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

The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 08:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This crossing point is named differently in the article. Викидим (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Same situation as with Vartius–Lyttä above where this is given as an alternative name on the Finnish Wikipedia. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: If there was an article about the border crossing, that would be a better target, but there isn't, and it's the Finnish name of the town, so this redirect is useful. Kk.urban (talk) 18:52, 29 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. Jay 💬 08:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The crossing is named differently in the article. Викидим (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Värtsilä" is the Finnish spelling of Vyartsilya, so this seems plausible. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: If there was an article about the border crossing, that would be a better target, but there isn't, and it's the Finnish name of the town, so this redirect is useful. Kk.urban (talk) 18:51, 29 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 23:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• E2027 → Next Estonian parliamentary election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A very obscure redirect. E2027 is a drug Irsenontrine (no article, possibly non-notable). WP:RFD#DELETE #2. Викидим (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:RDEL#D8. My first reaction to this was that it might be a riff on E-1027, but that doesn't appear to be the case. We might want to add E2019 and E2023 to this nomination. They were created by the same user as the nominated redirect. - Eureka Lott 02:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I have not been able to find this usage anywhere and the primary topic is definitely the drug. Rusalkii (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. It's also worth noting that this is a redlink on the Estonian Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redirect clutter in enwiki database--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:52, 31 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. Possibly a renamed dustrict (non-admin closure) Викидим (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NA-227 Jamshoro → NA-226 Jamshoro  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

An apparent typo fixed by a move. Note: the title of the target apparently needs to be changed to NA-233 Jamshoro Викидим (talk) 22:26, 28 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. Former name (non-admin closure) Викидим (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NA-226 Thatta → NA-225 Thatta  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Apparent typo by an editor corrected with a move. Викидим (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is not a typo but a former name. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 29 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 restore. May be taken to AfD. Jay 💬 07:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 1903 SK Slavia Prague season → SK Slavia Prague  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

1903 is not mentioned in the target page. Викидим (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore article which was innapropriately BLARed by North8000. Can be taken to AfD if desired. A7V2 (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Stats-only article and missed wp:notability by a mile on either SNG or GNG grounds. Beyond that SNG guidance more clearly weighs in against it. There was nothing "inappropriate" about what I did. I'm happy with undoing the redirect as long as it is unflagged as reviewed. I'd be happy to do that myself if pinged. Then a different NPP'er can review it and decide whether to AFD it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You created a redirect to a target that does not discuss the subject, rather than using PROD or AFD. A bad redirect is not the solution to a bad article. A7V2 (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore without prejudice to AfD, which should be the standard action when a BLAR is contested. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and AFD can be used if article is non notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:53, 30 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 23:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thrasher (video game) → The Game Awards 2023  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Non-notable game announced at the show and just mentioned as an item of the list in the target page. If it becomes notable, WP:RFD#DELETE #10 would still apply. Викидим (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:REDYES 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 00:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. A7V2 (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:25, 30 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 23:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Den of Wolves → The Game Awards 2023  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Non-notable game announced at the show and just mentioned in the list of the target. If it becomes notable, WP:RFD#DELETE #10 would still apply. Викидим (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:REDYES (anywho, a hypothetical 10 Chambers article would have been a better redirect target anyway - but The Game Awards 2023 is certainly not an appropriate target for this redirect). 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 00:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. A7V2 (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; non-notable games shouldn’t have redirects. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:09, 30 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) Викидим (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NA-225 Sujawal → NA-224 Sujawal  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Most likely, a result of a typo fixed by a move and not used anywhere else. WP:RFD#DELETE confusion. The target also has an apparent typo in the text, "NA-231". Викидим (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is not a typo but a former name, likewise NA-231. It seems Pakistani constituencies get renumbered periodically. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 29 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. Former name (non-admin closure) Викидим (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NA-224 Badin-II → NA-223 Badin-II  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirects assumes that the typo is in the Arabic digits. If Roman digits are involved, the correct target would be NA-222 Badin-I (old name). This redirect may make an effect of a typo even worse. So, WP:RFD#DELETE #2. Викидим (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either one of these is a valid target, with equal pull. This is thus an WP:XY situation. I'm not sure a Dab page would work here... might need to let search do its thing. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this is a ((R from former name)) not a typo. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Thryduulf. Former name trumps the typo possibility any day of the week. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:50, 29 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. Former name (non-admin closure) Викидим (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NA-223 Badin-I → NA-222 Badin-I  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirects assuming the typo is in the Arabic digits. If Roman digits are involved, the correct target would be NA-223 Badin-II. Thi sredirect may make an effect of typo worse. So, WP:RFD#DELETE #2. Викидим (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a ((R from former name)), it's not a typo. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 29 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 Withrawn by teh nominator. There is a Chilean history of the place. I will add text to the target. (non-admin closure) Викидим (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sama, Chile → Sama District  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This Sama is in YemenPeru. I do not know of the Chilean one. Neither does our page Sama Викидим (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:REDLINK. A note that the target actually describes a district in Peru, not in Yemen-- the page for Yemen is Sama District (Yemen). Either way, Peru is not Chile. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm afraid you're mistaken. "Sama" is the name of a district of Tacna, a department (first-class administrative division) of Peru. From 1880 to 1929, as a result of the War of the Pacific, it was administered by Chile as a commune (lowest administrative division) of its Department of Tacna (first-class administrative division). The Spanish Wikipedia has articles for this commune, however, I've linked the Spanish and English Wikipedia through a redirect, as any information is available in the main subject's article (i.e. the former Chilean entity).

Indeed, a place of the same name exists in Yemen, but this is irrelevant to the article, as it makes no links to any place other than in Tacna.

I have reverted your edit, I hope you do not mind. All the best. AlejandroFC (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing the nomination. --Викидим (talk) 22:37, 28 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Asshole cancer → Anal cancer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Ass cancer → Anal cancer  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This meaning predictably is not used for a particular decease. Outside of this redirect it is typically just a swearing, similar "cancer is a bitch". WP:R#DELETE # and #3. A 10-year old discussion Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 8#Ass cancer yielded no consensus, but Asshole cancer redirect was provided as an illustration of ridiculousness of the Ass cancer. In 9 year, the idea was implemented by a now-blocked editor. Listing the original Ass cancer, too. Викидим (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Steel1943's rationale in the original discussion. "Asshole" and "Ass" are synonymous, layman's terms for the anus and buttocks respectively, which is the exact affected area of this disease. I can easily see a layperson using either of these redirects. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Lunamann, plausible search term from someone who doesn't know the proper name. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plausible search term. Tito Omburo (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify ass cancer per Thryduulf's argument in the original discussion. No argument has been made that anal cancer is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Keep the other one. Nickps (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per me from almost a decade ago. Steel1943 (talk) 08:53, 8 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 retarget to Greater Mongolia. Jay 💬 07:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Great Mongolia → Mongol Empire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Empire not typically referred to in this way; Google gives a mix of restaurants, modern Mongolia, and the desire for a pan-Mongolian nation (see e.g. Khorloogiin Choibalsan) Rusalkii (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (Weak) retarget to Greater Mongolia? Seems better than current target in any case. A7V2 (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to disambiguation per A7V2. The term does seem to be in use eg., also the similar "Great Mongol Empire", but a quick google scholar link finds far more use for some sort of WWII idea eg., covered to some extent in Pan-Mongolism. Will tweak the disambiguation page to list Mongol Empire more prominently. CMD (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per both above. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:12, 30 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 23:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st Infinity Forum → 2nd Infinity Forum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Confusing target - the page doesn't actually discuss the first edition of the conference beyond mentioning that the 2nd infinity forum is, in fact, the second. There doesn't seem to be an article for the Infinity Forum overall, either. My preference would be to merge 2nd Infinity forum to such an article and then target this redirect there, but I don't understand the subject well enough to do this myself and this redirect should not be pointed at the current target in either case. Rusalkii (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom unless a mention is added. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 29 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 Seal (East Asia). Jay 💬 07:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 璽 → Seal (emblem)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Fails WP:RLANG as a translation of the title into Chinese, with no particular affinity to the subject, not mentioned in page. Rusalkii (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Seal (East Asia). 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as per 1234. Seems like a perfect target that satisfies WP:RLANG. Nice find! 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:12, 30 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 I performed a WP:MAD#Record authorship and delete history in the deletion log. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• EasyEnglish → Wycliffe Global Alliance#Associated organisations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. This is a former article that was unsourced and was sent to AfD. It was merged into Wycliffe Bible Translators (the article now moved to Wycliffe USA), but later, in my opinion rightfully, the content was removed. The term is mentioned nowhere on Wikipedia except passively in the article Michael Raiter (which has its own set of problems). –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 23:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Well, EasyEnglish does exist, and was produced by MissionAssist, an associated organization of Wycliffe Global Alliance, so I can understand the rationale behind this redirect existing. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 01:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also tagged the redirect as an "R from merge".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:51, 31 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 14:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rajasthan Royals in 2023 → Rajasthan Royals  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete to encourage possible article creation. Most of the other Indian Premier League teams have team articles for the 2023 season, but this redirect inhibits people from knowing that no article exists. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:43, 28 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 14:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can't find much information about what to do in this situation, so I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to discuss this, but essentially, this was a draft article that was moved to mainspace, then redirected to War in Donbas, then deleted in another RfD discussion, but leaving this cross-namespace redirect intact. Should this draft redirect be deleted as well in accordance with that RfD discussion? It seems like a lot of the same arguments would apply. HappyWith (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Given that the article this draft become has been deleted, there are no attribution or similar issues with deleting the redirect. [[1]] closed as delete due to lack of coverage in independent reliable sources, if that changes then we may want an article on it in future and this redirect would make drafting one harder. In the mean time it doesn't lead anybody to any useful content. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original article was a victim of vandalism for political reasons. The text that described the Alley of Angels memorial was repeatedly vandalised to accuse the article of being Russian propaganda. Each time I tried to repair the article it was immediately vandalized again. I contacted the founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger about this, he told me wikipedia was taken over by nation state actors who have turned the project into a propaganda war and advised me not to waste any more of my time with it. Shortly after that wikipedia administrators accused me of edit warring and blocked my account for some time so I took Larry Sanger's advice and did not waste any more time on wikipedia since then. Raven9nine (talk) 17:55, 1 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 keep. ✗plicit 14:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• First Inauguration of Michael D. Higgins → Michael D. Higgins#First term (2011–2018)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was created as a standalone page 2 days ago. Spleodrach made the right call in converting it to a redirect. I’d go further. There are currently no links to this page, and I don’t see what we gain by creating pages or redirects to every event discussed in detail elsewhere. While WP:ATD would ordinarily suggest a redirect is preferable to deletion, I’m not sure that holds for such a new page with no history within the project. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Inaugurations are significant events, he has had more than one of them, and there is content about it at the target. This means that this is a plausible search term that leads people to the information they are looking for. For future reference though, if you disagree with a WP:BLAR then the correct course of action is to revert the redirection. If your objection is that it should be a standalone article, then leave it at that. If your objection is that it should have been deleted rather than redirected, you should nominate it at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. A7V2 (talk) 04:27, 29 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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:COURT → Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The Arbitration Committee is not a court. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or retarget. Someone using this redirect is plausibly looking for Wikipedia's court, and they should be taken to a page that explains that we don't have a court (or at least not a court of law) but the closest thing is the Arbitration Committee. The current page sort of does that, but not perfectly - Wikipedia:Guide to arbitration doesn't use the words exactly but does state "Arbitration is not a legal process", so would make an equally good target I think. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's confusing and misleading. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 0 uses is kind of damning. The other redirects of the same sense have similarly low use [2][3][4]. (What the heck is [5].) Izno (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's only existed for five weeks, and lack of incoming internal links is explicitly not relevant to whether a redirect should or should not be deleted. As for your "what the heck" this was redirected after the original content was moved to User:Alex756/Writ of Wikimedius, which is effectively an essay that emerged out of the discussions that created the Arbitration Committee. Basically it is saying (in attempted(?) legalese that an arbitration case can be requested either directly or by or via Jimbo, that Jimbo can direct a case to be opened and that Jimbo can investigate matters on his own if he wants. The first part is obviously still true (anyone can request a case directly), the second is also technically true (Jimbo can request a case in the same way as any other editor, including related to disputes he is asked to look at). Jimbo can't direct that a case be opened (anymore?). He can investigate a dispute if he chooses to do so, although he is very unlikely to do so and is very limited in what remedies he could impose (he renounced the right to unilaterally ban people in 2022 and gave up other advanced rights in 2023). Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Of the other examples of links of this sense, the first is a decade old, the second well on its way to that, and the third a year and a half old (and was previously deleted at MFD an eternity ago). That this one is only 5 weeks old doesn't inspire. Izno (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The other redirect's aren't relevant to this one, and the age isn't really relevant either. The redirect is not doing any harm - indeed as it serves to correct misunderstandings it's the opposite of misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Usage of the redirect in discussions would increase confusion, not reduce it. It's good that it's not being used and it should be removed before it is. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well if anyone did use this in a discussion, the context would make things clear. However, redirects like this are much more useful as search targets rather than for linking - for example a relatively new editor would plausibly search this, and be taken to exactly the page that explains what he have instead of a court, rather than unpredictable search results (sometimes several clicks/taps away) that may or may not be relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a court source were previously the top results for a "court" search in Wikipedia space. This redirect made search worse, not better. Bumping down other court-related results and repeating the top result is not a net positive. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - agree that it's misleading. In the unlikely event that a user entered this in the search box, the search results would be more useful than this redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There's no good single redirect; there are several WikiProjects that deal with courts and law, so none of them are a great option, and ARBCOM is not a court. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The target does not need to actually be a court in order to be helpful. Coincidentally, I recently watched a Youtube video titled: "The Court That Settles Wikipedia Editor Drama" from Half as Interesting. Now, is ArbCom literally a court? I suppose not, but it's a widely popular misconception to the public based on several journal stories which have covered influential ArbCom cases. Pageviews might not be there as this was made recently in 2024 and people were hitting WP:Court instead. The lowercase title is what searches default onto, and has existed since late 2022 with 100+ pageviews since its recent-ish creation. WP:Wikicourt has existed since 2013, and ArbCom being a "WP:Supreme Court" isn't too far off the mark either, according to outside coverage for people unfamiliar with the ins and outs of what ArbCom is and isn't, such as: [6] [7]. Just like how the WP:Great Dismal Swamp isn't actually a murky wetland supporting sealife, adding redirect support for a popular misconception still fulfills the need for someone that wants to get to Wikipedia's court, but doesn't know what it's technically called. (Those long words'll get ya good! Both "Arbitration" and "Committee" with 9+ letters, who has time to memorize that?) Quite helpful for people who have a basic understanding of Project space, but are unsure of the names of the "complicated noticeboards". Nothing else seems to be more courtlike in WP space than ArbCom, but if there is something strongly-more-associated I wouldn't mind a retarget either. Deletion is not beneficial in my eyes. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Utopes and Thryduulf. ArbCom may not be an actual court, but the ArbCom page literally has scales of justice displayed right there in the center, for cryin' out loud, it's clearly "where justice is meted out". Heck, WP:COURT might even help with a few WP:ALP issues. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It basically is a court. Kk.urban (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Utopes and Thryduulf. Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a court source would not be a suitable target for the "COURT" shortcut. It is unclear which are the other court-related wikiprojects being discussed. Presence of this shortcut does not prevent editors from searching for "court" or "courts" in the search box, for which they would need to select the Wikipedia namespace anyway. Jay 💬 16:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as original creator, but I would like to redirect it to a section that explains why ArbCon isn't a court. //●→█2003 LN6█→●// 05:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try, given consensus is still not clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the Arbcom pages make it clear what they are and aren't. Plausible search term, as they are the de facto "court"/"judges" of Wikipedia and some other sources do refer to it as Wikipedia court, like the video Utopes mentioned. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If you asked me what the court of wikipedia was I'd answer ArbCom and be confused by any other answer; it's a fairly unambiguous redirect that does no harm and may help with project space navigation. Nop objection to redirecting to an essay about why it isn't a court, if such exists. Rusalkii (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I might be biased but I really don't know why this was relisted a third time @Steel1943:. Every deletion rationale aired by delete !voters was fully refuted by the first relist, and by the second there were exclusively !votes to keep. "Arbcom not being a court" does not change it from serving the only courtlike function on Wikipedia, and the lack of views is explained from WP:Court siphoning searches, a redirect which has existed for years and not acknowledged or bundled by !deleters since February. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Utopes: Didn't seem as though the newer "keep" votes convinced any of the "delete" votes to change their stances, and I was not convinced the "keep" majority was enough for a true "keep" when I relisted this. The situation is different as of this moment. Steel1943 (talk) 03:59, 8 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 retarget to Aliens (film). While consensus for this was arguably stronger before the relist, retarget has a numerical advantage, there have not been any serious counterarguments to the suggestion that Aliens (film) is the primary topic for "Alien 2" since the first relist, and discussion in favor of disambiguation has hinged on the hypothetical "if there are two primary topics", which does not appear to hold. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Alien 2 → Alien 2: On Earth  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Proposing a retarget to Aliens (film). Although Alien 2: On Earth (apparently a real film) does contain the title "Alien 2", Aliens — the actual sequel to Alien (film) — is without question more notable and the more likely target when readers search for "Alien 2", seeking to find the sequel to the first film (but perhaps not remembering its title). InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree, no evidence that people searching for this are actually searching for the film Aliens. While yes Aliens is much more notable than the film Alien 2, it hasn't been shown that that is where Alien 2 should redirect to. Canterbury Tail talk 21:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• disambiguate Aside form "Alien 2: On Earth" there is also "Aliens: Alien 2" videogame, and "Aliens" (film) the sequuel to Alien, and "Alien #2" (henchman #2) a fictional character from "Puni Puni Poemy" where the article has a paragraph about the character. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Those do not have article and are thus not notable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The first 3 do.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Aliens: Alien 2 is a redirect. Alien 2 (Puni Puni Poemy) is a redlink. Aliens (film) and Alien 2: On Earth are the only articles, and I am arguing that the former is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the latter. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (one being a redirect, but has a page) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry was replying at the same time. Yes, understood your point. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Much more notable, undoubtedly, but.... with an actually different name. So I still think a DISAMB page is helpful. However, if everyone agrees with you, no worries. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) If something is a redirect or doesn't have an article, it means it is likely not notable. Which means we should only be concerned with the two films, one of which is an FA and the other a stub. Which one's the obvious primary topic? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Most likely the one that is actually called that way. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Try searching "Alien 2" on Google and see what you get. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, I never doubted that Aliens was more famous than Alien 2: On Earth. Still, that is not what the film is actually called in English, is it? I'm sorry but I've understood your point, and if things need to be changed, I still would prefer a DISAMB. I have no further comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with 65.92.247.66. Disambiguate.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems to be a R from move with a long history and incoming links. Also, per Canterbury Tail and the further examination by InfiniteNexus. Finally, there's already a disambiguation for Alien making a duplicate rather unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respublik (talk • contribs) 15:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Aliens (film) "Alien 2" was intended as an unofficial sequel, therefore it automatically has less prominence than the actual sequel it was trying to mimic. If it were entirely unrelated, my opinion would be different. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Drafted a disambig with no primary at the redirect. If Aliens is the primary, the draft may be copied over to a Alien 2 (disambiguation). The Alien 2 entries may be removed from the Alien dab, and the Alien 2 dab be added to its See also. Jay 💬 13:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I see that 65.92.247.66 created a disambig draft after the relist, but before I created my draft, and I was not aware of it. DrowssapSMM accepted the draft as Alien 2 (disambiguation) which was a REDLINK when I had suggested it. I see that the IP's dab also has no primary, hence the dab may be merge-and-redirected to Alien 2 or moved. Jay 💬 09:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to disambiguation page Alien (avoiding a duplicate list at a different disambiguation page). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow, the !votes really are all over the place here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the existing DAB Alien#Films (a refinement of the proposed retarget by Shhhnotsoloud). That said, there really doesn't seem to be much consensus here yet... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel like this should be a BARTENDER close. There seems to be almost no support for the status quo. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus for the status quo, but no consenus on an alternative yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Alien#Films and let the reader decide which one they want to look at. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Aliens (film) as suggested by the OP. Aliens is "considered among the greatest films of the 1980s" according to our article and must be very widely seen, I strongly suspect that the number of people searching for it who can't quite remember the title is still far greater than the number of people looking for the current target, which is very obscure. None of the other entries at the dab page are relevant to this search term. Hut 8.5 19:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Aliens (film) and hatnote to Alien 2 (disambiguation) as the primary topic. Failing that, move Alien 2 (disambiguation) over redirect. I oppose a retarget to Alien#Film, not all uses are films. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll note, for the record, that it takes merely a bit of scrolling to get to non-film topics, i.e. the games. Though perhaps a slight de-refinement to Alien#Arts and entertainment? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I prefer a separate disambiguation page so someone searching the term will only receive relevant entries without the need to scroll. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'll note once again to the eventual closer that although the !votes above are all over the place, there is near-unanimous consensus to move away from the status quo, so if there ends up being no consensus on which page to retarget, the closer should use their best judgment to perform a WP:BARTENDER close. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I know who I want to take me home... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Aliens (film) Aliens is definitely the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A quick search on several search engines for Alien 2 comes up with it and I often hear the movie called that in real life (though I know that's not the best argument here). StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• An editor who thinks Aliens (film) is the primary topic may fix Alien 2 (disambiguation) to add the primary topic, or the closer may do it if there is consensus. Otherwise, as of now, Alien 2 (disambiguation) doesn't indicate a primary per MOS:DABPRIMARY. Jay 💬 07:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more time...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that Alien 2 (disambiguation) now exists, I think either move that over this, or retarget this to Aliens (film) and hatnote the dab page. I wouldn't be oposed to keeping at the current target and hatnoting either. I would however strongly oppose retargeting to Alien or any section of that page. A7V2 (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Disambiguation page. My first preference would be to merge Alien 2 (disambiguation) into Alien and target it there. My 2nd preference would be to simply target Alien 2 (disambiguation). I don't strictly oppose retargeting to Aliens (film), but that's definitely not my first choice. The current redirect definitely needs to be changed, without a doubt. Fieari (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion is split three ways between "Retarget to Aliens (film)", "Keep", and "Disambiguate" and this discussion has been unclosed for months. If two primary topics are proposed and receive similar levels of support then neither is the primary topic and we must disambiguate * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is at the very least a candidate for WP:BARTENDER as already noted multiple times, I'm surprised it got relisted again lol 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:52, 9 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 retarget to The Two Doctors. Jay 💬 07:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Androgum → List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens#Androgum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a creature / alien that is not discussed at the target page for list of creatures and/or aliens in the Dr Who franchise. We have nothing dedicated to this topic apart from mentions on three various Dr Who pages, none of which seem eager to pull this redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Two Doctors where the Androgums are one of the episode's central antagonists. It's also their only on-screen appearance, so this seems like a plausible redirect for anyone curious about them. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Pokelego999. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:04, 7 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 Wiktionary redirect * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Asianization → Asian Century  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

A neologism not mentioned at the target article. External searches for this term do show use in the context of growing economies, but from a literal perspective this is a term not mentioned at the target that can be interpreted as anything "becoming Asian". The only use of this term anywhere on Wikipedia is in the references for Pentecostal Saint Thomas Christians, and is one character off of a different redirect that leads to a topic ending in "zation". Nothing else appeared in my onwiki searches. The definition of this term according to the free dictionary is: "The act or process of making or becoming Asian in character, culture, or outlook." Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect via ((wiktionary redirect)) --Викидим (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on soft redirecting to Wiktionary?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect Nothing local to redirect to. Google Scholar returned 3.6k hits, Google Books ~300, so the term is in use. How many idioms these hits represent I have no idea. Sooner or later, it will filter in, but right now, it means nothing to us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 07:57, 28 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 Restore article * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Raymond W. Copp → Augustana Catholic Church#Raymond W. Copp  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Raymond Copp → Augustana Catholic Church#Raymond W. Copp  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mention at the target, so I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond W. Copp was withdrawn after being relisted, citing no consensus between keep and merge. The same day (8 January 2011) it was boldly merged into what is now Augustana Catholic Church by Lear's Fool. In June 2012 Zachtmartin removed mention in this edit with no explanation. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article without prejudice to AfD. Given the 2011-12 AfD was trending keep before the relist and then withdrawn with no consensus between that and merge, we definitely should not be deleting it at RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or restore?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore article as per Thryduulf. There was never a consensus to redirect in the first place. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Raymond W. Copp per Thryduulf, and retarget Raymond Copp to the restored article. A7V2 (talk) 04:39, 29 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. Jay 💬 07:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Land of independent Bengalis → Bangladesh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No hits for this string. Note that this is one of many redirects created by this user pointing to Bangladesh. Rusalkii (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Also Land of Bengali language, 7 hits, unsure if I want to nomiate. Rusalkii (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Land of Bengali language" should probably target Bengal. Bengali is also spoken in West Bengal. Even if kept, that is. Sounds like an implausible search term. Nickps (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC); edited 10:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and delete Land of Bengali language too. Entirely implausible search terms. CMD (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  At this point, it should be nominated separately. There's no reason to hold this one in RfD for another week. Nickps (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I ended up doing it myself. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_4#Land_of_Bengali_language. Nickps (talk) 16:27, 4 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The title "Benevolent Rectangle" does not appear at the general article for Paramount Television, nor at Paramount Television Studios where it used to point. That is because "Benevolent Rectangle" is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, and is currently not a helpful or useful redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Google confirms that this is apparently a term used to describe a particular historical variant of the Paramount Television logo, in use from September 1968 to December 20, 1969. All their logo designs apparently have cute nicknames. I see this as being an unambiguous target as nothing else seems to be called a "benevolent rectangle", and the fact that it's not mentioned in the article is irrelevant-- it's a bit too trivial for wikipedia inclusion, but redirects are WP:CHEAP, and anyone using this as a search term is not going to be surprised at where it takes them, so it passes WP:LEAST. Inclusion in the article text is not a hard requirement for a redirect's existence. It's only a weak keep because I don't think this is going to be a common search term, as, again, anyone using it likely already knows what it refers to... but it's harmless and unambiguous, and that's enough to not touch it for me. Fieari (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 28 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Barry Warsaw → GNU Mailman#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It's confusing that a page for a person redirects to an application, especially since this page is only linked to by 1 other article (Ken_Manheimer). MajesticRZ (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no proper target. Is Barry Warsaw known more as maintainer of GNU Mailman or as inventor of the term Benevolent dictator for life? Jay 💬 07:05, 8 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).