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 💬 10:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Leo Cage → KKOB-FM  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As best I can tell, this was created in 2007 ahead of the addition of a mention in the article (then titled KBZU as it was the call sign at the time) — that was reverted after 15 minutes. Without that, I can't really see much of a use for this redirect that would be anything more than a surprise. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Two different people by this name are mention on Wikipedia, but neither suggest notability or enough to anchor a redirect - the captain and leading rusher (is that the right term?) of the 1979 Memphis State Tigers football team, and one member of the 2014 Best Group winners in the Pink TV (France)#PinkX Gay Video Awards. Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Whale (disambiguation)#Radio. (non-admin closure) estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The whale fm → List of radio stations in New York (state)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There's almost nothing on this list that would refer to any "The whale fm". Whale (disambiguation)#See also does include a link to WAAL, which does go by "The Whale" and is on this list (as it broadcasts from Binghamton, New York), but it is not the only FM radio station to use that brand name as there is also a "102.9 the Whale" in Hartford, Connecticut (WDRC-FM), and these lists do not generally include brand names anyway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Whale (disambiguation)#Radio which lists multiple FM radio stations that are or were branded as "The Whale". Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Whale (disambiguation)#Radio per Thryduulf --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per above. I have coincidentally only heard of the Connecticut Whale and not the NY station, and I am certain that there are many in the same boat. A retarget to the DAB page which lists all such stations is appropriate. Toadspike (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 move without leaving a redirect. There is consensus that this does not belong in main space. There's enough of an agreement amongst voters that this user may have been trying to explain their username, so we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and move the page there and remove the redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Spausk → Click  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Pointless translation created by eponymous user, probably should have been at User:Spausk, but it went into article space and has been there for 16 years now :) --Joy (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and move. Restore the original version and move to userspace without leaving a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. For context, it seems that this is "click" in Lithuanian. I'm not sure quite what policy this would fall under, perhaps WP:NOTDICT or WP:EN, but I am fairly certain that it we're not supposed to have redirects from foreign-language translations of titles unless there's some specific connection between the two, such as an alternative name that appears in English RSes. Toadspike (talk) 06:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now learned that the policy is WP:RFFL. Toadspike (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now seen Thryduulf's comment (page caching issue) and I don't quite see the point of storing a one-sentence translation in the userspace of a user whose second and last edit was over 15 years ago. Even if this is policy, it seems a little excessive. The user can always go to REFUND to get it back. Toadspike (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why make them jump through hoops? Moving it to their userspace (which is what they almost certainly intended) costs exactly the same in terms of time and effort, and essentially nothing in terms of server space. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The move to user space without leaving a redirect is effectively the same as the deletion request because we clean up the article space in either case, let's just do that and be done with it. --Joy (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this probably should have been transwikied to Wiktionary in 2007 -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and move without redirect per Thryduulf. It does look like the user was trying to explain their username, rather than start an article. Jay 💬 16:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Restoring and moving feels like inappropriate guesswork - we have no idea whether they were trying to create an article or a userpage, so shouldn't assume. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 without prejudice against the creation of a disambiguation page if someone feels like doing so. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Great Train Race → Tom Thumb (locomotive)#Demonstration  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not explicitly mentioned at target by this name. However, this exact name could also refer to several other events around the world, including from the Hunter Valley Steamfest [1] [2] and Don River Railway [3]. There might be more examples if you do a Google search. Fork99 (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One inbound link at Red Caboose Motel. Fork99 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambig (or setindexify), if there are multiple events that are referred to by this name. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 18:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with set index or delete as nominator. Fork99 (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and use Search for 29 mentions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless someone comes up with a draft for a dab or SIA which we can review, delete as ambiguous. Jay 💬 16:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Fish ribs → Buffalo ribs  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

While this dish is made of fish, this food is seemingly named "buffalo ribs" and not "fish ribs". With that being said, I feel this description of "fish ribs" could be equally plausible to join alongside redirects such as Fish heart and Fish skeleton, which currently point towards Fish anatomy.

Alternatively, Ribs (food) may be specific enough to refer to the fish ribs as something eaten beyond how it is at the current target. (To this end, "buffalo ribs" seems overly specific as a target, and is only linked to a seemingly random menu; contrarily, searching in a search engine returns all sorts of varieties beyond buffalo.) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if kept at current target, a hatnote should be added to Fish anatomy or Fish anatomy#Skeleton. Ribs (food) would seemingly be a reasonable target if only it had more discussion of fish specifically (with the only example given being the current target). A7V2 (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with hatnote (per @A7V2). Unless we have traffic data that shows the term is more likly to be searching fish anatomy this seems like the more likely and harder to find target. - Darker Dreams (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 18:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Untitled Sandra Oh and Awkwafina comedy film → Quiz Lady  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No longer untitled since July. No incoming links, 18 views this month, but the title is quite implausible. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now as it's still helping people find the content they are looking for. If the title was as implausible as the nominator thinks then it wouldn't be getting anywhere near that many views. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:UFILM recommends deletion 30 days after it receives a title. The move occurred 14 July, so this is good to delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What UFILM actually says is at least 30 days after the film receives a title or wide release, in order to allow pageviews to taper off., in this case the page views haven't finished tapering off yet. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 17:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Thryduulf. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any pageview noise at this point is most likely the result of incoming links in non-article namespaces. And even then, it's like 1 every other day. Not enough noise to bypass WP:UFILM. Steel1943 (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow • talk 18:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Steel1943. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, any views at this point are probably because of this RfD. Jay 💬 17:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 💬 10:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wild Wild West(Will Smith song) → Wild Wild West (Will Smith song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The correctly spaced version of this title, Wild Wild West (Will Smith song), is the target of the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Significa liberdade (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete its always been a redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:COSTLY. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to malformed modifier --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Yoblyblob (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 💬 10:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• John Abraham(actor) → John Abraham  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the lack of space between the title and the disambiguator. The correctly spaced version of this title, John Abraham (actor), exists as a redirect that targets the same target as the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Significa liberdade (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:COSTLY. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to malformed modifier --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Yoblyblob (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 💬 10:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Best selling video game tittles in the United States annually → Best-selling video games in the United States by year  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Best selling video game tittles in the United States by year → Best-selling video games in the United States by year  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Typo in page title. (please  mention me on reply) Qwerfjkltalk 17:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• And Best selling video game tittles in the United States by year. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Qwerfjkl: I've tagged that redirect and added it to this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. May qualify for speedy deletion under G6. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete implausible. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to implausible Yoblyblob (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 💬 10:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Jonathan Tronley → JonTron  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No evidence of this name used at the target article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cannot find anything on article or by search for Jonathan Tronley being connected Yoblyblob (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 💬 10:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Adobe Express → Adobe Photoshop  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Ideally, there should be a new article on Adobe Express. If that is not created, this redirect should be deleted. Adobe Express is a suite of tools that do not include Photoshop. Adobe Express and Photoshop are completely distinct, so the current redirect makes no sense. Adobe Express and Photoshop are both products within the Creative Cloud suite of tools, as shown by Adobe's listing of Creative Cloud products, on which they are listed separately. They are also both correctly listed separately in the table on Wikipedia's List of Adobe software in the category of "Creative Cloud family". The current incorrect redirection may have arisen from confusion with Adobe Photoshop Express, which does correctly redirect to Adobe Photoshop. Ennex2 (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to encourage article creation. Confusingly, there seem to be several Adobe applications, including Photoshop, that have a version using the appendage "Express". This is in addition to the unrelated application called Express. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Slavery in international law. Jay 💬 10:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Right to be free from slavery → Slavery  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't think we have a great target for this, but I would think there's something more specific than base Slavery; I currently see Slavery in international law as the best target. I also looked at Freedman and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but those don't really cover the topic and feel off-target respectively. (The precise wording is not used in any of these articles, though it is used in Human rights and Copenhagen criteria. I do wonder if this specific wording qualifies for WP:R#D10, given how precise the term is, but that feels like a stretch and it probably isn't independently notable.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Slavery in international law per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 swapped Alia Shelesh and SSSniperWolf, redirect the former to the latter. Look, snow! (non-admin closure) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• SSSniperWolf → Jacksfilms#Conflict with SSSniperWolf (2022–present)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A redirect pointing to a negative coverage about this YouTuber. This is problematic because SSSniperWolf's YouTube career is not limited to the controversy. This seems like a WP:BLP violation. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While her YouTube career is not only about the Jacksfilms controversy, all her notability and coverage in reliable, independent sources are related to the controversy. I'm yet to find coverage not related to the controversy in reliable and independent sources — I've checked all the sources mentioned in the most recent AfD, and most (if not all) sources were unreliable, of unknown reliability or just weren't significant coverage. Plus, it's very likely that people searching for SSSniperWolf wants to know about the controversy with Jacksfilms. I don't see that as a BLP violation, as we're just pointing out what reliable, independent sources published. Skyshifter ^talk 11:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Trying to apply WP:NPOV on an non-notable subject is a problematic approach imo. NPOV requires that there are sufficient amount of sources to see what the differing viewpoints are, which is at the heart of GNG. It is impossible to do so if there are only one event that the sources are talking about. The reliable and independent sources all talk about SSSniperwolf in relation to the jacksfilms channel, and focus on one controversy only, making it difficult to represent all significant viewpoints. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's unclear to me what BLP concerns might apply beyond those touching on NPOV. Can someone point to a specific section? Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I note below, I believe this is an issue of WP:UNDUE. A redirect focusing solely on a single controversy, in an article that doesn't come close to a complete biography, places much more weight on this controversy than would be appropriate in a stand-alone article. As for NPOV with a non-notable subject, I get the feeling that the notability of Jacksfilms is being used by this redirect to replace a biography of SSSniperWolf with a short, highly critical section, which doesn't sit well with me. Toadspike (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Skyshifter, though I was also surprised at first that she doesn't have a page of her own. She is not mentioned significantly in any other article except jacksfilms so unless she gets a page of her own, which I wouldn't object to if enough reliable sources are found, jacksfilms is the best target. 〜 Askarion ✉ 14:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Move to Alia Shelesh and speedy close. This new page is consistent with my original comment so I have no reason to oppose. 〜 Askarion ✉ 16:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Her draft have been deleted almost 10 times already

  Fair to say the sources isn't there Trade (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Trade, as several new sources (including Time, NBC and Forbes) have surfaced in the last few days that's actually not fair to say. See Wikipedia:Sssniperwolf sources overview. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Bias towards a recent controversy and is a poor target for people wishing to learn more about the person. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• - Delete per PerfectSoundWhatever. Definitely biased, especially considering the target does not offer any actual description of SSSniperWolf, only that she makes reaction content based off of TikTok videos and her failure to credit them. She either should have her own article or the redirect should be deleted. DarkRevival (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  She has previously had her own article which was deleted under AFD a few weeks back. 1keyhole (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete This is a problematic redirect for many reasons. SSSniperWolf is not adequately and wholly covered in the targeted section; there are serious undue weight and NPOV issues, especially when the subject is a living person; and this is strikingly recentist. Even though I am not sympathetic to the subject, I believe we must err on the side of caution with potential BLP violations. Toadspike (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with the above comments regarding the recentism issues. That section only covers a specific controversy she was involved in, it's no place for people to learn who she is. SparklyNights 03:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Move Alia Shelesh to here. That seems to be the most constructive thing to do, even though a new AfD for that article seems a little likely (though that new page looks somewhat good in my opinion). SparklyNights (t) 16:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm dubious that this event will have any enduring notability, but the arguments put forward for deletion do not appear to have basis in the cited policy. DUE requires that we fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. It does not require us to provide this representation as a biographical article, present extraneous biographical detail not in reliable sources, or to remove, hide or de-emphasise negative or controversial material that is sourced to appropriately reliable sources. Coming back to this later. WP:BLPBALANCE specifies that criticism and praise should be included, provided it be responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. This redirect is not eligible for speedy deletion for tone, which requires that it serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten or is negative in tone and unsourced. Redirects that are a plausible search term, for which there is relevant content at the destination, are explicitly not eligible under this criterion. The next few sections concern content, I will only note that the appropriate place to discuss that is at the destination article or a relevant noticeboard (BLPN, for example). Now, back to "biographical article", we do have basis in policy and guidelines to avoid those where reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. Whether or not the subject meets the two additional criteria for the BLP rather than NBIO version to be applicable (i.e. both otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual and event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented) is ultimately irrelevant though, because in those cases we redirect to the content about the event, provided that the event and individual's involvement are both sufficiently signficant to mention somewhere.

  In short:

  • Due weight, as an issue with article content, should be discussed initially on the relevant article's talk page, or if consensus cannot be reached, BLPN or via RFC. This may include the removal of the target section in its entirety, however if there is appropriate sourcing on the event this is unlikely.
  • Inclusion of additional context for example, a brief summary of the rest of her career, can be proposed for inclusion through the same process, assuming appropriate secondary sources exist. This might be, say, one out of six sentences in the paragraphs about this, or more, or less, depending on the weight in the appropriate sources.
  • It is unlikely for the deletion of the redirect to be appropriate, or even effective, so long as the content at the destination remains, and names the current title. Removal of the redirect would not unindex the section from search.

  Thus

  • If, and only if relevant content remains at the target, it is appropriate for the redirect to remain, and not appropriate for it to be removed.

  With those conditions, keep. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLPSTYLE. Redirects to a section of an article with negative coverage of SSSniperWolf, as @Ca said. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 15:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Biased toword recent events. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 16:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I found another notable aspect about SSSniperwolf outside of her controversies. In 2021, she (with her then-husband) bought a 2.25 acres of land in Paradise Valley, Arizona for a record-breaking $6.99 million. It is the "highest price for a single-family lot." It was covered by the Arizona Republic twice - Article 1 (via Yahoo News) and Article 2 (via Newspapers.com). Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 19:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: BLP issues and recentism. On the other hand, it is probable that this person is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. I would drop the title blacklist to ECP given CT issues. Awesome Aasim 01:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably draftify into an article. I think that SSSniperwolf meets the GNG now more than ever based on her recent controversy. This is probably the best way to solve the recentism issues, especially if RS's can be used to elaborate on her notability prior to the Jacksfilms controversy. I would not be opposed to deletion or retention in the meantime; I do tilt towards keep due to high traffic. If deletion occurs, I get a feeling that this page will be salted until a draft compliant with policy is created, as the current Draft:SSSniperWolf has a major copyright issue. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to BLP and recentism. I would also add that I have no idea what standards of notability should apply to Twitch creators and YouTube broadcasters, but: SSSniperwolf has many more subscribers on both platforms than this other person ^[1], and (from what I can tell) has a whole community of YouTube creators who want to post about her. To the extent that follower counts and video tags indicate notability, SSSniperWolf is FAR more notable than JacksFilms. Seems like her public profile should be parsed in its own context rather than as an adjunct to another creator who is chasing clout. Innocent76 (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  People don't really write about reaction YouTubers in detail, so there are not enough sources to base an article on. Espiecially a Youtuber with controversies ongoing, it is important that there are quality sources to accurately represent different viewpoints. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. SSSniperwolf is known for more than just this controversy. - Liam Plecak (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC) strike sock -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. A deletion review of the AfD has been started, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 27#SSSniperWolf. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if it is turned into an article. I think she meets Wikipedia:Notability criteria but this redirect is biased and pointless. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 04:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move Alia Shelesh to here per SparklyNights’s argument above. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 16:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Comment' Sniper Wolf could be turned into an article (splitting it off from the list of characters), with a section about SSSniperWolf, as a person who derived their online alias from that videogame character. -- 05:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.247.90 (talk)
• Keep. I agree with Alpha3031's explanations. The nomination rationale of negative coverage in an article or BLP violation is not a basis for deletion. However I agree with "[her] YouTube career is not limited to the controversy" and she is listed as a winner in the 2019 Kids Choice Awards and Sports, and her relevance in the YouTube diss track "Yacht". However, the current target is the best, having details of her actual name and her prior and ongoing relation with YouTube. I agree that there should be at least a draft that can go through review, given Alexis' DRV and list of sources provided. There have been multiple drafts that expired via WP:G13 (Draft:SSSniperwolf, Draft:SSsniperwolf, Draft:Sssniperwolf), and may be revived. Jay 💬 05:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also see WP:Requests for undeletion#Draft:SSSniperwolf where one of the drafts has been restored so far. Jay 💬 05:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The RfU is now archived at WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 391#Draft:SSSniperwolf. The draft was moved to article and is now a redirect to Alia Shelesh. I would have supported a Move per the latest votes, but will defer to Vanamonde93's opinion, who had protected the page subject to it being recreated via AfC, and Alia Shelesh was not. So retarget to Alia Shelesh for now. Jay 💬 05:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer. The target section has be renamed to "Feud with SSSniperWolf (2022–present)", the redirect will need to be updated if the result is to keep. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and turn into an article - There are enough substantial citations collected in Wikipedia:SSSniperWolf sources overview, many of which have nothing to do with her controversies. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 14:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jay. My analysis is that a more comprehensive article could exist with the available sourcing, but for now, all the encyclopedic material available is at the current target and is well-covered by RS, so as long as we are careful in their use, BLP isn't a reason to delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Patar knight (talk • contribs) 22:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient content actually about the subject at the target to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete /see new comment below made after the circumstances changed/ per Pppery. Inappropriate redirect at this time.—Alalch E. 17:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This redirect has too many problems on its own, and hopefully the redlink will inspire creation of an article — the subject appears to be notable, as mentioned several times above. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment new draft Draft:SSSniperWolf has been submitted to AfC. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That draft has been rejected. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 20:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article has been recreated at the title Alia Shelesh. – Joe (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that was probably a bit out of process considering this discussion is still ongoing. That being said, the redirect should proably be G6-ed and that page moved to the SSSniperWolf title per WP:COMMONNAME. This is no longer a conversation for RfD, and can be taken to AfD (for the sixth time) if there are complaints about the content of the article. (Pinging Alexis Jazz.) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  TechnoSquirrel69, my actions are perfectly compliant with the BOLD process. ;-) AfC is not compulsory. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  AfC definitely isn't compulsory, but deliberately avoiding the obvious mainspace title due to it currently being the subject of a discussion was the wrong move, in my opinion. I understand why you did it, but it was rushed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Alia Shelesh here and speedy close. With the article being recreated it just needs to be moved back. Skyshifter ^talk 03:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Skyshifter: For procedure's sake, you should strike your keep !vote above. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Alia Shelesh here per Skyshifter. Recreated article looks like it will stand, but should be at this title. Mbdfar (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I would say delete, per those arguing above, but with the recent creation of Alia Shelesh, that should either be the new target, or this be deleted and that moved here. SWinxy (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Guess I didn't vote yet. Like SWinxy says, either redirect to Alia Shelesh or move that page here. I don't think closing right now would qualify as "speedy", but yeah, close this discussion ASAP. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Alia Shelesh here and speedy close, per Skyshifter. Polyamorph (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Askarion, PerfectSoundWhatever, DarkRevival, Toadspike, SparklyNights, Alpha3031, Davest3r08, NightWolf1223, Awesome Aasim, InvadingInvader, Super Dromaeosaurus, Innocent76, Politicdude, Yoshiman6464, Patar knight, Pppery, Alalch E., please review the discussion and re-affirm or update your vote. If I missed someone or pinged someone who already updated their vote I apologize. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I !voted to delete above, but now, under the new circumstances, I support moving Alia Shelesh here.—Alalch E. 16:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hypothetically, if I had a update or affirmation to make, it would be that you're free to move an article wherever you want to, so long that you feel you're sufficiently WP:CAREFUL, and it wouldn't matter what the consensus at a RfD was because RfD doesn't discuss moves. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither outcome of this RfD affects what the name of the Alia Shelesh article could or should be. If the redirect is deleted, the article can be moved to the former redirect's name. If the redirect is not deleted, the article can be moved over the redirect. However, the question of the appropriateness of the redirect is now moot because under no circumstance is this going to be a redirect that points to questionable content, which was the cause for the RfD. It isn't important that people change their !votes, but it doesn't harm anything. The RfD can be immediately closed. —Alalch E. 16:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Alpha3031, as I still get warnings from MediaWiki:Titleblacklist I thought this required an admin, but it seems I actually should be able to fix this as the page mover user group includes tboverride.
  If the redirect is not deleted, the article can be moved over the redirect.
  Only admins can move over a redirect with history.
  Alalch E., The RfD can be immediately closed. Not sure. @TechnoSquirrel69 tagged the redirect for CSD G6 speedy deletion with the reason "The RfD is probably moot now; see my comment." and was reverted by @Liz who stated "Removing CSD tag, this page should not be deleted or moved during an active RFD discussion" in their edit summary. So it seems we do need more/updated !votes? Don't ask me, I'm just the messenger. But with the last few (updated) votes I think a SNOW close will be okay, so I'll try and see if I can make it happen. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I originally voted for "Keep", and now I too support moving Alia Shelesh here. She is much better known as SSSNiperWolf than as her real name, much like MrBeast, Pewdiepie, or Jacksfilms. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alexis Jazz: You should probably withdraw the deletion review nomination, which is also now moot. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  TechnoSquirrel69, well I'd still be interested to review the old versions as they might include some source I've missed. I was surprised to find a source I missed in the history of the undeleted draft ([4]), but I need to take a closer look before adding it. It may be useful as an additional source to support the "is cosplayer" statement. Perhaps I've missed more which could be in the history of the deleted versions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fine. I feel though the article will need a lot of work to address previous concerns that led to the article being deleted. Awesome Aasim 17:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 💬 09:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Stephen Fowler (Wife Swap) → Online shaming#Stephen Fowler and Wife Swap  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Topic not mentioned in target article, and nothing links to it. There was probably some mention of this person in the Online shaming or Internet vigilantism articles at one time, but there isn't now. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Section in target article was removed over 3 years ago. Schazjmd (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP, as the article's standards have been tightened to just not be 'I hate this random person from (medium)'. Nate • (chatter) 00:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was retarget to List of foreign Super League Greece players#Uruguay. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Claudio Alves Oliveira → 2000–01 Kalamata F.C. season  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirection with no apparent meaning --Svartner (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (first choice) or Retarget to List of foreign Super League Greece players#Uruguay. The redirect does have meaning, as this is the name of a player who is mentioned in the target article. They are mentioned only in these two places, the current target has more information but the list article suggests he was with the club for two seasons, but while we don't have an article for the earlier one I don't think that is much of a problem. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or retarget per Thryduulf. Significa liberdade (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of foreign Super League Greece players#Uruguay Per Thryduulf Yoblyblob (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 💬 09:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Down in mammoth cave is where his body laid → Folklore and Superstition  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Title of redirect not mention in article body. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's the chorus from Black Stone Cherry's song Ghost of Floyd Collins. 53zodiac (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The phrase is not mentioned in the redirect target. Wikipedia is not for stray song lyrics from obscure songs. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Clarityfiend. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 13:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Palestinian genocide → Genocide against Palestinians  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary provocative redirect. The target article is controversial and poorly named; neither this phrase nor the target article title are terms of art, should be deleted or at most a section in a broader article. This seems to have been an effort to get around the clear framework at e.g. List of genocides and external reliable sources, to create a label for the purposes of describing the Israeli-Palestinian_conflict, where this new article was immediately referenced and linked to from the lede. – SJ + 17:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: is a modification (rearrangement) of the target's title and a plausible search term. Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not opposed to retargetting somewhere; read my "keep" !vote as "don't delete". Edward-Woodrow • talk 00:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Target was created Oct 12 and merged to Israel and apartheid#Allegations of genocide today. See Talk:Genocide against Palestinians and Talk:Israel and apartheid#Allegations of genocide. ― Synpath 23:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I just added the redirect because of the name of the article itself. Maybe the main article should be renamed to Allegations of genocide of Palestinians similarly to Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine? ~Strawberry of Arctic Circle System (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or retarget or disambiguate: The allegation has clearly been made and has been discussed in many reliable sources. Deleting it would be a POV or censorship action. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Fooian genocide" literally means genocide against the people of Foo (or genocide in the land of Foo): see examples at List of genocides. Notwithstanding editorial decisions about the article and Talk page discussions/disputes, this redirect is an entirely valid and understandable way to reach the article at its current title . Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Obviously not just plausible, but the most natural search term. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now – there is now an active RM, but unless after that RM the current title is deemed inappropriate, this should stay as an alternative phrasing. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 soft redirect to Wikt:sniff test. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sniff test → Sanity check  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Smell test → Sanity check  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Sniff" and "smell" are not mentioned at the target article. A multitude of other tests involve smelling or sniffing, including a number of AB tests and/or any test that involves determining a particular smell or odor, as some baseline examples. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or soft redirect to Wiktionary, While technically true, the nomination completely ignores (or is unaware of) the idiomatic meanings of the terms (which should probably be mentioned at the target), indeed "sniff test" has no other meanings listed at Wiktionary. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to Wiktionary. In both cases Wikt mentions the origin of the phrase in actually smelling something, but gives a sense that the test is to see if something is proper/moral rather than to see if it is a rational/not-obviously-false solution. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or change to disambiguation page - Template:Wiktionary redirect says it should only be used when "[t]here is no other Wikipedia page to which this would be an appropriate redirect". Sanity check is one appropriate redirect target. Nom argues a multitude of other tests also exist that would be appropriate redirect targets. If articles for those tests exist, we should be linking to them rather than redirecting off-site. If they don't exist, it should be left as-is because Template:Wiktionary redirect counterindicates this situation. (Full disclosure: I created these redirects) DefaultFree (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or disambig per DefaultFree - Darker Dreams (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to wikt:sniff test and wikt:smell test respectively, which provide more definitions than are described at Sanity check. The article Sanity check says nothing about "inspection of an object using the sense of smell, as for freshness of food" or "assessment of a subject's ability to detect and distinguish odors", but Wiktionary does. As Utopes pointed out, more than one topic could be referred to as a sniff/smell test. Thus, per WP:XY, no Wikipedia article is currently suitable, although possibly a disambiguation page would be. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 20:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a more solid consensus...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft retarget to wikt:sniff test and wikt:smell test per CopperyMarrow15 --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect to Wikitionary. There is nothing to disambiguate. The only "Sniff test" is an episode of The Real Housewives of New Jersey (season 4), and there is no "Smell test" article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Human hair color#Gray and white hair. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 🧑‍🦳 → Human hair color  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I find it very unlikely that someone copy/pasting this emoji into an encyclopedia's search engine is looking for human hair colour. Delete – very vague. And no pageviews since it was created. Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retarget to either Fitzpatrick scale or Emoji#Skin color (and expend that part to include skin and hair combinations). There is nothing vague about this emoji, just the nom not taking the time to understand it (seeing as how they think that the emoji only represents hair color). Additionally pageviews are not a reason to delete a redirect (WP:R#DELETE). Basically a baseless nomination which seems more of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Gonnym (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the emoji, which you added to the template (thanks for that) is "Light Skin Tone, White Hair." This is a textbook WP:XY situation: should it target white hair (a redirect to a section of the current target) or pale skin or Emoji#Skin_color? Edward-Woodrow • talk 13:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or retarget per Gonnym. I'm not impressed by another nomination from the same editor that fails to understand either emojis or reasons for deleting redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or retarget per Gonnym. Enix150 (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine to Human hair color#Gray and white hair (to double redirect from White hair). The hair color is the more specific attribute here, the skin color affects a much broader set of emojis. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine per Tavix. Enix150 (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should this be refined? Or should it be retargeted somewhere else?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine per Tavix. I agree that the hair color is the defining feature of the emoji, and that target seems most appropriate. Toadspike (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete problematic and useless. That article could be rewritten and the section renamed or completely removed. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This discussion should probably be temporarily suspended as this RfC was opened on the topic. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Alien. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 👾 → Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs#Chart  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

All this tells the reader is that the character is a Miscellaneous Symbol and Pictograph. And they'd probably have to text-search to find it. Unhelpful and ambiguous – delete. Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seriously? Aren't you going to WP:DROPTHESTICK at some point? None of your previous nominations have resulted in deletion and yet you continue. At some point this is just disruptive. Gonnym (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to provide an actual reason to keep, or would you prefer to continue with ad hominem attacks? Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If pointing out the facts that none of your nominations resulted in your goal or that what you are doing is disruptive, then I don't think that this venue is for you. Gonnym (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Alien (a disambig) or Keep. This emoji is defined as "alien monster" and while that could refer to multiple different topics on Wikipedia, they are all listed at the one disambiguation page so that will be most helpful for readers. Alternatively the current target also provides information about the character. There is no case for deletion here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Alien per Thryduulf. Enix150 (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Monster. Alien takes an adjectival form describing what kind of monster it is, but by definition it is a monster. It also helps that Monster is not a disambiguation page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Space Invaders. The emoji highly resembles one of the aliens from that game.

I am RedoStone (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not always, see https://emojipedia.org/alien-monster#designs. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link, I too was sure it was always a Space Invaders image. Gonnym (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every design that isn't Space Invaders, is either an old design, or discontinued CheeseyHead (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not entirely clear where this emoji redirect should target...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion should probably be temporarily suspended as this RfC was opened on the topic. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 🫥 → Social invisibility  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's a face with a dashed line around it. Even the name of the character reflects that. How does this refer unambiguously to social invisibility? In what way is that the primary topic of this title? Delete due to ambiguity. Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retarget to a better option or to the emoji block. Gonnym (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A per the consensus of the previous RfD, where ais523 left an excellent rationale that I will quote here: Retarget; there's no ideal target but Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A is better than nothing. [...] One of the main purposes of redirects from Unicode characters is so that people can use Wikipedia to find out what a particular character they can't render is (by copying and pasting it into the search box), so this should ideally be a section or anchor redirect to a relevant list entry, but we don't have one. Redirecting to the Unicode block at least lets people realise "oh, this must be an emoji I can't render", but trying to use the redirect to make a statement about the meaning of the emoji would be something that requires sourcing. I strongly urge the nominator to read and understand this before nominating any other emojis at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or retarget to Invisibility. Enix150 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Invisibility per 2022 Tavix. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to Invisibility? Or to Symbols and Pictographs Extended-A?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion should probably be temporarily suspended as this RfC was opened on the topic. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 Polygamy per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow • talk 22:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Polygamous marriage → Polygyny  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Polygamy - The same graph reflecting legal status is shown in Polygamy#Legal status. And while most polygamous marriages refer to one man with multiple wives, the opposite is possible. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: polygamous marriage and polygamy mean the same thing; polygyny is a subset of that. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Caeciliusinhorto. Significa liberdade (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Caeciliusinhorto, pretty straightforward. Toadspike (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 💬 09:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unuseful redirect. Target page makes no mention of 2024 music specifically. Creation of this article is inevitable, as is the case with every year's "in music" page, but for the time being this redirect is just confusing and potentially discouraging to editors who might assume the article has already been made given the bluelink. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; no mention at target and created WP:TOOSOON. This can be recreated as a proper article at the start of 2024. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see no real reason for this redirect to exist before the new year rolls around. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and InterstellarGamer12321. Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no Draft:2024 in music so this shouldn't be created until properly sourced or go to the vague concept of music. Nate • (chatter) 00:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I have just made a draft of this redirect, so it should not be a major problem. It was too early to start off 2024 redirects anyway. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 23:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for doing that; switch to a Retarget to Draft:2024 in music, as it should be. Nate • (chatter) 00:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @MrSchimpf: Are you calling for a retarget into draftspace? Cross-namespace redirects of this kind are explicitly disallowed by the deletion policy. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Really? I've just never understood all these odd rules and technicalities for draft space (I usually associate it with the IP vandalism side of the project trying to sneak their SpongeBob/Gumball-esque fanfiction where The Children's Channel still exists into mainspace). With that then...delete for now, and then create a redirect or have the draft moved over naturally when the article is ready. Nate • (chatter) 22:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @MrSchimpf: Thanks for the suggestion. It was just wrong timing. That's all. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 02:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 💬 09:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Mononoke hima → Princess Mononoke  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I propose that this redirect is deleted; the title of Princess Mononoke in Japanese is Mononoke hime, which is similar, but certainly not the same — its also not an expectable typo. This point was also brought up at this discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unlikely typo. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm running on the presumption here that the "e" in "hime" is pronounced like "uh", in which case I could see a reasonable cause for confusion that it could be the letter "a" making that sound in the romanization. I agree that it's not a very likely typo, but it could be a very plausible misspelling, particularly for those who only know the pronunciation and not the correct romanization. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Estar8806: Appealing logic, but that's not the pronunciation — it's /e/, not /ə/. (In fact, the latter sound doesn't even exist in Japanese.) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, thank you for correcting me. I had a feeling that it could be pronounced differently from the way I thought, hence why I said "weak". Considering my entire argument was based on that, I would have to say delete now. estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had it been in the correct form I would have advocated for keeping it. But there's clearly a typo here which makes this redirect useless. Keivan.f^Talk 19:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:G3). Deleted by Acroterion as vandalism (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 16:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Killary → Killary Harbour  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This page originally directed to Hillary Clinton, given a common pejorative nickname (see BBC,2016; The Times of India, 2016; The Irish Times, 2021), though I boldly retargeted to Killary Harbour. At present, two pages (List of civil parishes of Ireland, George Synge), one talk page(Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 45), and two user pages link to Killary. I'm not sure what the best target here is or whether the redirect should exist. Significa liberdade (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).