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 23:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Na Na Remix N-Dubz song → Against All Odds (N-Dubz album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• "Na Na (N-Dubz song) → Against All Odds (N-Dubz album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:UNNATURAL due the quote that hasn't been closed. The corrected versions with the closing quotes don't exist. Nickps (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unlikely search terms. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "Delete" the 1st was at that title for less than a day in 2010, the 2nd was a separate article for around a week in 2010. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2024 (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 23:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Na Na (Remix)(N-Dubz song) → Against All Odds (N-Dubz album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:RTYPO due the unclosed quote and missing space between the parentheses. Nickps (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an implausible search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it was an article for lees than a day in 2010 and doesn't appear to contain any content not in Na Na (N-Dubz song). Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2024 (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 23:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Bold and the Beautifu"l characters (2013) → List of The Bold and the Beautiful characters (2010s)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

An already WP:UNNATURAL redirect with a typo. Note that the correctly spelled version ("The Bold and the Beautiful" characters (2013)) does not (and should not) exist. Nickps (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the typo making this an implausible search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it was at this title for about a minute in 2013. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2024 (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 23:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Don't Turn Around" (Album) → Don't Turn Around (album)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:UNNATURAL redirect due to the quotes and capitalized disambiguator. Nickps (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I would probably support keeping this if it were conventional to style album titles in quotes. But they use italics instead, so this is doubly wrong. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete it was at this title for about 19 minutes in 2020. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2024 (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. Editors remain divided on WP:CHEAP vs WP:COSTLY, although based on length alon this discussion was the latter. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Time (Magazine) → Time (magazine)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete due to capitalized disambiguator. Nickps (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Yes, the capitalized disambiguator is wrong and if it were an article title it would be corrected. However it's a redirect that is in use on 33 articles indicating that it is not an uncommon mistake. Why remove it? It costs nothing. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:PANDORA is a good enough reason to remove it. Forbes (Magazine), Fortune (Magazine) and several others don't exist but if this is kept then they should be created for consistency. Nickps (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I see no reason that consistency is needed, nor do I see a reason to get rid of those that already exist. Title case is a thing, and some people type it habitually. It's helpful enough where it already exists, but it's not really needed to add everywhere. I'd say just let it be. Oh, uh... I guess I'll toss in a !vote of Keep here too. Fieari (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not saying that consistency is "needed", however the existence of one such redirect creates precedent that will eventually lead to more of them being created. Assume for a moment that an editor made a link to the incorrectly capitalized Time (Magazine) in an article and saw it works but then when they tried with Fortune it was red. Would it be that unreasonable for them to create the "missing" redirect? On the other hand if neither exists they will be forced to use the correct one. Nickps (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They could correct the error, or they could create the missing redirect. Neither action would be harmful in any way. Thryduulf (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SchreiberBike - useful and harmless. WP:PANDORA is misleading nonsense - it's just WP:OTHERSTUFF with a side helping of WP:CRYSTAL. Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How is WP:PANDORA related to WP:CRYSTAL? CRYSTAL clearly refers to articles being too forward-looking or speculative. It says nothing about how editors should argue at XFD and how could it considering it's under WP:NOT#Encyclopedic content. Nickps (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  PANDORA is entirely speculative - it presupposes, without evidence, that the existence of one redirect will result in the creation of a different redirect at some point in the future and, again without evidence, assumes that the presence of that other redirect will be harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not an unnatural assumption to make. I've created a lot of redirects because similar ones already existed. E.g since std::string existed I made std::wstring, std::u8string &c. In my opinion, all of these redirects have merit on their own and don't need the others to exist, but the reason I actually created them instead of just not opposing their creation was consistency. Nickps (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  all of these redirects have merit on their own and don't need the others to exist so in other words the existence of other redirects is not relevant to whether they should be kept or deleted, invalidating the core point of PANDORA. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want to ignore what I said afterwards, sure. I only said that all of these redirects have merit on their own to make it clear I didn't create the redirects to make a point. That doesn't mean one's existence is not dependent on the others' since, if the original hadn't been created, the others wouldn't exist either because I wouldn't have made them. I provided those redirects to counter the notion that [WP:PANDORA] presupposes, without evidence, that the existence of one redirect will result in the creation of a different redirect at some point in the future nothing more, nothing less. The "core point of PANDORA", that unhelpful redirects warp user expectations leading to the creation of more unhelpful redirects and we should avoid that still stands.

  On a similar note, I want to address the idea that WP:PANDORA without evidence, assumes that the presence of that other redirect will be harmful. This is only true if you don't accept the rationale behind WP:COSTLY. PANDORA redirects are harmful because of the reasons provided there, namely that they create more opportunities for similar redirects with mismatching targets, redirects pointing to the wrong target, and more opportunities for vandalism and content forks. And they do all that without any tangible benefit since they don't assist navigation. Especially in this RFD whose delete close would not be felt at all. Search will automagically take care of any queries that landed on this redirect until now. Nickps (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  unhelpful redirects warp user expectations leading to the creation of more unhelpful redirects you appear to be simultaneously arguing that the redirects you created are both helpful and unhelpful, useful for navigation and not useful for navigation. You cannot use good redirects existing because of the presence of other good redirects as evidence that bad redirects lead to the creation of other bad redirects, especially when their theoretically serving as inspiration for other redirects is the only reason you can give for them being bad.

  You highlight a lot of theoretical problems that these redirects might cause, but provide no evidence that any of them do lead to that. We regularly see redirects that have existed for over a decade, which are unambiguously not useful, that (as far as we can tell) have never resulted in similar redirects being created, have never resulted in POV forks or vandalism.

  This is only true if you don't accept the rationale behind WP:COSTLY. COSTLY is an essay that gets some things objectively right, some things objectively wrong, and states some things as fact that are just opinion (some of which are widely shared, some of which are not). One that that is definitely wrong in the PANDORA section is that one redirect being good or bad is a reliable indicator that a similar redirect will be good or bad, when that is pure WP:OTHERSTUFF - redirects are judged on their own merits, not the merits of different redirects. Italia 90 is a good redirect, Italy 2026 is a very similar redirect that was deleted.

  Finally as explained on multiple other discussions, search is not a panacea - some people will be automatically taken to the canonical capitalisation (which is not intrinsically more or less correct than any other, it's just an arbitrary convention) but not everybody - some people will be several clicks/taps away from the destination (it depends on a combination of some or all of, at least, what device/software they are using, how it is configured, how they are navigating, whether they have the ability to create an article at this title and whether the search engine is working correctly at that moment). Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We regularly see redirects that have existed for over a decade, which are unambiguously not useful, that (as far as we can tell) have never resulted in similar redirects being created, have never resulted in POV forks or vandalism. And that's great. But regularly is far from always. Since WP:VANDAL#Redirect vandalism is policy I trust that the editors who wrote it had examples even if I don't. My inexperience/lack of knowledge shouldn't be a factor in this discussion, that's an argument from incredulity. Creating a redirect is not something an IP can do, if we do it for them, we are opening ourselves up to more vandalism opportunities.

  Now, about WP:OTHERSTUFF I have to admit that you're right. WP:PANDORA is in its core an "other stuff exists" argument. Hovever, we read in WP:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments that While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. I argue that WP:COSTLY is this argument since it demonstrates the harm that unnecessary redirects can do. I don't want to delete this redirect just because it might lead to a similar redirect's creation. I want to delete it a) per WP:COSTLY#Relevant factors #1 and #2 as I think keeping it is more trouble than it's worth and only b) per WP:PANDORA. I thought this was implied by PANDORA's "unhelpful" but I was wrong and that's on me.

  One that that is definitely wrong in the PANDORA section is that one redirect being good or bad is a reliable indicator that a similar redirect will be good or bad. That is almost certainly not wrong. In some cases there is a very strong correlation of what a redirect's form is and how good it is. All of the examples in WP:PANDORA are such cases and just because, say, What is the meaning of life? exists, that doesn't mean we can't say that the probability of a question redirect being bad is almost 1 by virtue of it being a question redirect. Nickps (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per WP:CHEAP. WP:PANDORA is not a reason to remove redirects; see User:Lunamann/Please, put Pandora back in the box. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think your essay is a bit confused to be honest. You say here that WP:PANDORA is not a reason to remove redirects but in User:Lunamann/Please, put Pandora back in the box you bring up the example of Who was the 15th president of the United States? which would be deleted per WP:PANDORA! (which applies to e.g. titles that turn articles or article subtopics into questions, like Who was the first president of the United States? or What is the capital of France?) In fact, that entire last sentence tells us to consider how the redirect interacts with the search function which in my opinion applies here since if we delete Time (Magazine) the search function will still take care of users searching it. Nickps (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The entire point of that last section was to show that the Pandora's Box argument is a non-argument, and to give examples of arguments that don't make WP:PANDORA's mistakes. IMO, the problem with WP:PANDORA isn't that it targets redirects that shouldn't be deleted, it's that it doesn't properly give a reason as per their removal-- it just says yeah nah, we need to remove these redirects, they're really bad, and so are redirects like 'em, just trust me bro.

  Also, admittedly, I'm not entirely happy with that last sentence. It doesn't feel like it SHOULD be applicable here, but I can't really think of very many salient, non-PANDORA arguments against "sentence" redirects i.e. Who was the 15th president of the United States?. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (As a quick aside, I've actually removed the sentence in question from the essay.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll write my thoughts about sentence redirects on the essay's talk page at some point since we are getting off topic here. For here I'll just reiterate that, IMO, WP:PANDORA is a valid reason to delete redirects and those sentence redirects are examples of such a case. Nickps (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although its existed since 2006 its always been a redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And has been helping people find the correct article all that time without causing any problems, so what is the benefit in deletion? Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While its true it gets more views than most similar redirects its still likely those will get to the correct title if deleted. The incorrect title creates clutter, redirects are cheap yes but per WP:COSTLY we generally shouldn't have more redirects than needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If We generally shouldn't have more redirects than needed were correct then we would have deleted most or all ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)), ((R from other disambiguation)), ((R from other spelling)) and ((R from modification)) redirects. Redirects are kept based on whether they are useful, not whether they are "necessary". As explained above, WP:COSTLY is an essay that gets many things wrong, to the point that it is itself getting increasingly costly given how it is encouraging well-meaning editors to argue for the deletion of redirects that clearly benefit readers without causing any harm. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Harmless redirect for a common mistake. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2024 (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 Withdrawn by nominator. Consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Викидим (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nangoyama Tunnel → Nangosan Tunnel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are no results for search of "Nangoyama Tunnel", and only one for "Tunnel Nangoyama". WP:RFD#DELETE #8 (novel term). Викидим (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also confirmation from @Masgatotkaca: User talk:Masgatotkaca#Deletion discussion about Nangoyama Tunnel. Викидим (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is a redirect from a misreading of the 山 kanji in the official name as yama instead of the correct reading of san. It's not that this is a real name or in use anywhere, it would be for someone who saw the kanji and misread it (very easy for even native Japanese readers to mix 'em up for non-famous locations, there's no general rule that can be applied to know which reading to use). I don't know if that hypothetical situation is enough to keep or if it should be deleted, so this is just a comment; I merely want to clarify what I imagine the redirect's creator was thinking when it was made. Fieari (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If I've understood Fieari correctly this is a very plausible incorrect transliteration, which we should keep in the spirit of plausible typos and spelling errors. Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This misspelling can be found nowhere in the Google corpus. The fact that kanji can be mispronounced is hard to reconcile with the misspelling in English. Why create a novel incorrect spelling when nobody outside Wikipedia apparently have misspelled the name so far? Викидим (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an implausible search term per Βικίδημος. Wrong kanji readings are not enough to warrant a redirect. It's essentially a very implausible WP:RTYPO. Even if we accept that this redirect could be useful to a native Japanese speaker who confused the readings, that would be inadmissible per WP:RFOREIGN. If this redirect stands, a Japanese speaker might expect that the English Wikipedia takes wrong readings into account when making redirects of Japanese names. Nickps (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given the numerous Google Books hits [1]. Something which made it into print is a priori both a plausible error (since the author wrote it and the editor let it past) and a plausible search term (since people reading the printed source will not know what is the correct name). 59.149.117.119 (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is weird. Searching the correct name in Google Books turns up basically nothing [2]. Is there an explanation for that? Was there perhaps a point in time where the wrong name was more commonly used in the English speaking world? Nickps (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Google Books hits linked above, and developing a stronger conviction that yes, if even native speakers can misread the name, this is a plausible error. Fieari (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2024 (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 Vartius. Jay 💬 07:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Vartius–Lyttä → Finland–Russia border  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are two Vartius crossings in the list in the articles, none of them is referred to as Vartius–Lyttä in the text. Викидим (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep This is given as an alternate name at the Finnish Wikipedia article for the crossing, although the citation there goes to a 404 page for me. I'd prefer better sourcing, but this doesn't seem implausible if it's listed on the Finnish wiki. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I fail to understand the use for such a redirect: there is precisely zero information on the target page about such a double-named object. The actual information about the crossing is in Vartius. Yes, the target page provides a link to Vartius, but then shouldn't we simply redirect there? Keeping the redirect because Finnish Wikipedia has it appears to be a case of WP:OTHER. Also, I am sure that there are many more names for this crossing in other languages, so the road is slippery as well. Викидим (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not as worried about the language, as I believe that this redirect satisfies WP:RLANG. You make a good point about retargeting though, so I will change my !vote to that. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:25, 22 March 2024 (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 23:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pelkola checkpoint → Finland–Russia border  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of "Pelkola" in the article. Викидим (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2024 (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) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Definition of Done → Scrum (software development)#Definition of Done (DoD)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Definition of done → Scrum (software development)#Definition of Done (DOD)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Definition of Ready → Scrum (software development)#Definition of ready (DOR)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Definition of ready → Scrum (software development)#Definition of ready (DOR)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned (or rather: not mentioned anymore) at the target page. Tea2min (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this was removed (along with "Definition of ready", which I've added to this discussion) in this edit with the summary "ce" in July last year by Dawkin Verbier. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This problem needs to be fixed by adding the missing information (back) to the article, not by removing it entirely from Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Either Remove as per WP:REDLINK, or Retarget, and Restore the removed section. Where to retarget? To the existing Done and Ready DABs, of course-- which should get linked to the relevant, restored parts of the original target article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunamann (talk • contribs) 09:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Whoopsie. (I want so badly to just use the Reply button, since it auto-signs the comment, but I've already gotten flak about how the Reply button seems to glitch-- putting my sig on a newline when it doesn't need one, and bumping the entire comment rightwards when it doesn't need to be. Is there some way to fix the Reply box, please??) Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You could try Convenient Discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh. Took a bit to figure out how to change settings on it, but it seems to work well so far. Thank you! Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. RfD can't be responsible for the content of an article. Currently the terms aren't mentioned, and because they are potentially ambiguous, without a mention the redirects are confusing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - Content at the current target is irrelevant. These would need to target the aforementioned dab pages. However: Wikipedia is not a dictionary and one should not expect to be able to search in this manner. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 17:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I would like to make clear that "Definition of Done" and "Definition of Ready" are terms of art in Scrum.[3][4] Redirecting these terms to the disambiguation pages Done and Ready would not make much sense, in my opinion. Tea2min (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Tea2min that these should redirect to content related to Scrum (if we have it) or to somewhere that disambiguates the terms of art used in scrum and terms of art used somewhere else (if there is such a somewhere else and we have content), with a hatnote (redirect) or link (dab page) pointing to Wiktionary for definitions. They should not point to the generic dab pages unless these terms are mentioned there (it is unlikely they should). Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Pulling my suggestion to retarget to the DAB pages... which leaves my suggestion to WP:REDLINK. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A case could certainly be made to target the capitalized versions elsewhere (if they are used that in that manner). However, the lowercase versions, not so much. Thus, I am still in the DAB page camp, if they are to remain or become extant in the future. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Definition of Done had been turned to an article briefly for a day in 2018. I have tagged it with ((R with history)). Jay 💬 08:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of the recent comments could be interpreted as support for either keep or delete. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:59, 21 March 2024 (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 06:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Cum gutter → Apollo's belt  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Besides being a tad bit speechless, this is a term that is (obviously) not mentioned anywhere as an alternative name, as it is (obviously) not mentioned anywhere at the target page or on Wikipedia* due to colloquiality. *Or at least, besides M Lamar but that would likely not be a great retargeting option. The plural is also located at Never Ricking Morty, with an associated wiktionary, apparently. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:16, 21 March 2024 (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 06:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Corgidor → Welsh Corgi#Cultural impact  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of this particular crossbreed at the target article. There are a good number, but without any information about "Corgidors" in particular, I'm afraid this redirect will be of little use for people seeking information about them. Searching for corgis in general, this article does a great job, but for corgidors, Wikipedia has nothing to offer not just on this page, but there are no mentions of "Corgidors" anywhere on Wikipedia. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redlink - Corgidors appear to be a potentially notable topic based of a very brief google search. If wikipedia currently has no information on them, then the redirect should be redlinked to encourage potential article creation. If said information is added to the Corgi article instead of making a new article, then the redirect can be recreated with a link to the proper location at that time. Fieari (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree on a potential article per Fieari's post above. This is probably one of the cutest GSearch results I got. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:27, 22 March 2024 (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 06:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Conan.xxx → List of Conan sketches  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no mention of this particular Conan sketch at the target article (anymore), as far as I'm aware, making this an unhelpful redirect for people looking for this topic and not finding anything, especially with there no longer being an anchor to jump to. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:02, 21 March 2024 (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 Khrushchevka. There were different opinions on refining to #Present day, hence discussion if any, may be taken up separately. Jay 💬 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Commie block → Urban planning in communist countries  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I would have expected this sort of title to match targets with Communist block, although this particular one has been a redirect to urban planning related articles since 2005. To me though, with no mention of "commie block" or "communist block" at the article in question, I'm unsure if this is the most helpful target out there. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Communist block - Principle of least surprise. I don't think anyone is going to use this term searching for urban planning... this is clearly just a casual shortening of communist to commie. Fieari (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Isn't "commie block" specifically slang for a khrushchevka? HappyWith (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's used to refer to those sorts of buildings. Not exclusively khrushchevka, but, y'know, the overall trend of those sorts of commie blocks. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 18:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Retarget to Khrushchevka: see wikt:commie block. Also see Khrushchevka#Present day. The term 'commie block' is used to refer to these sorts of blocks of flats built all across the Soviet Union as part of the overarching trends in urban planning in these countries. It is not used to refer to the overarching eastern bloc. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 18:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As a sidenote, it would make more sense to redirect to Khrushchevka - NOT Khrushchevka#Present day. I mentioned the Khrushchevka#Present day because that's where the colloquial term 'commie block' is mentioned. However, if someone wants to find out information about commie blocks, they'd expect to be sent to the article on them (Khrushchevka), not to the section about their contemporary reputation. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 02:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Khrushchevka#Present day as per HotMess, and add a hatnote to Communist block. Also, as a quick aside, said section has a link to Commieblock, which currently has the same target as Commie block. I would say bundle that redirect with this one, target it to Khrushchevka#Present day as per this one, and remove the circular link. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Khrushchevka#Present day and add a hatnote to Communist block per Lunamann --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:28, 22 March 2024 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comedy by the Numbers → McSweeney's  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "Comedy" at the target article, and no mention of "numbers". At the time of it's creation, this page was a redirect to McSweeney's Books, before crossing over to avoid a double redirect. I presume that the McSweeney's Books page cropped up again in the subsequent year, as it was alive and well with plenty of time to get hit by a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McSweeney's Books deletion closure, which I can't see anymore as the new page only has one edit worth of history. In any case, readers searching for this particular book will likely be disappointed with the page for the publisher, only to search to no avail for the book in question. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Before deletion, McSweeney's Books was an article about an American publishing house that contained a large table of books the company published. Comedy by the Numbers was one book listed in that table, written by Eric Hoffman and Gary Rudoren, neither of whom have an article (although the former gets a dabmention at Eric Hoffman). Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and let readers use the search results. The title shows up at Timothy McSweeney's Quarterly Concern as well as an album by Scott Aukerman. Jay 💬 15:02, 3 April 2024 (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 14:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Cockeranian → Dog crossbreed  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a dog breed that was redirected at AfD and retargeted to the page it is at today, however it does not talk about anything related to cockerians. It would be very hard to do so, as this page does not mention cockeranians. As an extension, NO page on Wikipedia mentions "Cockeranians", as it doesn't appear anywhere on the site, not even List of dog crossbreeds! Currently this is not a helpful redirect for people that look up information for this specific dog breed. People that wanted information on all dog breeds would instead search for Dog breed and click on a link to Dog crossbreed instead. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support breed may have on there before but if it was it would've been removed for lack of notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Annwfwn (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2024 (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 06:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Coastal fragments → Enclave and exclave#Semi-enclaves and semi-exclaves  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word "fragment" is never mentioned at the target article. Came into existence as a carbon copy of an already existing piece of content, and then redirected back into the page that it copied content from. Without a definition, and/or a use of this term anywhere at the target, this redirect leaves readers much to be desired and without an answer to the question of "what is a coastal fragment and how is it related to the page I've been taken to that doesn't discuss coastal fragments". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The first couple of pages of google hits all relate to the title of specific artworks, after that we do get into other uses but many are different copies of two things, a 1976 academic paper "Caracasbaai : a Submarine Slide of a Huge Coastal Fragment in Curaça" and A Month by the Sea, a 2013 book about the Gaza Strip, whose blurb includes the phrase "Through reported conversations she creates a vivid picture of life in this coastal fragment of self-governing Palestine.". Other uses all seem to be using it to mean just an isolated (in some manner) small area/length of coastline. Semi-enclaves and semi-exclaves are one example of this, but the term is much broader and so the current target is misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2024 (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 06:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closet Killer → Paramount Television  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Apparently tagged as R from Meme, but this topic is not currently addressed at the target of Paramount Television, nor is it addressed anywhere on Wikipedia, besides one page, being Alex Burger (screenwriter), which already has a lot of problems due to the 49 external links in that article's body. At the end of the day, with no mention at Paramount Television this redirect offers zero enlightenment to readers. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:45, 22 March 2024 (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. After discussion and notifications, no editor has actually made a case for keeping the pre-BLAR history. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Clinistrip → Blood glucose monitoring  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Clinistrip is not mentioned at the target article. It is only mentioned twice on Wikipedia, both times saying that it was "brand also known as Clinistix". As it so happens, "Clinistix" is also not mentioned at the target article. The only mentions of Clinistrip on all of Wikipedia are at Chemical test and Urinalysis. Clinistix is only mentioned at Urinalysis and Helen Murray Free, credited specifically with Clinistix. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Holy ((R with history)), Batman! According to the history page, there's been an attempt to write an article here that goes all the way back to 2005. That said, despite quite a few editors making their marks on this article, none ever actually dug up any sources. The page was BLAR'd without discussion in September 2023 by user:Vaticidalprophet, tagging it as an R from merge... except it wasn't a merge, as no information on Clinistrips ever ended up being added to Blood glucose monitoring. (user:Christian75 would later remove the R from merge tag and add R with history and R without mention.)

It doesn't look like the tool you used to tag the redirect for RfD notified most of these editors. Will be going through and leaving them allmost of them notifications. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aha -- "without discussion" is a tiny bit of an exaggeration. This was discussed on WT:MED as part of a project to handle longstanding unsourced articles (there's slightly more context than is just alluded to there, per WAID's link to the village pump discussion). WAID first suggested it should probably be redirected and have any usable information merged, and I agreed with this after looking at it alongside several of the other articles. I don't remember why I tagged it for merging then never actually merged anything, but from context presumably "because the content in the article at the time wasn't usable, and I intended to search more and never actually did". I was more focused (per the linked convo) on Undervirilization, which is closer to my usual editing areas and seemed more improvable if I ever did work on the core Virilization article. Vaticidalprophet 11:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completely fair. I assumed it was without discussion mostly because I didn't think to check there for such discussion-- I expected it to be on either the page's talk page, or an AfD discussion. Sorry for the assumption! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avoided notification of editors that, according to talk page/userpage, likely are no longer on Wikipedia. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, specific brand name that will not have an article, and mentions in multiple articles imply there is not a good redirect target. The pre-BLAR content need not be kept. Jay 💬 15:14, 3 April 2024 (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 06:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Click (Jake Miller song) → Jake Miller (singer)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No song called "click" is mentioned at the target article, nor anywhere in Jake Miller's onwiki discography pages, among which is Jake Miller discography, without mention there either. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:45, 22 March 2024 (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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Chucking a browneye → Mooning  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Very ironically to the previous nomination, "Chucking" nor "Browneye" are mentioned at the target article. Obviously no mention anywhere on Wikipedia for this phrase. Currently confusing without mention and unhelpful to readers as to what/why this term is what it is. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Chucking a browneye" is idiomatic Australian English for the act of "mooning". See, for instance, [5][6][7]. The rcats present on the redirect are correct; I've added Category:Australian slang. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Hydronium. A mention would be ideal but is not required. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2024 (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 Chucky Brown. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Chuckie Brown → Mad TV  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of "Chuckie" at the target article, or a "Brown" outside of Bobby Brown. Not currently a helpful redirect due to no mention as to who this person hypothetically is. "Chuckie Brown" is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia.

This has been a redirect here since 2004, all the while that Chucky Brown exists separately to this. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Chucky Brown as a very plausible misspelling. BD2412 T 21:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per BD2412. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2024 (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 03:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Cellarman → Wine cellar  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention of a "man" at the target article, and by extension no cellarman either. Was created due to the existence of a wiktionary Wikt:cellarman page, but as this article has nothing to do with "person in charge of the alcoholic drinks", perhaps its more suitable to send this to the wiktionary page itself. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:33, 21 March 2024 (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 03:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. I can find no reason for the existence of this redirect. It has no incoming links, the article doesn't use this capitalisation, it's not how the logo is styled (nor, per [8] has ever been styled). It was created without a summary as the only edit the creator made that day (and they haven't edited since 2022). I've tried looking on Google, but as that's case insensitive it's of no help at all. Thryduulf (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The logic behind this is presumably that the words starting with "I" and "E" were dropped from the expansion of the acronym. But at best that's an odd, original-research way of styling it that I doubt anyone uses, so Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:45, 22 March 2024 (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 03:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bound Rogue → List of Beast Wars characters  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Bound Rogue" is apparently a Beast Wars character, which is not mentioned at the target article, nor is it mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Currently exists as a confusing, unnecessary, and unhelpful redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:45, 22 March 2024 (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. Per G7. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bingus → Cats and the Internet  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This wiwwle bingus is nowt menshuned at da tawget awticul, nowr on any othew wiwibebia awticuls :(

Besides List of names for the Volkswagen Type 1 and Artista Academy, as partial title matches. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there's a failed draft about this cat too Draft:Bingus_cat Traumnovelle (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A more accurate target would be Sphynx cat as that's the breed specified by the meme. If it appeared at that article. It doesn't. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are right. Speedy delete per G7.

Sorry. 🙁 — Antrotherkus ^{Talk to me!} 18:15, 21 March 2024 (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 03:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Best blond joke ever → Blonde joke  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Best blonde joke ever → Blonde joke  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I can next-to-guarantee that this is not the best blond(e) joke ever, mainly because it would be present at the article, and it is not! Nothing about a "best joke ever" is at the target, which instead talks about the category of jokes as a whole, and not likely to be a plausible search term. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:09, 21 March 2024 (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. Per G7. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Beam attack → Kirby: Planet Robobot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The word "beam" is not mentioned at the target article. Was tagged with "R from meme" during the page's February 2024 creation, but no indication of a meme is talked about at Kirby: Planet Robobot. Happens to be one letter off of Bear attack, but perhaps there's other targets? Or deletion, I think. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as broad and ambiguous with no good target: the term "beam attack" is used by MANY different video games and works of scifi, animated, live action, or otherwise. I think it's likely too broad for even a disambiguation page. I suppose theoretically an article could be created about the concept of beam attacks as used in many, many works of fiction, but that's an even better reason to delete this redirect. Incidentally, I believe the meme in question, which is not and need not be mentioned anywhere on wikipedia as it really isn't notable, is an animated gif of Kirby eating a bunch of said beam attacks. Fieari (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fieari is incorrect in that the meme is this. That said, they ARE correct in that'd there are about a billion different "beam attacks" in various different games, not all of them videogames (D&D comes to mind.) Not to mention the fact that this meme is not mentioned at the target. Send it to Redirect Heaven. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are right. Speedy delete per G7.

Sorry. 🙁 — Antrotherkus ^{Talk to me!} 18:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Incredibly vague; definitely unencyclopedic for a redirect here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague. Off the top of my head this can range from Ultraman up to Dragon ball Z. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:32, 22 March 2024 (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 03:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bea and Ivy → The Beano  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unmentioned comic strip. The two people involved, "Bea" and "Ivy", are mentioned zero and one times at the target, respectively (Ivy's only being in passing). The character "Bea" is in reference to a sister of Dennis the Menace, and because this is split between Bea and Ivy the Terrible, this appears to be an WP:XY situation during the lack of a source for the comic strip in the history, and there isn't currently a target that discusses both characters to my understanding (only two incoming links are from Bea's article, and Ivy's article). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:40, 22 March 2024 (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 03:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Alma (TV series) → List of Netflix original programming#Upcoming original programming  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a TV series that is not mentioned at the target list of programming, and would be unhelpful for searchers of this term to show up to a page where their initial search query has no suitable answer. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:31, 21 March 2024 (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 03:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Alley of Angels → War in Donbas  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a page that went to AfD twice. It was deleted in 2022 afd, recreated, and redirected very shortly after in 2023. Neither the word "alley", nor the word "angel" appears at the target article. There is nothing about this monument at the target (no mention of "monument"), and the phrase "Alley of Angels" appears nowhere on all of Wikipedia.

There is, however, a page called Angels' Alley, and an associated Angels' Alley (disambiguation) page. Both of these are much better options than an r without mention for a title with no clear or established in-article-relationship to the war it is pointed at. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the consensus is for the article to be deleted and there is no actual article mentioning the subject, to where the reader might be redirected, I see no good reason to keep this as a redirect. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nominator. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cinderella and nom. There was clear consensus to delete in the first AfD and rough consensus to do it in the second one, and I disagreed with the close to redirect back then as well. The redirect basically only serves as a place for pro-Russia soapboxing on its talk page now. HappyWith (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Without any mention of the redirect in the article, or any other article that mentions it, we should delete. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:40, 22 March 2024 (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 disambiguate. Jay 💬 16:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sultanate of Morocco → Morocco  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A more helpful redirect would be to History of Morocco. Morocco's heads of state are presently maliks, not sultans. asilvering (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. "Sultanate of Morocco" is very vague, so a general article like History of Morocco is the best bet. R Prazeres (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate: This is plausible search term for multiple subjects, including the Alawi dynasty and List of rulers of Morocco, which were at one time sultans. I say include History of Morocco as another listed item in such a disambiguation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Pbritti, if the reader is searching for this term they are presumably not searching for modern Morocco, but it's open to what they would actually be searching for. CMD (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm also fine with a dab per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:41, 22 March 2024 (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).