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 14:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• American peasant → Working class in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A peasant is a pre-industrial agricultural laborer or a farmer with limited land-ownership, especially one living in the Middle Ages under feudalism and paying rent, tax, fees, or services to a landlord. While this could arguably apply to certain working arrangements in very rural parts of the country, such a conclusion would be WP:OR; the word "peasant" appears nowhere at the target article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per nom. No good target, I found The Polish Peasant in Europe and America and Peasant#Latin American farmers. Veverve (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 06:03, 12 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 14:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bananus → Banana#Description  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Apparently a neologism for that kinda-gross bit at the end of the banana. Not mentioned at target. Not on Wiktionary. Delete. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 06:02, 12 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 14:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Singles Inferno → Korean drama  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target or anywhere else on Wikipedia, delete unless an appropriate target can be identified. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. fyi, it is a korean drama. for the international market, it is currently on netflix. am surprised that no one has written an article about it yet. – robertsky (talk) 15:48, 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.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• '~' → tilde  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While this has been retargeted to have a more sensible target than the batch I nominated below this is still a WP:UNNATURAL modification 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:33, 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 speedy deleted by Bishonen. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Stinky baby → Infant#Care and feeding  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This seems an unlikely search term, delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, seriously. Why not just speedy trolling like this? Done. Bishonen | tålk 21:09, 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• '`' → 96 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• '^' → 94 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• '\' → 92 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• '@' → 64 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• '?' → 63 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• '=' → 61 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• ';' → 59 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• '/' → 47 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• '-' → 45 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• ',' → 44 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• '+' → 43 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• '*' → 42 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• ')' → 41 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• '(' → 40 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• '&' → 38 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• '%' → 37 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• '$' → 36 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• '!' → 33 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• ':' → 58 (number)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not explained at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a redirect from the colon in quote marks to the article on the decimal number corresponding with its ASCII encoding. Titles with modifications like this are WP:UNNATURAL and generally not kept, and there is no reason to assume someone searching for this is looking for 58 instead of the article Colon (punctuation) 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Massive batch of redirects from an editor who has been blocked + locked for this nonsense cross wiki. These are redirects from random character symbols in quote marks to articles on numbers which correspond with the decimal equivalent of their ASCII encoding. Two issues here 1) redirects from terms with random punctuation (like quote marks) are considered WP:COSTLY/WP:UNNATURAL and are generally not kept, 2) there is no reason to assume someone searching for '$' would be looking for the decimal equivalent of the ASCII encoding of $ instead of the dollar sign. I propose deletion of all of them as implausible modifications and therefore unlikely search terms. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I merged ':' into this section since the nomination was what triggered this one, and since the nominations are so similar. Below is the discussion for that redirect's original nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it makes it easier to follow by having the original nomination rationale first. That leaves two !votes by the same nominator, so I indented one below the other. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix: I disagree since 1234qwer1234qwer4 never specifically agreed/stated that their original rationale applies to the other nominated redirects, which is what posting their statement as the nomination statement for this discussion does. Steel1943 (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the way you merged it unfairly buried 1234qwer's original rationale. If you're worried about the original nomination not applying to the other redirects, you shouldn't have merged the discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...That was why I explained what I did when I text-merged the discussions. Eh, guess we'll have to agree to disagree; happens to even the best of us sometimes, I guess. (I don't plan on touching this discussion further.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created by an LTA, probably related to some nonstandard numeral system (as many of their edits are). Certainly should be deleted, along with anything else they've created that's still around. JBL (talk) 20:09, 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Theories of punishment → Prison#Theories of punishment and criminality  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I understand why this redirect targets where it targets, but the term isn't specific to any topic. In addition, punishment is not exclusive to prison. Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 10:39, 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.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Inquisitor's Squad → Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix#Dumbledore's Army and the Student Revolt  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• The Inquisitorial Squad → Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix#Rebellion and Dumbledore's Army  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Inquisitorial Squad → Ministry of Magic#Dolores Umbridge  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Given that these are essentially minor variants of the same thing these should probably be synchronised to point at the same place. Neither article has any particularly compelling content to point at, so I can't decide which is the best target. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• REtaret all to Inquisitor, as squads of inquisitors exist outside of fiction, and many other fiction also has them, not just the Potterverse. Apparently someone did not expect the Spanish Inquisition when these were created -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Overly vague to point either at Harry Potter related articles or the Spanish Inquisition, better to delete and let the search engine do its job instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per Zxcvbnm. Veverve (talk) 10:40, 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.

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 moot. Redirect has been converted to an article. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This redirected article should be deleted and protected, mainly because it is used as a povpush. As mentioned in Yazidis, the ethnic background is contested and many consider it a Kurdish minority. Well how can you Kurdify a Kurdish religious minority? The "Kurdification of Yazidis" article simply disregards this question (deliberately) and the references used are just cherrypicking at its best. There are also some issues with OR as some of the content is not directly about Kurdification but political issues considering Yazidis.

I should mention that there are sanctions on Kurdish subjects because of articles like these. Semsûrî (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Kurdification#After 2011 does mention Kurdification of Yazidis. Veverve (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Veverve: That section has its own issues and I'm not sure if this is the place to decipher it. Some of the sources I checked have verification issues, are dead or just used in an OR way. The Wikileaks article[1] which reference 36 is based on does not even mention Kurdification nor insinuates it. It writes " They [Kurdish government] were teaching Arabic to Christian students, admitted Jejo, but only Kurdish to the Yezidi." Now Kurdish is the traditional language of Yazidis, so we can't talk about linguistic Kurdification here, but even if we could it would be OR. Again, not sure if this is the right place but other sources have issues as well. Semsûrî (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Semsûrî: those editing problems should have been fixed at the article itself or discussed at the article talk page before starting the RfD. As of now, the redirect is legitimate since it leads to what is indicated, and RfD is not the place to debate the content of an article. Veverve (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep pending removal of Yazidi-related content at the target. If there are issues with the content they can be raised and addressed, but at least for now the redirect does lead readers to relevant information. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:02, 16 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 no consensus. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Albury, Ontario → Prince Edward County, Ontario  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, nor was it when the redirect was created (presumably it never has been...). Perhaps it was created as a result of the strange note at the top of List of unincorporated communities in Ontario which I will shortly remove: "Red links representing uncreated articles are to be left on here and if you have any information, please create an article for that community or redirect it to an appropriate related topic (such as its municipality)." No doubt there are other redirects on that list which should also be deleted. Delete unless mention is justified. A7V2 (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This is now mentioned in the section Prince Edward County, Ontario#Communities. However I still don't feel this and similar redirects are appropriate. Someone searching this would still find the article by search, but would not misleadingly be taken to an article with next to no information about it. Further, Bearcat mentions below that this locality meets the requirements of WP:GEOLAND, and so therefore reason to delete number 10 (WP:RFD#D10, see also WP:REDYES) applies here as this could be expanded into an article. A7V2 (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albury, ON (located at 44.088907 N, 77.51158 W) is in Prince Edward County, between Carrying Place and Rednersville. It's not mentioned in the article, but it can be found on the map that's included in the Geography section of the article (use a magnifying glass to see it). Albury is within the bounds of the former Ameliasburgh Township, which could be a better target for the redirect although Albury isn't mentioned there either. PKT(alk) 12:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per WP:R#KEEP. Albury, Ontario, redirects to Prince Edward County, Ontario, and is in fact located within that county, so the redirect is useful. There are hundreds of redirects like this at List of unincorporated communities in Ontario. For example, Alport, Ontario, redirects to Bracebridge, Ontario, yet there is no mention of it there, even though it is located in Bracebridge. Ideally, there should be mention of the redirect at the target article, such as the Monteith, Ontario redirect to Iroquois Falls. The shortcoming of keeping all these redirects is that they may redirect to the wrong county, but that would be an issue of vandalism/competence. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Magnolia677 Which point of WP:R#KEEP are you referring to? I can't see any which would justify keeping a redirect from a subtopic which isn't mentioned. I definitely don't think it is helpful to keep a redirect to something which is not a synonym, and where it is not mentioned. "Ideally" isn't good enough. Either the target should include a list of localities at the very least, or such redirects should be deleted so as not to give the false impression of information existing about this locality. Being on a grainy map halfway down the article is not enough, and doesn't really convey much either.

  I'm aware there are many other similar redirects, I mentioned it in the nom. I nominated this one specifically since I noticed it when looking for something else, and of course I'm not going to nominate tens or hundreds of redirects without some kind of precedent. A7V2 (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @A7V2: #5 at WP:R#KEEP: "Someone finds them useful". These redirects are geographically correct and send readers to the right county--even though the particular settlement they are looking for is not listed there. This redirect is 14 years old, and most of the other redirects at List of unincorporated communities in Ontario are that old or older. Your goal of cleaning up these redirects is a Herculean task of checking and cross-checking. Why not just go to each parent article and copy a complete list into the "communities" section? Most of the subdivisions already have these lists, but as you correctly pointed out, some are incomplete. It would probably take the same amount of time, but would dramatically improve the project. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If the problem is that Albury isn't mentioned in the target article, then that's laughably easy to fix by adding a mention of Albury to the "communities" section in the target article. Which, in fact, I just did. But until somebody can actually write a properly sourced and properly substanced article about Albury as a standalone topic that would pass WP:GEOLAND separately from its parent municipality (which is unlikely, though I won't say never), a person who does search for it should still land somewhere relevant instead of just blanking out. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no policy reason why someone searching this should be taken somewhere "relevant" if that somewhere doesn't actually describe the thing they searched for. I only put that it wasn't mentioned at the target as my nom reason since I wasn't certain why it wasn't mentioned in that (still) unsourced section, and indeed the redirect should never have been created given there wasn't mention. However given what you've said about WP:GEOLAND I will update my nom statement. A7V2 (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There most certainly is a policy reason why an unincorporated community should be redirected to its parent municipality if we can't adequately support or source a standalone article about the community, and in fact GEOLAND explictly says that that's actively encouraged: "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree with that interpretation. It says, as you correctly quote above, "...information on the informal place should be included in the more general article" (my emphasis). It certainly does not "explicitly" say that redirects are encouraged, it doesn't mention redirects at all, and I definitely don't think that simply naming the locality counts as "information". Of course if there was a sentence or so about the locality (as perhaps that's all there is to say about it) that would be find, but just naming it is not the same as giving information, and in my opinion is not enough to overcome reason to delete number 10 or indeed the general point of redirects which is to take a searcher to somewhere which contains information about the thing they searched for. A7V2 (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A person who searches for Albury, Ontario will be taken to the most centrally important piece of information of all: where is it? Even if we don't have much sourceable information about it, there are still exactly zero reasons why a person who searches for it should be taken nowhere and told nothing. Bearcat (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't have zero reasons. We have reason to delete number 10. So as I said before there is no policy/guideline reason to keep, but there is to delete. A7V2 (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Albury isn't a plausible potential topic for its own standalone article — it's an unincorporated community within a municipality, not a standalone municipality in its own right, so its ability to qualify for a standalone article would depend on getting it over WP:GNG on its sourceability rather than any automatic free pass over WP:GEOLAND, and thus this doesn't pass RFD #10 as its ability to become a standalone article is purely a theoretical exercise rather than a thing that could "plausibly" happen. But until an actual GNG pass can actually be shown, a person who does search for it in the meantime most certainly does still need to have a way of at least finding out where the hell it is, which is precisely the reason why GEOLAND explictly says that communities that don't get automatic GEOLAND passes should be covered in and redirected to the municipality that they're part of. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not going to keep going around in circles with you over this. We can disagree with the definition of "plausible" (I give it a looser definition than many others as I feel we shouldn't redirect most things for a mention alone), but why do you continue to suggest that WP:GEOLAND says to redirect communities to municipalities? It doesn't say that now, nor did it in any of the versions of it since this discussion began (I'm not going to go back and check every past version, perhaps it was in there previously?). Do you put emphasis on the word "explicitly" (for a second time, after I pointed this out above) to emphasise that you are arguing from WP:ILIKEIT rather than any policy or guideline? A7V2 (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm arguing from long-established standard practice backed up by long-established standard consensus. We have a standard rule that unincorporated communities within larger municipalities should be named and/or covered in the article on the municipality that they're part of if they cannot be clearly shown to pass WP:GEOLAND as topics for their own standalone articles; and we have a standard rule that topics which cannot support their own standalone articles, but could reasonably be covered as an aspect or subtopic of a related article, should be redirected to that related article. GEOLAND does not have to directly contain the word "redirect" itself for the things I'm saying to be true; all that's necessary is adding what WP:GEOLAND says about communities without standalone legal status to what WP:REDIRECT says about redirects from "sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article". Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An (unreferenced) mention has been added, but the question has not been settled on whether this is an appropriate redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:29, 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You will die → You Will Die at Twenty  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Questionable redirect from a generic phrase to a very specific film title. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget, as I can't see the relationship between the phrase and the title of the film. Munfarid1 (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Munfarid1: Retarget where? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The most appropriate target I can think of is Memento mori. Not sure if that's worth a redirect, though. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I wanted to say that the film You will die at Twenty has no obvious connection to "You will die". The title comes from a soothsayer in the film who makes this premonition to the main character. So there should not be any redirect from "You will die". Munfarid1 (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unlikely to ever be helpful. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:04, 9 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 Template:Non-free film poster. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Non-free movie poster → Template:Non-free poster  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect to ((Non-free film poster)) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy retarget. You don't need to come to RfD for uncontroversial changes like this. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, traditionally, before any redirect in the "Template:" namespace is retargeted, all of its transclusions need to be bypassed to ensure that none of them end up transcluding the incorrect template. At the present time, this redirect has almost 20,000 transclusions. And lastly, the nominated redirect cannot be WP:BOLD-ly edited since it is currently fully-protected. Steel1943 (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now downgraded to template protection. Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Template:Non-free film poster per nom. If I get some free time later, I may work on my transclusion concern... hard to say no to 20,000 edits (but yeah, I'm probably not doing them all ... but yeah.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, forget that: All of the transclusions are probably intended to go to the proposed retargeting option. Don't see any reason why they wouldn't. Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Xaosflux enabled showontransclusion when he tagged it, so anyone viewing any of those 20,000 files in the next week will be pointed here. (See File:8crazynights.jpg e.g.) Although the last time I recall us doing this, with Template:Br, after much back-and-forth I don't think a single person showed up from the notices. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:49, 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.

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! 01:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

No affinity with the Spanish language. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 13:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are plenty of markets in the US that call themselves Supermercado. For this reason, it should be kept. Interstellarity (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's almost a loanword in the southern United States. Steel1943 (talk) 18:38, 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.

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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Preliminary deal → Deal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Disambiguation page Deal does not disambiguate "Preliminary deal". I suggest delete unless there's a better target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agreed. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:08, 9 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This would appear to be a rarely-used and unlikely misspelling. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a misspelling. It's an alternate spelling that is truer to the Sumerian. It should redirect directly to Nibiru (Babylonian astronomy) Serendi^podous 09:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Serendipodous: Thanks. If that's the case then it should be mentioned at Nibiru (Babylonian astronomy) because it doesn't make much sense without it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm. Well I checked, and the original reference to the alternate spelling was taken down. It was supposedly in the MUL.APIN but I searched for a reference to it in the MUL.APIN and couldn't find it. So yeah. Probably should be deleted. Serendi^podous 13:01, 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pledge (disambiguation) does not disambiguate "Pledge Card", and "card" is not mentioned at Pledge. I suggest delete to enable Search to reveal the27 uses on Enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:25, 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.

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 Nayaka dynasties. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nayakas of Shorapur → Raja Venkatappa Nayaka  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The previous Raja should not link to his Nayaka because they are not relevant and should be delete. Q28 (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I agree with you. Is there anything I can help with? Sorry, this is my first time doing this. Danial Bass (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Nayaka dynasties and remove the circular wikilink there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Nayaka dynasties per Shhh. CycloneYoris ^talk! 12:09, 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 delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Adf hate symbols → List of symbols designated by the Anti-Defamation League as hate symbols  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

To me, the way this is worded makes it look like these are symbols of "AFD Hate". These are symbols designated as hate symbols by the AFD but are not "AFD hate symbols". I know that redirects can be abbreviations of phrases but I think this one is misleading. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Anti-Defamation League uses the initials ADL, not ADF. It also makes it seem as if the organization represented by ADF uses certain hate symbols rather than merely cataloguing them, which I shouldn't have to say is plainly not the case. Take away the seven total edits and you have fourteen page views, all on the day of its creation. I don't even know how it could possibly have gotten those since I find it very unlikely this term would ever be used to research the topic in question. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That was a typo. So yeah definitely delete. Dronebogus (talk) 11:52, 10 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 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine. The consensus isn't airtight, but a clear majority posits that the 2022 invasion is the primary topic and raise valid points. Moreover, did we really just let such high traffic redirects sit open at RfD for a month?! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Russian invasion of Ukraine → List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Russia invaded Ukraine → List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Russian attack on Ukraine → List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Russian invasion of the Ukraine → List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Anyone searching for Russian Invasion of Ukraine is clearly referring to the current invasion of Ukraine by Russia instead of the list of historical conflicts, not least because "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is how the front page refers to the topic. Other editors keep reverting, referring to an RFD that took place before the war broke out.

Would strongly suggest that the redirect should target 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine Hentheden (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the war broke out eight years before that RFD. —Michael Z. 04:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support The current 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is receiving about 175K page count per day for the last month and seems like the correct destination for the redirect at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is clearly a close alternative to (and most likely targets) 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine. List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine should be treated with a hatnote from 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Listed the previous RfD here. Note that it was nominated on the day of the invasion (24 Feb) and closed after discussion of more than a week (8 Mar). The nomination statement of "before the war" is incorrect. Jay (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That’s for sure. The war began in 2014. —Michael Z. 04:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above as it can be solved with a hatnote. Sahaib (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I would have appreciated a notification here. I imagine Champion would have as well, as the other editor[ who kept] reverting. (Note that if you're describing people as "keep[ing] reverting", that's a strong indicator that you're in an edit war. You shouldn't be making the same revert multiple times when nothing has changed. But I appreciate that you've now brought this here.) Courtesy ping also to Mzajac, who has expressed strong feelings on what should be included in the target article.
  As Jay says, the previous RfD was in the context of the ongoing invasion. There was no question in that discussion that the current invasion was the most currently-relevant Russian invasion of Ukraine. No facts have changed in that regard. As such, I would expect an RfD only two months later to explain why we should so swiftly reverse an existing consensus, and I don't see such an explanation. Wikipedia is not a breaking-news source. We are an encyclopedia. We handle navigation from a non-recentist point of view. French presidential election redirects to Presidential elections in France, even though certainly in terms of usage the past few months it primarily refers to the 2022 French presidential election. I don't see any reason to think that, from a big-picture point of view, "Russian invasion of Ukraine" refers more definitively to the 2022 invasion than to the 1659, 1918, 1919, 1939, February 2014, or August 2014 invasions, the last of which in particular was widely referred to as simply "the Russian invasion of Ukraine" in the newsmedia up till two months ago. If someone encounters this term in a book, past news article, speech, etc., they should not be brought to the article on the invasion that happens to be most recent. So keep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, if the 2022 invasion is the primary topic for "Russian invasion of Ukraine", then wouldn't the correct course of action be to move that page to this title per WP:CONCISE? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bundled 3 from last time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I feel recentism applies more to articles than to redirects, but to follow the advice of that essay (specifically WP:10YT) I do think that this will be the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" for at least a generation (unless, of course, something worse happens in the future). This is a bit different to the French presidential election example, because these happen at regular intervals while this (I do hope) isn't something that will be repeated. Guettarda (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but add hatnote to List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine at proposed target article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as the majority of users of this redirect are doubtless intending to navigate to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The minority of users interested in other historical invasions can be served by a hatnote on that article. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 13:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The redirect Russian attack on Ukraine is not an exact synonym, and can represent a much broader range of subjects, including, for example, 2014 Russian cross-border shelling of Ukraine, Ukraine power grid hack, 2017 Ukraine ransomware attacks, Russian information war against Ukraine, Russian–Ukrainian cyberwarfare, etcetera. —Michael Z. 18:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging the participants of the previous RfD: Deathstar3548, Slywriter, Elli, eviolite, AFreshStart, My very best wishes, Bonoahx, NorsemanII, Liz, Des Vallee, Fephisto, BRAINULATOR9, ReyHahn, MB, Facts707, BilledMammal, Beland, Tavix. Jay (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This event is certainly significant and will be continue to be significant, and deserves this redirect. Deathstar3548 (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the first three ones, Delete the last one. There's a country called Ukraine; there is no country called the Ukraine. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I will copy my previous statement as it remains valid and applicable: The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine dwarfs the prior Russian incursions/occupations of Ukraine. The vast majority of English-speaking Wikipedians searching for "Russian invasion of Ukraine" almost certainly are (and for the foreseeable future will be) referring to this. Of course, for those who are not, the article can have a disambig tag at the top linking to the list of other possibilities. This is in line with how we handle redirects for other major conflicts with an obvious intended meaning, see for example:
  • "Invasion of Iraq" -> 2003 invasion of Iraq with a disambig tag at the top for other invasions of Iraq besides the obvious one.
  • "Invasion of Afghanistan" -> United States invasion of Afghanistan with a redirect tag at the top for people who might have meant a different invasion from the obvious one, like the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.
  • "Invasion of Grenada" -> United States invasion of Grenada, though there's a redirect template at the top for people who meant to go to Capture of Grenada (1779) (by the French).
  • "Invasion of Poland" refers to the obvious 1939 invasion by Germany and the Soviet union, but there's an about tag if you were looking for the Slovak invasion of Poland, or for other invasions of Poland it links to Invasion of Poland (disambiguation).
  • "Russian invasion of Georgia" -> Russo-Georgian War (the obvious recent one in 2008), though there's a 'for' template at the top for anyone who meant the Red Army invasion of Georgia in 1921.

-NorsemanII (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - As I said on the previous RfD: Looking at daily page views we have millions at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and thousands at List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine (even after the retargeting), which I interpret as meaning nearly everyone is interested in the current conflict only. So targeting that minimizes clicking. Anyone interested in the other conflicts can click through to the list from the hatnote (which would need to be added). This may change with historical distance, but that's fine. -- Beland (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, just for some consistency in my opinions. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per ErnestKrause. Fephisto (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. (I wrote the following before I fully read the proponent's reasons) Think about this: when someone mentionns "Michael Jackson" they're not thinking about the programmer and authon, nor the radio talk show host in Los Angeles. They are thinking of the late singer-songwriter, and that is reflected here in the unqualified name goes to his article; for evertone else they are directed toward the redirect oage. Clearly, for the duration of the war, and probably for many years to come, almost everyone trying to look up the article on the 2022 invasion, not to the earlier ones (although it should have a link to any other Russian invasions of Ukraine..
  
  "Understanding of things by me is only made possible by people — who read my comments — like you."
  
  Thank you.
  Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since three redirects were added after the day the nomination started, and since consensus seems a bit split still, can't hurt to give this another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this has been relisted, I'll reiterate my question: If the 2022 invasion really is the primary topic for "Russian invasion of Ukraine", isn't the solution to move the article to that title? The outcome proposed here would violate WP:CONCISE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 13:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is the best title of the article, and the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT situation isn't intolerable. WP:CONCISE isn't absolute and there are plenty of examples of redirects that are more concise than their targets, e.g. Obama → Barack Obama, NFL → National Football League, Jersey City → Jersey City, New Jersey. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be a solution, but is an entirely separate discussion that has been extensively discussed on said page. In light of that consensus likely not changing anytime soon, the more minor issue of what a redirect goes to should be fixed. Regarding whether it is a violation of WP:CONCISE, as @Rublov points out it is not absolute and WP:Ignore all rules dictates that we should do what is best here to properly maintain the encyclopedia. With that in mind, would someone with the rights/knowledge mind closing this discussion, as not only does there appear to be a clear consensus but the redirect just looks broken now to anyone who goes to it (Russian invasion of Ukraine) which is not what anyone thought best. Hentheden (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep targetted at dominant use (2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine ), make sure the target has a hatote about other esoteric historical uses. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • copied over from previous log page at 00:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC) by J947 † ^edits
• Support Again. Adding to my previous support recommendation, I'll also add that I agree with Tamzin's recommendation that the 2022 article have a hatmote referring to the other Ukrainian invasions. I have presumed that this will eventually be where this redirection goes, so I have put a hatnote to this effect in the 2022 article of the redirection, and the hatnore references the "master list" of Ukranian Invasions. I do not think the 2022 article shold be moved to this redirect. I'll give my reason: once this war ends it is possible Russia might invade Ukraine again, in a year, two, ten, or twenty or more; you never can tell. I don't think anyone expected one bt Russia again just eight years after Russia annexed the Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. So I think for now, this redirect should point to the 2022 invasion, and if another one happens, point it there, and put a hatnote to the Master List in the new article, chaning that article's reference from ((Redirect)) to ((For)) .
  
  "Understanding of things by me is only made possible by viewers (of my comments) like you."
  
  Thank you.
  Paul Robinson Rfc1394 (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As there has been more than one, it seems this should not redirect to any particular invasion. Also if there is another the same argument will be used as to why it should be the redirect. We have to think in the long term. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, i.e. make it a redirect to 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine for links 1, 2, and 4; keep link 3 as it is. There were other military conflicts of Ukraine with Russia, but they are not generally described in RS as "invasion". Only 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was described as "invasion". Something like Russo-Ukrainian war would have to be targeted differently. My very best wishes (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is incorrect. The 2014 invasion of Donbas was widely referred to as the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" in reliable sources, as was the war overall. The latter was the target of this redirect until I retargeted it to the list in January. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there was an invasion in August 2014 (War_in_Donbas#August_2014_invasion_by_Russian_forces), but I think the entire war in Donbass is not usually described as an "invasion" in sources because Russia acted so much through their proxies directed by Russian GRU and FSB people (and later just by Russian military). My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 28 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 No consensus / retarget to List of recessions in the United States. Even though consensus is not %100 clear, most participants agree that retargeting this somewhere is a far better option than deletion. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• American financial crisis → Great Recession#United States policy responses  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There were lots of financial crises, e.g. the Great Depression. Why is this particular one being singled out? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• We have a List of recessions in the United States (in Category:Recessions in the United States), but Category:Economic crises in the United States has no corresponding list. Would retargeting this to the list of recessions be close enough? - Eureka Lott 22:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so. That doesn't include things like the Dot-com bubble, for example. The problem, as I see it, is that "financial crisis" is such a nebulous, ill-defined, overly broad term. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't love redirects to categories, but that might be the best option here, and the presence of a navbox in the category softens the blow at least. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• American Financial Crisis was an occasionally-used contemporary media name/reference for the 2008-2009 recession, at that time. So, to answer the earlier question, the redirect was there because people were still figuring out what to call it, while it was happening. Since different names for that event subsequently became popular, it's likely better to redirect to a more general term or list. Xaliqen (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The history of the U.S. financial services industry is detailed, long, and complex, with many moments of crisis taking place, and I'd rather that we just let people search. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete many many financial crises, and many of them not recessions (ie. S&L collapse, dotcom crash, etc) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of recessions in the United States. With regards to concerns by others, the dot-com bubble is mentioned under Early 2000s recession, and the S&L collapse, though not mentioned in the list comes under Early 1990s recession in the United States. Jay (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget' per above. I'm sympathetic to the argument that we shouldn't redirect the general set of financial crises to the narrower set of recessions, but looking at that list, I'm hard pressed to come up with an example of any significant economic crisis in US history that isn't included. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems there is consensus not to keep the status quo, but what to do with the redirect is still not rather clear yet. Hoping another week can resolve this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:19, 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 retarget to 2022 Winter Olympics#Participating National Olympic Committees. Refined current target to section where Kenya's participation (or lack thereof) is described. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Kenya at the 2022 Winter Olympics → 2022 Winter Olympics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No need for this. Kenya did not participate in the 2022 Winter Olympics. Delete. DB1729 (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the target describes Kenya's level of participation in the 2022 Winter Olympics: Kenya qualified one athlete, but withdrew. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tavix. Refine to 2022 Winter Olympics#Participating National Olympic Committees for easier access to that phrase. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine per J947 and Tavix. A7V2 (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 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.