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. --BDD (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Crow eye → Paris quadrifolia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete can find good hits in the wiki and through Google Search. I got hits for crow`s eye though. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. It's just a literal translation of plant's vernacular name in Russian (see ru:вороний глаз). It's not called so in English (at least according to wikispecies), so there's no reason for WP:FORRED USS Cola!rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 05:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. --BDD (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Mario Cart; Double Dash → Mario Kart: Double Dash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Completely implausible as a pair of unrelated errors. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Implausible redirect, per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. --BDD (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Pmatc/sandbox → Eugénie-Victorine-Jeanne Alombert  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

redirect from a user's sandbox to main automatically created during a move. doesn't qualify for WP:R2, but is similar. greyzxq ^talk 22:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep It is not normal to delete sandbox redirects, as they may be converted into a different work-in-progress. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @QuicoleJR: The redirect is actually located in mainspace, not user namespace. I'd agree with you if the nomination was about User:Pmatc/sandbox. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Did not notice that. In that case, delete. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: I would keep if it were at User:Pmatc/sandbox but at its current location, it's odd for mainspace. TartarTorte 03:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment I run across these move mistakes all of the time in CSD categories and they are typically speedy deleted as errors since it was clearly the result of a mistaken page move. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy delete as R3 or G6. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as unhelpful to readers (duh, I know). No objection to speedying. J947 † ^edits 06:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 08:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Magnolia, Arkansas micropolitan area → Columbia County, Arkansas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not sure what the use of this page is. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak keep: (and unrefine to be just targeting Columbia County, Arkansas). It seems that the Magnolia, Arkansas micropolitan area is coterminous with Columbia County, Arkansas, so it seems like a harmless redirect. Weak keep because it is weird that it's "Magnolia, Arkansas micropolitan area" as a somewhat unnatural, in terms of wikipedia, disambiguator with the ", Arkansas" instead of Magnolia micropolitan area (Arkansas) TartarTorte 18:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That’s also what I thought it was referring to, but wouldn’t prospective searchers encounter that article under the search box before typing this out in full? Plus the redirect had an extremely low amount of views Aaron Liu (talk) 19:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep: Office of Management and Budget designation. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 21:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  But there's no reason anyone would search for that to find the article, especially when the real article name will show up before you finish typing this. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: The proper Office of Management and Budget designation is the Magnolia, AR Micropolitan Statistical Area. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 08:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  On a related note, what’s the point for creating these redirects when they are just existing redirects plus three words that people probably won’t search for? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep/unrefine. This is completely harmless and unambiguous, and no valid reasons for deletion have been put forward. - Eureka Lott 14:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  How about #8, very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  You may be unfamiliar with core-based statistical area names, but that doesn't make them novel or obscure. Also, as User:Presidentman noted below, the name is mentioned in the lede. - Eureka Lott 19:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Who would search up a CBSA to find such a city, not to mention a wrong one which also has results for "Magnolia, Arkansas", which would definitely show up while you're typing it? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  D8 is completely nullified by K3, or RHARMFUL, anyway. It's a pretty broken system, which is I guess why the guideline is ignored. To be honest, if it were replaced with a prominent "retain helpful redirects; remove harmful redirects" redirect policy knowledge would be improved. J947 † ^edits 06:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep/unrefine There is no harm here. It doesn't qualify for D8 IMO because the phrase "Magnolia, AR Micropolitan Statistical Area" is mentioned in the lede. Completely plausible that someone would spell out "Arkansas" instead of just "AR." - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Very unlikely search term, but it has pageviews to justify its existence (i.e., more than three), somehow. J947 † ^edits 06:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  More than three? It has about 0.12 views per day Aaron Liu (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  And about 0 maintenance per day. Seems a big net positive to me. J947 † ^edits 19:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  So this is a D8 that has extremely minimal people who use it Aaron Liu (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  No it's a K3 it aids searches on certain terms. Per the guideline, You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met [...] however, avoid deleting such redirects if. Anyway, policy-wonkery aside, you haven't provided a reason why it's preferable that it be deleted than kept. It's not very helpful, but it's not very harmful either. J947 † ^edits 23:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep: Harmless redirect that aligns with redirects like Ottawa, Illinois micropolitan area. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I think my case here is rather if we should keep redirects that are just normal names + the CBSA "micropolitan area". I assume that it's a "yes we should keep per K3" Aaron Liu (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Do you understand how these work? It sounds like you're confused. The micropolitan area is the CBSA. They're named after their central cities, but don't have the same boundaries. In the case of the nominated redirect, it's contiguous with the county. They're not redundant. - Eureka Lott 02:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I know the "micopolitan area" part is from the CBSA. However, I did not know that they had different boundaries. Thanks for clearing that up. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  They seem like plausible search terms, and if some exist, it's very possible someone will try the same format of title for other articles. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[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! 09:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Lai ho'a → Homo floresiensis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target, doesn't seem to be a translation of the term, so not seeing how it relates. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The lai ho'a come from indigenous folklore and are cited in Gregory Forth's studies on H. floresiensis as potential evidence for the extinct species existing into modern times. Based on the edit history on the page, Forth's work appears controversial. I have added back a mention into the article in an attempt to briefly present both sides of scientific discourse on the matter. TNstingray (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per TNstingray. Looks like a fringe theory, but notable enough to be worth mentioning in the target article and thus maintaining this redirect. – Joe (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 💬 08:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Escargot (A snail-like transcription factor) → Escargot (transcription factor)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Recently-created implausible parenthetical descriptor; I moved the page to Escargot (transcription factor). CapitalSasha ~ talk 14:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CapitalSasha: You may tag the redirect with ((Db-g7)) if you want it to be deleted. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh OK thanks, I wasn't sure about that since the page under that title had been edited by others before I moved it. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, it seems this is not eligible for G7 deletion: WP:G7 says

For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move.

CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it still applies because no other editor has touched the redirect. It doesn't matter if the target page has been edited by many editors. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, never mind. After re-reading the wording of G7, I agree that the redirect technically does not meet that criterion. I would still argue that this is a IAR situation, because the redirect has existed for less than four hours (as of the time of my comment). Its deletion is obviously not going to break any links, and it isn't a plausible search term either. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy per nom. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy delete R3 but cannot do this because of this discussion. G7 does not apply. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  R3 says This criterion does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move Aaron Liu (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. --BDD (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Adhara Pérez Sánchez" → Adhara Pérez Sánchez  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Title conventions don't include quotation marks. Also not a helpful search term, as inputting this exact title in the search bar will point you to the article anyways. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: Page was created at this title by mistake according to the page logs and was at this title for less than a minute. Seems safe to delete. TartarTorte 14:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete due to the unnatural quotation marks. (This is just an ((R from move)), so deletion is fine.) Duckmather (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 💬 09:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Combat actions of the 8th and 4th Route Communist Armies → Second Sino-Japanese War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Testimoines about combat actions of 8° and 4° Route Communist Armies → Second Sino-Japanese War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Testimoines about combat actions of 8deg and 4deg Route Communist Armies → Second Sino-Japanese War  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Whatever the subject of these redirects are meant to refer seems to be missing from the target article. There seems to be three mentions of a "8th", but not necessarily a route, and the use of 4th seems to be missing from the target article completely. (Testimoines about combat actions of 8° and 4° Route Communist Armies and Testimoines about combat actions of 8deg and 4deg Route Communist Armies were formerly redirects towards Combat actions of the 8th and 4th Route Communist Armies, which is a ((R with history)) that was an article for a few months in 2005 before being WP:BLARed or merged, cannot tell which.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: It was copied without attribution to the talk page of what was then the redirect target (which is now a redirect itself). Even *I'm* dubious about the need to preserve attribution in this case but if it's really needed the page could be moved somewhere like Talk:Chinese armies in the Second Sino-Japanese War/Combat actions of the 8th and 4th Route Communist Armies. Also see my comments above. Graham87 03:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time to see if this will be some comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. --BDD (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Doctor Dre → Dr. Dre  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Useless redirect. 2 people are stage named Doctor Dre. Or maybe retarget to Doctor Dre who's real name is Andre Brown. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Retarget to Doctor Dré: Most likely target for someone typing that string. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Due to the notability of the current target over the other, retargeting would lead to a WP:SURPRISE for those who do not know that "Dr." is abbreviated since they would be attempting to search for the name phonetically. The current situation + hatnote is the most helpful and optimal. Steel1943 (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep no logic or sense at all in this nomination. "Doctor Dre" is a plausible search term for the rapper. ValarianB (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep The current target is the clear primary topic here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep: Nomination reasoning is nonsense. Nominator has not provided a valid reason for deleting this redirect. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 22:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. I am satisfied this is not "useless". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Retarget to Doctor Dré. My search results for the exact phrase "Doctor+Dre" are predominantly for Doctor Dré not Dr. Dre, so I actually think he's the primary topic here despite Dr. Dre being more famous. There's a hatnote at each article pointing to the other, so it's not a big problem regardless of the target. Either way, it's clearly not "useless". – Scyrme (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist: The RFD tag on the redirect was removed (but not returned) the same day this redirect was nominated, leaving this redirect untagged for about 5 days. Relisting to allow readers who may search this redirect to be aware of this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep: I understand if you want to debate the target, but calling this redirect useless is just silly. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 00:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Chada Norphanphoun → wikispecies:Chada Norphanphoun  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a cross-wiki redirect to WikiSpecies for a biographical entry on a living individual. WP:SSRT notes that "only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects", but this is neither such case. Rather than leaving a cross-wiki redirect, WP:REDYES notes that red links should be created whenever a non-existent article with more information would help a reader understand the content of the article in which the red link will appear. As such, I believe that we should delete this cross-wiki redirect and create a redlink in order to encourage the creation of a Wikipedia article on this individual. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: On second thought, I don't think this person is actually notable after all. From looking at her Google Scholar profile, despite the high citation counts, each paper has way too many authors. For example, the most cited paper this person worked on has 476 citations and 129 authors. This works out to a little over 3 citations per author, which is awful. I don't think we should ascribe notability to her 128 other coauthors just for working on a percentage point or so of this paper as well, because then the WP:PANDORA potential is crazy. (The other papers she's worked on are slightly different in the details, but in each case the citations/authors ratio points towards non-notability.) Besides, she's only a grad student (as stated in her ResearchGate profile), and grad students are often non-notable. Still, there's some content about her in wikispecies, which is of public interest due to the fungal species she helped discover, so deletion is too strong IMHO. Thus I recommend keeping. Duckmather (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  In the case that she is not notable, this should be deleted in light of WP:SSRT's command that only out-of-scope topics that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should be on Wikipedia. I see no reason for a cross-wiki redirect for a notable individual. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: Most of the people listed in the titles of Category:Redirects to Wikispecies don't seem notable either (or are at most borderline cases). Do you want to delete all those redirects too? Duckmather (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Much in the same way that we would create cross-wiki redirects to non-notable creator pages on Commons unless they're commonly wikilinked or repeatedly recreated as redirects, I believe that Wikipedia should probably not be creating cross-wiki redirects to non-notable individuals on WikiSpecies. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In that case, I recommend that you send every single Wikispecies redirect here as well, either in a giant batch or one at a time. (If you do make the batch nomination, you should procedurally close this one as redundant. The batch nomination might be a trainwreck. It might also not be a trainwreck since non-notable individuals shouldn't have redirects per WP:SSRT and notable individuals shouldn't have redirects either per WP:REDYES, as you write, though I do have a distaste for how RfD-ers cite either policy. However, nominating them one at a time might exhaust RfD's ability to discuss anything else.) Based on the speed at which RfD works, we could probably get rid of every Wikispecies redirect in the next week or two if we really wanted – there are only 162 of them, after all. Duckmather (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. The 162 other wikispecies redirects could be nominated in phases. Jay 💬 07:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) J947 † ^edits 02:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Michael King III → Martin Luther King III  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Speedy Delete - Martin Luther King Jr. is his father's legal name. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Which one of the WP:Criteria for speedy deletion does this redirect meet to make the deletion speedy? Regardless, delete. Martin Luther King Jr. and his father both have "Michael King" as their birth names, so the redirect seems to be following the pattern. However, Martin Luther King III's birth name is indeed Martin, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the birth name has been mistaken for Michael other than possibly by the redirect's creator, making it an implausible incorrect name which wouldn't be helpful to a reader. Randi Moth ^Talk_Contribs 12:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  R2 ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Nope, WP:R2 doesn't apply since both redirect and target are in the same namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I changed my mind then, I want it deleted and not speedy deleted! ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak Keep. Plausible ((R from incorrect name)) given that Martin Luther King Jr. was born "Michael King Jr." per above. However, I'm "weak" since it wasn't necessarily ever a legal name for the target, and thus could be a WP:BLP issue. Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Change my stance since I disagree with myself now. Steel1943 (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Searching for the name in DDG, almost every single result other than Wikipedia is related to other people, usually in the 18th century. There's only one result related to MLK Jr., and it only got used by accident: using his father's birth name in a list numbered with Roman numerals. This isn't a plausible search term for Martin Luther King III. Randi Moth ^Talk_Contribs 08:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I now disagree with myself per Steel. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @ErceÇamurOfficial: what is your stance now with this nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should get deleted. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can't stand with myself anymore. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. There is a rough consensus for deletion contingent on the continued absence of this phrase from the target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Fputchar → C file input/output#putchar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article. Unless there is a precise spelling of this redirect on the target article, readers who may be searching this term will not find what they are looking for. Apparently, "fputchar()" is a function that some custom libraries for C may have, but it doesn't seem to be part of any of C's standard libraries, so it would not make sense for it to be mentioned in the target anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete: Not in the Standard C library from stdio.h or mentioned at the article. In the standard c library there is fputc and putchar but not fputchar. TartarTorte 13:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. This is a very old redirect (from 2006), and standard or not, for anyone actually typing "fputchar" into Wikipedia, this is probably the correct page (compare: putchar does redirect here), and there is the standard risk that you end up breaking incoming links. And — just as has been seen with several other redirects — the subject *was* originally mentioned in the article, before it was removed. (In this case, there doesn't seem to have been any discussion/consensus about removing it — a WP:BOLD and enterprising editor User:Dkasak just took it out, and it managed to stick — all the way through a merge process involving the original putchar article into the consolidated C file input/output article that is the target today. Nomination doesn't articulate any clear benefit for deletion. WP:DONTFIXIT. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: Per TartarTore and based on it not being mentioned at the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Again, whether it's standard or not is an entirely different matter. Wikipedia isn't primarily in the business of teaching people how to write code to programming language standards. And to reiterate: whether a given title appears (verbatim or not) in the target article is not grounds for deleting the redirect. The proliferation of RFD regulars who have convinced themselves in the last year or so that it is is cause for concern. In this particular instance, it's especially bad, because (again) it actually *did* used to be in the article, until someone removed it. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per C. A. Russell, "fxxxx" is a common way to name file functions ("f" file) in C, so this would be an expected search term. Tag as ((R from subtopic|putchar)) / ((R from search term)) / ((R without mention)) / ((R from misspelling|putchar)) -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per Hey man, or add it back to the article. Without it, the redirect is not useful to the reader. Jay 💬 14:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 16:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Vasprintf → C file input/output#Overview of functions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article. Since functions in C have to be used/spelled correctly, if this redirect is intended to be a misspelling, it is unhelpful since functions have to be spelled correctly to be used. Also, searches in third party search engines for this phrase turned up primarily results for companies such as "VistaPrint". Steel1943 (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: It seems to be generally included in stdio.h (see here for example), but it's from the GNU Standard Lib, so I'm not sure if it should be added or not. If kept should also be added to the article. TartarTorte 13:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Ah, you used http://linux.die.net to find information about the function. Usually, I've referred to https://cplusplus.com/, which from my understanding doesn't include that GNU standard library (to my knowledge) and tends to only include functions that are in standard C header library ... which is probably why I didn't find this function on https://cplusplus.com/. Either way, I think what you state is the case: I think the target includes only standard C header library functions. Steel1943 (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to the printf page. It can be trivially added to that article (i.e. explicitly referencing it by name — as used to be the case, prior to its removal on the belief — true or not (and in this case, not) — that the printf family were all "already" mentioned by name in the C file input/output article). You risk breaking any incoming links with deletion, and there is no clear benefit to removing the redirect, whether it's non-standard or not; opposing deletion on WP:DONTFIXIT grounds. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It is mentioned in C11 (C standard revision)#Criticism, but as an example, so that would not be a good target. Agree that this should not be seen as a misspelling of vsprintf. Delete unless we have useful information on it on enwiki. Jay 💬 14:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[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).