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 💬 05:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Bitch(Sevendust Song) → Sevendust (album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:UNNATURAL. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 23:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a typical WP:RDAB situation. Duckmather (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it doesn't appear to contain any new content to the correct title prior to the merge in 2021. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:21, 6 September 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 Love rose. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 18:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Crack stem → Crack cocaine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This term isn't mentioned in the article, and a plain Google search indicates it's ambiguous. Delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's ambiguous. Looks like some kind of drug paraphernalia related to cocaine. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as vague. It seems that the proper term is crack pipe. If refs are found then retargetting to Pizzo (pipe) might be better as that article would be better than the current target. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have tagged the redirect with ((R with history)) and also notified of this discussion at the talk of alternate target Pizzo (pipe).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding refs, I found: Bletzer, Keith V. (2015-07-15). Down Country Lanes, Behind Abandoned Houses. Bentham Science Publishers. ISBN 978-1-68108-104-5.
  A snippet preview on Google Books quotes this text from page 105: I have reports on tape from crack users, whom I formally interviewed, each describing some aspect of making a crack stem.
  It might not be the best reference, as I'm not sure if it actually describes what a "crack stem" is outside this snippet. I found an online source that appears to indicate that a "stem" denotes a straight glass tube without a "bowl", like a love rose rather than a pizzo (pipe). To be honest, I doubt either of those articles are located at the common name for their respective topics. They should probably be merged into a single article which covers the broader topic, encompassing crack/meth/etc. pipes with and without a "bowl".
  Crack cocaine § Physiological indicates that the glass tubes orginated with love roses, for which it cites a Washington Post article which mentions that "rosebuds" and "stems" were synonymous; it's possible "crack stem" originates with "rose stems", if this article is correct. That said I don't think going from "tube" to "stem" needs this intermediate step and "crack stems" may predate love roses, idk. Regardless of the origin, the association with fake roses in glass tubes seems to be largely historical. My understanding is that crack pipes are largely improvisational and any glass tube will do; this is affirmed by the Google Books snippet (which implies that users tend to make their own) and by Crack cocaine § Consumption.
  Given this, I'm leaning to retarget to love rose with regards to this RfD, although further action seems warranted (namely moving pizzo (pipe) to a more common name and/or a merge with love rose). I only say "leaning" because the article currently focuses narrowly on a single variation. – Scyrme (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Love rose. Nice research, Scyrme, and I agree that some sort of merge with Pizzo (pipe) is probably warranted. --BDD (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Love rose per Scyrme. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 22:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Love rose per Scyrme. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:16, 4 September 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 5G misinformation. Consensus is to retarget; the anchor at 5G#Controversy could also likely be removed due to this title no longer pointing there as a redirect. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 5G conspiracies → 5G#Controversy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect to 5G misinformation, which is the main article that the current target – a section – only summarizes. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 22:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support also per nom. The main article is linked from the current target section so it seems like it would make a better target. A smart kitten (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:13, 6 September 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)} 05:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sanzaru → Three wise monkeys  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Searches for this term point mostly to Sanzaru Games or one of several films that don't appear to have articles. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. See [1], [2], [3], and [4], which I found at the top of a Google search for "sanzaru meaning". These aren't reliable sources by any means, but they show the term in use as referring to the three wise monkeys and not the company or films. I don't know Japanese, but Google Translate provides a translation for "三猿" – which the latter webpage says means "sanzaru" – as "three monkeys". It doesn't provide a translation for "sanzaru" itself though. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 22:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and discuss at Talk:Three wise monkeys#Edits to lede about the best way to include this term in the article (perhaps in a footnote or in a section of the body which explains the 猿 vs. ざる pun). This article is the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT by long-term significance, particularly in comparison to minor pop culture topics. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RFFL as the original language. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: as the Japanese name per above. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 20:19, 5 September 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)} 05:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Avenida Comandante Valòdia → Avenida Comandante Valódia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect is a misspelling of a given name. Bastewasket (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article existed at this title until today when the nominator moved it to the correct title. WP:RFD#K1 seems to apply here. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Plausible-ish misaccent and from a move. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 01:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RFD#K4. No real reason to delete here. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:58, 11 September 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 💬 05:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ghapa rice → Thai fried rice  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Wholly implausible redirect. What is the intended term even supposed to be anyway? "Gaprao" (in which case it the target would be phat kaphrao)? "Khao phat" (in which case Thai fried rice would be correct)? It's not even close to anything. Paul_012 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Implausible. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 20:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Searching "Ghapa rice" pulls up a couple Uber Eats results in Japanese for a "Thai ghapa rice". Might just be one or two restaurants, or a mistranslation? Not sure. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say an implausible typo or made-up spelling by a single restaurant in Japan, who are likely not English speakers, would certainly not warrant a redirect. The katakana is タイガパオライス tai gapao raisu. Maybe they felt that Thai should have a lot of hs added to its consonants and randomly added one where it wasn't warranted, and missed the o at the end. In any case, ghapa is clearly a mistake. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:31, 10 September 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 💬 17:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Cara fame → Fame (Irene Cara song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Completely unnecessary redirect. No one would create a link to Cara fame". ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I was doing a crossword so that's why I created the redirect. Hamtrane (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Um... and you thought that it would be a good redirect?... Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 22:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wierd formatting, not a plausible search. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Unnatural. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 22:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unnatural. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 01:07, 6 September 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. As an unopposed deletion nomination. Jay 💬 17:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• History of Cornești, Moldova → Cornești, Moldova#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are two places in the Ungheni District in Moldova with the name of Cornești. I just moved both of their articles to Cornești (town), Ungheni and Cornești (village), Ungheni. This redirect is ambiguous as it could refer to any of these two villages. There's actually another Cornești in Moldova outside the Ungheni District, in the commune of Secăreni in Hîncești District. Confused yet? Let's just delete it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:29, 3 September 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 three wise monkeys, move the film article to See No Evil, Hear No Evil (film), and retarget the remainder redirect to three wise monkeys per User:Shhhnotsoloud's suggestion. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• See no evil hear no evil → Three wise monkeys  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• See no evil, hear no evil → See No Evil, Hear No Evil  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to See No Evil, Hear No Evil for consistency with other redirects such as see no evil, hear no evil. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pppery: I've added See no evil, hear no evil to this nomination. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget See no evil, hear no evil to Three wise monkeys which is the primary topic here. Article See No Evil, Hear No Evil should be moved to See No Evil, Hear No Evil (film) and the resulting redirect targeted to Three wise monkeys. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I support Shhhnotsoloud's proposal. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/retarget all lowercased versions to Three wise monkeys. No opinion on moving the film article, as WP:DIFFCAPS might be adequate distinction. Maybe leave that for an RM. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shhhnotsoloud. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 02:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Shhhnotsoloud --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:21, 5 September 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 restore and AfD. There was no consensus for draftifying, and interested participants may bring it up at the AfD. Jay 💬 17:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul Kazuhiro Mori → Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Tokyo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Subject is not mentioned on the landing page, redirect should be deleted. WWGB (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This was a very recently created stub article before it was blanked and redirected by Hydronium Hydroxide for reasons given at Talk:Paul Kazuhiro Mori. This person has an article at the Japanese Wikipedia (Paul Kazuhiro Mori [ja]) with more material and references. Perhaps it should be moved into draft space rather than deleted to give the creator the opportunity to develop it further? – Scyrme (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with collegue WWGB regarding deliting of this redirecting, because it reduces the chance to create an article (or at least a stub) and contradicts long-standing practice. I think it will be enough to leave something like this, for example: Rudy Carrié [es]--Noel baran (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (and use ILL where appropriate) to encourage article creation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  An editor already attempted article creation although it was only a stub; deletion might discourage them from working on it further. Moving it to a draft (without leaving a redirect from article space to draft space) would also allow red links and ILL. – Scyrme (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and AfD. Hydronium Hydroxide's rationale for redirecting was lack of notability, not readiness, and draftifying/deleting leaving a red link would not address those concerns. AfD is the centralised discussion venue best equipped for discussion of notability matters. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect: I think an AfD would have been better but, considering WP:SNOW, what difference would that make to the final outcome? Redirect is the right solution: we can blue link the bishop's name on articles like that of whoever consecrated him while also recognizing that he's almost certainly not notable at the present moment. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles deleted at AfD are routinely de-linked, so no red link will remain that might encourage re-creation, nor blue links to a target without mention, which the nominator objects to. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: At the time his name was in the article so redirected as WP:ATD, with the article creator notified so they could revert if so desired. Per my TP rationale, I don't believe that even if the jp-wiki article were properly translated it would survive at AFD under en-wiki notability requirements as the principal sources are an obituary by the Archdiocese, and an interview with Mori. I don't believe the redirect should be deleted directly. Options:

a. Leave as redirect as harmless; add ((r from member))

b. Leave as redirect, add some more personnel information from [5] to the article

c. Restore to article and AFD

d. Restore to article and PROD

e. Move to draft and almost certain eventual G13

I don't love the deletion options - and deletion of this redirect directly is out, I think - but his name is probably not going to receive many searches in the longer term. (ping Thriley for thoughts) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and AfD. Article was created and immediately blanked and redirected two days ago. WP:AFD is the forum to discuss contested BLARs, not RFD. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support draftification, if there is consensus for that here, as an alternative to Afd. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and draftify to develop further. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 18:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and AfD per the above; I think draftifying is bitier than AfD'ing. Duckmather (talk) 15:20, 18 September 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. ✗plicit 02:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Old Russian zodching → Architecture of Kievan Rus'  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Per its history, it only exists because of an ill-judged move that should not have happened to begin with: revert undiscussed & highly dubious move. It wasn't at this title for very long. It's a word-for-word translation of the title of the Russian-language Wikipedia article Old Russian architecture [ru], which is the Russian Wikipedia's equivalent to Architecture of Kievan Rus'. "Zodching" is neither an English word nor a Russian one, rather it's an (apparently newly made-up) mix of the two derived from "зодчество". The Russian suffix -ство was (questionably) translated as the English suffix -ing while the rest of the word was merely transliterated. An external search shows that the only results for "zodching" are Wikipedia mirrors and pages quoting old revisions of Wikipedia; the only exception I saw was a Tumblr blog, but all the posts referring to "zodching" appear post-date the move on Wikipedia so it's plausible it's influenced by/connected to the move. Its existence is more likely to mislead/confuse than to help (D2), especially since it contains a neologism (D8 re: "novel" terms). – Scyrme (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Implausible neologism. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 00:51, 7 September 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 Lord Byron#Children. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Byron and his children → Michael C. Burgess (editor)#Personal life  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Okay... the article says that He and his father became the topic of an article for The Daily Telegraph after Christina Hardyment read Byron's Children by Susan Normington. Google searches indicate "Byron and his children" may be an alternate title for this book. This doesn't make it a good redirect; Burgess is only faintly tangentially related to the book; the ideal target would be Susan Normington, which doesn't exist. Delete. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 00:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Lord Byron#Children. Byron and his children seems to be the correct title, but the source called it Byron’s Children. The book author is the the best candidate here so if it doesn’t exist, I’m neutral about this one. –Filmforme (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Lord Byron#Children which is a more plausible target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:41, 3 September 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).