This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 20, 2023.
Kekistan Zindabad
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 per author request. ✗plicit 05:49, 22 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).
Ravi Kant(surgeon)
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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 20:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Ravi Kant (surgeon), is the target of the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it was at this title for less than a day in 2016. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:43, 24 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).
Otello(Rossini)
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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 20:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, Otello (Rossini), is the target of the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it was at this title for around 4 minutes in 2005. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 24 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 Brain(comics)
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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 20:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The title with the correct spacing, The Brain (comics), is a redirect that targets the same page as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it was at this title for around 3 days in 2005. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:49, 24 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).
Actual
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.
This redirect to Potentiality and actuality doesn't make sense. Even ignoring that actuality (the state of being real) and actual (being real) refer to different things, the "potentiality and actuality" article is specifically about 'actuality' as used Aristotelian physics/metaphysics, and not in the general sense. If this is re-targeted, I think Existence is much more suitable. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 16:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, soft redirect to Wiktionary:actual per the fact content has been repeatedly created at this title. Steel1943 (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps switch to reality. I am an editor of the article involved (which has however not been much edited for a long time). F4U: As per the 3rd sentence of the article: "Actuality, in contrast to potentiality, is the motion, change or activity that represents an exercise or fulfillment of a possibility, when a possibility becomes real in the fullest sense." So "actuality" in this Aristotelian sense is not "being real" even if there is a sort of connection. I think a more suitable adjective for the special Aristotelian term would be something like "actualized", "activated", or even "actuated". The term "actual" OTOH might better redirect to reality, rather than existence (or being). Those are two articles and my understanding is that the terms real and actual are more about understanding the character of existence, which is more like the original Aristotelian approach, than trying to grok the contrast between existence/being and non-existence. Reality currently even has a subsection on potentiality and actuality, so that seems a better fit?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of these options seem to be potentially misleading, considering that the word "actual" tends to be an adjective or adverb, all the options for retargeting mentioned here are nouns, and none of the options contain the word "actual" anywhere in it (which would establish a strong connection to the redirect.) For these reasons, we cannot assume a reader searching this redirect would be trying to find any of these topics. Steel1943 (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of actual (from which actuality derives), in the sense of "existing in acto", is important and widely used in philosophy. That's why I think the entry should be kept. On the other hand, the problem of lack of context could be solved by transforming the redirect page into a disambig page (including actual idealism, potentiality and actuality, actual infinity, for instance). Yone (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bunch of obscure WP:PTMs right there, and those aren't included on disambiguation pages. Wikipedia search results would be more helpful, which can only be accomplished in a clean way if this redirect is deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this one in the review queue and was planning on nominating it once able to. That being said, a soft redirect to Wiktionary:actual seems suitable here because I'm not convinced there would be an encyclopedic topic that could be sought from "Actual". Utopes(talk / cont) 04:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Retarget or soft redirect? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak soft redirect no single clear target, and I agree with Utopes that it is unlikely an encyclopedic topic could be sought from "actual". 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:C0E:690C:D942:5CFE (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redir per above. Lots of meanings, not an encyclopedia article topic, and no clear place to redirect to a WP article. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:23, 28 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).
Tupinology
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. SMcCandlish or someone else can add a mention of the term at the target article. Jay 💬 07:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned at the article, and could not find any external sources during my looks to confirm that this is an actual phrase used to describe studies of the Tupi language. Utopes(talk / cont) 08:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is actually on reliable Portuguese dictionaries, such as Aulete and Michaelis—the translation is so trivial it should not be a problem at all. It can also be found on research papers, such as this one and this one (for instance, With the advent of Structuralism in Brazil in the fifties of the twentieth century and its dissemination in Brazilian universities, many criticisms were directed at Tupinology, i.e. the studies about ancient Tupi and those on Tupi-origin general languages that originated in Brazilian colonial times. This article analyzes such criticisms.) RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It seems that the term has been discussed in reliable sources, but there's still the issue of there being no mention of it in the target article; please discuss. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RodRabelo7, but add a sentence at the article mentioning tupinology, using the sources given above. I can do it if no one else more involved in the article wants to. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:21, 28 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).
Got this on my to-do list. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 16:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Food mold
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.
Unclear if this is referring to a mould being used as a cooking implement or mould that grows on food. "Mold (food)" has the same issue. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
retarget to the disambiguation page. Additionally, mold is also a foodstuff, not just the stuff that makes food go bad, or the form for shaping food. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:51, 22 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).
West St Leonards area
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.
We already got a redirect for West St Leonards to the same target so this is an unlikely search term and redundant to that. Very low usage for this redirect too. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep ... but it's not erroneous, so WP:CHEAP may apply. Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Redundant" is almost never a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But, it's not useful at all and it's an unlikely search term. If it was at all useful, it wouldn't make it to RfD in the first place. Pkbwcgs (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many redirects that are useful get nominated at RfD, either because people don't know and/or understand WP:CHEAP or because there is a particular reason or context in which it is useful that they don't know. In this specific case, it seems like a very plausible search term to me - people are looking for the western area of St. Leonards and/or the area around West St. Leonards railway station. Thryduulf (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existence of similar redirects usually isn't enough to overcome the fact that something is a plausible search term. At worst this falls into the category of "not worth creating, not worth deleting". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 20:12, 27 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).
Shaik
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. While RfD does sometimes effect non-controversial moves per WP:NOTBURO, this is a full-on move request and needs to go to the proper venue, as described below by SMcC. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Create disambiguation article for Shaik. I attempted to do so, but since I was reverted, I am bringing the discussion here per WP:BRD, since Sheik has an article. Jax 0677 (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Thank you for your suggestion. I am afraid that doing so before this discussion is closed might be perceived as circumventing the WP:BRD process. Should I not wait until this thread is adjudicated? MPGuy2824 "Restored revision 1144377902 by EmausBot" stating that "This is just a different spelling for the same word"/"No need for a separate disambiguation article". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wouldn't circumvent BRD because you aren't repeating the edit at the same title. If you want to be doubly sure though, create the disambig in draft space or your user space. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 22 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).
Automotive strategy consultant
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. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this redirect seems to not be mentioned or identified in the target article. Readers looking up this redirect will seemingly not find the information they may be looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some people using this might find what they are looking for at Management consulting (where Strategy consulting redirects; strategy consultant is a redlink but arguably should point to the same place), but as there is no content there specific to the automotive industry this wont help everyone. The thing that gives me pause over recommending deletion over the imperfect retarget is that search results for the redirect title don't find the general consulting article, the first two pages are almost exclusively people and companies that have been engaged in some sort of consulting related to the automotive industry rather than the article about the topic/concept that someone using the term is looking for. Regardless, I don't support keeping as is. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak retarget to Management consulting as that will help some people while search results will help nobody (per my comment above). This isn't a great solution, but in the absence of other suggestions it's the least bad one I've been able to think of. Thryduulf (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very specific term with no content on enwiki. This has been around since 2007, but limited page views. To know if this is helpful to any new target, we may want to link it at some article. Jay 💬 06:16, 27 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).
PSA (SZA album)
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 💬 17:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SZA has no album named "PSA", only a song titled one from the album SOS. Unlikely for the song to be confused with the album and that there are many Wikipedia readers searching for either SOS or "PSA" using these exact keywords. Elias 🌊 💬 "Will you call me?" 📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 13:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. False speculation redirect from the time SZA started the rollout of the SOS era. "PSA" only ended up being the title for a track. Lk95 (talk) 13:39, 20 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).
Patrick Chen
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. There's clear consensus against keeping, and a rough consensus against disambiguating. If someone does want to go forward with a DAB, that can be handled at AfD if necessary. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 00:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is not mentioned at the target. On a related note, I vaguely remember a number of past discussions from a while ago across various forums, from AfC to AfD about students(?) involved with this poll. This seems to be something of a leftover title from that situation. It doesn't seem like there would be any reason for this individual to be discussed at this page, so I feel this could be safely deleted. Utopes(talk / cont) 06:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The name was originally as a part of the article most recently in October. I disagreed with the next edit deleting some information from this section but plan to make a proper edit fixing it soon and anticipate keeping this name, as it is a key person to the section. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 05:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more try. Also Belichickoverbrady has not yet made the edit to the target to keep the name. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I still vote keep, but wanted to note that I've made an edit restoring the name to the page. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since he is now mentioned at the target as one of the founders of the poll. Since the poll is a major section of the article, this redirect thereby should be kept. KangarooGymnast (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shhh to facilitate search. One-off mentions of different people with this name in multiple articles, this is not a disambig candidate. Jay 💬 06:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jay. This is too common a name to exclusively refer to one non-notable guy who was a co-founder of a non-notable project of something notable; but insufficient coverage of any people by this name to create a DAB page. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:13, 28 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).
LIst of FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship qualifications (AVC)
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. Although no single reason for keeping gained a consensus on its own, there is a consensus that it is better to keep this redirect than to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The double capital in "LIst" makes this an implausible title to replicate. Utopes(talk / cont) 05:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh keep, harmless misspelling that we don't need to waste time discussing. Cremastra (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete it was at this title for a few months but does seem like a good example of WP:COSTLY like Cl0ck. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 07:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. COSTLY arguments don't apply to redirects from moves, because in keeping such a redirect we aren't saying that it would be an acceptable redirect to create de novo, just that due to its history it should not be deleted. The fact that an article existed at a title for a nontrivial period of time is almost always a reason to keep it, unless someone can demonstrate a clear harm (like a patently misleading title). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 06:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the target is in list format, and there is no corresponding redirect with the properly capitalized "List" title. Jay 💬 07:44, 28 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).
P. W.
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.
Retarget to PW or delete: There exists many people with an initial of "P. W.", including P. W. Singer, P. W. Vaughan, PW Botha (rugby union), and others, as well as non-people who can also be referred to as PW (see the PW disambiguation page). Silcox (talk) 05:49, 20 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.
Comment This looks like either an error or a left over from a history merger (in either case speedy deletion criterion G6 will apply), but I'd like to hear from Uncle G just in case I'm wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shaidar cuebiyar (talk·contribs) did a copy-and-paste bogus "move", and this is the redirect that xe put in place on top of the main edit history after copying the content to a new page. The main edit history is beneath where xe copied and pasted it, now. I've left the redirect in place because I'm not taking any position on what title the article should be at. I just wikignomed the copy-and-paste "move" back into a real move. So this is effectively what things would look like had an actual move happened with the move tool and a redirect was left behind. All of you get to decide about the page title and the redirect. Fixing up the talk pages so that the draft namespace wasn't too messed up was the complex bit. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry folks, did not see this was up for a move discussion. I tried doing a Redirect instead, I'm sorry if I fluffed it and annoyed anyone here. There may be better titles for this article but I felt Independent Counter-terrorism Police SubdivisionPolicji was someone's cut and paste error and tried to fix it by removing redundant Policji.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not understand what happened, but this part-English part-Polish title looks to be erroneous and may be deleted per nom. Jay 💬 18:18, 27 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).
Social media forum
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.
These two pages are currently listed as double soft redirects. I'm wondering whether the pages should be kept as is, deleted, or retargeted. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see no problems with the both of the double soft redirects. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SSRT (and the template documentation), ((double soft redirect)) seems intended for linking to sister projects, not to two different articles. I therefore don’t believe these should be kept as is - on the face of it, I’d be tempted to say that I don’t believe there should be double soft redirects in mainspace. I’ll do a bit more digging and will probably add a bolded !vote later for my preference on retargeting/deleting, but I just wanted to get this here first. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 19:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A new type of set-index/disambiguation-page should be classified to handle multiple sister site destinations in place of double-soft-redirect. (A sistering-page?) -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m leaning very weak retargetsocial media forum to social media, and deletesocial bookmarking forum (& move the draft currently at Talk:Social bookmarking forum to draftspace). Both terms could be ambiguous (hence why I’m guessing they were created as double redirects), which could cause confusion to readers looking for information on either topic - an X and Y-type situation (potentially engaging WP:R#D1 and D2).My reason for very weakly !voting to retarget social media forum is because I found at least one source using the phrase to refer to social media sites (e.g. [1] - ...the social media forum and discussion site Reddit), as well as the fact that an internet forum could arguably be seen as a type/subtopic of social media (whereas I don’t think internet forums are seen as a type/subtopic of social bookmarking, or vice versa). However, I couldn’t find sources that use the phrase social bookmarking forum in a similar way. (Also, the fact that social bookmarking forum may be an ((R with possibilities)) might also make it worth deleting per WP:R#D10/WP:REDLINK.)Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 21:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget both to Internet forum. Internet forums are a medium of social media, which can be shown via swapping "internet" and "social media" and still communicating the same message. The key identifier in both titles is "forum", placed at the end to conclude both search terms. Without this distinction, "social media" is just a partial match for the full thing. The equivalent would be having "internet forum" target "internet"; it loses a significant part of the search term.
Due to the distinction of "forum" at the end of both titles, Internet forum is a much more distinct target than social media is, which is itself a very vague concept in 2023 that covers thousands of apps and websites. Specifying "forums" implies seeking the forum subset of social media, where Reddit is mentioned as an internet forum at the target page. To my understanding and history with, all forums are social media, but not all social media are forums. Utopes(talk / cont) 09:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely do not keep as double soft redirects per Smart kitten. I don't find Internet forum a useful target - bookmarking is not mentioned, and the reader doesn't get info on social media forum. Weak retarget social media forum to social media per Smart kitten, infact weak refine to Social media#Definition and features, otherwise delete. Delete Social bookmarking forum as unclear, unless there is a target that talks about it. Move talk page to draftspace per Kitten. Jay 💬 13:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 00:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Might as well relist this, considering that both of the nominated redirects transclude ((Double soft redirect)), which is currently being deleted per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 12#Template:Double soft redirect. In other words, there really should not be a lack of consensus (such as what traditionally happens with a "no consensus" close of a discussion) since the redirects technically cannot remain in their current state. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update regarding this relist: ((Double soft redirect)) has now been deleted. During this process, the templates were completely removed from the nominated redirects, currently leaving the redirects with no target(s). Steel1943 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RetargetSocial media forum to Internet forum; Internet forums are a form of social media, while social media does lots and lots of things that aren't forums (from instant messaging to birthday reminders to photo sharing to whatever). Retarget Social bookmarking forum to Social bookmarking, since that's highly specific, and "forum" in this one doesn't mean "Internet forum" in the social-networking discussion/chat/debate sense, it means "venue/hosting provider/conduit/website". — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per SMcCandlish, who I think makes reasonable cases for both proposed targets—although I wouldn't lose sleep over the former going to Social media instead. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 20:06, 27 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).
Wikipedia:SPECTRUM
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. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 06:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recently created shortcut that hasn't been used anywhere. I'm created this RFD because I highly question the need for WP:SPECTRUM to point at a bot-dictionary entry about the very niche concept of the spectrum/threshold of usefulness, and cluttering that entry with a hatnote pointing at WP:AUTIST like was done here.
This shortcut should be retargeted elsewhere, possibly at WP:AUTIST, or deleted, IMO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at the least per nom. Izno (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have a use for it, even if you don't. Whether to have a hatnote at that glossary entry (I removed it again for you since you object to it) has no bearing of any kind on an RfD discussion. There is no deletion rationale here. I wouldn't terribly mind if it were retargeted to the same place WP:AUTIST goes (the place the hatnote referred to), but I'll just end up creating some other shortcut for that glossary item anyway, since I have use of one. PS: "Hasn't been used anywhere" is never a rationale for deleting or usurping a new redirect, since they're all always not used yet right after they are created. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest WP:USEFULNESS if you need one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but honestly an argument to ursurp that to redirect to the same target as WP:USEFUL is a lot more compelling than the one to make WP:SPECTRUM go to where WP:AUTIST goes, since the similarity of USEFUL and USEFULNESS is quite close and people might reasonably confuse them. If SPECTRUM gets usurped to go to AUTIST, I'll probably go with something more obscure like WP:SPECUSE or something, so I don't end up right back in RfD again. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neutral on the proposed retargeting versus deletion. Anomie⚔ 01:33, 25 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).