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. Salvio ^giuliano 08:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Clayton Huff → Dream (YouTuber)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The name "Clayton Huff" was drawn from a dox, and never stated outright by Dream himself, thus constituting this redirect a privacy concern. Blubewwy (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Definitely agree. If his name comes from a doxx and can't be referenced reliably then it should not be listed on Wikipedia. Strugglehouse (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not mentioned in the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Information extracted from a doxing, privacy is not respected. ItsMario97 (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dream is a high profile figure with a publicly available full name, therefore nullifying privacy concerns. I find it kind of redundant not only removing his name from the article but also deleting a redirect containing his full name. It was not drawn from a dox, rather it was drawn from publicly available records and biographies. Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure going through records like that and posting it online is kind of how you dox people. Blubewwy (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You keep claiming this, but you have not provided any evidence for it, and per WP:BLPPRIMARY Do not use public records that include personal details. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So would you rather have an incomplete name section? It is basically confirmed that Clayton Huff is his full name, your efforts to remove it are redundant and will be inevitably reversed. Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we cannot reliability source it, then I would prefer both an incomplete name section and for this redirect to be deleted. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't provide any sources when you added that name. Please read WP:BLP fully before editing articles about living people. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 08:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahriman and Ormuzd → Zoroastrianism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ormuzd is not mentioned at the target, and WP:XY. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name of Ormuzd is mentioned, but under the variant Ahura Mazda. Ahriman and Ormuzd are the two opposing supreme deities of this famously dualistic religion, so the redirect doesn't strike me as inappropriate. – Uanfala (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Uanfala. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Consensus that the original creation was incorrect. @Misha Wolf: feel free to create a disambiguation page in its place. Legoktm (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Israeli spring → 2023 Israeli anti-judicial reform protests  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect was created on 20 Feb 2023. The editors of the target page are in agreement that it is erroneous. A Google search for the term "Israeli spring" returns just one hit supporting this use of the term and four hits using the term to describe events from 12 years ago. For details, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Israeli_anti-judicial_reform_protests#Israeli_spring? and also the comment associated with the removal (on 24 Feb) of the associated text from the target article. One could argue that the redirect should be switched to point to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Israeli_social_justice_protests but as the term "Israeli spring" doesn't appear to be in current use (see Google search results above), this is more likely to lead to confusion than removing the redirect. Misha Wolf (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've found this article in Foreign Policy magazine which uses the term "Israeli Spring" to refer to the current events in Israel. So that makes two instances (the first one was this article in The Guardian). There are still many more instances of the term being used to describe the events of 2011. There is no way of telling whether the use of this term to describe the current events will increase. One option would be to change the redirect page to a disambiguation page, offering links to both 2011 Israeli social justice protests and 2023 Israeli anti-judicial reform protests. Misha Wolf (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I now see 4 notable uses of "Israeli Spring" to describe the current events (the 2023 Israeli anti-judicial reform protests) in: The Guardian, Foreign Policy magazine, Haaretz and ABC. That's the same as the number of notable sources I've found which use this term to describe the 2011 Israeli social justice protests. So rather than remove the redirect, I'd like it to be changed to a disambiguation page, offering those two articles. Thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Greco-Roman ethnography → List of Graeco-Roman geographers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Greco-Roman ethnographers → List of Graeco-Roman geographers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should be deleted. ethnography has nothing to do with geography, and I'm not finding a better target. Mikeblas (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there are several similar redirects to the same target: Roman ethnographers, Greek ethnographers, Greek ethnography, Roman ethnography, Greco-Roman ethnographers, Greek ethnographer. A7V2 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled Greco-Roman ethnographers as the closest match to the original nomination entry. Others may be nominated separately.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an RfD for Greek ethnographers and the others, in a bunch. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That RfD is now closed as "delete". -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Same arguments as the other RfD. Jay 💬 08:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Salvio ^giuliano 08:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Jesus, considered as a Muslim → Jesus in Islam  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I am not sure if this redirect is helpful. Veverve (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no one is searching this. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, this could set a similar precedent for redirects like Adam, considered as a Muslim; Abraham, considered as a Muslim; etc. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not useful. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. It would be ideal to add a list of stations at the target. The alternate suggestion Pingshan County, Sichuan can be reconsidered if a mention is added. Jay 💬 09:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Pingshan railway station (Sichuan) → Chengdu–Guiyang high-speed railway  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target. I think it's on this line but the search is overshadowed by other Pingshan stations Rusalkii (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to redirect to Pingshan County, Sichuan.--Grahame (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It does seem to be on this line, per this source. I'd say keep, tag as R with possibilities, and ideally add a list of stations to the Chengdu–Guiyang high-speed railway article, maybe based on the list at zh:成貴客運專線. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mx. Granger. ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 19:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - On Chengdu–Guiyang high-speed railway the only mention is in the line map, which is hidden by default, and there are no other such circular links on that map. There is no mention at Pingshan County, Sichuan either. It does seem like a better target though if a brief mention can be added. A7V2 (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mx. Granger. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no mention of the railway station at the current or proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to Kirklees, Calderdale without prejudice to further renomination if traffic patterns change after the removal of piped links. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Kirklees, Kirklees → Kirklees, West Yorkshire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was originally the title of an article. It was moved to Kirklees, West Yorkshire, but most links to it were for the primary topic, the metropolitan borough of Kirklees, so I moved it to Kirklees, Calderdale. I think that when the article was created, the place was mistakenly thought to be in the borough named after it, but it is just outside the boundary. This is now a double redirect, and there is no place called Kirklees in the borough of Kirklees so should this redirect to the place in Calderdale or should it be deleted as misleading? Peter James (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The article Kirklees, Calderdale (the target of Kirklees, West Yorkshire) feels a bit odd. Is the format "Placename, modern_day_county_name" appropriate for the tiles of mediaeval places? Is this particular place notable enough (apart from the priory with the name)? Kirklees, Kirklees was the title of that article between 2004 and 2009, so that's probably too long ago for the usual ((R from move)) rationales to matter here. – Uanfala (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kirklees and Calderdale are modern districts in West Yorkshire; historically it wouldn't have needed disambiguation but now it's the name of a district (and using the parish it was in when the priory existed would probably make it "Kirklees, Dewsbury" which would be even more confusing). The name is still used for various things that still exist - Kirklees Hall, Kirklees Park and Kirklees Mill. Peter James (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to Kirklees, Calderdale per WP:RFD#K4 (which I think applies, at least somewhat, regardless of how long ago the move was made) as this was the title of that article for around 5 years, though not since 2009. It does seem like an unusual search term, however. A7V2 (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget per above, note Sefton, Sefton also exists and has similar history but Knowsley, Knowsley doesn't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  On 2nd thoughts weak delete as confusing though the title from 2004-2009 I agree that was long enough ago that the confusion may outweigh the benefits of link rot. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The pageviews may have been from Bows against the Barons from where I have removed the redirect piping. Retarget to Kirklees, Calderdale for now, and wait to see if the pageviews go down to 0. Agree with Uanfala that Kirklees, Calderdale need not be an article. It is all about the priory (and the related hall) and does not mention of the mill and park. It can be merged into Kirklees Priory. Jay 💬 08:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes I don't think we need an article about the "place" as it doesn't appear to have ever been a village, its not in the Domesday Book, consider Sandwell/Sandwell Priory for example the district is named after the priory but there is a settlement called Sandwell[1] but we don't even have an article about the settlement. A Vision of Britain does say it was a village but clicking on the map and going to the location of Kirklees Hall doesn't show any settlement on either 19th or 20th century maps and I can't find any other evidence there ever was a village by this name. I'd suggest Kirklees Hall and Kirklees Priory are sufficient to deal with it so while I'm generally in favour of having articles on former villages or places in the Domesday Book it appears to be neither and there doesn't appear to be a need to keep so perhaps AFD and maybe redirect to the hall? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have made a merge request at Kirklees, Calderdale. Once it is merged (or deleted), Kirklees, Kirklees can be redirected to the target of Kirklees, Calderdale. Jay 💬 15:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was restore and send to AfD. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Metal Masters Tour → Judas Priest  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

BLAR was contested due to the fact, a non-notable, quadruple headlining tour by Judas Priest, Motorhead, Testament and Heaven & Hell. Either the issue is the WP:REDYES in case, there is Judas Priest's Nostradamus, Motörhead's Motörizer, Heaven & Hell's The Rules of Hell and Testament's The Formation of Damnation. There are multiple AFDs about co-headlining or multiple artist headlining tours which is mentioned, Maroon 5 and Counting Crows, Nas and Mary J. Blige and Good Charlotte and Boys Like Girls. Tagging HorrorLover555 to have their opinion about a quadruple artist tour being redirected without sending to AFD. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:8CA6:EC32:D6DE:D5E (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article has very little sources other than what I can find regarding tour dates being announced and setlists, however I think it fails WP:NTOUR because it does not cover a majority on what the policy is meant to cover on like: the band and/or musicians' relationship with the audience, the tour's financial success and artistic approach. Other than one source I could dig up from SleazeRoxx which is a review, I am unable to find anything that would work for making the article notable and one review might not be enough. If anyone is able to find more to support, then I am open to possibly Keep. HorrorLover555 (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The way to contest a BLAR would be to simply revert it (certainly the first time anyway). Definitely not a suitable target for the BLAR, this existed as an article for nearly 14 years and there is no mention of it at the current target so certainly restore the article. Can be taken to AfD if desired. A7V2 (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Seconding A7V2 that restoring the article and taking it to AfD would be the best option. I understand the impulse to just bold redirect it since the sourcing is crap, but with four co-headliners who are all well-established notable acts I don't see any one of them being an appropriate target, especially not one that doesn't even reference the tour in prose. I'm sure it won't last long at AfD unless there's a secret trove of coverage that just hasn't been found yet. HorrorLover's vote doesn't really make sense in the context of an RfD so much as it would for an AfD; personally I would ignore it in this context if I were closing admin. QuietHere (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restore, AFD, or just delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, having looked at what was already there in the article pre-redirect again, I stand by what I said above that this wouldn't last long at AfD. I don't know if this is proper procedure which is why I sided with restoring before, but if it's fine to just delete this as is on those grounds then I'm fine with supporting that option as well. QuietHere (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a contested WP:BLAR. As such, this should be procedurally closed to allow for the person contesting the BLAR to simply revert the BLAR. Per community consensus, AfD is the deletion venue that should handle this if people would object to restoration. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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