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

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Contestants' Row (The Price Is Right(US)) → The Price Is Right#One Bid  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per ... WP:RDAB, I guess ... due to lack of spacing between a disambiguator that is located within a disambiguator? The properly-spaced title, Contestants' Row (The Price Is Right (US)), exists and targets the same target. Steel1943 (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on 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. ^Complex/_Rational 02:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Jupiter(Mythology) → Jupiter (mythology)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RDAB due to lack of space between article title and disambiguator. Its correctly-spaced title, Jupiter (Mythology), doesn't exist, but does it need to since Jupiter (mythology), the nominated redirect's target, exists? Steel1943 (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: WP:UNNATURAL. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Not an especially likely combination of mistakes, and anyone typing this should find the correct article at the top of the drop-down menu anyway, or if someone finishes typing it, the top of the search results. P Aculeius (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on 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. While a minority of editors maintain the usefulness of this and similar redirects, a majority favors deletion and is further backed by the guideline at WP:UFILM. Further discussion of whether the guideline is correct as-is should be taken up at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (films). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rudhran (upcoming film) → Rudhran  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per WP:UFILM. Theatrically released on April 14, 2023, title with "(upcoming)" no longer necessary. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. (The redirect had incoming links on 4 pages in the article space; I bypassed them just now. @Hey man im josh: For future reference, the incoming links in the article space really should be bypassed prior to the nomination being opened (the shortcut you cited, WP:UFILM, even instructs to bypass such links before opening the nomination), especially since on these nominations, there's a perennial argument from some participants to "keep per existence of page views" ... though I disagree with any such opinions since I consider page views irrelevant for these specific cases.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thanks @Steel1943, you're absolutely right and that's a mistake that I won't make again. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong keep for now. This received over 58,000 hits in the 30 days before the nomination, and about 7000 between the release date and the nomination. While Steel1943 considers people still actively using a redirect to find Wikipedia content irrelevant, they have never made a convincing rationale argument why we should make our readers' lives more difficult - especially when there is absolutely no benefit to Wikipedia from doing so. Revisit the redirect when people have stopped using it, in most cases this is likely to be somewhere between about 3-4 weeks and a few months but outliers exist at both ends. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  ...And there's the "keep per page views" claim. Time and time again, these discussions have been closed to "delete" to a point where WP:UFILM exists since deletion is the result nearly 100% of the time. (For an almost exhaustive list of such discussions which have occurred over the last almost half-decade, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 17#More "upcoming" no longer upcoming.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  And once again the reason the argument keeps getting made is ignored and not refuted. When you can explain why deleting redirects that readers is use is not making readers lives harder, why we should not care about readers, and/or why unnecessarily inconveniencing readers is not harmful to the encyclopaedia then I will stop trying to prevent the same mistake being made again and again. Just because we harmed the encyclopaedia before does not mean we are compelled to do it again. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'm not ignoring the argument, but rather invalidating it due to the extreme amount of precedence and evidence. Just because I'm choosing not to spend as much energy debating my stance as you are doesn't make my stance any less powerful or any less valid. And due to consensus repeatedly being to delete these redirects, I think that speaks volumes higher than anything I haven't already said here or in any of the previous discussions that all resulted in "delete". Steel1943 (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  In fact, for the closer's reference, here's the list again:

  1. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#More "upcoming" no longer "upcoming"
  2. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 1#Another batch of redirects with "upcoming" that have been released)
  3. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 19#Even more "upcoming" no longer "upcoming")
  4. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 17#Unreleased and/or cancelled media subjects with "upcoming" redirects
  5. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 14#"Upcoming" redirects)
  6. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Target subjects no longer "upcoming")
  7. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 9#"Upcoming" subjects no longer upcoming)
  8. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 18#More (upcoming "film name") redirects)
  9. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 3#Rebecca (upcoming film))
  10. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 19#Already released "upcoming" redirects)
  11. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 22#"Upcoming" redirects no longer upcoming)
  12. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 15#"Upcoming" redirects no longer upcoming)
  13. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 28#"Upcoming" no longer upcoming
  14. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 9#Upcoming redirects)
  15. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 5#More released films that are still upcoming)
  16. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 17#More "upcoming" no longer upcoming

  ...I would hope that one day these would become WP:G6 deletions, but the same arguments against the pretty clear repeated precedence seem to prevent that from happening. Steel1943 (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Once again you haven't, as pointed out below, actually addressed any of the arguments but instead engage in the fallacy of an appeal to tradition. These will never become G6 deletions because they are neither maintenance nor uncontroversial (while I'm the most vocal proponent of keeping redirects while they are still in use I'm not the only one). Thryduulf (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I've addressed the arguments by deeming them irrelevant. I've exhausted my energy on this. Any arguments I have, I have made on previous discussions. I find it amazing that almost every time one of these requests come up, it's like the same thing all over again, and quite frankly, the horse is beat. Fallacy my ass, it's called consistency. It's all for the sake of consistency. Strawmen are popping up everywhere. Steel1943 (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  You have deemed them irrelevant to you, but consensus is that WP:R#K4 and WP:R#K5 are very relevant to redirects. Nobody is forcing you to engage with these discussions, but if you do wish to engage then don't complain when someone points out your arguments are flawed and that bluster is not the same as refutation. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Nah, I could give less of a care about someone stating my arguments are flawed because I don't believe they are due to all I have already said. I'm just tired of feeling the need to say it all again and again. But eh, guess that's Wikipedia since every discussion is like a fresh start. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  You wouldn't have to say it all again and again if you engaged with the arguments instead of repeatedly dismissing them as irrelevant without having done so despite claims to the contrary. I think that doing the best we can for our readers and avoiding unnecessary harm to the encyclopaedia is something that it is worth expending the energy to fight for, no matter how many editors get annoyed by my doing so. I was about to say that deleting them all would be easier, and while that is true I realised that just ignoring them is even easier. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Already engaged with the arguments probably about 10 times in previous discussions. Exhaustion has set in, and I have no desire to reinvent the wheel or stand on a soapbox. I've said any and all relevant points regarding this discussion in the previous discussions. This is turning into a pointless time sink of redundancy. You've made it abundantly clear that our opinions differ: Stop poking the bear. Good freaking day. Steel1943 (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. The point is that the argument of Thryduulf's above is not refuted. It, habitually, isn't refuted. Over and over again it is ignored, and !voters opt for the easy solution of Delete. Incorrect. in flocks. I skimmed through those many discussions and found only one argument that remotely addresses the point – but it seems a good one! In this RfD, Deryck Chan said:

  Delete all. My guess is that the thousands of hits we have been getting over the last month were a result of external search engines caching our redirects. From that perspective, it is actually harmful to keep these redirects after the films cease to be "upcoming" (have been released in all markets where a release is planned), so downstream data users don't continue to think that the films are still "upcoming". Deryck C. 14:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  I'm interested in hearing more about this, because this seems a likelier explanation than the current old-link one. I doubt there are significant links pointing to most upcoming films. Perhaps someone in the know can explain this further, and we might just arrive to a sane solution. By the way, backlinks should be checked every time irrespective of whether Deryck's argument holds up. Sometimes old links do exist. J947 † ^edits 03:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  If people are searching for a film as upcoming (likely because they don't know it's been released) then we want them to be able to find the article at the new title, if cached search engine results are the reason they are able to find the article and discover their search term is out of date then that is a Good Thing and something to encourage, not something we should be trying to avoid. I'm not an expert in these matters, but I haven't found any evidence that this is a significant thing anyway. The varied time that redirects continue to get used after release also suggests that it's not a significant factor (cache times are pretty consistent). Finally it really doesn't matter why people continue to use these redirects, all matters is that they do. It is our job not only to provide people with a reliable, neutral article about notable topics but also to enable people to find that article with the minium of effort (if this were not true then we would routinely delete redirects from moves, misspellings, misnomers, and similar redirects). Thryduulf (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There are 2 separate issues here: (a) how do readers come across the redirect, and (b) does the redirect help them. Let's focus on (a) at the moment. Currently this redirect is the 2nd result on a Google search of Rudhran (similar results for other search engines). It is receiving views that are whopping for a redirect – far exceeding what this RfD has caused. Now, here's a test. What happens to the pageviews if __NOINDEX__ (edit: oops fixed) is on the redirect, and in due course it is presumably unindexed? This change effects nil difference on old links, and nil difference on cached results (I presume). Back in a few days... J947 † ^edits 06:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Thanks for quoting my opinion from 2019. Search engines change over time but my guess is my comment four years ago still has some relevance. External caches aside, my thought about this RfD is that Thryduulf has placed an estimated timeframe of "3-4 weeks" onto his keep argument. If he's right, this RfD will naturally move towards a delete outcome after a few relists. Deryck C. 22:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  To be clear, what I said was in most cases [how long these redirects remain useful for] is likely to be somewhere between about 3-4 weeks and a few months but outliers exist at both ends. it is not a prediction that this specific redirect will or will not cease to be useful on that date. Additionally it is impossible reliably judge how much use a redirect is getting while it is listed at RfD (which is why the statistics in nominations are for the 30 days prior to nomination not a rolling 30-day period). Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Exactly!! No point delaying the inevitable! Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  As repeatedly explained, the point is that these redirects benefit our readers and thus the encyclopaedia now, that they likely wont be at some unknowable point in the future is irrelevant. We regularly delete and retarget other redirects when circumstances change such that the original target is no longer good/the best and these are no different. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  ...And as repeatedly explained, page views are irrelevant once the target subject is no longer upcoming due to the potential harm the fact that the redirect is now erroneous can cause. Again, time to back away from the horse carcass. Steel1943 (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  And yet, despite multiple requests in pretty much every discussion, nobody has been able to demonstrate any actual harm from these redirects, they just repeat the claims while completely ignoring the evidence that (a) people are continuing to use the redirects to find the exact content they are looking for, (b) the target article educates people about any misconceptions they may have, and (c) every other redirect from a misnomer, incorrect name, spelling error, etc, has the potential to cause harm in the same way without (in almost all cases) actually doing so.

  I know you don't like these redirects, and would really rather I stopped pointing out the flaws in your arguments, but I will not stop trying to prevent the harm to the encyclopaedia these redirects cause. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I already stated the harm these redirects cause (thanks for apparently ignoring my statements yet again), and I know you don't like my arguments either. I will do whatever I can to remove harm once harm shows its face, as with these redirects once the target subject is no longer "upcoming" for the reasons I have already stated. I read your arguments; I don't agree with them. You read my arguments; you don't agree with them. Awesome, but please stop these WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-like statements. (Geez, I need to back away from this horse too.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per Thryduulf. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Veverve (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Huh? What does WP:CRYSTAL have to do with this? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Veverve I really don't understand this rationale? WP:CRYSTAL is about the future, this is debate about the past vs the present. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Haha, I pointed this invalidity out last time too, and was evidently ignored. J947 † ^edits 06:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Articles should not be about planned-to-exist-projects that do not exist at all, nor should redirect imply totally nonexistent planned-to-existe-projects are treated ton WP. Veverve (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Articles should not be about planned-to-exist-projects that do not exist at all, nor should redirect imply totally nonexistent planned-to-existe-projects are treated ton WP This is almost entirely both incorrect and irrelevant. Firstly, we are discussing redirects so what articles should and should not exist is irrelevant here, what matters only is that the targets do exist. Secondly the target article is not about a "planned-to-exist-project[] that do[es] not exist" but about a (mostly) completed project that does exist; however some projects that don't exist (yet) but which are or were planned to are notable and there is (and should be) no restriction on redirects pointing to those.

  If you meant "this redirect falsely implies there is an upcoming film named Rudhran" then that would be a relevant, but incorrect comment - redirects from misnomers and other common errors, mistakes and similar incorrect or outdated beliefs are common and good because they take readers who believe (for whatever reason) something that isn't' correct and takes them to a neutrally written article that educates them (and remember that educating people is Wikipedia's primary goal) and corrects misconceptions, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per Thryduulf. I did not go and look at what was discussed and agreed upon at those 16 RfDs, but I did go over each of them, only to check if I happened to be a participant in any capacity, and found only the 2023 March 17th one, in which I did not vote. But since J947 has already skimmed those discussions and found only one argument about external search engine caches, and a subsequent agreement of a 3-4 weeks wait, I don't see why we should delete it now considering this is still getting 2000 + 1000 + 700 in the last 3 days.
  If the summary of those 16 RfDs was what has become WP:UFILM, then this has created a serious and perennial WP:BURO process problem, with the wordings ... these redirects should be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. (emphasis mine) It has created the assembly line of the upcoming film titling process with the mandatory last stop at RfD. If the word was "may" and not "should" we wouldn't be in this quandary. But the text at WP:UFILM had support of everyone including Thryduulf, so until we have a CSD for upcoming films, or a change of wordings at UFILM (such as waiting a month after the move), we'll continue to play out this game at RfD for EVERY film with upcoming in its title! Jay 💬 18:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  My support for UFILM was because I saw it as the least bad version that stood a chance of getting consensus (given the vehement, almost ideological, opposition to even considering whether the redirects might still be in use), and knowing that not everything nominated at RfD would be deleted. I would love to see it amended but that will take a few consensuses at RfD first I think. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  We can easily add a 30-day waiting period to UFILM. In fact, I think that part of the CSD proposal had the agreement of mostly everyone. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Okay. The views seem to have vanished, presumably as a (belated) result of this redirect being unindexed from its prominent position on search results. Therefore, I suggest that is the cause of the gargantuan views this redirect has received.
  So: it could be that search engines would only display that link if this redirect was not a redirect technically (i.e., at RfD or CSD-tagged). In that scenario, starting RfDs on redirects with the (upcoming film) disambiguator very soon after page moves frustrates many (but enlightens some about our inner workings!) by increasing the number of clicks they must take just because they pressed the wrong link out of the two that direct to Wikipedia.
  Or it could be that the redirect shows up on search results irrespective of whether it is at RfD. Which means that it is slightly annoying, and should be deleted. However, sending it to RfD makes it more annoying for the reader, unless the redirect is re-enabled. CSD is a potential option.
  Or it could be that the results of the experiment on this redirect do not accurately reflect other (upcoming film) redirects. But I think they just might. So please, opinions. J947 † ^edits 04:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Tagging with ((NOINDEX)) would be a technical solution, but this would involve a software change since __NOINDEX__ is disabled in article space. So perhaps raise an enhnacement request so that an admin can noindex the UFILM-specific redirects intended for deletion? On the pageviews, this still has 20, 15 and 18 in the last four days. Jay 💬 06:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I had already NOINDEXed this redirect. It's possible for articles under 90 days in age. J947 † ^edits 06:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I see, so the latest pageviews are not coming from an external search cache? Jay 💬 09:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  11 and 22 views in the last 3 days. Blog sites link to the upcoming wiki links and will continue to be linked even after the film is released. Some sites are 1, 2, 3, 4. How would the rules for upcoming-titled links be different from other redirects that are linked externally because of missing a page move or of misspellings? Jay 💬 05:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I really don't know. I'd like some others to plug in the gaps: what we've got so far is that the views this redirect received were mostly caused by a stray link in search engines. Some of them were also caused by this RfD naturally, but as you say views have remained somewhat abnormally high – could backlinks, or search caching, also play a role? Does that stray link occur for all redirects, or only ones at RfD? (I suggest the latter.) Does a similar situation apply to other recent R from moves too? J947 † ^edits 06:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete – I find it funny that every time a redirect like this is nominated at RfD, the same people !vote to delete with the same arguments, and the same people !vote to keep with the same arguments. Honestly, it's frustrating and a waste of editors' time. The consensus has been clear in the past: these redirects should not exist. We've heard the pageviews argument from Thryduulf countless times, and there has never been an RfD where enough participants are convinced and the discussion closes as keep. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Consensus has never been clear. Discussions have been closed based on narrow readings of discussions where the complete lack of anybody refuting the argument for pageviews with anything other than appeals to tradition (as you are doing here) have been ignored. Even if past consensuses were clear, that's irrelevant to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The argument has been ignored because it's a weak argument in the eyes of many. Yes, these redirects still receive pageviews, that's an indisputable fact that no one's disagreeing with. But based on the outcomes of the discussions in the past, we know that the vast majority of editors believe these redirects should be deleted regardless; we cannot accommodate every single blogger on the Internet. I do not anticipate that this consensus will change anytime soon. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Well hey, in this discussion, with the most considered (well, longest at least) arguments, it doesn't look like it will be closed as delete. Addressing an opposing argument just once would be nice, because that's evidently what we want and have barely seen. J947 † ^edits 23:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Kind of disagree with this statement (specifically regarding the belief this discussion will not be closed to "delete") since the primary reason for keeping (page views) was contradicted after this discussion continued to be open for over a month. You even seemed to contradict your own initial stance with your own findings! Either way, as stated somewhere else on this discussion, I agree with adding a 30-day minimum since the media ("upcoming" is not exclusive to films) has been released prior to nominating "upcoming" redirects per WP:UFILM. (However, with that being said, if somehow someone nominates one prior to such a 30-day threshold, I will still immediately support the redirect's deletion due to precedence and my belief of going ahead and taking care of the problem since it's been brought to the community's attention.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yeah, precedent becomes irrelevant once we start looking at how actually helpful and harmful these redirects are. Any tight threshold won't work. If we seriously retain the desire to delete redirects of negligible harm, it will be necessary to wait until pageviews have died down to 0. That said, these redirects could also be harmful – asking for opinions here – in that case, the situation differs completely. J947 † ^edits 22:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  "Yeah, precedent becomes irrelevant..." Dangit, you focused on that part of my statement. I put it in parentheses since I was trying to not make it a focus point at all: I don't intend to nominate anything "early" at this point since I'm getting sick as hell of these discussions. "Any tight threshold won't work." Well, that's the best thing we can do right now and nothing else is working, so unless we start somewhere or something, these annoying conversations are going to keep happening. Steel1943 (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This discussion is now rapidly hurtling toward a "no consensus" close, which would be a first... InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @InfiniteNexus: Yeah, if only discussions could go like the recent (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 7#Dream (upcoming film)) did ... WP:BEANS and all. Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  You know, this is going to keep happening for a long time except if we actually come to a conclusion about these redirect's utility. Which is what I'm trying to do here. So please consider how starting this RfD made what was effectively a maintenance template show up on external search results for rudhran and how precedent to keep nominating these redirects at RfD nearly straight away seems like it would be harmful to the reader. J947 † ^edits 23:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Agree, it is a waste of RfD time, and will continue to be, until we have UFILM fixed. As author of the UFILM text, what do you think of the change of wordings I suggested above? Jay 💬 10:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Responding to J947 and Jay:

  • please consider how starting this RfD made what was effectively a maintenance template show up on external search results for rudhran – I think it's safe to assume this only happened for this film because it's an Indian film that's largely unknown to the Western world, with a very limited number of major sites for search engines to index.
  • how precedent to keep nominating these redirects at RfD nearly straight away seems like it would be harmful to the reader – There is no precedent to nominate them "nearly straight away", in the past, redirects were typically nominated in large batches, without regard for how much time has elapsed since a film has been released (or received a title), but usually it's already been a month or two. I agree nominating these redirects too early may be harmful to readers, but nominating these redirects in general isn't harmful at all.
  • Agree, it is a waste of RfD time – I wholeheartedly agree. I wish there were enough support for a new speedy deletion criterion last time, but it just wasn't there.
  • what do you think of the change of wordings I suggested above – Do you mean changing "should" to "may"? I'm not sure about that, the intention of UFILM was to document the current consensus that these redirects shouldn't exist, i.e. they should be deleted. Deletion can either come in two ways, either through speedy deletion or XfD, but there was not enough support for a new CSD criterion. This is why UFILM says to nominate them to RfD, saying "may" implies that one may choose not to nominate such a redirect. I cannot come up with a scenario where this should happen.

  As I said above, I'm open to adding at least 30 days after a film has been released or received an official title to the UFILM text. Since there was already rough consensus for the length of a hypothetical grace period in the previous discussion, I think we can safely add that to UFILM without starting a new discusison. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'm not sure about point 1. For that hypothesis to be accepted we'd need to look at decent sample of such redirects. A good chunk are Indian films anyway – it's not like this (upcoming film) is an outlier. As to point 2: this discussion is the precedent I refer to. J947 † ^edits 22:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per Thryduulf and Jay. I would also say that UFILM's approach to redirects seems deeply problematic, and IMO the general principle of retaining non-harmful page move redirects should prevail. There is no evident harm that comes from these redirects existing even after the film has ceased to be upcoming, any more than there would be harm from (for example) having redirects for a title that a person bore in the past but no longer bears. -- Visviva (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Unlike redirects for a title that someone bore in the past, no one will refer to a film as upcoming or untitled after the film has been released or received a title, not even in past tense, so the redirects are completely useless. Many articles still use and will continue to use the Prince Charles redirect, because we can't retcon history, but all instances of XXX (upcoming film) would be replaced by XXX (2023 film) after the film comes out. Because these redirects are of no use to anyone, they can safely be deleted. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• delete. Oh so many reasons... Link text should be stable, so that targets are easy to find, creating temporary titles does not make it easier; The target does not mention any "upcoming" film, so the redirect is factually wrong; there is never (or hardly ever) any point in creating a page for (upcoming film), if the upcoming film is already notable, make the page about the film; if external sites use whatever (poor) naming style we don't have to change ours; whoever looks for "upcoming xxx" will certainly find "xxx" quite high in the search results, no need to spoon feed readers, they know how to search (or will learn soon) - Nabla (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per WP:UFILM: After a film receives a wide release or an official title, redirects such as Wikipedia (upcoming film)...are no longer accurate and thus misleading to readers. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on 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 retarget to Faerûn#Northern regions. (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond ^{To the left! To the right!} 18:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Narfell → Forgotten Realms  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer described at target; some passing mentions elsewhere. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Faerûn. BOZ (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Faerûn#Northern regions where it appears. Daranios (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on 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 retarget to Faerûn#Middle lands. (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond ^{To the left! To the right!} 18:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Calimshan → Forgotten Realms  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer described at target; some passing mentions elsewhere. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Faerûn. BOZ (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Faerûn#Middle lands where it appears. Daranios (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on 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 retarget to Drow#In the Forgotten Realms. (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond ^{To the left! To the right!} 18:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ghaunadaur → Forgotten Realms#Religion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer described at target, some mentions elsewhere. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Drow. BOZ (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Drow#In the Forgotten Realms. Daranios (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on 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 retarget to Silver Marches (accessory). (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond ^{To the left! To the right!} 18:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Taern Hornblade → Forgotten Realms#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Methrammar Aerasumé → Forgotten Realms#Characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Sernius Alathar → Forgotten Realms  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Jorus Azuremantle → Forgotten Realms  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not currently mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget all to Silver Marches (accessory). BOZ (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget all to Silver Marches (accessory). Daranios (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on 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 retarget to Lich (Dungeons & Dragons)#Deities. (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond ^{To the left! To the right!} 18:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Velsharoon → Forgotten Realms#Religion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer described at target, but mentioned in a few other articles. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Lich (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Lich (Dungeons & Dragons)#Deities where he appears. Daranios (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on 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 retarget to Elf (Dungeons & Dragons). (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond ^{To the left! To the right!} 18:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Evermeet → Forgotten Realms  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer described at target. Mentioned in a few other articles, but note also Evermeet: Island of Elves. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Elf (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Elf (Dungeons & Dragons). Daranios (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on 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 retarget to Drow#In the Forgotten Realms. (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond ^{To the left! To the right!} 18:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Selvetarm → Forgotten Realms#Religion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer described at target. Has a few mentions in multiple other articles though. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Drow. BOZ (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Drow#In the Forgotten Realms. Daranios (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on 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 retarget to Giant (Dungeons & Dragons)#Giant-kin. (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond ^{To the left! To the right!} 18:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ulutiu → Forgotten Realms#Religion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer described at target. Passing mention exists at Giant_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#Giant-kin. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Giant (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Giant (Dungeons & Dragons)#Giant-kin. Daranios (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on 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 retarget to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities#Deities of the Forgotten Realms. (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond ^{To the left! To the right!} 18:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Cyric → Forgotten Realms#Religion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer mentioned at target. Search brings up a lot of, partly passing, mentions in various articles though, so probably an option to retarget it. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities#Deities of the Forgotten Realms where he appears. Daranios (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on 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 retarget to Catti-brie#Taulmaril the Heartseeker. (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond ^{To the left! To the right!} 18:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Taulmaril → Forgotten Realms  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer mentioned at target; redirecting to Catti-brie#Taulmaril the Heartseeker (possibly also creating Taulmaril the Heartseeker) seems appropriate but I'm entirely unfamiliar with this universe. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Catti-brie. BOZ (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Catti-brie#Taulmaril the Heartseeker. Daranios (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on 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 retarget to The Crystal Shard. (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond ^{To the left! To the right!} 18:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Icingdeath → Forgotten Realms  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer mentioned at target. Some passing mentions in other article; not also Icingdeath and Twinkle. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to The Crystal Shard. BOZ (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to The Crystal Shard where it appears. Daranios (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on 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 retarget to Faerûn#Middle lands. (non-admin closure) Diverging Diamond ^{To the left! To the right!} 18:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Prespur → Forgotten Realms  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Faerûn. BOZ (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Faerûn#Middle lands where it appears now. Daranios (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on 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 keep as wrong venue. Nominator has already been advised to take this discussion to WP:RM. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Geothermal → geothermal gradient  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget/Disambiguate. This is a really odd redirect, which is probably a result of us not (prior to ~a couple months ago) having a generalised article on geothermal activity. There are a couple of articles that are much better suited as redirect targets. For example Geothermal energy, Geothermal power, and geothermal activity. I noticed this because I was retargeting/adding links to the new geothermal activity article where appropriate, and realised that the majority of links that should now lead to the latter were currently targeted at the redirect, which brings you to the geothermal gradient article. This article is only tangentially related to the topic and about something that is much more technical than what the average user is looking at, so all in all not really a logical redirect. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, aparrently a disambiguation page already exists, but someone prevented a redirect to that page being made based on the suggestion that the disambiguation page should be moved instead. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this is the wrong forum for the request. You want a WP:RM discussion, which would allow participants to weigh in about whether there's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or not. Interested editors may be unaware of the discussion here. - Eureka Lott 19:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks for the information. I'll take it there tomorrow. 👍 --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yeah, I agree that "Geothermal (disambiguation)" should just be titled "Geothermal", and this redirect deleted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on 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 Speedy Delete as uncontroversial to make way for a draft Whpq (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hannah Meul → Germany at the 2022 European Championships  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Links to Germany at the 2022 European Championships. Doesn't seem useful to redirect an athlete who has had success at multiple, world-class events to an article about one edition of a single event. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 16:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Question: I've now created Draft:Hannah Meul that can be moved into the article space. Can I request a move to replace the redirect, or will the redirect need to be deleted first? Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 13:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on 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. ✗plicit 05:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Template:ScoutingWikiProject → Template:WikiProject Scouting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Please delete the unused redirect. --evrik ^(talk) 16:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This is a ((r from move)) and employs a former typical naming convention for WikiProject templates. What would we gain by deleting it? - Eureka Lott 20:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It hasn't been used in a long time, maybe more than ten years. People occassionally use it and it messes with the User:WP 1.0 bot. --evrik ^(talk) 14:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Is it problematic because it's not used or problematic because it is used? It can't be both. - Eureka Lott — Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 28 April 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Is there a way to assess how many links there are to the WikiProject through this redirect from outside Wikipedia that would be broken if this redirect is deleted? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Fix bots to deal with the encyclopaedia, don't "fix" the encyclopaedia to work around badly programmed bots. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on 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 12:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Schwarzer Deutschers → Afro-Germans  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Was left after an undiscussed page move. No likely typo. In German, it is ridiculously ungrammatical (The correct singular would be "Schwarzer Deutscher", the correct plural "Schwarze Deutsche"). Rsk6400 (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: Not a remotely likely search term. Looks like someone just took the German singular and tried to pluralize it like it's English. AddWittyNameHere 15:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on 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 12:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Fuerzas Represivas → Guacamaya (hacktivist group)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Fuerzas represivas" in Spanish is a generic (leftist-POV) term for police or other state security forces and does not specifically refer to this group's activities (which, somewhat confusingly, are primarily in opposition to "fuerzas represivas" ). Deletion seems most appropriate as there isn't a good WP:RLOTE-compliant target to my mind. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I made the redirect because it was the name of a leak they did and it was the biggest in history Softlemonades (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see them referred to as "Operación Fuerzas Represivas"; are there any examples of RS referring to it as just "Fuerzas Represivas", without "Operación"? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 13:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom Rsk6400 (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).