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 04:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The solar eclipse that takes place on August 21, 2017 → Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer likely to be used / wordy. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 22:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my reasoning in the previous RfD. The mere fact of this being "wordy" is not enough to warrant deletion, and it could still be useful for anyone who searches for this eclipse. Another option would be to move this to The solar eclipse that took place on August 21, 2017, as written in past tense seems more appropriate. Regardless, it seems fine either way. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Considering this redirect was made nearly a decade before the eclipse actually happened, and we're now 5 years past that, moving it would be the best choice. MightyArms (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is such an unlikely search. MightyArms perhaps brought up the best thing to keep in mind - it was created in 2008. The pageviews analysis shows 200 views for the page since it started collecting data sometime in 2015. Guess when it received the most amount of views - October 2020 - when it went through RfD previously (24 views). I do not see this as being useful when using the date, August 21, 2017, gets you to the solar eclipse. The same is true on Google. Another thing to note is the user created The Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017 and The solar eclipse of August 21, 2017 after this one. The argument for usefulness is perplexing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Grid (talk • contribs) 06:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Almost never used outside of the timeframe of this very nomination. Between that and that we're five years past the tense change that needed to happen, and that's all the evidence I need that it's not being used. Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, echoing my !vote in the previous discussion. It is implausible due to the wrong tense, but not because of its length. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't see what the redirect accomplishes that the title of the target doesn't. As The Grid pointed out, the user had created the "The" and case variants for extra measure. Tense is not really a problem as Cyclone and MightyArms have provided the workaround. This is a costly redirect having taken up the community's time in 2020, and is continuing to do now. I'm sure if deleted here, the redirect with this wording (regardless of future or past) won't be recreated. Jay 💬 02:06, 29 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. Jay 💬 02:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mario Kart 64 Figures → Mario Kart 64  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the article. The merged sections were likely removed from the article possibly due to being original research and having no notability/verifiability. No reliable sources mention these figures either. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore article and send to WP:AFD to ensure nothing is missed during this process. Steel1943 (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If sent to AFD it would most likely result in a WP:SNOW delete. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Steel1943: I'm a bit confused by this rationale. What do you think would be "missed" by RfD that you think AfD would be able to solve? Do you not think RfD can handle this? -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It was, more or less, to encourage votes since there really hadn't been any yet. Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not mentioned. It hasn't been an article since 2009, so AFD wouldn't make sense. If it were Mario figurines it could redirect to Amiibo but that would be a much later development. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak refine to Mario Kart 64#Playable characters. It's plausible that "figures" could be a search term for characters, and this would at least preserve the page history is an acceptable manner. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  page history isn’t anything special in my opinion. It is mostly just WP:CRUFT. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 22:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and would almost certainly be deleted at Afd. I just mean that if we can argue it's an acceptable redirect, there is no reason worry about how best to deal with the page history, as it can just be kept. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can remember of "Mario Kart 64 figures" is the toy from Taco Bell from the kids meal but that was for Nintendo 64 in general. I don't see any possible relevant article on that tangent either. – The Grid (talk) 05:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Come on, I can't believe this is still being discussed. It was an unsourced stub for a very brief time about some non-notable action figures based on a game. It's not worth mentioning in the target article, and certainly not worth sending to AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 19:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sergecross73. Also, figures ≠ characters and it would be confusing to make that connection. Figures in this context are action figures, or perhaps more specifically can be something like Funko Pops or Amiibo. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:16, 27 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 procedural close. The page is no longer a redirect. If deletion is still wanted, please take it to AfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 2023 in music → 2023 in heavy metal music  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous title redirects to a specific genre when other genres also exist (such as 2023 in rock music and 2023 in country music. Proposing to delete the redirect until someone takes an interest in making a page similar to 2022 in music. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but do not salt: To encourage article creation and to make it less confusing. 2023 is almost a month away. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 15:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt, we need some way of protecting "(future year) in (genre/sport/team)" articles until a certain number of days before "release". AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article can then be developed at Draft and moved over at the designated date. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone is going to create this article at least until January 2023. Also 2023 in heavy metal music, 2023 in rock music, and 2023 in country music exist. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzaplayer219, a general discussion about allowing the future event articles 30 days before might be good. It would also be in line with why people in the US are annoyed about Christmas decorations and music prior to Thanksgiving. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the redirect has never been recreated and thus a salt is unnecessary. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 15:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to encourage article creation per nom but maybe hold off on applying the halite. Salting it up would likely complicate things when there are other articles available on that stuff, and we have reliable information on when these relevant musical WP:CRYSTALs will finish forming. The current redirect would just WP:ASTONISH readers by taking them to a specific genre as argued by the nom. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 17:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget - Retarget to 2020s in music or create disambiguation page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. We'll see it come back within a month regardless of salt. – The Grid (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update - I just added some links to the page in question. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Agree that the original redirect made little sense. But the article has been created with plenty of entries now. 2023 is barely over a month away, so it's not surprisingly that there's already plenty of albums scheduled to come out. Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing administrator - Many of the comments were made prior to expansion of the page. Therefore, a relist might be in order. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:57, 27 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. Jay 💬 10:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• American invasion of Vietnam → Vietnam War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I think retargeting to the ground war section makes the most sense, as that event most closely resembles an invasion. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that level of specificity is needed. It's like limiting the scope of World War II to events after Pearl Harbour because it did not involve all continents until then. Yue🌙 06:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "American invasion of Vietnam" represents a communist POV on US involvement in the Vietnam War. There was no "invasion" in the generally accepted sense of the word, rather US involvement had been growing since the first Indochina War. There is no need for any change to the redirect. Mztourist (talk) 06:33, 21 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. Jay 💬 04:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll share some wisdom with you → Big City Life  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in article, an excerpt from the lyrics of the song. MB 03:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a notable part of the song. There is much better sites for searching for lyrics than Wikipedia. So I support the deletion. Roost^T_C(Please ping me) 01:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a common catchphrase for the song or where it needs to be pointed out separately. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:01, 23 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 03:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Orbit (Zedd album) → Zedd  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is nothing on the target article or in news sources I could find from a simple Google search to suggest Zedd ever intended to call an album Orbit; it was merely the name of his tour three years ago. This redirect seems like an assumption based on the name of the tour so delete as implausible. Ss112 03:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zedd has not released or announced any album bearing this name, and I can't find any evidence that this is a common nickname for one of his albums. CJ-Moki (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. Sounds like a disambiguation that won't ever be necessary. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, seems wholly implausible. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 16:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete he has an Orbit Tour but no album as such. This would cause confusion. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:54, 21 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 moved Motor neuron disease to the plural form at Motor neuron diseases, and redirected the singular form Motor neuron[e] disease to Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Motor neurone disease → Motor neuron disease  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was just changed from Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and now the hatnote there is wrong. The justification was that an alt spelling redirect should go to the same place as the other spelling, which does make sense. However, the ALS article says that ALS is AKA motor neuron disease. Motor neuron disease says it is about a group of disorders (ALS being one form), so it could be moved to Motor neuron diseases, allowing motor neuron[e] disease to go to ALS if that is the most common form of the disorder and thus the Primary Target. MB 01:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, redirecting the singular forms to ALS, as ALS and MND are used interchangeably. Rename Motor neuron disease to Motor neuron diseases. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename Motor neuron disease to Motor neuron diseases. Fun fact: I wrote an editorial for the main ALS/MND journal suggesting they delete motor neurone disease IRL because it was becoming confusing and outdated given that the "ALS Ice Bucket Challenge" became memeified --PaulWicks (talk) 12:24, 22 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).