted dab. Entries may be added or removed subsequently. Although I too find a shortcut dab "silly", doing this will address the unfairness of using a one-letter shortcut for something that has not been too useful. Oppose the usurping of the shortcut for perennial sources. It already has WP:RSP and WP:RSPS (and I would have liked WP:PERENNIAL to also point there). Regardless of whether the shortcut is new or from 2007, change is good, and if it's not too detrimental, we can make it more useful than it already is. Jay (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate using the draft. The vast majority of incoming links seem to be from an old welcome template that listed all the one-letter Wikipedia namespace pages, so no target was ever clarified in the first place. Quite honestly I'd also support doing these with most of the other one letter pages, as all except N, O, U, and V seem to be in the same boat as far as not being used much and having the possibility to refer to many things. For an example of one already being disambiguated, see WP:T. Pinguinn 🐧 14:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate I think a closer would justified in closing as either disambiguate or no consensus now, and I find myself preferring to nudge the discussion in one of those directions. As a whole, I think the discussion shows broad (not universal, but when is it ever) skepticism towards pointing this to any one place. I am happy to support a disambiguation page that gives easy access to a few important pages. --BDD (talk) 19:12, 1 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 no consensus. The addition of content in the article about the label "genocide" seems to have shifted people towards keep and there's no consensus to delete. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Genocide of Kashmiri Hindus → Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect has arisen due to a recent effort to assign a WP:POV title to Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus. It is well-established by scholars that the situation was nothing like a "genocide". (Sumantra Bose points out that 32 Hindus were apparently killed, in targeted assassinations.) There is currently an avalanche of edit requests at Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus asking for the page to mention a supposed "genocide". The POV title was also used during the editing of the page on The Kashmir Files, and the redirect linked from it. I think this redirect is too prejudicial and should be deleted. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Another diff added. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

As this redirect is fully protected, I've filed an edit request to tag it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Delete pursuant to nomination. All scholars use either "exodus" or "migration" or "internal displacement" to describe the condemnable events. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absent mention. If a large number of people feel, even incorrectly, that this was a genocide, then that should be discussed in the article (with due weight). Footnotes 21 and 34, both citing page 23 of "A departure from history: Kashmiri Pandits, 1990–2001" by Alexander Evans, support the idea that this is a noteworthy if incorrect perspective. However, so long as the article does not discuss this perspective at any length, there should not be a non-neutral redirect of this sort, as, absent context clarifying such redirects' non-neutrality, they risk putting misstatements in the encyclopedia's voice. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 5 § Gaza genocide and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 20 § Gaza Holocaust. If the article does come to cover this perspective, this should be recreated, probably refined to an appropriate section within the article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is beholden to reliable sources, and in controversial subject areas scholarly tertiary sources (See WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:TERTIARY). The most widely-used scholarly textbook on modern Indian history is: Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf's A Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge, 2006. says, "The Hindu Pandits, a small but influential elite community who had secured a favorable position, first under the maharajas and then under the successive Congress governments, ... felt under siege as the uprising gathered force. Upwards of 100,000 of approximately 140,000 left the state during the early 1990s; their cause was quickly taken up by the Hindu right. As the government sought to locate ‘suspects’ and weed out Pakistani ‘infiltrators’, the entire population was subjected to a fierce repression. By the end of the 1990s, the Indian military presence had escalated to approximately one soldier or paramilitary policeman for every five Kashmiris, and some 30,000 people had died in the conflict." It does not mention any genocide of Hindus, only the deaths of 30,000 Muslims at the hands of the Indian security forces. @Tamzin: has misunderstood due weight. I urge them to read WP:TERTIARY. Alexander Evans is not a tertiary source. We don't determine consensus or the lack thereof and then attempt in our own way to quantify it; only scholarly tertiary sources do that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My view is simply that, if there's a fringe view popular enough that many people are coming to Wikipedia to promote it, it probably should be mentioned somewhere. Part of our encyclopedic mission is documenting misconceptions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for clarifying. True, but it would still be better if the tertiary sources say that or something to that effect; e.g. if the Metcalfs had said, "their cause was quickly taken up by the Hindu right which characterized the exodus to be a genocide," or somesuch. There probably are such sources. Will look later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think something like this from "Narratives from exile: Kashmiri Pandits and their constructions of the past," which is Mridu Rai's chapter in Kashmir and the Future of South Asia edited by Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, Routledge, 2020: Among those who stayed on is Sanjay Tickoo who heads the Kashmiri Pandit Sangharsh Samiti (Committee for the Kashmiri Pandits’ Struggle). He had experienced the same threats as the Pandits who left. Yet, though admitting ‘intimidation and violence’ directed at Pandits and four massacres since 1990, he rejects as ‘propaganda’ stories of genocide or mass murder that Pandit organizations outside the Valley have circulated. For all that, Tickoo does not peddle myths of some utopia of communal harmony between Muslims and Pandits existing now or before 1989. He speaks of a distinct embittering of relations between the two communities when the insurgency began. ‘And these shifting sentiments’, he says, ‘were used by politicians on both sides, helping to stoke fear among the Hindu minority’. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• An Exodus with the hallmark events of a Genocide and Holocaust like events, victims and witnesses of which are still alive needs to be called our as a genocide. Nayan576 (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nayan576 (talk · contribs) Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope your stay will be enjoyable. How many Kashmiri Pandits were there in the valley and how many were killed by Muslim separatist groups? In the real Holocaust 6 million Jews were murdered; in the Romani genocide of the Gypsy/Roma people (who had originally migrated to Europe from India) 130,000 to 500,000 were murdered; in the Armenian genocide up to 1.5 million; and in the Cambodian genocide between 1.5 million and 2 million. So again: how many Kashmir pandits were there in the Kashmir valley and how many were murdered by the Muslims? Unless you have watertight scholarly tertiary sources supporting your view, you are using the word "holocaust" lightly, and the inclusion of the edits you propose will be violating WP policy. This is because using "Holocaust" lightly is a form of Holocaust denial. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nayan576 Out of 1724 killing by militants during past 3 decades 89 were KP's. Ref _signed، 511KeV ^(talk) 13:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – inappropriate per WP:RNEUTRAL, as a non-neutral unestablished name (see point #3 and exceptions). Jr8825 • Talk 12:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & WP:RNEUTRAL. _signed، 511KeV ^(talk) 14:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to be part of a NPOV push. There doesn't appear to be reliable sources for its use. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 15:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The word genocide has been used for this event by at least two reliable sources that I can find, The Times of India and The Hindu. It is a very likely search term from many people looking for this article.--NØ 18:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This redirect should be KEPT because multiple recent Reliable Sources such as Hindustan Times have referred to this as Genocide instead of Exodus. Please find few sources below. Old Scholarly hegemony cannot be used as perpetual consensus on Wiki, which must reflect recent reliable sources, as per WP:RS^[1][2]

Jhy.rjwk (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)contribs) 23:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC) (Relocated to chronologically correct place (new comments at bottom when added) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

I wouldn't say they are reliable sources. India's press ranks extremely low when it comes to the Press Freedom Index, suggesting there is significant government interference. It ranks 142 out of 180 countries. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindu is perfectly fine per WP:RSPSS.--NØ 13:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the The Hindu article? It isn't calling it a genocide, its a film review which says that "[t]he film ... presents the tragic exodus as a full-scale genocide, akin to the Holocaust", a film that the review itself describes as a "revisionist docudrama" and states the following, "[e]mploying some facts, some half-truths, and plenty of distortions, it propels an alternative view about the Kashmir issue". Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is critical of the film but does make a mention of the event as an alleged genocide. I can see it as a potential search term for readers of pieces like this.--NØ 17:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not treat film criticism as authentic fact. Dsnb07 (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. The existence of the term used by a minority of RS does not justify the timesink that this redirect is; already, the full protection is being evaded by ethnonationalists redirecting to this redirect *facepalm* We do not need this, people. SN54129 21:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid term backed by multiple reliable scholarly sources.[8][9][10] and not to forget how many media sources have used the same term so far. Whether the term is more authentic than "exodus" or "displacement" is not supposed to be discussed here.❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 06:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Kautilya3. The death toll doesn't amount to anything even resembling a genocide, and it is rather insulting to even compare it to events such as the Holocaust, Armenian genocide and Srebrenica. It would be more appropriate to use the term refugee crisis or exodus. This redirect is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reasonable redirect and the term has appeared in vast number of WP:RS. Shrikanthv (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete till there is a mention in the article (if it's found to have due weight) per Tamzin (I couldn't have worded it better). The article at present doesn't cover the perspective at all, and as such without any context, the redirect presents a fringe inflammatory designation in the encyclopedia's voice. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : As per United Nations Genocide Convention there are five acts which are treated as Genocide. (Source - wiki Genocide and source) and in the case Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus first three applies.

1. Killing members of the group
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group Article II(b)
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

Dsnb07 (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Tamzin. There are a couple more - 1990_Kashmiri_Pandit_genocide (since 2017) and Kashmiri Pandit genocide (created on March 14). Since they are essentially identical to this, is opening a new discussion for them necessary or can the result of this discussion be held applicable to them as well? Hemantha (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my vote on a closer read of RNEUTRAL and since the target now mentions genocide. Hemantha (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 5000 people were killed which then lead to the exodus to 500000 people sources [11] , [12], [13], [14],[15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.43.63 (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC) (Move to correct section — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep per #5 at WP:R#KEEP and also per reliable sources provided by several editors above. I have also found a book titled "Genocide of Hindus in Kashmir".[16] Those supporting deletion only deem the redirect to be representing the disputed title for the entire event but that is clearly not a valid criteria for deletion. Dhawangupta (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The committee which authored/published the book you link, was set up by RSS. Hardly a reliable one, as are the others linked by the previous IP voter, which are blog posts and tweets. Hemantha (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsnb07: And yet we call them 2002 Gujarat riots and 2020 Delhi riots. What forked tongues we speak with when the Hindus do the killing Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per all such reasons given above. A google search for 'Kashmir genocide'also shows this as the top result. Also, to respond to User:Fowler&fowler, Gujarat genocide redirects to 2002 Gujarat riots. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is only *now* when the Hindu India of a Hindu majoritarian state is in all of a tizzy about being in a minority. The Hindu nationalists might have forgotten this in their new found state of euphoric mourning, but WP has to also remember that many more Kashmiri Muslims have been killed by the Indian armed forces than Hindus by the Muslim insurgents, orders of magnitude more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is your point of view. The recent movie released has prompted people regarding this issue. As far as I remember, Hindus are not in a state of minority. People are now aware of the atrocities commited. I am not saying that there has been no violece against others as well, but it is essential to be fair to all groups. When Gujarat genocide can redirect to 2002 Gujarat riots, why can't it be done here too, as per the many reasons mentioned above. Kpddg ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. We need more global academic consensus and commentary about figures before the term genocide comes into play. At least that is the criteria held against all other conflicts. Mar4d (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There doesn't seem to be any consensus regarding Gujarat genocide and 1984 Sikh genocide either.--NØ 07:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tamzin. MOS:LABEL states that contentious labels should only be used when they are in wide use externally, and it does not appear that 'genocide' in reference to this event has seen "wide use". The sourcing that has been brought to light in this discussion is flimsy, especially the sources in the context of a film review. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking my delete now that it's mentioned. I'm not sure if the mention will stick, but since a lot of this comes on the heels of the film, perhaps another option would be to retarget to The Kashmir Files#Political messaging and historical accuracy where it's explained within the context of the film. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The movie/documentary, "The Kashmir Files" is a super hit and as the word genocide has been used in the movie, a lot of people are searching online for the, "Genocide of Kashmiri Hindus", so I request that either this redirect should be kept or a new article for the, "Genocide of Kashmiri Hindus", should be created here on wikipedia - reliable sources are available for the same as I can see in the discussion above. A google search for, "Kashmir genocide" also shows the Wikipedia article as the top result.-Y2edit? (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I note that discussion of the classification of genocide has now been added to the target, where it is described as a fringe view. Pinging editors whose "delete" !votes were contingent on lack of mention (or per an argument along the same lines): Tamzin, Tayi Arajakate, Hemantha
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As stated by others, it is a common search term, mentioned in RS and discussed in the article. Wikihc (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Reading through this discussion, I see relatively weak arguments on both sides: a lot of the keep arguments indulge in original research, but the invocation of WP:RNEUTRAL to call for deletion also seems misplaced: while RS focused on the subject and region do not call the event a genocide, there appear to be sufficient sources of varying reliability that do call it a genocide (and I would agree with delete !voters, polemically so), such that a non-neutral redirect is appropriate, particularly as there is now discussion of whether or not the "genocide" label applies at the target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rosguill and tag with ((R from non-neutral name)). The use of the label "genocide", even if flagrantly incorrect, has become widespread enough for readers to plausibly use it while searching. – Uanfala (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Peter Ormond 💬 19:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rosguill and Uanfala --UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Keep: Makes my stomach turn, but I guess it is a plausible redirect. Maybe to address SN54129's concerns an edit filter might be appropriate? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:29, 8 May 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.