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 💬 08:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Jennifer Little (lawyer) → Georgia election racketeering prosecution  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Jennifer Little → Georgia election racketeering prosecution  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

A redirect for a lawyer who is only referred to once, offhandedly within a quote inside the References section. Without any further context beyond this, this redirect is unhelpful at best and harmful towards reader experience at worst. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There is no content about this person, and (relevant to the undisambiguated title I've added to this discssussion) there are also passing mentions of an author and an actress (the latter was determined to be non-notable in 2010). Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I can't see how the redirect can be "unhelpful" – "at best"! – as there actually was a laywer by that name involved in that particular case, but never mind. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The presence of the redirect implies that we have content relevant to the search term at the target, but we don't. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Thryduulf. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 💬 08:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Marissa Goldberg → Georgia election racketeering prosecution  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A redirect for the name of a lawyer not mentioned at the target article. Without context or any information present at the target page, this redirect is harmful and leaves readers stranded without information on who this person is. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I cannot find that we have any information about a person by this name anywhere on the project. Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 💬 08:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Stephen Weiss (lawyer) → Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A redirect for a lawyer that is not mentioned at the target article. Neither Stephen (the lawyer) nor Susan have any encyclopedic content written on Wikipedia, and in this absence I believe that a redirect is not appropriate due to a lack of context at the target page for this title. Better to have as a red link to encourage article creation, if notable. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. We have no content about any lawyer by this name. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 💬 08:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Susan Necheles → Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nobody named Susan or Necheles at the target page, much less Susan Necheles. Looking into this case this person seems to be a lawyer for Donald Trump during this prosecution, but as it stands this redirect is wholly unwarranted for a living person to an article where they aren't even the least-bit mentioned by name. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, we have no content about anybody by this name. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 💬 08:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• MoS:dab → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The funkiness of this incorrectly-spelled pseudospace (MoS) aside, this title is a different enigma. Out of the MoS redirects, this is the only one starting with "MoS" that has a lowercase title succeeding the prefix. [1] It has no incoming links, and next to zero practical use because of the capital S and lowercase rest-of-title; this selective and uncommon capitalization is never present in any other PNR of this type.

In terms of alternatives, Mos:dab is by and large the more convenient "lazy-option", which does exist and gets 43 monthly pageviews. The use case for the full-lowercase is certainly there, and I do appreciate the ability to quickly type that shortcut (even if it would still work with just MOS:DAB, but that's a diff topic). Whereas, the 2 monthly pageviews for MoS:dab I believe have both been me gawking at its poor format. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, same as all the previous cases of this sort using "Mos:" or "MoS:". The "MOS:" pseudo-namespace exists by consensus (so that shortcuts to MOS sections stop using up all available mnemonic/memorable/sensible shortcut names), but there is absolutely no consensus to create near-duplicate "Mos:" and "MoS:" pseudo-namespaces. All these things live in mainspace and we should have no more of them than we actually need. This is one of the cases in which redirects are not "cheap".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SMcCandlish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete . Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 💬 08:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Top 30 PBR bull riders of all time → Professional Bull Riders  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No list of top 30 bull riders of all time. This page does not (and likely won't ever) have incoming links, and seems safe to delete. The page it was previously pointing at, PBR Top 30 by way of page movement, has since been converted to a redirect by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBR Top 30. However, just because that title had the chance to become a redirect, does not mean this all-time-title is also deserving of one. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As a disclaimer, I was the nominator in the linked AfD. I don't think that this makes sense as a redirect to continue to existing. It made sense when PBR Top 30 was its own article and this targetted that, but as Professional Bull Riders currently has no content on the PBR Top 30, this redirect can be safely deleted. If content is added related to that to the PBR page, then this can be recreated as a ((A2r)) of PBR Top 30. TartarTorte 21:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Time in office → List of presidents of the United States by time in office  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This very vague phrase could refer to any of a number of topics; some are included in Category:Lists of people by time in office, but neither anything in that category or any other article strikes me as a better target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is far too general a title to point to any single article and could refer to far too many things to make a manageable disambiguation page. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Too vague a term for redirecting to any one article, and too general for a disambiguation page. Drdpw (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too vague to point to any single article or be disambiguated. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Working time which is also the target of Office hours. Jay 💬 08:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague per the current target and the comment above regarding a potential alternative target, which is not related to the current target. Steel1943 (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 disambiguate. There are mostly-compatible proposals for precisely how to disambiguate that I will attempt to implement, but the page will likely benefit from further attention and potentially discussion by editors familiar with the subject. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Silk moths → Saturniidae  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Silk moth → Bombyx mori  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Silkmoth → Bombyx  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirects that should have a consistent target. Looking up the term, I find that there are generally 3 ways that it's used:

• A general name for all moths that produce silk in their larval stage. This includes many Saturniidae, Bombycidae, and Apatelodidae moths.
• As a name for the Bombycidae family, in contrast to other silk-producing moth families.
• As a name for the Bombyx mori species in particular.

The first one seems to be the primary usage of the term, however I didn't find any articles that would make a good target for this. Perhaps a stub WP:BCA page could be created, but would it fit for the redirects to target it and not, for example, Bombyx mori? Randi🦋^Talk_Contribs 09:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• write a broad concept article and target the redirects there as the general concept does seem to be primary and such will be most helpful to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• As a layman (i.e., in this context, a non-biologist), I would expect the term "silk moth" or "silkmoth" to refer to the adult stage of the silkworm, i.e., either the Bombyx mori, or the same together with its wild counterpart (Bombyx mandarina). Other moth species or sets of species whose larvae produce silk cocoons could be worth a disambiguation page or a general article pointed to by (or having as title) the plural form of the expression. — Tonymec (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. IIUC, the Saturniidae do not include the domestic silk moth, which means that I would not be interested in finding them by searching for "silk moths"; OTOH, still IIUC, the clade issuing from their common ancestor with the domestic silk moth, the Bombycoidea, includes the sphinx moths, which produce no silk. As a first try, I propose the following retargets:

• Silk moths → replace by a disambiguation page (not Silkworm (disambiguation) which is not about moths) or by a general article about all silk-producing caterpillars
• Silkmoth → Bombyx or Bombyx mori (I hesitate) with a banner at top mentioning the other article
• Silk moth → same as Silkmoth

Tonymec (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bombycoidea excluded Sphingidae until recently, and for most of post-1800 history they were in their own superfamily, Sphingoidea. In that sense, up until recently, the term "silk moths" did generally refer to all members of Bombycoidea, and ideally should have redirected there. Saturniidae are "giant silk moths", Apatelodidae are "American silk moths", and so forth, so "silk moths" is a catch-all for these families. Here is my suggestion: make "Silk moth" a disambiguation article, and have "Silk moths" and "Silkmoth" point to it. In the disambiguation article, the top entry should be Bombycoidea, as it was historically considered to be the silk moth clade (and SAY that it is understood in this historical usage); even most entomologists aren't aware that sphingids are now placed there, so this is still the most common and conventional use of the term. Then, list all the families with "silk moth" in their common names, and then list Bombyx mori and Bombyx mandarina. Yes, it's inconvenient to be routed through a disambiguation page instead of a simple redirect, but this is a moderately complicated tangle of names, and it's a good example of why we have disambiguation articles in the first place. Dyanega (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of the three targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sync the redirects ... but to which target is a mystery to me. Either way, a vote to "write a broad concept article" only works if the person who suggested it writes the article themselves, considering such a vote almost sounds like rationale to delete per WP:REDLINK, but it seems at least one of the three targets may be appropriate for retargeting. Steel1943 (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I originally planned to write a draft, but ran into trouble finding sources that focus specifically on the broad term "silk moth" rather than using it as a shorthand to a family or a species. My mistake, I should've perhaps tried to create it before starting the RfD. A disambiguation between the usages as suggested by Dyanega doesn't inherently need sources, and the name "silk moth" is mentioned in the target pages (though Bombycidae currently has the synonymous "silkworm moths" instead). Randi🦋^Talk_Contribs 17:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ...Or, at this point, delete all per WP:TNT to encourage WP:REDLINK may be the way to go here. Steel1943 (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dyanega's proposal above (indented under mine) looks good to me. (I would expect Bombyx mori and Bombyx mandarina near the top rather than near the bottom but that is secondary.) The only new article it requires is a disambiguation page, and then the three redirects under discussion would be made to point there. — Tonymec (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — retarget, disambiguate, or create article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no consensus so far, so I propose a solution for the closer: (temporarily) disambiguate and tag with ((Broad-concept article)) so WikiProject Disambiguation knows not to change any incoming links to bypass the page. Hopefully this is a good enough solution until someone comes along who can write the article, because leaving the redirects pointing at different articles as they are now is undoubtedly a poor decision. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate and tag per TechnoSquirrel69. Obviously these should point at the same target and ideally there should be an article, but until that happens, the second best option is to have a DAB page to different species/taxonomic groupings referred to as "silk moth". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patar knight (talk • contribs) 02:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Silk. I'm usually very wary of specific-to-general redirects, but there's still useful discussion about moths throughout that article. While "write an article" is always a noble sentiment, it's usually not a workable outcome unless someone just steps up and does it. Pointing to Silk seems like the best option for now. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for newly aired suggestion of Silk. Consensus agrees there should be a unified target, but no agreed target has been solidly identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I amended my vote above. Steel1943 (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 💬 08:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draba cana → Draba breweri  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target, Draba breweri is not the same plant as Draba cana. Plants of the World Online, World Flora Online, and NatureServe all list Draba cana as a separate species. It should probably be a redlink until someone has the time to create the page for the species to prevent confusion.

https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:83473-2 https://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000655100 https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.154105/Draba_cana 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since it has been brought to RfD (if I had come across it, I would have retargeted it to Draba and added the redirect category templates ((R plant with possibilities)) and ((R from species to genus))), but I think a red link/deletion is better way to deal with situations like this. Flora of North America discusses a circumscription of D. breweri that treated D. cana as a synonym, but it does not follow that circumscription. Plantdrew (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 08:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Upper Valachia of Moscopole and Metsovon → Moscopole  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is just a made-up thing. It's not mentioned in the target article. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 💬 08:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• T:centralised discussion → Template:Centralized discussion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

In addition to T:binggrae which is nominated below, this is the only other T: PNR that breaks convention and spells out the template's name verbatim in lowercase. At that point, the shortcut does not have much use as a cross-namespace redirect if it's just going to be the whole title anyway. The only other times a template is spelled at is for "Today's Featured Article" and "Picture of the Day", which at least are constructed properly (but none of these spelled-out PNR titles get many views to begin with). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, with the lowercase and alternate spelling, this isn't a standard PNR. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alternate spelling is irrelevant as it's the standard British spelling. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 💬 08:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• T:binggrae → Template:Binggrae  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary recently created PNR to a navbox with 2 links. Would not benefit from a T: namespace redirect, which are heavily limited in use. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. XNR to a template with very limited use - both the target and the redirect have a very small number of pageviews, which to me does not make the ‘cost’ of an T: XNR from mainspace worthwhile. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 15:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, practically unused and costly PNR ~ Eejit43 (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Cremastra (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 16:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Train leaving on track five for Anaheim, Azusa and Cu-camonga! → The Jack Benny Program  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This quote's exact format is nowhere to be found in the article, although the spirit is, somewhat. The article contains mention of a "Cuc-amonga", but no "Cu-camonga". Google hits don't even USE a hyphenated word to begin with in that slot. While both may be different manners of accounting for a held U-sound, in my eyes it's not helpful and unlikely to be searched. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 16:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• And now for something completely different (quote) → Monty Python's Flying Circus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

An unhelpful redirect, as And Now For Something Completely Different also contains this quote. I'm not convinced that pointing this at the other media would make this better, as it seems to be a WP:XY situation due to both works heavily leaning on this phrase. One said it first, the other was fully built around it.

The quote itself is a likely search term in reference to the spin-off which is mentioned at both places (although more so at the spin-off). The un-useful part comes from the "(quote)" clarifier, which is as confusing in this situation as a hypothetical "(sentence)" clarifier because it doesn't distinguish anything. I'd recommend deletion due to no clear target. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 16:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Say the secret word and ... → You Bet Your Life  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Comedy catchphrase not fully mentioned at the target article. While "say the secret word" is present in the article, it is never followed by "and", nor an ill-formatted ellipsis at the end (with a space between it and "and"). The second half follow-up that is alluded to in the title never comes up anywhere. It doesn't lend itself well as a search term due to the strange format, and has thusly never received an incoming link. Say the secret word would be a more suitable search term IF this quote were to be ever linked at, but that does not exist either. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 16:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Now, here's something we hope you really like! → Rocky the Flying Squirrel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect for a comedy catchphrase not mentioned at the target article. The quote itself aside, I feel this title would be completely strange to see as a reader on Wikipedia. If I didn't already know better, I would ask "Wikipedia is giving me an article that [Wikipedia] really hopes I would like? Who decided that?". I can't imagine it would be very useful for people searching this to end up at this page without any context whatsoever, even if it makes sense to fans of the show who are familiar with this quote. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 05:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Home (Basshunter lyric video) → Home (Basshunter song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redundant redirect from an implausible search term. With extremely rare exceptions on the order of "Thriller", a music video would virtually never qualify for its own standalone article as a separate topic from the song that it's the music video for, and lyric videos (which absolutely anybody can make and post to YouTube at any time whether it's "official" or not) have an even weaker prospect of independent notability than narrative videos do -- and since Home (Basshunter song) already exists as an article about the song, there's no compelling reason why it would need a separate redirect from a differently-disambiguated title representing its own lyric video. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The target article mentions the existence of a related "lyric video" in the top section, but I'm uncertain if its passing mention is enough to validate any utility this nominated redirect has. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 05:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• List of Spider-Man media by release date → Spider-Man  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No such list appears to exist at the target. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there are multiple lists of Spider-Man media including List of Spider-Man titles, Spider-Man in other media, Spider-Man in film, Spider-Man in television, etc. none of which are sorted by release date. There appear to be far, far too many different places Spider-Man has appeared to make a single list viable so there isn't scope for an article at this title either. Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Thryduulf. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A series of lists organised by decade might (I've not looked) be manageable but they do do not currently exist and I have no idea if the folk who edit the Spider-Man articles would be interested in creating and maintaining them. If they are created this would be a good redirect to a Lists of Spider-Man media by release date or other index to those lists, but again that doesn't currently exist. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).