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. It's snowing. ✗plicit 12:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Film rehearsal in the United States → Rehearsal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Television rehearsal in the United States → Rehearsal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Television rehearsal in America → Rehearsal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Film rehearsal in America → Rehearsal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Rehearsal in the United States television industry → Rehearsal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Rehearsal (USA television industry) → Rehearsal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Dress rehearsal (USA television industry) → Rehearsal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target article does not discuss or mention the United States or America (or television, and barely mentions film), so users will be disappointed and astonished. I don't believe there are other possible targets for these U.S.-centric search terms, so delete. Note this is a follow-up to a current Rfd for the plural of one of these redirects (that oddly targets a different article). Mdewman6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Exactly as the nominator says, there isn't a single mention in the article of the United States or America. One might as well create the same set of redirects with "United States" or "America" replaced by "Rwanda" or "Nepal". They're all completely misleading. Largoplazo (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per the above. Not specifically about the US. A7V2 (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:ASTONISH. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- Devokewater 16:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not mentioned at target and WP:ASTONISH. I also think it's snowing... CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 03:50, 21 June 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. Despite one keep !vote arguing that the redirect is reasonable as-is, other editors felt that this would be better as a WP:REDLINK pending the addition of content specifically about Algeria at the 2024 Olympics. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Algeria at the 2024 Summer Olympics → Algeria at the Olympics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Per discussion of a similarly created article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics; this is TOOSOON, and is a highly unlikely search parameter. Ravenswing 23:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing I went ahead and restored this RfD, as the redirect is still tagged for deletion and hasn't been deleted as of yet. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The redirect makes sense and, based on the entries in Category:Nations at the 2024 Summer Olympics, is a possible search term. No harm in the redirect existing until an article can be properly built and expanded upon in draft space. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It's probably best to delete per WP:REDLINK to show there is no article in the table at 2024 Summer Olympics#Participation. However, after reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics it seems the problem is with verification. That table does not include citations, so I take it the references for participation would come via the article. For Eritrea's case, since verification of participation was unable to be found, Eritrea should be removed from that table entirely, no? Then we wouldn't even have a redlink and my rationale for deletion would be null. Looking at the current target, Algeria at the Olympics does mention the 2024 Olympics, but simply that it is a "future event", so someone searching for information on this topic would not learn anything new from the target and thus be disappointed by where they ended up. From that viewpoint, I would still think deletion would make the most sense. However, I feel uncomfortable bolding that recommendation given that this should work itself out soon, thus seeking out deletion of these redirects (there are more than just Algeria and Eritrea) is probably not worth the discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well. Jr Tahun is solely responsible for updating the numbers of athletes competing in Paris 2024. I don't know why did he intend to create an article without a verifiable, reliable source. He keeps on adding and updating the list. Whenever an issue emerges, I am always in a heated discussion with the other users and Jr Tahun attempts to escape from the dilemma. Raymarcbadz (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also removed the year for Algeria and Eritrea in the qualification article since these two articles connected to the upcoming Games would end up being deleted until a reliable source is officially surfaced. Raymarcbadz (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there is nothing about Algeria's participation at the 2024 games in the target. A7V2 (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not mentioned at target, so redirect is totally misleading. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:52, 22 June 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) J947 † ^edits 01:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Congressional intent to diminish → Diminishment  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible search term. – bradv 23:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This term from the legislation is in use as a set phrase.[1][2][3][4] etc. Largoplazo (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's why I made this. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:07, 21 June 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 withdrawn. – bradv 00:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Finding Exurbia → List of exurbs in the United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Another weird (and US-centric) implausible search term. – bradv 23:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Bradv, 11th and 12th words of the article. J947 † ^edits 23:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, I missed that. Withdrawn. – bradv 23:50, 19 June 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 SNOW delete. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Identify exurban census tracts → Exurb#United States  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a topic. – bradv 23:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as very awkwardly worded, and not really discussed anyway. A7V2 (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per A7V2- another imperative tense redirect... unlikely search term... misleading. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: unlikely search term that does not serve any use. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:02, 21 June 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 SNOW delete. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Assess dying languages → Language survey  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Develop archaeological method → Archaeology#Development of archaeological method  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

More strange imperative tense redirects. I sugest deletion. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 23:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: unlikely search term that does not serve any use. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:01, 21 June 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 speedy delete as all previous content has been oversighted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ronan Finke → Speedcubing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No idea why A7 was rejected and redirecting done instead (Redacted). Finke is not mentioned at the redirect target, and there is no reason at the moment why they should be. A very poor decision to create this redirect instead of just deleting this. Speedy deletion would be best, but tagging it as such when an admin just rejected my A7 tag would probably be unwise? Fram (talk) 13:40, 19 June 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 Marvel Cinematic Universe. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• M.C.U. → Gotham City  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Marvel Cinematic Universe - No mention at the target ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Marvel Cinematic Universe as this is consistent with MCU retargetting to Marvel Cinematic Universe. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Apparently, "M.C.U." in reference to "Gotham City" refers to a subject called "Major Crimes Unit". However, such a subject is not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, and I've noticed Gotham City is mentioned at MCU (disambiguation). However, given that MCU redirects to Marvel Cinematic Universe not Gotham City, makes sense for M.C.U to do the same. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Marvel Cinematic Universe because MCU leads there. It isn't obvious to me that the presence of periods in the title would have any effect on the selection of the Marvel Cinematic Universe as the primary topic. If MCU led to to MCU (disambiguation), then I'd say M.C.U. should also lead there. Largoplazo (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Marvel Cinematic Universe to align with MCU unless a plausible other target for the version with periods comes up. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Marvel Cinematic Universe to align with MCU. Whether or not this is the primary topic for MCU should be decided by a RM discussion of MCU (disambiguation) (assuming anyone disagrees with it). Best to tag with Template:R avoided double redirect in case MCU does change target or become the disambiguation page. A7V2 (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Marvel Cinematic Universe per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Marvel Cinematic Universe as proposed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Retarget to MCU (disambiguation) -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:16, 23 June 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 Speedy delete. WP:CSD#G5, deleted by Explicit. (non-admin closure) Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Cockhead → wiktionary:Special:Search/cockhead  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:SSRT: "Please keep in mind that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. We don't need a soft redirect for every possible word or phrase to be included in Wikipedia." No idea why this vulgar slang would need to exist as a bluelink on Wikipedia, is this really the kind of thing people would expect to exist? Fram (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: cocksucker is a cross-wiki redirect. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Fram (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Struck through the comment from the confirmed sockpuppet, as per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:01, 19 June 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. ✗plicit 12:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Jared Knabenbauer → Game Shakers#Production  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Doesn't seem like a particularly good target given he just guest-starred on this show and there are other mentions of him across Wikipedia, such as at Game Grumps. Deleting as ambiguous seems best, unless someone has a good idea for a target. (FYI, this was originally created as a redirect because ProJared was created per an AFC/RC request in September 2021, and that was later G7'd in March 2023. I thought about G8ing this redirect, but I doubt this falls under G8, and a full discussion seems better anyways.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 11:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A7V2 (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless a suitable target can be found. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:58, 21 June 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 09:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2023 English cricket season → 2022 English cricket season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete to encourage article creation. The redirect from 2023 season to 2022 equivalent season is incorrect anyway, and now that the 2023 English cricket season has started (2 months ago), I imagine an article could be created at some point Joseph2302 (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Cricket in England or Delete to encourage article creation, no strong preference. There might be a better target than Cricket in England, but there doesn't seem to be an overlapping cricket league article like there is for something like 2024 NFL season. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 12:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cricket in England until new article creation for the current 2023 season. Kirubar (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There is no discussion of 2023 in Cricket in England. A7V2 (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:50, 20 June 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. Numerically this is 4 to 3 (the nominator not having stated a preference). In some cases that might be no consensus; however, the retarget argument is predicated on the assumption that the mention at Prime Minister's Medal of Appreciation is worth pointing readers to, and since Rosguill first challenged that assumption 25 days ago, no one has rebutted them, and three consecutive editors have found their argument persuasive. As such, I give less weight to the earlier retarget !votes and find consensus to delete. Given the low opinion expressed here for the mention at the proposed target, I will go ahead and remove that unsourced paragraph. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Russell Fritz → Chris McCandless  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A possible connection with Chris McCandless but since it's not mentioned at the target, there might be privacy concerns. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Prime Minister's Medal of Appreciation, which looks the only instance on the site of a mentioned Russell Fritz. J947 † ^edits 22:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A textbook example of being so deep into Wikipedia that it's become impossible to come up for air. Privacy concerns may have been valid decades ago when the McCandless story began, but are largely moot considering Fritz died in 1999. The McCandless article is rated B-Class. I assume that's based on how it's formatted; B-Class criteria says "...does not contain obvious omissions...". A simple web search reveals that Fritz and his role in McCandless's life is mentioned multiple times by reliable sources, in addition to many more mentions on McCandless fan sites. That would constitute an obvious omission. When are some of the regulars going to build an encyclopedia instead of tearing it down all the time? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
  Relisting comment: Retarget or add mention to the target?
  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So fix it. If it is important enough to redirect to the article, prove that by mentioning it in the article, Then add a redirect to it. It was not an obvious omission to the person who nominated it for deletion, and nor would it be for me, as I have no memory of ever hearing of either person, and obvious is in the eye of the beholder. If it is not important enough to fix, the redirect can be deleted as confusing to the reader, and replaced when someone gets round to making it not confusing. An encyclopedia should not confuse its readers by directing them to a page which does not provide any information on why they ended up there.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hear, hear. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Prime Minister's Medal of Appreciation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Prime Minister's Medal of Appreciation per above, where the subject is mentioned. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that Prime Minister's Medal of Appreciation does not have a single source, and I have just tagged the article as unreferenced. Jay 💬 14:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - search results are good enough for a name whose only mention is extremely, trivially, detailed and hopelessly unsourced (not only is the article unreferenced, its history is split from another page in 2006 so there is zero way to assess due weight without doing a lot of research). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist for closing an old log page, and for one more attempt at reaching a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Rosguill. The fact is, we don't currently have any useful information on this fellow (or fellows), and we don't serve either the reader or the project well by pretending otherwise. (The fact that the unreferenced Medal of Appreciation article has more information about "Russell Ralph Fritz" than any other currently online source gives me additional pause.) -- Visviva (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rosguill and Visviva. A7V2 (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rosguill. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:20, 20 June 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 Tim Cook. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 06:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tim Apple → List of nicknames used by Donald Trump#Tim Apple  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Procedurally renominating as closer of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 12 § Al Frankenstein after an inconclusive result in that very large nomination. Jay's proposal to retarget this to Tim Cook, endorsed by Red-tailed hawk, seems reasonable, but there was consensus against that target at two previous RfDs, meaning that further discussion is merited. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to Tim Cook which was the previous target. I can understand that the previous RfDs preferred the current target because it mentioned the nickname with relation to Tim Cook. However, there were major purges at the target last month and Tim Apple was removed as well. Jay 💬 06:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert per Jay. I find it more likely that someone searching for Tim Apple is trying to find Tim Cook. Maybe I'm wrong, but I find it unlikely that someone remembers (and then searches for) a nickname Trump used one time four years ago. 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to be clear, the name is no longer mentioned at the target article, so (barring some counterintuitive keep argument or surprise alternate candidate) the only options on the table here are revert or delete. (I realize you've !voted the former, but just clarifying.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to Tim Cook. As time goes on, I've heard "Tim Apple" used (mostly jokingly) in reference to Tim Cook outside the context of Trump's mistake. (Note I was the original creator of this redirect.) — RockMFR 16:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore to Tim Cook. Per my previous comments at the old RfD, this seems like the most reasonable target. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:11, 19 June 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. ✗plicit 05:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Delete → Template:Db  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Other than the list of speedy deletion templates, it can also refer to XfD templates and ((PROD)) template. Vitaium (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a very well-used shortcut. I assume the nominator proposes to delete the delete? Some template shortcuts (or in this instance a longcut) are extremely valuable due to how memorable their name is. This is one of them. Deleting would be counterproductive; ambiguity is not a good rationale here for that reason. J947 † ^edits 05:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This template is standardized across almost(?) all MediaWiki wikis so that one can tag a page for speedy deletion even if one does not know the local procedures. I use its counterparts all the time when working on sister wikis. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: From a moveFormer template which was redirected, used on pretty much every other MediaWiki. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 03:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Tamzin. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep since if something like PROD or AFD was meant it could be noticed by the checking admin while if it went to somewhere like AFD it might not be noticed for longer if it was intended to be a speedy. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:51, 24 June 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).