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/restore.

• Delete A Snow Globe Christmas
• Restore and send to AfD Confessions of a Go-Go Girl Legoktm (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• A Snow Globe Christmas → Lifetime (TV network)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• Confessions of a Go-Go Girl → Lifetime (TV network)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

These are the titles of two TV films not mentioned at target article. Both were previously articles, but poorly sourced; one was simply BLARred without warning, while the other was redirected via AfD, both in 2021. The fact that neither of them are presently mentioned at target makes these redirects unhelpful and useless. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an opinion on the page history of Confessions of a Go-Go Girl.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 05:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A Snow Globe Christmas, but for Confessions of a Go-Go Girl, restore and send to AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Restore per LaundryPizza. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:30, 6 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. Jay 💬 13:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• International cricket in 2024 → International cricket  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per this discussion (thanks to the editor who notified me of this on my talk). Alternatively retarget if there is indeed any relevant info on en.wp. J947 † ^edits 22:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON and recreate when appropriate. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 10:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there is nothing to be said about international cricket in 2024. "Placeholder" redirects such as these are completely unnecessary. A7V2 (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Nothing to be said" is not true, we do have 2024 in sports#Cricket. However this was a clear attempt to camp this title to gain credit for an article and I'm not in favor of rewarding that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:25, 7 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 Keep and no consensus. Keep !votes argue that the titles are harmless, plausible misspellings for an English speaker. There was some movement towards deleting the second redirect due to improper capitalization on top of the spelling errors, hence the no consensus outcome for the second redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• From Saigon to Dienbien Fu → From Saigon to Dien Bien Phu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• From Saigon To Dienbien Fu → From Saigon to Dien Bien Phu  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

A complete made-up name by Musée Annam. Quoted Google search yields no reliable sources. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 19:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have added the similar From Saigon To Dienbien Fu to this listing as it should share the same fate as the other. A7V2 (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm not sure if the nominator is suggesting that Gwalstawd who created the article currently titled From Saigon to Dien Bien Phu is somehow related to the user being discussed at [1] (I see no mention of them there), but in any case these should be kept per WP:RFD#K4 as this was the title of the article for a long time. It was first created as From Saigon To Dienbien Fu then moved an hour later to From Saigon to Dienbien Fu, and there it remained until a couple of days ago. I suppose this is only a weak keep on the one with "To" since it was the title for just an hour but deleting seems pointless in this instance per WP:CHEAP if the lowercase version is kept. A7V2 (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somehow this account was not tagged and therefore was not included in the list. However, according to his contributions in Vietnamese films-related articles I can assure you this is him. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 17:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: it probably would be best if you could ask for the Gwalstawd account to be locked by a steward as a sock of a globally banned user and then we can quickly delete these under WP:DENY, etc. Legoktm (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is your suggestion to delete the target, since Gwalstawd is the creator and major contributor? The redirects are the result of moves, so I don't see how it is beneficial to delete only the redirects because of socking. Jay 💬 09:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep first entry, toss second, since that's an unlikely caps typo that was fixed within an hour or two of the article creation. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• A7V2 pinged Gwalstawd but did not ping the nom NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh. If there is still no response, Procedural close as an unclear nomination. The Google search term in the nomination has underscores. Remove the underscores and you will find several search results. Jay 💬 13:41, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and they're all unreliable sources or mirrors/forks of Wikipedia (it's MediaWiki's fault for adding underscores). I believe those do not count. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 17:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is your concern that "Dien Bien" should not be shortened to "Dienbien"? Or is it that it has "Fu" instead of "Phu"? The target title is anyway a transliterated title of a non-English film. If it was a made-up name, they would not be found in sites that are not mirrors/forks of Wikipedia. Jay 💬 09:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Both, actually. They are both incorrect in modern Vietnamese; the official title (1970) is Từ Saigon đến Điện Biên Phủ. This is indeed a made-up name by an extreme nationalist using obsolete spellings for no purposes other than promoting false information; if there is actually a reliable source that uses this name I would really want to know. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 11:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    For an English speaker, these look harmless, but for a Vietnamese speaker if these are seen as promoting false information, they should be deleted. I did not see this RfD notified at WP:WikiProject Vietnam/Article alerts, I have just tagged the target talk page with the Vietnam project. What do you think of the redirects Dienbienphu and Dienbien phu which were created by other editors in 2004 and 2010? Are they false too? Jay 💬 13:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: It is now shown as listed in the Vietnam wikiproject alerts. Jay 💬 09:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep as it is unclear how a change in spelling is promoting false information, as there are similar old redirects as well. If there are issues with the redirect creator user, they may be handled per Legoktm. Jay 💬 03:23, 21 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 keep. Legoktm (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Mushroom Kingdom Hearts → Electronic Gaming Monthly  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I would like this page deleted because there is no mention of the redirect name in the article. 69.165.140.120 (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the term originally referred to an April Fools joke that was in the magazine. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean by Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung? 69.165.140.120 (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That phrase is actually part of their signature, and it shouldn't be relevant to this discussion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There are references to it online: Engadget, Destructoid. Likely the article could just briefly mention it in the history section. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This could be tagged ((R without mention)) as it used to be in the article for april fools jokes long time ago. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• All April Fool instances were removed by Smuckola as Delete pointlessly redundant list of possibly pointless main article of April Fools. However, someone added back the 1992 instance as a sourced mention. Keep as ((R without mention)) per AngusWOOF and add a mention per Super Goku. Jay 💬 12:32, 12 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 keep. Salvio ^giuliano 17:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Kellyanne Conway's husband → George Conway  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary. No pages link here. Unlikely to help with accidental linking. Conway's reported divorce proceedings, if pursued to completion, mean this link would cease to be relevant. Redirect was created by a sockpuppet. Archer1234 (t·c) 14:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I'm finding a number of articles with the phrasing in the title:

Kellyanne Conway's husband says Trump tweets hurting legal case – Reuters

Eric Trump trades jibes with Kellyanne Conway’s husband George on Twitter – Globelnews

How Kellyanne Conway’s husband became an issue for President Trump – CNN

Redirects are cheap and it's a phrase associated with him in the news, so it makes sense as a searchable term. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CHEAP and Hey man im Josh. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unambiguous and redirects are cheap. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hey man im josh. A7V2 (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: WP:CHEAP. Even if they are divorced, some people might not know and search this up. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 15:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until she remarries, then redirect to personal life. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:23, 8 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 keep. Salvio ^giuliano 09:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Bow Wow (singer) → Bow Wow (rapper)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Bow Wow is a rapper and not a singer, Suggest deleting. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article says he's been nominated for a Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Award for Favorite Male Singer 3 times, having won once, and is in a 2 singer related categories. I don't see a problem with the redirect, it's reasonable enough even though he's primarily defined as a rapper. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The line between "singer" and "rapper" is so blurry that "rapper" can sometimes be considered a subtopic/type of "singer". Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. A7V2 (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: See WP:CHEAP. This rapper is technically a singer. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 15:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hey man im josh's findings. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:22, 8 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 09:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dick Wieand → Friday the 13th: A New Beginning  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect should be deleted. Its existence as a bluelink gives the false impression that an article exists. Another similar entry was listed today at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 22#Kristen Cui. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDYES/WP:RFD#D10 and to allow for uninhibited search as there are several mentions. A7V2 (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above and WP:REDYES. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 4 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 09:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Dick Wiend → Friday the 13th: A New Beginning  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect should be deleted. Its existence as a bluelink gives the false impression that an article exists. Another similar entry was listed today at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 22#Dick Wieand as well as at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 22#Kristen Cui. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in some sense per my comments at the Dick Wiend below. Whether this is a likely mis-spelling or not isn't really relevant when the "parent" article is an unsuitable redirect. A7V2 (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above and WP:REDYES. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:18, 4 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. Jay 💬 10:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Country data Second Republic → Template:Country data Estado Novo (Portugal)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ambiguous: there are other Second Republics, and many of them have country data templates, so should be deleted. It's also unused at the moment. V27t (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 08:24, 4 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 retarget to Smashburger. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Smash burger → Hamburger  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Smash Burger → Hamburger  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This term refers to a certain type of hamburger preparation. There is a Smashburger chain, but the concept is not exclusive to them. However, there is no information about the generic smash burger at the target page (only a mention of the chain).

I tentatively propose deleting the sentence-case version per WP:REDLINK and retargeting the title-case one to Smashburger. I'm open to other ideas. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A bit more context: I just retargeted SmashBurger to the chain. It was a former title for that article, and IMO a clear attempt to mimic the chain's stylization. I think the same applies to Smash Burger, but somewhat weaker, hence listing it here. I also just retargeted Smashburger IP Holder LLC from Hamburger (!), which was my first sign that there had been trouble with double redirects in this area. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @BDD: For context, see here, here (this edit was made when its respective page's title was "Smashburger"), and here. Seems like a move that was reverted after it was determined to be misguided, but before it was reverted, the editor who move the page also made "Smashburger" a redirect towards Hamburger ... which resulted in the respective redirects targeting Smashburger being "fixed/bypassed" by a bot. Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Smashburger. There's an explanation in the lead about the generic term, and in the absence of anything else it's the most helpful target to the reader. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further opinion on the sentence-case version. Also, the title-cased entry was not tagged for RfD. I have done it now, and this has to be listed for a minimum of 7 days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per WP:REDYES. Against what I expected, it seems to be a notable topic ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). Veverve (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider Veverve's REDYES argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Smashburger per Shhhnotsoloud.

Note: The only article links to either of these two redirects is in Tasty Made, where the desired target is clearly Smashburger. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've looked at the pageviews for these two over the past year and a half, and they certainly do seem to get some traffic. (Smash burger was only created in October of last year, so there's less data for it). Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to SmashBurger as some of the logo artworks suggest it could be read as two words. If the main Hamburger article has a section on smashing, then consider redirect Smash burger to that. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @AngusWOOF: SmashBurger is a redirect itself. Did you mean Smashburger? Jay 💬 17:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  yes the company AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:12, 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 keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Transnistrian Ukrainian → Transnistrian Ukrainian dialect  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Vague redirect, it could also mean Ukrainians in Transnistria. We never have these kinds of articles as redirects, see Ukrainian or Romanian as examples. Example of a recent misuse of this redirect: [7] (remember the redirect takes you to a dialect article). Super Ψ Dro 08:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now). Ukrainian and Romanian aren't good examples because they are disambiguation pages which exist because articles their respective adjectives could refer to the people or the language and Wikipedia has separate articles for both. Wikipedia does not have an article for Ukrainians in Transnistria (or Transnistrians in Ukraine) so disambiguation isn't needed and it is reasonable for the redirect to go straight to the only relevant content that presently exists.

Better examples would be Mairasi (which, like Transnistrian Ukrainian, goes to a language article because no article exists yet for the people in the Kaimana Regency who speak it) or Venetic (which redirects to the language because the people who spoke it are referred to by a different adjective so it's not ambiguous). – Scyrme (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point shouldn't be to act only if a condition is given and thus postponing the issue with the risk of users forgetting about it, but to anticipate ourselves and make future editing easier. As Ukrainians in Transnistria is a notable topic, it could potentially exist, and it might one day. A redirect to the dialect is not appropriate. Super Ψ Dro 09:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point of redirects is to help readers navigate content that exists. Deletion is helpful if no substantial content exists, but that's not the case here. Deletion wouldn't make future editing easier; someone could just as easily forget to re-create the redirect (or opt to not do so because the red warning about a past deletion discourages them), or might recreate it but only as a redirect to one of the relevant topics rather than as a disambiguation page to both.

A redirect can at least be tagged as ((r with possibilities)) to encourage someone to overwrite it, watchlisted by interested editors, found using Wikipedia's search, and discussed at its talk page (you could comment on the talk page to say that the redirect should be turned into a disambiguation page if someone adds content about Ukrainians in Transnistria to Wikipedia to make it less likely that someone forgets). Additionally, an editor comment (with <!-- -->) can be added to a redirect to communicate something to future editors retargeting, categorising, or overwriting it. If you feel strongly about this, there's a lot you can do with a redirect that can't be done with a deleted title to ensure the redirect is less likely to be neglected. – Scyrme (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Scyrme and disagree with Super Dro regarding postponing the issue. If Ukrainians in Transnistria is notable, maybe start by creating redlinks in other articles to encourage article creation. Currently it has 0 incoming links. Or create a section in Demographic history of Transnistria or add a mention at Ukrainians in Moldova. A hatnote to Transnistria–Ukraine relations may be added from the current target. Jay 💬 11:40, 12 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 keep. Salvio ^giuliano 09:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ontario, CA → Ontario, California  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

CA is both the postal abbreviation of California, the U.S. State, and also the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code for Canada (and the postal abbreviation for the country, as well). For that reason, I don't see an obvious WP:PTOPIC here, and I think that this should be dabified as such. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this has been discussed twice previously: in 2015 and 2023. Natg 19 (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate: I'm from Ontario and I had no idea that Ontario, California existed until I tried to wikilink the abbreviation. I think most Canadians would assume Ontario, CA would be referring to our province so it makes sense to disambiguate. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly DAB but as noted at the 2015 RFD other similar redirects don't exist for other Canadian provinces. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for pointing that out. I've created the redirects for the various other territories and provinces as reasonable search terms and tagged them with ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep as I said in the previous RfD (Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_14#Ontario,_CA. The situation has not changed and so my opinion is still the same. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 19:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate using the draft I have provided. From Bassie f (his talk page) 00:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Reliable sources may sometimes use "CA" to refer to Canada but not in conjunction with the name of a province, it's not used that way. However, this is not about CA, it's about "Ontario, CA" specifically, and when sources use that specific phrase they are overwhelmingly referring to the Californian city, to the point that I can't even find any real reliable sources that use "Ontario, CA" to refer to the Canadian province. Even when I use a Canadian proxy, searching for "Ontario, CA" just gives me results for the Californian city so it's not an issue of where I'm located skewing my searches. Yes, there is an Ontario in Canada which is sometimes referred to as CA, but this is about "Ontario, CA" specifically, which is not used to refer to the province by reliable sources meaning it's highly unlikely that the average reader searching Ontario, CA would expect any result other than the city; the Californian city is overwhelmingly the primary topic for such a redirect. - Aoidh (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My first google result when I search "Ontario, CA" is the government website for the Canadian province. What proxy are you using? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  When I use a Quebecois proxy it gives California as the first result, but when I specifically use an Ontario proxy it does give the Ontario gov website as the first result but only because it thinks you mean "ontario.ca" instead of "Ontario, CA" since it gives the "Did you mean ontario.ca" at the top, and none of the ontario.ca results actually contain the phrase "Ontario, CA". That phrase just simply isn't used to refer to the province, and even if a stray example or two could be found it's nowhere near the overwhelming frequency with which that phrase refers to the city. Sources show a clear WP:PTOPIC with regards to "Ontario, CA". - Aoidh (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looking back at prior RfDs, there hasn't been a single source provided where "Ontario, CA" refers to the province. As Aoidh notes, however, reliable sources frequently use that phrase for the Californian city. I'm not opposed to DABing in principle, but, until evidence can be shown that "Ontario, CA" is actually used to refer to the province, it is not warranted. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The hatnote should suffice for any user seeking the province. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Context matters when it comes to abbreviations. Even if it is possible that someone searching this is actually looking for the Canadian province, they will be able to use the hatnote. The city is clearly the primary topic for this exact search term, as demonstrated by it being a fairly common way to refer to the city, and no evidence existing of it ever being used to refer to the province. A7V2 (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Ontario, CA" is not a typical format for the Canadian province, while it is a typical format for US cities. Readers using this term are likely to mean the city. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:24, 8 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 20:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Cayuga Radio Group → Ithaca, New York  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is the name of a grouping of radio stations in this city, but even though it is mentioned in the target, I'm still not convinced this is the best target. (If we still had an article on parent company Saga Communications — and we have not for years now, having been deleted for notability reasons — that would be a better target, and redirecting to only one of their stations isn't ideal either.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Jay 💬 14:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Saga could redirect to List of radio stations in New York (state) where mentioned as the owners of the stations that Cayuga Radio Group covers. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC) updated 17:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment btw, there is a template:Saga Communications navbox that is prominently active and apparently covers more than just New York state. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:21, 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).