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 Self-defense force. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Self-Defense Forces → Military  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Self-Defense Force → Japan Self-Defense Forces  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Self-Defence Force → Military  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Although [they have] the same title (excepting the plural), [these redirect to different articles]. In my opinion, both should redirect to Japan Self-Defense Forces, as "Self-Defense Force" is the literal translation of the name of that organization. Alternatives are redirecting to the DAB page Self-defense force, or redirecting to Military, the current target of [the plural title], but whichever way we go both redirects should point to the same place. Toadspike (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note nominations merged. @Toadspike: I've made some minor edits to your words to combine the two almost identical statements so they make sense for the merged nomination. Please feel free to adjust or revert. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for combining these, Thryduulf. I couldn't figure out how to nominate both redirects using Twinkle, so I just nominated them separately, but this is certainly a better format. Toadspike (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget both to Self-defense force, as Japan Self-Defense Forces is too specific and Military is too general. Duckmather (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to Self-defense force as per User:Duckmather. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I've added Self-Defence Force (the only British English variety that exists) to this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to Self-defense force per Duckmather. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all of the redirects to Self-defense force per Duckmather. ¹⁴¹Pr 16:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to Self-defense force per Duckmather and others. We don't want to WP:ASTONISH readers by targeting them to a specific self-defense force, and the proposed target is the most directly relevant to what's implied by these redirects. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 17:44, 19 January 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. I have confirmed there is still no mention at the target. Should one be added, these redirects may be recreated or restored. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Co-dominance (reptiles) → Dominance (genetics)#Incomplete dominance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Codominance (reptiles) → Dominance (genetics)#Incomplete dominance  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Very specific subtopic ("co-dominance in reptiles") when reptiles aren't mentioned in the co-dominance section at all. Rusalkii (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Codominance (reptiles) as well, not sure how to properly format a double listing. Rusalkii (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To include Codominance (reptiles).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Clyde!_Franklin! 04:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Sorry for the confusion! I created these redirects because I wanted to clarify how in herpetology, what we call co-dominance refers to incomplete dominance in other fields of biology PetraTheFloof (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh, interesting. I'd suggest adding that to the subsection there, but that might be too much specific detail for the general article. Not sure what a good home for that fact would be. Rusalkii (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both unless there is a mention at the target. No incoming links where the context could have been clarified. A redirect called Co-dominance targeting a page section not called Co-dominance despite the page having a section on Co-dominance is overall confusing. Jay 💬 02:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional delete per Jay (and noting that with the current Vector 2022 section-anchor glitches, readers are actually shown the "Co-dominance" section at the target page, with the actual linked section out of view above), but taking into account that if a sourced mention of the alternate usage attested by PetraTheFloof above can be added to the target it would make for an appropriate redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:07, 27 January 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 By-wire car, disambiguate rest at By-wire. (Technically a WP:SIA, but same diff.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• By-wire → Drive by wire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• By-wire car → Drive by wire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• X-by-wire → Drive by wire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• By wire → Drive by wire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• X by wire → Drive by wire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Deletion due to strongly general nature of those redirects, which could lead to confusion with fly-by-wire, and lack of use: in the article; only being used in the lead, in terms of page views and in terms of links except for X-by-wire - which has 2 links. - nathanielcwm (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think By-wire and X-by-wire are plausible enough search terms but I think they would be better disambiguated. I'm not sure about By-wire car as it clearly not referring to flying but it doesn't seem to be a term that's actually used. A7V2 (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added the unhyphenated By wire and X by wire since these should target the same place (or be deleted, etc) as the hyphenated versions. A7V2 (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep for By-wire car. It's a strange way to phrase it but I think it could still be helpful. DABify By-wire to include Drive by wire, Fly-by-wire, and any other pertinent pages, and retarget the others to it. --Sable232 (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These are commonly used terms in the automotive industry. Some of the terms might be ambiguous, in this case we should expand the (already existing) hatnote at Drive by wire with additional targets, or retarget the corresponding redirect to a disambiguation page. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig X-by-wire and by-wire (and their unhyphenated counterparts), keep by-wire car. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 12 January 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) 04:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Bret Ryan (Character) → Percy Jackson & the Olympians  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect should be deleted, there is not a character named Bret Ryan in the Percy Jackson & the Olympians book series. Treetoes023 (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore the extensive pre-BLAR version [1] and send to AfD. It was almost entirely unsourced, but it's not speediable and so deserves a hearing at the appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and send to afd per Thryduulf, but move after restoration to Bret Ryan, as there is no need for parenthetical disambiguation (and the current qualifier is improperly capitalized). Mdewman6 (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no objection to that move. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The pre-BLAR content is absolute nonsense and speediable under WP:G3 as a hoax. Must compliment the creative writing though! Jay 💬 21:00, 22 January 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. Jay 💬 20:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• MSTS Editors & Tools → Microsoft Train Simulator  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Route Editor → Microsoft Train Simulator  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

MSTS Editors & Tools is probably unambiguous, but not mentioned in the target and probably not a plausible search term. Route Editor is more likely to be ambiguous and also not mentioned in the target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – This redirect has history of being an article dedicated to the "Editors & Tools" feature in Microsoft Train Simulator, before being BLAR'd to the main article ~10 days later. Route Editor has a very similar history – except it lasted roughly an hour before the BLAR – so I would propose adding it to the same RfD. Since neither spent a significant amount of time being a separate article and these aren't addressed in the main article due to a lack of notability, I support deletion. Randi Moth (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Randi Moth, I've added that and modified the nomination statement slightly. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:27, 12 January 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 article. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• DeLong Pier → Cam Ranh Bay#Army use of Cam Ranh Bay  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A DeLong pier is a type of structure used at Cam Ranh Bay, but also at other places, which makes the current target a confusing one. I'd suggest this subject is unlikely to be notable in its own right (though there was a stub at this location from 2014 to 2016), and isn't one that anyone's very likely to be searching for, so we can probably safely delete this redirect. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and restore the stub for expansion. The stub was redirected without discussion long ago but searching in a few Wikipedia Library sources, like jstor, finds likely sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG (and there are more than this if you search):

The Story of the DeLong Piers: The Task Was Unprecedented, Vol. 28, No. 2 (MARCH-APRIL 1972), pp. 24-29 (6 pages) and The Story of the DeLong Piers: The Task Was Unprecedented, Defense Transportation Journal Vol. 28, No. 3 (MAY-JUNE 1972), pp. 40-49 (10 pages)

Dredging Using DeLong Piers, The Military Engineer Vol. 67, No. 438 (July-August 1975), p. 211 (1 page)

And newspapers.com finds many moderate mentions and a few fairly signifciant ones:

'Raft' Pier May Be Answer to H-Bomb, The Knoxville News-Sentinel, 15 Mar 1956, Thu, Page 7

Fort Belvoir's Floating, Evening Star, Washington, DC, 07 Feb 1954, Sun, Page 147

And more sources exist. Skynxnex (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore per Skynxex. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per the above, but move to DeLong pier, as the subject does not seem to be a proper noun (i.e., a type of pier, not a specific pier). Mdewman6 (talk) 00:19, 13 January 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Arab Armenians → Armenians in the Middle East  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Deletion: Misleading redirect: Armenians do not simply become Arab if they reside in Middle Eastern countries Red Phoenician (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Potentially misleading, as Arab doesn't mean "People who reside in Middle Eastern countries" Someone-123-321 (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very misleading. Carpimaps (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and AfD. There's an article in the page history; that article got redirected in 2015. I think it might be viable; there are some potentially-relevant hits in Google News, Google Scholar, and Google Books, indicating a potential pass of WP:GNG (though I'm not familiar enough to assess their reliability). Duckmather (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also okay with restoring and AfD if the delete votes won't push through. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Said article is almost entirely unsourced/original research with the only reference merely discussing the history of Armenians under Arab rule. The Google results do not discuss the idea of "Arab Armenians" but rather are mostly about pro-Arab (Arabism in the ideological sense) Armenians. Red Phoenician (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and send to AfD per Duckmather. That said, I agree with the above that this is an unsuitable redirect. A7V2 (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further opinion on the page history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore to AfD per A7V2. MusiBedrock (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and send to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore without prejudice to Afd per the above. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:17, 13 January 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. Jay 💬 07:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Paula Räikkönen → Kimi Räikkönen  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, internet search results don't turn up anything helpful. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep One of the first results was [2] this FB page. No idea if "Kimi7Iceman" actually belongs to Kimi kimself or a fangroup (especially hard to tell, since parental control devices block FB :P) Someone-123-321 (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: While Paula seems to have a connection without a citation available this seems to be a sort of WP:BLP violation. Kimi7Iceman appears to be a fan account; however it sources it to a book by Kimi. I assumed the referenced book is "The Unknown Kimi Raikkonen"; however, I do not have access to this book. If someone can get access to this book and confirm that Kimi7Iceman's assertion about the connection between Paula Räikkönen and Kimi than this should be kept; however, as it stands known deletion on BLP grounds. TartarTorte 14:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm not necessarily convinced by the above mentioned BLP concerns but whoever this Paula is, they are not mentioned at the target leaving a would-be searcher confused as to the connection, if any. A7V2 (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless mention is added. I've found a reliable source (in Finnish) the verifies that Paula Räikkönen is Kimi Räikkönen's mother [3] (Google translates the headline as "Kimi Räikkönen's mother Paula tells about the family's special life [...]"). I'm certain therefore that this is not a BLP problem. Searching the same source for "Paula Räikkönen" in quotes [4] provides multiple other articles so that there is very likely enough to write content in the article about Kimi's family, especially as other articles are referenced in unreliable English sources. However, unless a mention is added the redirect is unhelpful per A7V2. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 12 January 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. Jay 💬 20:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Daily life in ancient india → History of India  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unclear what "daily life" is meant to represent. Steel1943 (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are two similar redirects, Daily life in the Aztec Empire to Aztec society and Daily Life in the Mongol Empire to Society of the Mongol Empire. If there is a problem with the daily life term, then both of these redirects have the same problem. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not necessarily. The two examples you brought up are as relevant as possible to the search term and would probably help fill a reader in on whatever aspect of daily life for which they're looking, while the target of the redirect being discussed covers the entire history of a region. An anonymous username, not my real name 20:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Gotcha. Guess I should have included the other half of my comment rather than deleting it. I was going to suggest retargeting, but I kinda am unsure what I was going to suggest. (Maybe it was Culture of India, though most of that looks to not be ancient.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unlike the two above examples of the Aztec and Mongol Empires, there is no similar article "Ancient Indian society". Better to delete this when no article discusses this, but one probably could be created (ie per WP:REDYES and WP:RFD#D10). A7V2 (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per A7V2. Better to delete now and possibly recreate later if content on this subject is added. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:08, 19 January 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 India–Pakistan relations. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• History of India and Pakistan → History of India  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:XY: History of Pakistan is a separate article. Steel1943 (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to India–Pakistan relations, and add a hatnote to the current target if necessary. It cannot be assumed that readers know about the history of India an Pakistan as a group topic before reading about it, both due to the WP:XY titling issue amongst existing article title, though the history of India and Pakistan is rather connected as shown in the current target (thus the hatnote). Steel1943 (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Steel1943: keep the target History of India here is somewhat confusingly the history of the Indian subcontinent (which conventionally includes Pakistan). See also this RfD. J947 † ^edits 04:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I saw that as well, but I'd think that's all the more reason this should be deleted: This could still equally point to its current target, subtopics of "History of India", or History of Pakistan. Maybe this title should become a broad concept if not deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The current target covers only a slightly larger area than India and Pakistan – so much so that it was a former title of the article. To me it seems the best target as it stands, and I am of the opinion that a redirect is generally preferable to search results in such an instance, especially when the title under discussion is so helpfulkeyword-devoid. J947 † ^edits 07:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Per below, India–Pakistan relations seems to be the closest title match that could act as somewhat of a broad concept. Steel1943 (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Retarget to India–Pakistan relations as this includes links to all the plausible things that someone searching this could be looking for as well as giving an overview of the history of the relationship between the modern countries (wars etc, which I think is most likely what someone searching this is actually looking for) including how they were formed. Second choice is keep per J947. A7V2 (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a good point – from further look there does seem to be a lot of overlap in this area and therefore a tougher choice to be made: for example overlap between the current target and e.g. History of Pakistan, and then the 1947–present articles seem somewhat left out here. I don't think I agree with your proposed retarget though; it seems too narrow. I guess my problem is that only right at the bottom are the other plausible targets linked. Could going even broader, to South Asia#History or Outline of South Asian history be a better option? It's a bit of a shame that everything is split by 1947 nationhood (nice final 3 digits of that year btw) whereas I'd think the reader would want to look either side of that date. At the moment, I'm not sure what should be done aside from that deletion is a bad option here. J947 † ^edits 23:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget or keep per A7V2 and/or J947. Deletion is definitely the wrong outcome here. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete History of India and Bangladesh doesn't exist, neither does History of India and Nepal, nor History of Israel and Palestine, History of Russia and Ukraine, History of India and China etc. No reason this should be an exception. Thus delete, no retargeting. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to India–Pakistan relations per above. No need for deletion if there's sufficient information on this subject. I'm also not convinced by the WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument above. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:17, 19 January 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. Jay 💬 07:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Washington D.C. press corps → White House Correspondents' Association  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

After a recent Rfd for this redirect ended in no consensus without any discussion after two relists, I am renominating with a more specific nomination. The term receives some sporadic use in enwiki, but nowhere is it described. The closest target would seem to be White House press corps, but I think it is somewhere between misleading to incorrect to conflate the two, as there are members of the press in D.C. who do not cover the White House. Therefore I think the best course of action here is deletion, absent the identification of a better course of action. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 08:09, 12 January 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 List of Mazu temples#Vietnam. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thien Hau Temple (Ho Chi Minh City) → Thien Hau Temple (Cholon)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Thien Hau Temple, Ho Chi Minh City → Thien Hau Temple (Cholon)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Thiên Hậu Temple, Ho Chi Minh City → Thien Hau Temple (Cholon)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete or retarget to a more appropriate article. These redirects are extremely ambiguous and confusing, as there are at least 6 Thien Hau temples (Mazu temples) in Ho Chi Minh City, and they are also well known. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all unless the other temples are proven to be mentioned in Wikipedia in a way where any of these redirects could reasonably target them the article(s) where the other temple(s) are mentioned. Otherwise, these redirects are currently de facto unambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Clarity added. Steel1943 (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• On List of Mazu temples#Vietnam, only two are listed as being in Ho Chi Minh, the other being Quan Am Temple (Cholon) which as the (unnecessary, will move shortly) disambuguator suggests is also in Cholon anyway. So keep per Steel1943. If there are others which can at least be mentioned in that list then it would be a potential target, however. A7V2 (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to retarget to List of Mazu temples#Vietnam per the explanation and additions of Đại Việt quốc. A7V2 (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of Mazu temples#Vietnam. Thiên Hậu (天后) is an alternative name for Mazu, so we should retarget to the list of Mazu temples, as there will most likely be more than one Mazu temple called that in Ho Chi Minh. Mucube (talk • contribs) 21:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The list at that section apparently mentions the current target of these redirects in the list, but no other temples named "Thien Hau Temple" are mentioned in that list. Traditionally, we don't update redirects to target a page where there is hope that it will prove the redirect ambiguous in the future (see WP:CRYSTAL), but rather should target what currently exists on Wikipedia. Unless more temples named "Thien Hau Temple" are added to that section, the status quo is the current best for our readers, considering the redirects target the article about the temple mentioned in that list. Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Steel1943: The name "Thien Hau Temple" itself is just a translation, Thien Hau = Mazu, any Mazu temple can be referred as "Thien Hau Temple". That Thien Hau Temple being targeted, it is in fact a Chinese guild hall. Its official name is 穗城會館/Tuệ Thành Hội Quán/Tue Thanh Guild Hall, and because it worships Mazu (Thien Hau), people call it Thien Hau Temple, not because the temple is named "Thien Hau". You will never find any sign that writes "Thien Hau Temple" there, neither in Vietnamese nor Chinese, but only its official name (穗城會館). Since you have been asking for other Thien Hau Temple, I just added to List of Mazu temples#Vietnam, looks good enough now? Đại Việt quốc (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like I was ignored. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 00:37, 15 January 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).