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 💬 13:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dichloromethylphenylsilane → Organosilicon chemistry#Silyl chlorides  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Mentioned at target, but not sure if it enough information is provided to justify a redirect. Suggest deletion to encourage article creation unless more content can be added. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:14, 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 delete. Jay 💬 13:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Silane, (4-aminobutyl)diethoxymethyl- → Organosilicon chemistry#Silyl chlorides  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Compound not mentioned at target. Only mention on enwiki is an incoming link from EPA list of extremely hazardous substances; thus it seems this redirect exists solely to avoid a red link or black entry at that list. More common versions of the name such as (4-Aminobutyl)diethoxymethylsilane or Diethoxymethyl(4-aminobutyl)silane don't exist as redirects. Suggest deletion to encourage article creation unless content can be added to the current target. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 07:12, 30 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Largest military confrontation in history → Eastern Front (World War II)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Typical precedent for this sort of redirects involving the superlative adjectives is to redirect them to the list of subjects ordered by the metric, such as how Largest country in the world redirects to List of countries and dependencies by area rather than to Russia. This makes sense since one searching for this sort of term typically wants not information on the result, but just the result, and possibly how it scales to other entries. Pointing to the result may also lead to readers expecting to have redirects aimed at other records, as per WP:PANDORA. However, in this case, it's fairly ambiguous which list to redirect to. "Largest military confrontation" can refer to such metrics as
· Casualties, leading to a redirect to List of wars by death toll
· Duration, leading to a redirect to List of conflicts by duration
· The amount of involved people, for which I didn't find a list.
· The amount of battles, for which I didn't find a list.

While the target page does state that the Eastern Front has been described as such, it seems unlikely that the term "Largest military confrontation in history" is used by itself to refer to the war rather than as something that describes it. I propose deletion, though disambiguation with "List of largest military conflicts" is possible. Randi Moth (talk) 17:38, 20 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 17:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete There are a lot of references that details the Eastern front with that moniker. However there are mentions where Operation Barbarossa or the Battle of Liepzig having that moniker. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is a relative claim. Jay 💬 18:46, 2 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 Procedural close. No-longer a redirect, article has been created. (non-admin closure) A7V2 (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Cian Ducrot → Everything I Didn't Say#Everything I Didn't Say Tour  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Cian Ducrot is mentioned on at least five other articles. There's no more information at this target article than the others, so as there is no one good target, delete. Ss112 16:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: For either WP:REDYES or just to not send the reader somewhere with little information on what they searched. TartarTorte 18:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment looks like an article for Cian Ducrot has been created over the redirect, which makes this RFD redundant. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:49, 31 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Geolier → List of number-one hits of 2023 (Italy)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is virtually no information about the artist at the target article. The musical artist Geolier is mentioned on at least five other articles per Wikipedia's search results so there's no reason it should point to this list alone. Ss112 16:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDLINK. Based on his it.wiki page, he might be notable. Disclaimer, I don't speak Italian, I just had Google machine translate the article where it said that he has a certified platinum album. --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:25, 28 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 💬 15:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wendy Fawell → Manchester Arena bombing#Casualties  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article, as that article is not a memorial of names of non-notable people. This redirect is in violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and is getting fewer than 10 views a month on average, so is not serving a useful purpose Joseph2302 (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since mention is not appropriate. Number of views isn't really relevant for something like this I don't think. Just an indication of how many readers are being mislead I suppose. A7V2 (talk) 07:24, 30 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Arny of Yugoslavia → Yugoslav People's Army  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Typo fixed in 2009, speedy delete declined in 2012, no incoming links, not a common redirect pattern, utterly pointless? Joy (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the reason Rossami declined the speedy deletion - It is also part of the documentation of a very complicated series of pagemoves and content mergers. which indicates this is required for attribution purposes. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't actually see what series of page moves is there, so if it's documentation, it's really bad at it. What attribution concern do we have specifically here? It's a dead redirect. @Thryduulf: --Joy (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The history of this redirect shows that content was moved from this title in 2009 to Army of Yugoslavia but there is a lot more to the history that which I don't have time to fully trace right now, especially since you seem to have deleted some of it when moving the disambiguation page earlier today. The history of page moves is part of the attribution history of the article, whether it is a "dead redirect" (whatever that is meant to mean) or not. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If there's a copyright issue with content that is now displayed in a separate article, I don't see how it is possible for it to exist in the 50-odd bytes of this redirect's historical entries. Not sure how the disambiguation page factors into it, either, because it's unrelated content. I'm afraid you'll have to help me out to understand what part of attribution history is actually the problem here. The worst I can imagine is that there's entries somewhere in the history of army articles that says "Moved Foo to Arny of Yugoslavia" and then the next entry later on says "Moved Arny of Yugoslavia to Army of Yugoslavia" and so on, but if we delete this Arny redirect history there's nothing in there that is relevant to article content, something that is copyrightable, something that needs to be retained to preserve attribution. --Joy (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I happened to find that entry at [1], and then this redirect's history, and then [2]. While it seems fun to be able to spelunk through history and connect the dots like that, I'm not sure what the utility of not deleting this would be, because the only content of these edits is the titles change and a handful of words like "Yugoslav Army (FRY)" or "Army of Yugoslavia" are not supposed to be copyrightable at all. --Joy (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, what are we supposed to preserve attribution for here? A page move to fix a typo? WP:CWW specifies that attribution needs to be preserved for "creating and altering the content of a page". Where does it say redirects from page moves need to be preserved for attribution? -Vipz (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Moving a page (i.e. changing it's title) is a significant change to the content of that page. See also ((R from move)). Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf: please cite a guideline that says so because I disagree. The only thing that this template says is "This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name." There were no internal links to this redirect until it was nominated for deletion and linked in notifications about it. 0 external backlinks exist to this redirect, likely because it was very quickly fixed. It has no edit history apart from 1 page move, 1 double-redirect bot-fix, 1 nomination for speedy deletion, 1 revert of the previous, and 1 for this RfD. It is an implausible typo. What if a vandal created a bunch of such page moves (except with, say, vulgar titles), would we keep these too on basis of documenting a series of page moves? -Vipz (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't remember off the top of my head where this is documented (I thought the template mentioned attribution, obviously I was wrong. I'll try and remember to look tomorrow when I'm more awake) but it has been the consensus at RfD for at least the decade or so I've been a regular here. The consensus regarding vandalism is that we do not need to keep the attribution of edits that were both not made in good faith and reverted, and to my knowledge that has never been objected to by legal. Not directly relevant to your comment but worth noting that we also don't need to keep attribution for pages that have been deleted, which is why we don't need to worry about whether redirects deleted per G8 were made by page moves or not. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick I recall we had a discussion about page history attribution recently, maybe I can trouble you to help out here? --Joy (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: did you try and look up the guideline? Jay 💬 08:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No I completely forgot, and I don't have time to do it now. I'll try and remember when I do! Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Joy as not a functional piece of documentation of anything (if it's documentation, it's really bad at it), and agreeing with: words like "Yugoslav Army (FRY)" or "Army of Yugoslavia" are not supposed to be copyrightable at all. Independently from that, I could not tell that this page has to do with any merger specifically. —Alalch E. 21:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The moves are documented in the revision history and logs, so if there is such a requirement it is not necessary to keep every redirect created in the process. Redirects such as this are deleted if their title is needed for another article. Peter James (talk) 19:04, 29 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Pulpit fall → Antependium  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I have doubt on how good of a redirect it is, as it lacks clarity. I think it should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, appears to be a synonym. Should be added to lede. See for example [3]. A7V2 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have added this as an alternate name at the current target. A7V2 (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there is a mention at the target. Jay 💬 15:56, 3 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. Jay 💬 18:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Two images → Template:Stacked image  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I would expect this to lead to ((multiple image)), not this template with only one transclusion. Suggest retargeting, or if not just deleting. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Template:Multiple image supports more than just two images. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no longer useful per Template:Multiple image --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:39, 29 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Onfroy, Jahseh → XXXTentacion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

The sort name of the singer's redirect using "Last name, first name" was previously deleted per WP:CSD R3, but later turned out to have a dispute between speedy deletion and deletion discussion. Please let me know whether ((R from sort name)) should work about the real name of singers! MusiBedrock (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: At first glance, the redirect doesn't make sense. With the ((R from sort name)) and ((R from personal name)) templates (that I just) added it's easier to understand why the redirect makes sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hey man im josh. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are many singers who have redirects using the sort name format: "Last name, first name", especially singers who referred professionally to as real names, such as "Smith, Sam" redirects to Sam Smith (an English singer), why not redirect to the ambiguous personal name as a disambiguation "Sam Smith (disambiguation)"? There are many more. MusiBedrock (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we find more singer-related redirects using "Last name, first name" format as a sort name? MusiBedrock (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that its a unusual name arrangement but it's still a valid synonym. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:40, 29 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).