Open main menu

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)

Administrator instructions

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
  • If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. Place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussionEdit

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

The guiding principles of RfDEdit

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion, the default result is delete.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
  • In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?Edit

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.

Additionally, there could exist (for example) links to the URL "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneygate" anywhere on the Internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere for Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.

Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.

Reasons for deletingEdit

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.)
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia:.) Speedy deletion criterion R2 may also apply.
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deletingEdit

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, if someone sees the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. The pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.
  7. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent unregistered and non-confirmed users from expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit and reduce the pool of available editors. (Unregistered and non-confirmed users cannot create new pages in the mainspace; they can only edit existing pages, including redirects, which they can expand.) This criterion does not apply to redirects that are indefinitely semi-protected or more highly protected.

Neutrality of redirectsEdit

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are such redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. ClimategateClimatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

Closing notesEdit

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussionEdit

I.
Tag the redirect.

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion and enter }} at the very end.

  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page.
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the rfd tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination
II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors to the redirect that you are nominating the redirect.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

{{subst:RFDNote|RedirectName}} ~~~~

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

If the result might result in significant changes to other pages (e.g., changing the names of other pages, merging or splitting content), you can leave notices about the RFD discussion on relevant talk pages, too.

  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Current listEdit

October 16Edit

Aboringal Shire of Wujal WujalEdit

Implausible misspelling; I had to go to the article to discover what it referred to. WP:CHEAP, but delete. Narky Blert (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

KaiseriEdit

Ambiguous species epithet used taxa with Wikipedia articles: Neurergus kaiseri, Ixodes kaiseri, Aethomys kaiseri, Cychrus kaiseri. Kaiseri is an improbable search term; species epithets aren't used in contexts where the genus isn't clear. Plantdrew (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No-one is likely to search for an epithet without knowing at least the initial of the genus; and an ambiguous epithet certainly shouldn't redirect to one species out of several. Narky Blert (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Toad worship (Chinese internet subculture)Edit

This is a technical request on behalf of Wei4Green, who requested a move at WP:RMTM (diff) and for the redirect to be deleted; I don't think it's eligible for speedy deletion. Sceptre (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you User:Sceptre. I actually want to keep that page because a deleted redirect may add more data to the Wikipedia database (WP:CHEAP). [[User:Wei4Green]] · 唯绿远大 04:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

George F. Beck (geologist)Edit

The target is known for more than just excavating a state park. Searching for "George F. Beck (geologist)" within itself seems highly implausible, and for those who do search it, it would be rather confusing to be sent to an article about state park that only holds limited association.

For reference, this was an accepted AFC/R redirect. I meant to deny it, but wanted to wait as it could be deemed controversial due to its tenure on the page. Instead, this was approved with no supplied reason. Utopes (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment: was created purely with the intent for it to be included in a disamb page for George Beck as I agree the term being individually searchable is unlikely. — IVORK Discuss 00:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

October 15Edit

Taybor SnappingEdit

Taybor Pepper is a snapper. They are not, however, known as "Taybor Snapping". I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Dark FatherEdit

Not equivalent, I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Not equivalent, but it comes up often enough in the media. I would suggest redirecting to Darth Vader#Name. UpdateNerd (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

BATXEdit

Targets a disambiguation page which does not mention the topic Wug·a·po·des​ 22:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • The disambiguation page did briefly include a mention, but it was removed in this edit. There's an article on the subject in the French Wikipedia. - Eureka Lott 00:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @EurekaLott: Thanks! I've added it back to the disambiguation page with a pointer to Internet in China since it's not likely this acronym will be notable, but still worth explaining as it is a good search term. If the DAB entry stays, then this redirect should probably be kept. I'll give it a couple days to see if anyone reverts. Wug·a·po·des​ 07:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: You shouldn't do that. There's no mention of BAT or BATX at Internet in China and so the disambiguation page entry fails MOS:DABMENTION: a user going to the article will learn nothing about "BATX". You could, if you had a source, put information about BAT/BATX in the article, but unless you do you should revert your edit to the disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I mean, it's kinda common sense? Neither BAT nor BATX are at Internet in China but frWikipedia has an article and googling "BATX china" shows that this is an abbreviation that is used, so it's likely this is an (ambiguous) search term that readers will use and may need disambiguated. Readers aren't looking for information about the term BATX; they're looking for information about internet in China, and I'm not going to add a one line definition of an acronym to an article just to satisfy some arbitrary MOS style when the DAB page manages to do it just fine and without redundancy. You may add the information if you like. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: This is not the place to challenge MOS:DABACRO. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Shhhnotsoloud: See WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR, or simply read the top of the page you linked which says "occasional exceptions may apply". We're discussing how this redirect and dab page can best serve our readers, and I've given a very clear line of reasoning as to how ignoring the dab MOS in this instance is better for readers. Choosing a new part of the MOS doesn't explain how this helps or hurts our readers, it's just advocating we mindlessly follow rules. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no use of "BATX" in enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Big Four tech companies#Other tech companies where I have added a mention of "BATX" from Wugapodes' source. I have also updated the disambiguation to link to this article to satisfy WP:DABMENTION. Since the term is not ambiguous, it should not target a disambiguation page. -- Tavix (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix. I think that should clear things up. - Eureka Lott 15:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks @Tavix:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Spanish TroublesEdit

This doesn't appear to be a commonly used nickname for the topic, and isn't mentioned at the target. A search of academic literature suggests that this term is either generically used for problems in or with Spain, or more narrowly as a contemporary term for the Spanish Civil War. An internet search mostly returns results about people having trouble with Spanish (results for this also appear in the academic literature). I would suggest deletion due to the lack of a clear correct target. signed, Rosguill talk 22:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep: I've heard terms such as these used, especially when referencing The Troubles and the similarities between the 2 conflicts. The Spanish Troubles is also a redirect to the Basque conflict, having existed since it was created by another editor in December. It's listed on Troubles (disambiguation) - a page which I have never edited. Jim Michael (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I've gone through several pages of Google Scholar results for "Spanish Troubles" and have yet to see a single case referring to the Basque conflict. By far the most significant single subject that is referred to by this term in academic literature is the Spanish Civil War, although there's a fair amount of mentions for pre-20th century conflicts in or with Spain. I would note that most of these uses seem to be from rather old texts, so I would lean toward this being a case of WP:XY rather than a cause for disambiguation. signed, Rosguill talk 23:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY. The word troubles does not appear anywhere on the target article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Magazines appEdit

Ambiguous, there's a few other magazine apps that this could refer to, such as issuu or Outlook Magazines. I would suggest either deletion, or conversion to a disambiguation page signed, Rosguill talk 15:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate unless we already have one? Per nom we've got a couple good targets and it seems like a helpful search term. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK, we really ought to have an article on Magazine apps. I found Online magazine and Computer magazine, but neither of them are close enough. -- Tavix (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

QWERTEdit

Could equally refer to QWERTZ, delete per WP:XY signed, Rosguill talk 23:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Well then asdfghjkl is also the home row on QWERTZ but QWERTY is a thousand times more known so it redirects to QWERTY. Similar to how this redirects to QWERTY because of that. Also if it can mean more than just that, please make it a dab page (QWERT may refer to QWERTY or QWERTZ) instead of directly deleting it. Barracuda41 (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: Qwert has been a redirect to QWERTY since 2006. - Eureka Lott 01:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Rosguill, can you read what he just said? The redirect Qwert has existed since 2006 and QWERT is more meaningful, you know, because it's actually the same capitalisation as the correct one for the keyboard. Barracuda41 (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that these keyboard redirects (that is to say, any combination of keyboard letters other than the actual standard names QWERTY, AZERTY, etc) are actually worth the effort of creating them, but Qwert has seen a fair amount of use so I guess it's fine to keep it. That having been said, a hatnote should be added to QWERTY pointing to QWERTZ, as that's the suggested way to disambiguate between exactly two possible targets where one is clearly primary (full explanation at WP:ONEOTHER). signed, Rosguill talk 04:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
It's been added, so can we please close as keep? Barracuda41 (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. There are multiple potential targets, so shouldn't it be disambiguated? That seems to be the most plausible option. InvalidOS (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • We would need to show that "QWERT" is used for both QWERTY and QWERTZ. Disambiguation pages aren't created for error that may refer to multiple things. -- Tavix (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Qwert has received a fair amount of discussion so far, so I'm going to officially add it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's a distinguish hatnote to QWERTZ at QWERTY. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm still skeptical that either QWERTY or QWERTZ are ever referred to as "QWERT". -- Tavix (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: A redirect must be able to justify itself and this one cannot. I cannot honestly expect myself to mispronounce any acronym and expect to be lead to its target. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

FoursquareEdit

Foursquare should redirect to Four square (disambiguation), since there is no primary topic among Foursquare City Guide, Foursquare (company), and Four square. — Newslinger talk 21:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. This makes sense. Please note I have a COI for Foursquare: I've worked with them in the past, although I'm not doing so currently. Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Newslinger's suggestion signed, Rosguill talk 04:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Following comments above. — Sagotreespirit (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Four square due to the existence of a primary topic. "Foursquare" is merely an alternative spelling for it. -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The primary topic, and common use, of "Foursquare" (without a space) is the app described at Foursquare City Guide. Actually it might be better if Foursquare City Guide were moved to Foursquare. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
    After Foursquare Labs split certain features from Foursquare City Guide into a separate app (Swarm), the company repositioned itself as a business-to-business location data provider. When you go to foursquare.com, the company home page presents Foursquare first and foremost as a data provider. In the bottom-right corner of the page, a small message says, "City Guide has a new home!", which is a subdirectory of foursquare.com. From this, there is no primary topic with respect to usage between Foursquare (company) and Foursquare City Guide. Also, four square (which is occasionally spelled without a space, e.g. in the Daily Herald, The Guardian, and the News & Record) is much older than both the app and the company, and is the primary topic with respect to long-term significance. — Newslinger talk 09:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
    Newslinger, I'm confused. You've just said the game is the primary topic, but in your nomination statement, you argued there was no primary topic. Am I misunderstanding, or have you changed your mind? --BDD (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: It makes sense, in the light of what Newslinger explained to Shhhnotsoloud. Unlike my esteemed colleague, BDD, I am not confused at all. When a single word trips me, I try walk backward until all I can see is a paragraph. (That's figurative speech of course.) flowing dreams (talk page) 07:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have used the Foursquare app and also play four square regularly. "Foursquare" (without space) only refers to the location check-in app and its daughter products. The fact that Foursquare has split up and we now have two articles for their products does not mean we should send readers to a disambiguation page with unrelated items. Deryck C. 11:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I concur with BDD and would like to know Newslinger's opinion. Keep votes have raised valid points, so i'm relisting to nail down consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 16:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The Irishman (2018 film)Edit

Unused redirect. Mazewaxie (talkcontribs) 15:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not released in 2018. PC78 (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, but not per the nominator whose deletion rationale is hardly valid. This is misleading due to the incorrect release date. Geolodus (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Camatkarasana (Chamatkarasana)Edit

Odd redirect that never made any sense, providing two alternative spellings - nobody would ever enter both at once, I think. I've created straightforward redirects for the individual spellings. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Urdu SpeakingEdit

I've just retargeted Urdu speaker, Urdu speakers and Urdu-speaking to Urdu. These are more than enough to handle search queries and linking, and so the existence of redirects from incorrect capitalisations/hyphenations appears over the top. If kept, however, they should likewise be retargeted to Urdu as Muhajirs constitute only a minority among Urdu speakers. – Uanfala (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom as English-speaker redirects to English langauge, French-speaking redirects to French language. Delete Urdu Speaking. There's no proper noun to warrant that. Uanfala, were you getting resistance over the bold redirect? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, my first preference is to see these redirect deleted: the correctly hyphenated forms are in my opinion too much to begin with (I don't think we need redirects of the form "X-speaking" and the like), so redirects from incorrect forms of these are over the top. Resistance to retargeting? There's an opinion expressed here that's worth taking into account. – Uanfala (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Urdu peopleEdit

Urdu people was an article for a few months back in 2010. It got discarded, and rightfully so: its very topic was entirely WP:OR as Urdu speakers do not constitute an ethnic or social group. The current target is not good either: Muhajirs are indeed associated with Urdu but the language isn't native to all of them and it isn't a defining charactestic; the majority of native Urdu speakers are in India and so aren't Muhajir anyway. Conceivably, the redirects could be retargeted to Urdu, but they aren't plausible as search terms (Urdu-speaking, Urdu speaker and many other variants already exist), and their very existence misleads in the way it implies the existence of some sort of social group. – Uanfala (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Venerable MasterEdit

"Venerable Master" is not mentioned at the target, the previous mention having been deleted here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - resolved by editing the target section so that it now (once again) does mention that some jurisdictions use “Venerable Master”. Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Blueboar: could you please provide a reference for your edit? -- Tavix (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Yeah, this situation is easily resolved through editing, as Blueboar has said.Pepe Oats (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - as above AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm unaware of any English-speaking jurisdictions of Freemasonry which use the adjective venerable when referring to the Master of a lodge. The only (very rare) occasions I've heard it used in 25 years of active membership was as a translation of the manner of address used in a jurisdiction which uses another language to conduct business. (Specifically those that use French, where the word vénérable is sometimes treated as a cognate of worshipful in English, depending on context.) This would be better-solved by using sister-project templates or Wikidata entries for articles in those languages' Wikipedias treating on the office of Master to be linked to the target article. Obscure edge cases do exist within the appendant bodies, where the presiding officer of a Lodge of Perfection in the Scottish Rite (composed of Masons of the 4th through 14th, or Ineffable, degrees) uses this manner of address as does (loosely) the presiding officer of a Council in the Allied Masonic Degrees (Sovereign Master, addressed as Venerable), but I don't believe either comes close to justifying the retention of this redirect. ⚞ 🐈ℛogueScholar ₨Talk🗩 ⚟ My recent mischief 02:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to The Venerable#Buddhism, the usage in Buddhism is definitely the primary topic from a cursory search on Wikipedia and Google. RogueScholar's comment sounds convincing to me, so I'd like to see more evidence this is a term used in masonry. -- Tavix (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the possible retarget.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix. Usage in Buddhism does appear to be primary. PC78 (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Europe's last dictatorshipEdit

There is no chronological information in the article, so the reader will not find anything about Europe's "last" dictatorship. Also the article lists four of them. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 12:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

  • IIRC, this originally pointed to Belarus but was deleted after an RfD discussion. I consider the current target to be reasonable as Europe has relatively few countries that are considered dictatorships. feminist (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Dictatorship#Communism and Fascism in 20th-century dictatorships, where most of the examples are 20th century dictatorships in Europe. The current target, as well as List of totalitarian regimes, do not have a clear focus on Europe; they give long lists of dictatorships in other parts of the world. However, I'm not sure if it's possible to name a "last" dictatorship, as several continued simultaneously decades after World War II, so one could also make an argument based on WP:XY. ComplexRational (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget back to Belarus, where the label is discussed (in the lede!). From a cursory search both on and off Wikipedia, the label seems common for Belarus and I was unable to find competing usage. -- Tavix (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Belarus per Tavix' explanation. I am able to confirm that this is the common usage of the phrase and it seems helpful and relevant to Belarus political system. Zerach (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:G4 - recreated despite previous RfD. Alternatively, Week retarget to Belarus. While this is a well-known periphrase for Belarus, it is clearly derogatory. Place Clichy (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

SvevladEdit

Target has no mythological list.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Slightly confused because even when there was such a section in that article "Svevlad" doesn't appear to have been mentioned. Apparently an unconfirmed or legendary ruler, he is mentioned in a few artcles but there doesn't seem to be a suitable target. "Svevlad" is also the name of a modern research group, but again no suitable target. Note also that Svevlad Petrović was deleted in 2011. PC78 (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Happiness (1934 film)Edit

The Soviet film was released in 1935, not 1934, whereas the French film Le Bonheur (Happiness) *was* released in 1934. So either retarget or delete since the current redirect is confusing at best. Only three incoming links, none of which are from mainspace. PC78 (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • One needs VERY good sources to prove that the Soviet film was indeed created in 1935 (rather than in 1934, as the Russian Wikipedia and most sources say). Ghirla-трёп- 19:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, I'm not sure whether the date of release needs to go to the title, as Soviet films were often released many years/decades after their completion (if they were released at all). Ghirla-трёп- 19:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Per WP:PRIMARYFILM we normally disambiguate films by the year of first verifiable release. PC78 (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Riff-Raff (1990 film)Edit

The film was not released in 1990. PC78 (talk) 09:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Lefki KomiEdit

not clear that this is actually an alternative spelling of the name. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 02:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Lefki Komi is the spelling that is used in File:Periplous of the Erythraean Sea.svg, which is linked to in a number of articles. If that spelling isn't used elsewhere, then the map should be changed to reflect that. --PiMaster3 talk 23:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Tomato preservesEdit

Not mentioned in the target. I'm fairly certain that these terms do not refer to the same thing, and would thus suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 02:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • We do have an article on tomato jam, and could retarget this to that article. - Eureka Lott 02:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I would support this suggestion. signed, Rosguill talk 02:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

List of It charactersEdit

No such list exists at the target at this time. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 02:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The creator inserted a "Characters" section at the target article but the only content was this this redirect, which was just bizarre. It has since been removed. At present it serves no purpose. PC78 (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Revisit if someone wants to create a standalone list integrating the casts from the book, mini-series, and film adaptations as with List of Evil Dead characters. This would apply to the Stephen King media as primary topic. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The Undisputed KingdomEdit

These redirects appear to be the result of a page move gone wrong. It's not clear that either of them is pointing to a useful target, nor is it clear that any better targets exist. I would suggest deletion unless justifications can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 02:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - two articles are not related in any way.MPJ-DK (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Why are there two redirects? This isn't meant to be a portmanteau. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Beluj (disambiguation)Edit

Beluj used to be a DAB page with 2 items: Beluch (also a DAB page) - none of the articles on that page mention Beluj; and Beluj (village). I have redirected Beluj to Beluj (village), so there is no longer a need for the redirect. Leschnei (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • WP:CSD#G14. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I've restored the dab page at Beluj: this is an alternative spelling of "Baloch" that is sometimes encountered in the literature. I don't believe there's a primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: The target disambiguation page has been restored, making this a useful redirect per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages. Geolodus (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Inclined to say delete and re-redirect Beluj (or better still, move Beluj, Slovakia to the base title); the alt spelling of "Baloch" can be better handled with a hatnote. PC78 (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

October 14Edit

CRT TVEdit

These should all redirect to the same location. Also, the section "Display technologies" doesn't exist. Raymond1922 (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Ed VezeyEdit

I understand that Ed Vezey was the last survivor of USS Oklahoma, but the article doesn't mention him, and so a user isn't going to learn anything about him. I suggest "Ed Vezey" is ambiguous as a misspelling and should be retargeted to Ed Vaizey, or deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - is now mentioned at target article. GiantSnowman 20:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as now mentioned. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Next Plaid Cymru leadership electionEdit

Delete since these elections are now in the past. No inbound links. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Raymond1922 (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete er nom. These are constantly moving targets, and if the date isn't known they're clearly unlikley to warrant an article. Sionk (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 FIBA Under-19 Club World CupEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Jats of HindEdit

The ethnic groups described at the target are often known as "Jat" and given that they're perceived (sometimes incorrectly) to have originated in the Indian subcontinent ("Hind") this makes sense. However, there exists an unrelated ethnic group Jat people that are actually in India. So why not retarget there? Well, the term "Hind" is not plausible for an English reader to begin with, and even though it's conceivable it could be used in the context of the Jats of India, its specific form probably makes it more likely to crop up in Iranic contexts (as in Afghanistan). Overall, this is about equally (un)likely to refer to either of the two, so WP:XY applies. – Uanfala (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

MandurukotEdit

Delete both per WP:FORRED. Neither term is mentioned at the target article, nor at Snatch theft (the original target for both). PC78 (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

ِDeath of Sina GhanbariEdit

Delete - implausible typo. 37.42.177.63 (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Took me a while to figure out what was wrong with this (would have been helpful to say above), but the "D" is preceeded by U+0650 : ARABIC KASRA which is of no use to anyone. PC78 (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 05:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect was not correctly tagged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PC78 (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as an implausible typo. It's very unlikely that someone would mix scripts in an incorrect manner like this. Geolodus (talk) 09:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

ReibnitzEdit

Delete; she is not the only notable member of this family. See the article on her father. Furthermore, an article can be created out of this topic (Reibnitz).  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, should be a redlink until article Reibnitz family is created. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 05:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • When an article on the family is created, this can be pointed there. In the meantime, disambiguation is preferable to deletion. I would've suggested converting it to a surname page, except it's also a place name; see Rybnica, Jelenia Góra County. - Eureka Lott 14:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this is rather confusing as the notable Reibnitzes are actually von Reibnitz. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

October 13Edit

Dong Son, Bac GiangEdit

Delete. The first two are invalid, since they can either refer to Đông Sơn, Bắc Giang or Đồng Sơn, Bắc Giang. The third one is an incorrect spelling Cn5900 (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Supercharger (comics)Edit

No corresponding list entry Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  • It was redirected to the link in question until @Namenamenamenamename: purged it alongside the other characters that had less than 20 appearances. Perhaps it's link there can be restored or it's original page can be restored. Anyone agreeing with my suggestions? --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Masters of Evil, which mentions the character. I don't think restoring the entry on the list is justified. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Halloweentown 5: She's the WitchEdit

Nothing at target mentions this, this film does not exist and no indication that it ever will. Likely hoax. See related at Halloweentown: She's the Witch Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not certain that this is a hoax, but it does appear to be little more than a rumour. PC78 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete (WP:G3) – It's a hoax: if this were really happening, there would be coverage about it. There's no coverage, so it's a hoax. --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • There's enough noise online to cast doubt on it being a hoax. The earliest mention I can find is from 2006, it's not hard to believe that a fifth film was at least mooted at some point. PC78 (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The fact that a fifth film may have been discussed at some point doesn't justify a redirect, especially as there's not one WP:RS mention, and there's nothing to confirm that this was even the title. --IJBall (contribstalk) 11:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Didn't say it did, hence my delete !vote, only that this doesn't make it a hoax. PC78 (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

ِDeath of Sina GhanbariEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 14#ِDeath of Sina Ghanbari

Ford Erika PlatformEdit

I'm not sure if this was actually a platform. It's not listed as such in List of Ford platforms. There was an article by this name, but it looks to be covered by Ford CE14 platform (but no Erika listed there). I found a little bit of information about "Erika" at Ford Escort (Europe)#Third generation (1980–1986), but not as a platform. For what it's worth, Ford Erika doesn't even exist (yet). -- Tavix (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

TAMAREdit

There's no indication of why this redirects here. I suggest delete because of confusion with Tamar. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • This points to its current target because it previously pointed to TAMAR Education Project, which was WP:BLARed in 2017 for reasons unknown. Given that Tamar already includes a link to Projeto TAMAR, this appears to be an ambiguous term. I suggest retargeting this back to Tamar, its original target. - Eureka Lott 23:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to DAB page Tamar. Normal practice when an all-caps or other-case version is ambiguous; I see these all the time while DABfixing. It's a plausible search term, and WP:CHEAP. Tag as {{R from other capitalisation}}. Narky Blert (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Cinema BlendEdit

The edit summary from when this was created says that Cinema Blend is a division of MovieWeb, but from having checked both of these websites I don't see any evidence that this is the case. It seems that they're owned by two different parent companies, Gateway Blend and Watchr, respectively. I would suggest deletion unless evidence can be provided that these websites are related. signed, Rosguill talk 17:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: Would I redirect Maya to 3ds Max because Autodesk makes both? No. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. An article about Cinema Blend or Gateway Blend could be drafted though. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Ruan Eugene StikEdit

The target's middle name is Eugene, but I don't see any evidence that they've ever been referred to as "Stik". Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: Looks like a pronunciation-switching prank to me: the [ah] sound from "Stack" is switch with the [yeh] sound in "Ryan". flowing dreams (talk page) 11:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Anti-globalismEdit

Globalism and globalisation are quite different things. This could be retargeted to Globalism#Arguments against, but it might also be argued that keeping this in any form is potentially confusing. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

WwwwwEdit

I'm pretty sure someone searching for literally 5 W's isn't looking for the Five W's. There's not any other place I can think of to redirect this page. InvalidOS (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I only see a phrase called "which was what we wanted" but that's only in dictionary. Five W's does hatnote to the W5 disambiguation which has the wiktionary entry for that. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 20:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. If we can't think of anything else this might refer to then it seems pretty harmless. And I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that someone might use this as a search term. PC78 (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to W5 as ambiguous (see also its use as Q.E.D. – ie what AngusWOOF said). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Five Ws" and "W5" are separate terms, I don't see how "WWWWW" or "wwwww" could be substituted for either. JIP | Talk 07:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Yes, redirects are cheap, but this is borderline patent nonsense. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to W5. This is plausible for both Five W's and Q.E.D. -- Tavix (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: It is patent nonsense, or very close to it. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

DQw4w9WgXcQEdit

This is a procedural nomination. The redirect was tagged for WP:G1 and WP:G3 by Rosguill and deleted by RHaworth but challenged by RoySmith on the grounds that the title is a YouTube ID, specifically https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ - which takes you to the official Never Gonna Give You Up video that has been the target of Rickrolls for years. I am neutral. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete – no usage history here on Wikipedia, and an internet search would suggest that other than an Urban Dictionary entry (and matches for articles literally linking the whole URL) this isn't used as a way to refer to rickrolling. signed, Rosguill talk 18:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I'd categorize my objection as strongly as challenged, but I did observe that as something that has a subreddit devoted to it, and an entry in Urban Dictionary, it's probably not that unlikely a search term. And it's not really WP:G1 or WP:G3 either. The current redirect to Rickrolling is a little confusing because the string isn't mentioned in the target article, but that can be fixed. So, since we're here, Keep per WP:CHEAP, with the proviso that a (very short) mention of the string be included in the target article. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I do agree that the speedy criteria don't apply in hindsight. At the time, I thought this was a totally random string itself intended as a rickroll. signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
PS, google trends shows this is used as a search term about 10% as often as rickroll. Not huge, but not nothing either. I'm totally mystified (and somewhat amused) at the fact that only people in New York and California seem to search for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per point 8 of WP:RFD#DELETE, this is a rather obscure search string even though its target is unambiguous, and it will not help anyone except those who search by copying and pasting. I find no evidence that this ID is particularly significant—these IDs are not commonly known or referred to—and I will note that even the most viewed YouTube videos don't have such redirects. ComplexRational (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: jNQXAC9IVRw apparently exists for Me at the zoo. Should that be nominated? Geolodus (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. Do we have some way to access the wikipedia search history to see how often that's actually used? My own googling turns up less for that than for DQw4w9WgXcQ, but what really matters is how often people use it to search on wikipedia. On the other hand, WP:CHEAP. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@RoySmith: The only numerical evidence is pageviews, showing 17 in the past year and suggesting not-too-common usage of this redirect. ComplexRational (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of course, we don't want redirects for every YouTube code, but as RoySmith points out this one does have uses outside YouTube and I'd say therefore is a special case (as jNQXAC9IVRw might be too). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete LOL! I had to chuckle at the nom's comment on the reason for why the PROD was challenged. Are there any Wikipedia articles for YouTube videos with associated redirects for the YouTube ID? If there are, perhaps we need to do some clean up... Doug Mehus (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Dmehus:. I can find 3. There's this one, jNQXAC9IVRw mentioned above, and from redirects to members of Category:2010s YouTube videos and Category:2000s YouTube videos there's _OBlgSz8sSM. Even allowing for a lack of categorization, it's not really a problem. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per RoySmith, who has provided evidence of usage. -- Tavix (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: Did someone let the cat on the keyboard? Because that's what it looks like to me. As such, it is an unlikely search term. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is very close to being patent nonsense. While [1] does link to Never Gonna Give You Up on YouTube, the URL clearly isn't intended to be memorized by a human being, and looks like nonsense at first glance. InvalidOS (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Phuoc TayEdit

Delete, redirects are not pointing correctly at intended articles Cn5900 (talk) 07:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Darussalam Islamic AcademyEdit

Wrong redirection. Kutyava (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Restore previous version, and tag for improvement (or AfD), instead of blanking and redirecting to an article without mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

DHIUEdit

Wrong redirection. Kutyava (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Not ambiguous with anything else. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. If there's another thing called DHIU it could be converted to disambiguation later. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 09:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Heaven on he 7th FloorEdit

Implausible typo that is too old for WP:R3. While "he" is a real word, the meaning does not work for this example, as "he" is used to refer to a previously mentioned male person (the corresponding pronoun for females is of course "she"). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Improbable and unnecessary redirect. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as implausible. This is no more likely than any other typo, and misspelling "the" seems especially unlikely. ComplexRational (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: Let the search engine take over. flowing dreams (talk page) 11:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

October 12Edit

Tertius gaudensEdit

Bad redirect – lemma not even mentioned in given target. Hildeoc (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: the shortcomings of the Georg Simmel article aren't the fault of the redirect. The phrase tertius gaudens exists, is known (to some), and was coined by Simmel. It isn't misleading, confusing, unlikely, offensive, or spam, which about takes care of the main reasons for outright deleting a redirect. Just possibily there is a better target, something related to competition theory perhaps, but I couldn't find any current WP article that describes it. Lithopsian (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    You don't think this is misleading or confusing? A reader seeking to learn what "Tertius gaudens" means will land on Simmel's article and be satisfied? --BDD (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, if there's no coverage of the phrase on Wikipedia then the redirect should not exist. I doubt it will ever evolve beyond a dicdef so it shouldn't be covered in a biography anyway. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't see how this is useful given the article's present state. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Copy to Wiktionary using this revision. -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been mentions in this discussion about copying the contents of a former revision to Wiktionary, but there has been no discussion on whether or not the contents in that revision would meet Wiktionary's notability standards for content. Relisting in the hopes such a discussion can occur.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Enwiki has no information about the subject. In my opinion we shouldn't be redirecting to wikt a potentially huge number of latin phrases for which we have no article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Mulatto Axe murdersEdit

Not mentioned in target. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 22:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, since the target article does not cover the topic. The Mulatto axe murders were 49 axe murders in Louisiana and Texas in 1911–12 (link). While Barnabet confessed to some of them, the event was bigger than just her and the murders continued even after her arrest (see this link for more context). -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

African Sorghum BeerEdit

Delete. Not mentioned at target. Existed as an article for 10 minutes in 2007. Non-standard capitalization. Plantdrew (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • How about Beer in Africa? Rich's suggestions are fine, but there are other African sorghum beers. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Pito (beer) as per Rich Farmbrough. The pito article is not too specific. --Bejnar (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Beer in Africa. Getting too specific a target risks making it harder for readers to find other relevant results. --BDD (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Commercial sorghum#Sorghum beer where Sorghum beer currently targets. The section has a lot of information specific to Africa. -- Tavix (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    This is acceptable to me too. Come to think of it, there's enough content there that makes me think we could just have an article, albeit at African sorghum beer. And while I can't say for sure, it certainly looks like some of the current content was derived from this page's history. --BDD (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Nickelodeon ProductionsEdit

After discussing the redirect here [2], it makes no sense to have this page. No references can be found for Nickelodeon productions it self, The Nickelodeon Page only has one little mention of this the production section, however redirection to a studio (Nickelodeon on Sunset) that closed in 2017 ([3]) and was a soundstage not a production company is pretty much useless. Agentdoof (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: It should not redirect to Nickelodeon on Sunset. It should either redirect to Nickelodeon (it's basically the "production" subsidiary of the latter), or be deleted. --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: The current, or, rather, previous, redirect since the user removed the redirect in their WP:IDONTLIKEIT persistence in wanting to delete it is the more accurate redirect, since Nickelodeon has little to no mention of the production side of things. Amaury • 20:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment:My point is Nickelodeon productions is a production company and Nickelodeon on Sunset is a Studio and the current article doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability, so it should be deleted or redirected somewhere else that is a better fit for Nickelodeon productions that talks about it's shows not where shows were or are produced at. Agentdoof (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    • No: keeping this redirect to Nickelodeon on Sunset is completely wrong – I completely agree with Agentdoof on this. It should either go to Nickelodeon, or be deleted as vague. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Back RotoEdit

Not mentioned at target, I didn't find any evidence of a connection in an internet search. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 14:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete I don't see this term used anywhere. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment "Back Roto" is a parish (a Lands administrative division in the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW)) which is part of Blaxland County (a larger land administrative division). Parishes and counties in NSW are now only used for land titles and surveying purposes. That said, the parish of Back Roto certainly has legal existence - see this search on the Geographical Names Board of NSW website. Whether it requires a redirect, I will leave to greater minds than mine. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment If "Back Roto" needs a redirect, this is the appropriate target. It is not obvious to me that it does any harm. It is a curious piece of naming by a 19th century bureaucrat, reminiscent of "back of Bourke".--Grahame (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Nom comment I think that the justifications provided by the two comments above are good enough for me. I agree that in the absence of anything else that Back Roto could/should point to, it's not doing any harm. signed, Rosguill talk 04:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Mia's Index of Anthro StoriesEdit

None of these are mentioned in the target article. As they're all the names of websites or web forums, these redirects seem like they were created promotionally. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The redirects were created because they are furry websites mentioned at the time - i.e. a decade ago - in the relevant section of the article, which were not in and of themselves notable enough for a full article (or at least had not had one created), but were significant enough to mention, and for people to reasonably search for. They may not be mentioned there now because content has been removed from the article in question - just as was the case with list of furry conventions. A big part of the goal with such redirects is to reduce the number of articles created. They do not in and of themselves have "a promotional effect". Conversely, if you don't have something there, it's very tempting to use the "create this article" link. As far as the sites go, ArtSpots closed in 2012 (to some consternation from users), FurBid was shuttered in 2015 (arguably had become less relevant than it was before then); Pounced.org was taken down by its owners in March 2018 due to concerns about the controversial sex-trafficking bill known as FOSTA; FurBuy went down just this year for an indeterminate period; Mia's Index of Anthro Stories is still up and was historically important but had been largely superseded by 2005 as fans moved to archive sites rather than their own homepages; Bluefurry, Lulz.net and The Fursuit Database are still going (probably none of those will ever have sufficient refs for a standalone article). GreenReaper (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I still think that most of them are unlikely to ever have their names hijacked for articles. I see no point in keeping them around if they're not mentioned in the articles because it just creates confusion for the few people who know most of these sites' names. Worst case it'll cause them to add the sites' names to Furry fandom and clutter it up with listcruft or trivia about said sites. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Only the first of these redirects has been tagged. PC78 (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Salahuddin (Bagram captive)Edit

It is not clear why this redirect goes here. "Salahuddin" or other variant forms is not mentioned in the article or the other relevant article Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Rahmatullah. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • The Rendition Project lists this as an alias of Rahmatullah. If it's a reliable source, that could be added to the article. I don't know how likely a search term this would be, though. --BDD (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

United States–Russia proxy conflictEdit

This is a recently created redirect. The target page does not mention the subject, and essentially, it seems this redirect was made to push some sort of POV. I would argue it should be deleted as useless and nonsensical, but if there is a better target, I'm not opposed to that either. RGloucester 10:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Sack of Reggio di CalabriaEdit

Event (perpetrated by Pisa) is not mentioned at the target.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  06:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Coffee hourEdit

Delete. Although it is mentioned in the target as an Eastern Orthodox term, I think this redirect is too surprising and not helpful. In my country (United States) "coffee hour" refers to any event at which coffee is provided. There might be potential for an article but it seems almost DICTDEF to me. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 06:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is a tricky one: many of the mentions of "coffee hour" have agape/religion/church contexts, but several do not, but it's not the sort of precise phrase one could make a disambiguation page about. I think on balance that Search does a better job and this redirect therefore impedes Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • There's potential to discuss this sort of thing at Coffee culture. It currently has a reference with "coffee hour" in the title, but no explicit coverage. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yang BowenEdit

This redirect would make sense if Yang were Chinese. However, he is an American citizen born in America who performs in English, not Chinese. He doesn't write his name that way and neither does anyone else, so how is it a plausible search term? This redirect makes about as much sense as one to Sarah Silverman with her name typed in Hebrew letters, because she is of Jewish ethnicity. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 06:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep unless/until it’s needed for someone else. Yang is first generation Chinese-American. News of his being the first Chinese-American hired as SNL cast member was international headlines. Unless there is some harm in keeping this, I suggest leaving it. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep harmless redirect and plausible alternative name order. Even Westerners sometimes have their names presented in the Last, First order (e.g. in indexes and directories). -Zanhe (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Ninh Thuận, Bạc LiêuEdit

Delete all. These redirects have the same issue as the ones I listed in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 11, Thạch Phúc section Cn5900 (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: there's no reason to delete these redirects. The fact that the villages don't exist anymore makes no difference. If anyone does come across a reference to any of them and wants to find out, the redirect will take them to the appropriate district article. Where's the harm in that? I would add that whoever (rightly) converted these tiny articles to redirects should have first added the information to the district article, not just thrown it away. That would be a useful task - deleting all traces is not. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Colonies Chris:, I replied to you in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 11. In fact, I've tried to fixed some of them by converting them into disambiguation pages. Some of those villages ceased to exist, but there are still many other villages with the same name in other provinces of Vietnam. These links are, however, cannot be fixed in that way, so I came to the decision of deleting them.
As I explained in October 11's discussion, these villages were first divided from larger villages (and the most important part is, the smaller village names are came up by the government, they just named the villages very randomly by picking the first character of the original village and combine it with another random character for example). They only existed for 8 years, and ceased to exist for 32 years now. That should be enough for no one to remember them. I should also stated that there are many other provinces having the same issue of Ca Mau Province about dividing villages, and merged them back. But as far as I'm concerned, this redirect issues only occur here.
Currently Vietnam has 11,156 commune-level subdivisions, and the number of articles on created is only about 400. There are still thousands of such "present-day" stub-articles to be created. So those redirects, which no one will ever remember (and which was also created by mistake and not carefully reviewed) should be left behind. Cn5900 (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, these seem like redirects that should exist. Guettarda (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Guettarda even in Vietnamese Wikipedia don't have them. So why should they exist here? Cn5900 (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the original stub articles were wrong to state or imply that the villages currently existed, but that's not relevant to these redirects; the villages did in fact exist, though only for a limited period, so these redirects are valid and potentially useful. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Colonies Chris, let's talk about the reality here. You may think it's "potentially" useful, potientially means "might be". But you need to look at the reality here. Just try to search all sources to see what history you can find on those villages, and then tell me how useful they are? Since I've already done that so I know for sure, they are useless Cn5900 (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Colonies Chris: also what about the other provinces which the author hasn't accidentally created stubs about former villages yet and resulting in them being turned to redirects like these. Clearly they won't have any, but this one has too many, I just want to be fair here Cn5900 (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment if these are former villages, and no villages with these names exist today, then it is safe to keep the redirects. However, if villages currently exist with these names then it would be inappropriate to redirect to this district, they should instead redirect to the more appropriate current district and/or include the {{R with possibilities}} template. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

White interloperEdit

Too WP:SURPRISEing and not helpful. "White interloper" has a lot of possible meanings. Some would consider all white people in South Africa or Australia to be "white interlopers". Fiamh (talk, contribs) 03:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

October 11Edit

Thạch PhúcEdit

Delete all These redirects all have the same issue (not all to be exact, since about half of these are the diacriticless version of the other half). That is they all used to be former Vietnamese villages or commune in 1980s and doesn't exist anymore. Vietnamese wikipedia don't even have one single articles on these since they are rated low importance and not qualified enough to become articles. However, someone created articles about them here (seriously I don't know why that person did that) and the result was, they have been converted to redirects and all points to "Cái Nước District". However, I think this is not a very good solution, since former village names pointing to a current district, those are considered incorrect target redirects. Therefore, I think the best solution is to delete all of them, as they were not even qualified enough to be created in Wikipedia in the first place. Cn5900 (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Just found two more Cn5900 (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: there's no reason to delete these redirects. The fact that the villages don't exist anymore makes no difference. If anyone does come across a reference to any of them and wants to find out, the redirect will take them to the appropriate province article. Where's the harm in that? I would add that whoever (rightly) converted these tiny articles to redirects should have first added the information to the province article, not just thrown it away. That would be a useful task - deleting all traces is not. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Colonies Chris:, since you are not from Vietnam. So there's this issue you need to understand. These kinds of villages are considered rural communes, and back in the 1980s, communes are splits and merged over with all adjacents almost all the time (I seriously don't know why), and these villages above, in fact these are divided from larger villages (but this division only lasted for 8 years, from 1979 to 1987). But after 1987, they were merged back to whatever villages they used to be a part of (the larger villages Cái Nước District's present-day villages). These villages ceased to exist 32 years ago, whoever wrote the articles about them must have gotten the incorrect source. As I mentioned, even Vietnamese Wikipedia (those villages native language Wikipedia page) don't have any of such redirects (if there were any, it would have been deleted), so why should we have them here? And no one is going to come up with their references, since as stated above, they existed for a very short time. If people wants to search for any villages, they have to look up for the district first (villages are very small divisions in Vietnam), and when two Vietnamese people talk to each other and one ask the other where his/her hometown is, they will mostly ask the province (as in some cases, but very rare, the district within that province), no one will ask for the village you came from, that is not to say those villages only existed for 8 years but ceased to exist 32 years ago (32 is four times larger than 8). Therefore no one will look up for such villages. Leaving these redirects here would be a complete messed up, since about 20 former-villages redirecting to the district's page. The former articles of these redirects should have been carefully verified before they are published. They were created 10 years ago, which is back when en.wikipedia rules aren't as strict as they are right now.
I am currently creating more articles about current villages in Vietnam, and at first I used the source that the author used 10 years ago to create those villages articles, but were not accepted. I have to provide a more detailed source ("Administrative subdivisions". General Statistics Office of Vietnam. and I was even required to add notes such as To find information at reference, go to row 77, then row 748, and it is listed on row 26560). These villages former articles weren't as carefully reviewed the moment they were created, so that's why they came to exist. If those are created in 2019, they wouldn't have come to exist and ended up becoming redirects like this. Cn5900 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
In the 8 years they existed, were they never mentioned in any source? Did nothing happen in these villages that would never have been mentioned? Would someone who left 33 years ago not consider searching for them? Guettarda (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not saying they were not mentioned. If you want to search for where they were mentioned, I can list a whole article on them in Vietnamese wikipedia for you. And yes, things did happen, but.... mostly any articles written about them are just like "this village is separted from that village, bla bla bla.... such things". In Vietnamese Wikipedia, we do not allow such redirect to exist. I have already tried to minimized the number of redirect to delete when I listed it here Cn5900 (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Guettarda if anyone wants to look for a Vietnamese location, the first place they should go to is Vietnamese wikipedia, and NOT HERE. Hoever, even in Vietnamese Wikipedia don't have them, so why should they exist here? If they want to look for them, they will just look for Cái Nước District. They can easily contact the government to get information. We are in 2019 now, information is not that difficult to search for. These redirect are just being useless. You can see that it is not linked from any other articles Cn5900 (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
"... if anyone wants to look for a Vietnamese location, the first place they should go to is Vietnamese wikipedia, and NOT HERE": This is not the way Wikipedia works. People will generally look everything up first in the Wikipedia(s) they are capable of reading. Someone who speaks a given language is not necessarily the first person to choose to write about a given topic mostly closely associated with that language; there's no reason why this Wikipedia can't or shouldn't carry articles or appropriate redirects on Vietnamese topics that Vietnamese Wikipedia doesn't happen to have articles on. They're independent projects. Largoplazo (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Colonies Chris. Guettarda (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
My point is, these are created by mistake, since the author didn't look up for the sources carefully, and newly created articles aren't carefully reviewed 10 years ago as they are now. If these are created now, they will be deleted immediately. I'm just sending them back to where they should be. So please just take them as a daily clean up. Cn5900 (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Former name/former subdivision is a perfectly valid redirect. Ideally, this history should be discussed in the target articles. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 21:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • All of you, just feel free to check the redirects history. The moment they were created, they all said that those villages are currently existing, which clearly shows that they were created by accident. It was because the author weren't aware of the fact that they ceased to exist, as he didn't check whatever source he used at that time. If he was aware of that, these redirects wouldn't be here by now for this discussion. Turning them into redirects is just a temporary solution, and it does not solve the original issue that these page are created by accident. If these are former district (which is larger than small villages and their history have much more to discuss), I would definitely say we keep them. But these are small villages, each of which has very little (almost none) history to discuss. And for the last time, I should emphasize that even Vietnamese wikipedia (its native language, and is definitely where people should look for any information they want to find first before they look for somewhere else) have no such redirect, so why should en.wikipedia (a foreign language wikipedia) have them here? Cn5900 (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
"And for the last time, I should emphasize that even Vietnamese wikipedia (its native language, and is definitely where people should look for any information they want to find first before they look for somewhere else)": As I wrote above, this is not the way Wikipedia works. People generally look everything up first in the Wikipedia(s) they are capable of reading. How many non-Vietnamese people in the world do you think can read Vietnamese? Do you think Polish speakers look up Louis Pasteur on French Wikipedia and Angkor Wat on Cambodian Wikipedia? These are independent projects with different contributor communities and different readerships. The existence of an article, or lack thereof, on one Wikipedia is irrelevant to its validity on another. Largoplazo (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Largoplazo:, yes you gave me examples on people who are Polish trying to look, but at least Louis Pasteur and Angkor Wat has a large enough amount of history to be discussed in every Wikipedia, and that amount of history makes it easy to look. But looking for a tiny former village, if someone would do that, they will definitely be aware that it is going to a very challenging process, since very few sources will mention them. Therefore they will not begin the search here Cn5900 (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

If they only speak English and only use English Wikipedia, then people begin to look and only look here. Period. Largoplazo (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Largoplazo, tell me how you are so sure that they will only look here. This is 2019, data is huge and sources to look for these are not that rare anymore. Many Vietnamese website today has an English translation, where English speaking people can absolutely search for. This Vietnamese Project as you mentioned above, is being abandoned and has been abandoned for almost 10 years (you can verify that by checking most of its article creation time). Only villages for provinces beginning with A, B, C has been created. Other has been left abandoned until now. How can someone rely on these to find information? Moreover, if there's someone who rely on Wikipedia and can only count on looking here, then I'd say that person needs to catch up with the modern world. The sad truth is, no doubt, no one rates Wikipedia as the most reliable source (some people even rate it the least reliable), simply because anyone can jump in to add false information at any time. begin to look and only look is a crazy thing to do 2600:1700:CCD0:5790:357B:FC79:DA07:48C8 (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the original stub articles were wrong to state that the villages currently existed, but that's irrelevant; the villages had indeed existed in that province, at least for a period. That makes the redirects valid and potentially useful. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Colonies Chris:, I should say again that if they are former districts or former provinces, which is larger and comprise many villages, then that is worth keeping. These tiny villages have almost no history to be discussed. Cn5900 (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Colonies Chris: also what about the other provinces which the author hasn't accidentally created stubs about former villages yet and resulting in them being turned to redirects like these. Clearly they won't have any, but this one has too many, I just want to be fair here Cn5900 (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • We are not reaching any agreement, simply because these redirects are neutral, they are either useful or useless. Let's just wait for the judge then Cn5900 (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment if these are former villages, and no villages with these names exist today, then it is safe to keep the redirects. However, if villages currently exist with these names then it would be inappropriate to redirect to this district, they should instead redirect to the more appropriate current district and/or include the {{R with possibilities}} template. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Cn5900:: A related suggestion - your history lesson, above, of how these villages came into being for a just a few years, is interesting and useful. It should be included within a suitable article - perhaps Subdivisions of Vietnam. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • N.b., Phu Thanh, Ca Mau and Phú Thành, Ca Mau have been speedily deleted by Discospinster, under criteria G6 and G7. --BDD (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Discospinster: Could you explain your deletions? From reading this discussion and the editing history, that doesn't look clear to me. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
      • The deletion reason was that it was created in error, and I had no reason to think otherwise, and nobody contacted me to say it was not an error. ... discospinster talk 16:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I will also note that a few others have been deleted by Fish and karate as "obviously created in error", which I still don't understand from reading this discussion, so I would like to pose the same question to Fish and karate: can you explain how you know they were created in error? -- Tavix (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Colonies Chris:. I'm from Vietnam, so I know this issue very well. These villages were just divided from larger villages "on paper", the division didn't really take place in real life (so many people wouldn't even know their villages had been divided into new villages). Moreover, the story of dividing and merging take place almost all the time in Vietnam. Back in 1980s, Vietnam was still very poor, yet the government still care about dividing villages (more villages means there are more chairmen/chairwomen and vice chairmen/vice chairwomen are required, which literally means there more people the government has to pay). The country was still poor, while more money are spent on those nonsense stuffs; therefore the divisions was objected by the residences. So if someone left 33 years ago, like Largoplazo said, that person wouldn't remember a thing about those "newly set off" village. If you want, I can adjust those villages to point exactly at each of their corresponding present-day village. But I would say that's really unnecessary, what Cn5900 really means is that in Vietnamese Wikipedia, former villages are considered not notable, that is not to say these villages ceased to exist 32 years ago (if they were just currently dissolved, then I would say we keep these), and they were not even real. You don't think we want to keep such redirects for 50, 100 years and forever here, do you? I will just take this as a daily clean-up, removing unnecessary contents is a good thing to do. 2600:1700:CCD0:5790:D130:8105:7CDC:F269 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, these former villages are considered not notable, but most important, their correct names cannot be verified (see my comments below for more details).
  • Comments: Also, @Colonies Chris:. I'm checking the government acts in 1979 (the division of the villages) and 1987 (the dissolution of those villages) to determine which present-day village they belong to, but the villages' names in two acts don't even match. Acts back in the 1980s messed up the village names all the time (the acts were signed in Hanoi, while those villages are in Ca Mau Province), and there's no way to verify it (unless you travel all the way to that district to ask for the district's chairman on those information). That's why I told you this is a complete mess, also as 2600:1700:CCD0:5790:D130:8105:7CDC:F269 said, since the division didn't actually take place, the government didn't really care about having those former village names correctly in the second act in 1987. This is another reason why vi.wikipedia consider not having redirects for former articles before 2000, as there's no way to verify the correct village's names. It's okay to have those for villages after 2000, since it can be easier to verify the history of them. 153.18.172.42 (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • We should have specific rules for these types of redirects. My suggestions would be:
    • For former villages existing before 2000, we don't have redirects for them, but will discuss their history in the district's page.
    • For former villages that ceased to exist after 2000, we will consider two cases:
      • Case 1: If there are two or more existing villages with same name in other districts, we will mention this former village's history in the disambiguation page as well as in the district's page.
      • Case 2: If there is only one existing village with the same name, we will mention its history in the district's page.
    • For these two cases, if there used to be articles about them we will consider redirecting them to the corresponding disambiguation page (for case 1) or to the corresponding article about the existing village that it is a part of (and not to the district, since it will be a complete messed up). However, if there hasn't been any articles about them, we will consider not creating one, unless that former geographical name is too notable (like Mỹ Đình, a former commune/village in Hanoi). Just for anyone wondering, I got this from the Vietnamese project, since that is the way they deal with former villages. But anyway, the redirects are about villages existing in 1980s, before 2000, and none of them are notable, so I'd say we delete them, and their history (including the name of the village they currently belong to) will be added in Cái Nước District. 153.18.172.42 (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
This proposal seems to broadly make sense to me. To summarise my understanding (please correct me if this is wrong), a significant number of new villages were legally created in 1979, but many of them never really came into existence on the ground and were abolished in 1987. But some of them really did come into existence, and were abolished after 2000 (merged back into their former villages?); and are there some which were created in 1979 and still exist?
I suggest that a section should be added to Subdivisions of Vietnam summarising the explanations that several knowledgeable editors above have provided, with a link/reference to the documents mentioned, and that the corresponding redirects (the 1979–87 'paper' villages) should be pointed to that section. I can't see any reason (unless there's a clash of names) to remove redirects at all. Notability is about whether something merits an article in its own right, but much looser criteria apply to redirects. For 1979 villages that were abolished later, after 2000, I agree, they should be covered in the article for the current village, and they should redirect there. I don't see any need to create new redirects for 'paper' villages not already covered, but I would see no reason to object to anyone creating them either. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Colonies Chris:, answering your questions. New villages "merged back into their former villages?", Yes, and another merging is taking places from now to 2021 in many provinces from north to south, "and are there some which were created in 1979 and still exist?" Also, yes. So I would say unless the villages above has the same name with any existing villages (like Hiệp Hưng which Inwind adjust to talk about a current village in Hau Giang Province]]) or can be reused for a diambiguation page (like Tân Hiệp and Tân Phong which Cn5900 converted to disambiguation pages), we will delete them. The problem with those 'paper villages' is that no one can verify their correct names, as 153.18.172.42 mentioned above. How does that help to redirect them to Subdivisions of Vietnam at all, while we have to give examples on them in Subdivisions of Vietnam (examples need correct names for verification). The documents you mentioned above to reference in Subdivisions of Vietnam, I don't know whether that helps (the acts, as mentioned is the most reliable source, but even that one is not accurate). Take Thạch Phúc as an example, it is one of the paper villages (but neither the act in 1979 or 1987 mention its name, meanwhile an act in 1984 does mention, that'll obviously blow things up). So there's no way to trace those 'paper villages', so I'd say that doesn't help 2600:1700:CCD0:5790:7D14:2C27:E99E:E0CF (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Initially, I would have been for keeping all the redirects, understanding Cn5900's points about the confusion of the renaming which occurred. However, I think that Colonies Chris' suggestion just above this comment is the best solution, adding info to Subdivisions of Vietname, and targeting all these redirects there.Onel5969 TT me 11:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments: @Colonies Chris:, I don't understand why you still say there's no reason to remove these. Haven't I given you too many?
    • First, this is the topic the very few people will care about, since they are just tiny villages, which didn't even actually came to existence. If you really want to know more about VNese villages, I promise you there are so much more to talk about for villages after 2000.
    • Second, this is just a clean-up. Removing these does not affect anything at all, it's not like a massive information will be remove from Wikipedia
    • Third, but most important, they cannot be clearly verified, since even the most reliable source (the government acts) is not very accurate back in those years. Removing contents that cannot be clearly verified, that make every sense according to Wikipedia's policy.
  • Aren't these reasons good enough? 153.18.172.42 (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

JUNIOR DETECTIVEEdit

WP:RCAPS, junior detectives have no affinity for all caps. Besides, the target article does not give any information specific to junior detectives. -- Tavix (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible, with no significant links, page history, or pageviews. This was an imperfect case of deletion by redirection; the article should have been actually deleted. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Major consensus narrativeEdit

Delete This phrase does not appear in the target article UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: It's an obvious synonym of the target article name. If you're a social constructionist everything is a narrative. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 21:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the "major" makes it not a clear synonym. Is there a reliable source that says otherwise? UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Corbyn the Musical: The Motorcycle DiariesEdit

Not mentioned in the article, or anywhere on Wikipedia. This was a 2016 play; whether it's notable or not, the redirect isn't helping our readers as things stand. BDD (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added a sentence on it to the article, which I guess solves the problem. I suppose it is recognition of a sort. Books on him are listed under Cultural depictions but they have their own articles. Jontel (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Gross movementEdit

Not mentioned in the target, and the fact that the target is specifically about terminology makes it especially likely that this will cause confusion or at least inconvenience. The specific subsection to which this points hasn't existed since December 2013. I'm not sure whether Gross motor skills would be an appropriate target or not: it seems to be about a related but narrower topic. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

PowerUp HeroesEdit

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: This video game apparently exists [4], but I can't find any appropriate (non-primary) sources for a mention at the target. Geolodus (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • There's an IGN review, but it doesn't contain much actual information on the subject. Geolodus (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

AlgoidEdit

Not mentioned in the target page. "Algoid" is also the name of a programming language, making this redirect potentially confusing. Not a very active user (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Shouldn't be deleted as there is page history. In addition, "Algoid" can also mean "relating to algae." My preference would be a disambiguation page, as there's no obvious PRIMARYTOPIC. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 22:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak disambiguate, considering that there is more than one possible meaning of this term. I have drafted a disambiguation page but am not sure if the current target should be listed on it. Geolodus (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Move Algoid (programming language) to the base name over the current redirect, and have a hatnote to Algae. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • This could work, but the current page would have to be kept at a different name to preserve page history. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 11:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Dabify as drafted below the redirect. I don't see a primary topic here as the programming language appears to be quite obscure. – Uanfala (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Next Portuguese legislative electionEdit

Now misleading since the 2019 legislative election is over. I would suggest deletion until 2023 Portuguese legislative election is created. Geolodus (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I was going to start a stub on the 2023 election but couldn't find enough sources to justify it. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 22:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

October 10Edit

==Title==Edit

Just...why? I don't really see this being too useful. InvalidOS (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Redirects are for synonyms, common spelling alternatives, important sections that have not yet become articles, old titles. Not for Wikitext syntax. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. If we had a separate Wikipedia article on wikitext, we could consider redirecting it there, but we don't, and even if we did this is an unlikely title for a redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, unhelpful cross-namespace redirect. Zerach (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as not useful. General Ization Talk 04:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. That was just a silly redir to create. 2601:643:867F:5370:CDB0:4476:46F5:1603 (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I created this redirect because there are users who aren't familiar with what this means. 99721829Max (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see this being useful to anyone. PC78 (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Cambodia at the Southeast Asian GamesEdit

I believe this redirect should be deleted. The target article is a completely different competition. ThiagoSimoes (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Restore the 09:23, 14 June 2015‎ PRehse version of the article and draftify. This was an inappropriate instance of deletion-through-redirection by an indefinitely blocked editor. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak restore and draft per Black Falcon, though I'm a bit concerned with the idea of putting something in draft space without any indication anyone will work on it. Then again, I don't think it needs so much work before it could be back in mainspace. There seems to be only one other such article for "[Country] at the Southeast Asian Games", so if not for that, I would probably vote delete. I could still live with WP:REDLINK deletion as is. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Military career of Napoleon the GreatEdit

Napoleon the Great does not appear to be a common alternative name for Napoleon in English. We don't have a redirect from it to Napoleon, so I don't see why we should have this redirect either. signed, Rosguill talk 20:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Abdicate: Napoléon was not so great as we thought. --Soumyabrata (talksubpages) 17:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Military career of Napoleon the Great as a plausible search term per, e.g., this book); I also created Napoleon the Great. Delete Military career of Napoléon the Great as implausible—anyone using the accented "é" will not follow it with "the Great". -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I'm surprised "Napoleon the Great" was just created, but I had no doubt who the redirects were referring to (and I know there were subsequent Napoleons). I'm not too bothered by the accent; perhaps someone copies and pastes it. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
    I could see someone copy-and-pasting "Napoléon", but surely not "Napoléon the Great". -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems like a reasonable target. Guettarda (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    The target is reasonable, but is the accented redirect plausible? -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Snout-vent lengthEdit

This term would appear to be a standard measurement for all reptiles, but is not mentioned at Reptile (although it is mentioned in virtually every article about a reptile species). If someone with more familiarity with this field and relevant sources could add a mention to Reptile then I think we should redirect there, otherwise it should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 20:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

What are you trying to say here? signed, Rosguill talk 23:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Delete or write article. The redirect was changed to SVL. This doesn't make sense – SVL is a disambiguation page. It might make sense if the disambiguation page linked to a number of articles about different interpretations of the phrase "snout-vent length", but that isn't the case here – there's just a single entry there that just links straight back to Snout-vent length.
I realise now that the only mention of it at Anolis cuvieri is giving the figure for this particular species – it doesn't explain the measurement or anything like that, let alone in a way that encompasses a range of species as one would expect of an article on the topic. As such, as it stands at the moment there doesn't seem to be any sensible page to redirect this to. — Smjg (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
When I first saw the redirect my impulse was to redirect it to Reptile anatomy, but that's just a redirect pointing back to Reptile. I think it's feasible that we could add content about it there as opposed to having a separate article about this single measurement. signed, Rosguill talk 23:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree now, there's probably no point in a separate article for this topic, so delete or put suitable content on the topic somewhere suitable and redirect to it. That said, I'm not sure where would be "somewhere suitable" as it stands at the moment – there doesn't seem to be a section on Reptile about how reptiles are measured. I thought maybe there's an article somewhere on animal measurements more generally, but can't find one of those either. — Smjg (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wiktionary - Ideally we'd have a Glossary of herpetology for a target. Right now, wikt:svl has a definition, so {{wiktionary redirect}} should be used to target that until the day that the glossary is written. This situation is why we have the template. --Nessie (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Its use in many article will help make sure readers aren't completely in the dark over this. It seems mostly self-explanatory, even though I don't know what a reptile or amphibian's vent is. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

HeimrEdit

Not mentioned at the target. The wiktionary entry for this term would suggest that it is an Old Norse word for "world". While both of these terms likely played a role in Norse cosmology, I think it's a bit of a stretch and possibly misleading to redirect Heimr to Hel. Norse cosmology would be a more suitable target, but the term isn't used there either. I would suggest deletion unless someone can find an appropriate target. signed, Rosguill talk 06:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that Hel isn't an appropriate target. Norse cosmology does mention the níu heimar ("nine worlds") including Vana-heimr etc. and would be okay as a target. Haukur (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

If heimar is just a different form of heimr, I have no problems with targeting there. signed, Rosguill talk 12:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, to clarify, heimar is the plural and heimr is the singular. Haukur (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually "heimr" is home and and its meanings as "world, abode, etc." are figurative (Just like for the English word). And there is a considerable discussion about this in Talk:Norse cosmology# Translation of "heim" and I am wondering why none of it in the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • soft redirect to wikt:heimr - there is no mythological meaning in the word at all, it is a regular common Old Norse word, and with several meanings, too, and the VAST MAJORITY of the usage in English wikipedia is "home". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    That's also a fair point. Haukur (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • What about Heim? Wiktionary says it's the accusative form of heimr in Old Norse. I'm just hesitant since the heimr form isn't given there. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    Yet another option that would be an improvement on the status quo. We could maybe add ON heimr and Icelandic/Faroese heimur to the preamble of that page? Haukur (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of targeting Heim and mentioning the alternate form in the lead. Soft redirect to wiktionary is second choice. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Heim, mentioning it and other forms as appropriate. I think we might as well keep this on Wikipedia over pointing it elsewhere. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Castejón–Bilbao railwayEdit

No indication that the line is known by this name, or that it even passes through Castejón. Delete unless sources demonstrating this connection can be found. signed, Rosguill talk 15:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This looks like a case of the article simply being created at the wrong name. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Paper Mario series charactersEdit

There are no Paper Mario characters in the target page. It's just a misleading redirect. ミラP 21:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yonkers Daily VoiceEdit

The Daily Voice is a news site that has individual sites for many regional and local communities. Many of those are cited as sources in articles as their local names (e.g. Yonkers Daily Voice), so they are apparently known by those local names. Thus, I created Yonkers Daily Voice as a redirect to The Daily Voice (U.S. hyperlocal news). I spot-checked a few of the others listed here and found many references in enwiki articles. Therefore, I'm (unusually) proposing keep for this redirect and seeking consensus to create redirects for the few dozen other local names. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

🕵️Edit

Delete as non-useful emoji redirect, analogous case to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 10#💁. Character does not exist in target article. Zerach (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Per Emojipedia, the name of this emoji is "Detective" and it targets the article named Detective so this is completely unambiguous. This is not analogous to the linked discussion because it was found there that 💁 was ambiguous. -- Tavix (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per User:Zerach and nom's stated rationale. In no way would I, or arguably anyone, accidentally search Wikipedia by emoji. In fact, this could arguably be a strong case for speedy deletion. We may also want to ban the use of emoji redirects the wikiworld. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • We are specifically discussing 💁, not emojis in general. Your proposal would require a wider discussion, probably at WT:CSD. I'm not sure why you think emojis would only be searched "accidentally". Emojis are widely available via smartphones, and so is Wikipedia. It's easy to type an emoji into Wikipedia's search engine and learn what the emoji means (in this case, "detective"), and at the same time one can then learn about detectives by reading that article. -- Tavix (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. I put 🕵️ there not knowing that it also included the Variation Selector. It was a mistake. Pacingpal (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait. Is this discussion about 🕵️ or 💁? Because the first one was a mistake. The second one was put there because I thought people were going to search it, so I thought why not make it redirect to Emoji? Pacingpal (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Pacingpal: I patrolled both redirects you created, and approved 💁→Emoji because it appears in the article to which it redirects (the redirect deleted in the linked deletion discussion had a different target). This discussion relates to 🕵️, which doesn't appear in the Emoji article so it doesn't make sense to redirect there. Zerach (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
      • So what's the problem with it targeting detective, as it does now? -- Tavix (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
        • This version, 🕵️, has a Variation Selector-16. I put it there by mistake. Pacingpal (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Ah, gotcha. Given that it's an invisible character, do you know how I can verify that? -- Tavix (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Surgeon Simulation CPREdit

The game is called "Surgeon Simulator", it is rarely misspelt as "Surgeon Simulation". Lordtobi () 19:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No significant links and no useful page history. Surgeon Simulator CPR already exists, and the presence of this redirect just increases the likelihood of the incorrect name being used in article text. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

UNC Jazz PressEdit

Not mentioned in target. Zerach (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per nom and CSD --Doug Mehus (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

North Point Senior Secondary Boarding School, ArjunpurEdit

Not mentioned there. Peter James (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable and redirected to an article without mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

North Point Senior Secondary Boarding SchoolEdit

Not mentioned there. Peter James (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable and redirected to an article without mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

North Point Senior Secondary Boarding School, RajarhatEdit

Not mentioned there. Peter James (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable and redirected to an article without mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Disney's Game OnEdit

Not mentioned at the target article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Sonic2006Edit

Implausible redirect/ambiguous. I would R3, but this was not a "recent" creation. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Its hard to say here really. The game does commonly go by the nickname “Sonic 2006”, though I’m not particularly sure how common it would be to spell it without the space in between... Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Sergecross73: It has had all time 37 page views. I don't think that it is that helpful of a redirect. I could be wrong though. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Not quite pressing the spacebar all the way down is a common mistake, speaking from experience, and names along the line of "Sonic 2006" are commonly used to refer to this game. Not really hurting anything to keep around. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I am tempted to say keep as well, since it is common to abbreviate "Sonic the Hedgehog" to simply "Sonic" and refer to the horrendous video game as "Sonic the Hedgehog 2006" (or "Sonic 2006"). Missing the spacebar is definitely possible. GaɱingFørFuɲ365 09:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: as WP:CSD#R3: The editor that created this has some bizarre obsession with creating nonsensical redirects. Let's not waste any more time on this. Toddst1 (talk) 09:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure all the redirects the editor in question made should be deleted on that basis. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Toddst1, as a recently created redirect from an unlikely search string. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Wikipedia essaysEdit

Cross-namespace redirect; unlikely search target (1 view in 90 days)) –xenotalk 13:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Soft redirect would be first choice, keep as is would be second choice, and generally oppose deletion. The title follows our naming conventions on lists and if someone is looking for a list of Wikipedia essays, a new user or researcher unfamiliar with WikiNamespaces, this is actually useful and not astonishing. It's one of the few times it seems to make sense to take people to relevant content in the project namespace. I prefer a soft redirect to make those looking for encyclopedic content aware that they're crossing namespaces to a page where editorial standards are slightly different. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep no harm in keeping....was made when I was searching for a list of easays..... found nothing...so I made the directory and made a redirect just in case someone else was looking for the same thing WP:R#KEEP.--Moxy 🍁 15:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedily delete per nom. --Soumyabrata (talksubpages) 17:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion why? --Moxy 🍁 03:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • R2 excludes ones to the project space. Geolodus (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes but it's clear as stated many times is case like ths Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 112#RFC: On the controversy of the pseudo-namespace shortcuts.--Moxy 🍁 03:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
This isn't pseudo-namespaced though, it's a cross-namespace redirect. –xenotalk 12:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per nom's rationale and WP:RFD. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as cross namespace redirects such as Deletion policy and Articles for deletion (which, unlike "list of essays", is to a page where decisions are made about content) were deleted. Peter James (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per Peter James. Except for pseudo-namespace redirects that are useful for editors, mainspace should generally be reserved for readers, not editors. This is clearly an editor-focused redirect, and an editor could be expected to simply preface the search with "Wikipedia:". -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Previously deleted non-standard foreign names for WikipediaEdit

Previously deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 8#Foreign language redirects to Wikipedia, these redirects include 1) titles that are non-standard or otherwise incorrect for the target language (e.g. Vicipedium, 維基大典, WİKİPEDİA), not used in any language (e.g. Guiquipedia), or ambiguous between multiple possible Wikipedias (Википедиja). I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 12:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The redirects listed above pointing to "Latin Wikipedia" are useless. Delete them. I think you're right about the others too. Andrew Dalby 19:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
... but no need for long discussion. I respect P Aculeius's opinion below. Keep the Latin ones, then. Andrew Dalby 11:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:G4 I'm going to guess these were recreated without prior discussion and therefore no justification for contravening established consensus has been provided. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per Zeke, mainly G4 but maybe R3 as well could apply too. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 02:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Although these redirects are useless, some are useful too. --Soumyabrata (talksubpages) 07:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep the Latin ones. I can't speak as to the others, but I'm pretty sure people who can't remember how to spell the name of Latin Wikipedia benefit from the redirects coming up when they try to look it up. Remember, if they want to read about Vicipaedia (I've consulted it occasionally, but even I wasn't certain about the spelling until I checked it just now), it's pointless going to the sidebar and looking for Latin, since if there's a link, it'll only take them to the Latin version of the page they're on. I also note that Latin wasn't listed among the supported languages on the main page when I was there a moment ago! Redirects are here to help people find what they're looking for when they know their destination, but aren't sure how to get there. Is there some disadvantage to having them, or are they taking up too much space on Wikipedia? I'm willing to be convinced that some of them are useless, but right now they seem to serve a purpose. P Aculeius (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Википедиja, which is mentioned in the target article Serbian Wikipedia. Speedy delete the rest all per WP:G4, including the Latin ones which are made-up names. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
    Black Falcon, It's also mentioned at Macedonian Wikipedia and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. signed, Rosguill talk 03:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you for pointing that out. The Serbian Wikipedia is the largest, but this seems like it is a case of WP:XY. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Википедија exists as a dab page and is not a redirect as this nomination states. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this, it looks like we have Википедија as a dab page and Википедиja as a redirect. Based on the results of plugging them into this site, it looks like the DAB version uses a Cyrillic keyboard for all letters, while the redirect version inexplicably switches to a Latin keyboard for the j and the a. signed, Rosguill talk 15:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete in compliance with WP:G4. The speedy deletion criterion says it all. flowing dreams (talk page) 10:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: Let's forget that I ever mentioned G4; I hate invoking laws that cannot justify themselves. Let's pretend this is the first time they are being discussed. I find it unlikely that, for example, a person who speaks Persian comes to English Wikipedia, face with the knowledge that this website is in English, and still search "ویکیپدیا". Even if they do, the search engine will guide them to the proper venue. I just tested it: The right pane reveals the correct result. In the case of Latin, however, isn't it dead? I believe no one speaks this language anymore. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
These redirects aren't aimed at "native speakers of Latin looking for Wikipedia in Latin". They're aimed at English speakers looking for the English-language article about Vicipaedia, but who may not know how to spell it correctly, since it's not an everyday word in English—and who may not realize that the article title is "Latin Wikipedia", not "Vicipaedia". So the question is, why do we not want redirects at likely attempts to spell it? Are we trying to make it harder for readers to find the articles they're looking for? Or is Wikipedia desperate to save the 260 bytes taken up by these four redirects? P Aculeius (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Aculeius. 😊 My participation in this RfD is only out of the community spirit. If I was desperate to save 260 bytes, I'd have resorted to desparate measures, like filing a lawsuit! (Believe me desparate measures are not pretty.) Things would have been very ugly if we didn't participate in any xFD simply because I was not desparate.
An English speaker looking for the English article about the Latin Wikipedia most probably searches "Latin Wikipedia". The kind of English speaker you have in mind is the kind that has attended a form of higher education that has brainwashed them to use Latin anywhere they can, to the detriment of the possibility of a happy life. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: G4 clearly does not apply here, since the redirects were not previously deleted as a result of the linked discussion. The outcome of that discussion was to retarget links that previously led to the main page of Wikipedia to go to the articles about the corresponding foreign-language versions of Wikipedia. At the time they were nominated, they all pointed to the main page instead. In the case of the Latin redirects, they now point to the article about Vicipaedia, which is exactly what they should have been doing according to outcome of that discussion. The reason redirects exist is to help people find articles for which they don't know the correct titles, and that includes plausible misspellings. All of these seem like plausible spelling mistakes for Vicipaedia—and they're also useful because the article they point to is not titled "Vicipaedia", but "Latin Wikipedia". Readers who remember the name vaguely are likely to search under these variations, so why are we deleting them? If they were not plausible spelling mistakes, I could see deleting them, but they account for only two variations: wrong gender, and ae→e. It seems to me that there should be a better reason than "well, somebody deleted them before, based on a discussion three years ago that called for a completely different result". P Aculeius (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
While I think that your argument about the usefulness of the Latin redirects may be valid, the redirects nominated here were all deleted, as can be confirmed by looking at logs and reading through Tavix's argument which determined which redirects were to be deleted and which were to be redirected. That having been said, I also agree with the wider thrust of your argument against G4; G4 exists so that articles that are exact duplicates of previously deleted-by-discussion articles articles can be deleted without further disruption. This works because an article can be rewritten differently than the previous version in order to allow for consensus to change. The same cannot be said of a redirect, which will always be exactly the same as a previous version, so strictly enforcing G4 against redirects would never allow consensus to change. signed, Rosguill talk 15:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
But my point was, the previous discussion concluded that the redirects should be retargeted at articles about foreign-language Wikipedias, if they existed—not that they should be deleted. So there was no agreement to delete them in the first place, and for that reason alone G4 is inapplicable. Even if there had been no article, "Latin Wikipedia" in 2016—and there certainly should have been, since Vicipaedia itself has been around a long time—there is now, so the same rationale behind the 2016 discussion would lead to a "keep" result here. Again, G4 isn't relevant, since the previous discussion did not conclude that redirects for foreign-language encyclopedias should be deleted as a matter of policy—which would be the only reason to apply G4 here. And again, the question is: what is the benefit to Wikipedia of deleting redirects for existing, English-language articles based on plausible misspellings? There needs to be a better argument for deletion than "we deleted them before following on a discussion that was actually closed as 'keep and retarget'." P Aculeius (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
If they had been deleted on a shaky basis, the proper channel to discuss this might have been WP:DRV, not merely recreating deleted content. I personally feel G4 would apply for redirects, even if they have no choice but to be fundamentally similar to the material that was deleted in the first place, because simply recreating them actually bypasses valuable discussion avenues that determine if they're worth having, not to mention if the deletions themselves were in error. "Recreate without saying a word" isn't a valid approach to restoring deleted content, even if said content should not have been deleted in the first place. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: These redirects do not qualify for WP:G4 speedy deletion since they all have targets different from the target they had during the previous discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep, both useful for the reader, and internally for WP:CITEWATCH (see current entry 24). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Redirects to Achachi QalaEdit

None of these redirects are mentioned at the target, which is a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, and further because none of the articles listed at the disambiguation page mention a river, so these redirects are of no help at all to readers. WP:R#D10 also applies since, if the river exists, it would be better to have a red link to encourage article creation. None of the redirects have significant incoming links or useful page history. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The Tea RoomEdit

Drmies thinks that "underneath this redirect is a piece of spam; the article doesn't even mention the thing, and it seems to serve only as a semi-promotional redirect in Michele Romanow." DMacks (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • With my thanks to DMacks for doing it right. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not mentioned and ambiguous, and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • We might consider Teahouse, where Tea room redirects, though there isn't anything explicitly mentioned there that would be referred to by this proper name. This might be plausible for some of the entries at List of teahouses. --BDD (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:New Zealand Intellignce CommunityEdit

This template was created by a user who misspelled "Intelligence". User:Schwede66 moved it to the correct spelling, leaving this redirect. It will never be a valid redirect because of the misspelling. It was called only from Officials Committee for Domestic and External Security Co-ordination, where I have corrected the spelling to Schwede66's version, so this redirect is now useless. Akld guy (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, I just don't see how this is a useful redirect. Zerach (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Move Get a page mover to move the misspelled title to Template:New Zealand Intelligence Community without leaving a redirect. Misspelling gotten rid off, beneficial redirect created. -- /Alex/21 04:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The problem with that is that New Zealand Intelligence Community with capital I and C is not an entity. It should never have been capitalized and nobody should be linking to such a thing, so there is no need to retain as a redirect. Delete it please. Akld guy (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Redirects aren't expensive, and alternate capitalization isn't a bad thing. This is just my personal view on it; the consensus of this discussion may result in otherwise. -- /Alex/21 04:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Alternate capitalization for no good reason is a bad thing because users see it and are tempted to deploy it. If only one user deploys it, others copy. Soon, you've got a swag of them. There is no such organization or thing as The New Zealand Intelligence Community. Nobody should be using that form. Akld guy (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
          • And that is your opinion. I've said my part. We'll see where this goes. -- /Alex/21 06:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no such organization as "New Zealand Intelligence Community". I am of the opinion that redirects should be used sparingly. Wrong capitalizations, typos, and the like should be handled by Wikipedia's search engine. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Alternative capitalisation is a good thing for article redirects, not for templates. Guettarda (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as a misspelled template-space redirect. I moved the template to Template:New Zealand Intelligence Community based on NZIC's website. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

General Bank of Canada and DirectCash BankEdit

Inspired by a comment I saw made by both User:Rosguill and User:Wugapodes, I'm proposing to delete this redirect as per point #10 of WP:R#DELETE. The redirect was created from a non-existent page and currently redirects to List of banks and credit unions in Canada. There are two problems with this, though, in that in Template:Canadian banks, which I like to maintain regularly, that template is added to the footer of every page. Many banks and credit unions that aren't WP:Notable are still listed in that template as redlinked banks, to encourage article creation and to provide reader context. If we have a redirect, instead of deleting the page, which redirects to List of banks and credit unions in Canada, the user clicks through from the template to the list. While not a double redirect, per se, it's just not helpful. I've created a soft redirect temporarily, but, at the same time, by letting these redirects for non-existent pages stand, we may be aiding circumventing the new page creation review process in that there would be only a substantial change to an existing page. --Doug Mehus (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Added comment Note also that point #6 of WP:R#DELETE may apply here as well since, although the target is not in a pseudo-namespace, this redirects affects the usability and navigability in a pseudo-namespace Wikipedia template for the added point cited above. --Doug Mehus (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • If the banks are not notable the redirect should be kept. Deleting redirects in favor of red links is only useful if we think the topic is already notable and no one has written the article yet. If it's not notable then we should prefer a redirect with {{R with possibilities}} so that, if it becomes notable, we know to create an article there. This is because, regardless of templates, having a redirect helps readers find the article, helps google take them to the correct page, and makes it easier to link. If there's no correct target, we may get a bunch of slightly different redlinks and wind up with two or three different articles that need merged. A soft redirect just so a template link works is an inconvenience for readers who now have to click to go to helpful content. I don't really care about AfC, and I'm definitely not going to suggest making the encyclopedia less useful just to add needless bureaucracy. If a new editor makes an article from the redirect, it gets put into the new pages feed which is enough of a check. I'd say keep both as regular redirects unless the topics are definitely notable. Wug·a·po·des​ 16:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Wugapodes, Thanks for the reply. In the former, DirectCash Bank is now an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Cardtronics, albeit an indirect one, so if that has an article, I'd maybe favour redirecting that there. In the case of General Bank of Canada, it doesn't get a lot of, if any, press coverage, so while it's not notable now, it could be in the future, potentially. I like that {{R with possibilities}} template better. Any way it could appear above the redirect and act as a sort of soft redirect? General Bank of Canada gets an insignificant amount of hits, so for the half dozen or dozen monthly hits it gets, it's not a significant inconvenience.
Wugapodes, {{r to list entry}} with the printworthy tag may also be a better option as well, potentially as a soft-redirect. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Dmehus: I'm very against soft redirects for pointers to content; an unnecessary click is still unnecessary. Would you mind explaining what you think the benefit to readers is? You seem sold on the idea of a soft redirect and maybe I'm just not familiar enough with this topic to see it. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: Well, the thinking is that redlinks would encourage article creation. DirectCash Bank is potentially notable as it does have direct-to-consumer operations. General Bank of Canada just deals in the mortgage and deposit broker space, so has no realistic prospect of notability. It is an non-noteworthy bank. Arguably, these redirects, especially the latter, shouldn't have been created in the first place. I suspect they were created by an editor who direct typed their names into Wikipedia and didn't like always hitting a page saying no article exists. My preference would just be for a delete here. Any way I can arm twist you into supporting that here for point # 10? Doug Mehus (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Meridia Health ServicesEdit

Delete Does not appear in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Seems like that puts WP:UNDUE weight on what appears to be a very, very minor event. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It was a significant event in the transition of the Cleveland Clinic from a single hospital to a regional network. I just noticed that the merger is mentioned at History of Cleveland Clinic (though not by name), so that's another potential target. - Eureka Lott 20:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nom and UnitedStatesian. --Doug Mehus (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

PlayStation 5 (version 2)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy deleted

Detention Centers in IndiaEdit

Delete for now, as there is only one detention center (Assam). In future, if more centers are opened this could redirect to List of detention centers in India or similar. Zerach (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Cmt: There are more than one. Cites availabe in the article arleady such as in Goa. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Cite 4 to be precise -"Goa opened a detention centre for foreigners in May this year" DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Right, I have no objection to redirecting to a future (sourced) list or general article, just not to one specific element, it's too WP:SURPRISEing. Assam has been described as the "first" one recently, in some sources. Zerach (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Yup, i understand. I don't mind if it goes for now. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons above, and miscapitalisation, and variant spelling of centers vice centres. There may be potential for a future article as the nom suggests, or Detention centres in India. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Dong AEdit

This redirect name makes abosulutely no sense, not a single location in Vietnam has this name. Cn5900 (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC) Just found the diacritic version of it, so I added it hereCn5900 (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, not in target. Zerach (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yên Lạc, Bắc KạnEdit

Delete, this is the incorrect name. The township's name is Yến Lạc. By the time it was created, no one had noticed; that's why it exists until now. Cn5900 (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC) Just found another page with the same issue Cn5900 (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Not just that; it is also missing a diacritic on the second letter. Geolodus (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • זָרַח, please look at the name carefully. It is Yên Lạc, Bắc Kạn (Yên not Yến, missing a diacritic). If it was Yến Lạc, Bắc Kạn, I wouldn't have listed it here for discussion since there's no reason why I should do that. My point here is, we can either delete it or move it to Yến Lạc, Bắc Kạn without leaving a redirect. Cn5900 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Untitled Mr. Men & Little Miss filmEdit

Unnecessary redirect from draft space to article space. There is no substantive edit history behind the redirect beyond the redirect's creation and a bot fixing a double redirect. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Well it's a redirect from a page move, though I'm not sure why the draft was moved to mainspace only to be redirected. PC78 (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is a {{R from move}} for a draft that was promoted, then renamed, then redirected, all in short order, but the draft itself is much older. Keep in case anyone wants to try to find it (they'll have to find Special:Permalink/897188835 in the redirected draft's history, which this redirect will roughly point to). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jalen Folf (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ivanvector. Page moves and deletions can make a complete mess when you're trying to trace histories. Guettarda (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Herr WolfEdit

I hardly think that Hitler had been called "Wolf". --Soumyabrata (talksubpages) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment according to our article Wolf's Lair, we have a reference stating Wolf was a self adopted nickname for Hitler. Polyamorph (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wolf (name) This is about as vague as Mr. Wolf. If it is a common nickname for Hitler, it should be mentioned in that article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jalen Folf (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Gerber stationEdit

Not mentioned in target Zerach (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It's in the diagram at Coast Starlight, although there's no more information there. Peter James (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Enwiki has no information about the topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Congregational ChurchEdit

User:AlbanGeller changed the target from Congregational church to Congregational church (disambiguation), which resulted in a large number of articles (~50) pointing to the DAB when they probably meant the denomination. I'm personally neutral about which is the more appropriate target, so I'm bringing it up for discussion here. I undid AlbanGeller's edit in the meantime, on the assumption that the incoming links intended the denomination. Cnilep (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep as it was. Regardless of capitalization, there's a clear main topic here, congregational churches. Zerach (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@זָרַח: When you say "Keep as it was" do you mean "Retarget to Congregational church (disambiguation)"? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
No, I mean target Congregational church, as it was originally (username changed). Fiamh (talk, contribs) 11:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as Congregational church. This is a straightforward alt capitalisation. Guettarda (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as Congregational church. THe question is "is a user more likely to be looking for an article about Congregational churches in general, or for a Congregational Church in particular. I don't know, but viewing it as a simple alt capitalisation is acceptable and would only add one click to the user's journey. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Marysville stationEdit

Primary target is not the station in California; my search is netting me lots of results for stations in Marysville, Washington. Redirect to Marysville (disambiguation) or (my preference) delete. Zerach (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It could be redirected to Coast Starlight, which has some information. If there's an article that mentions a station in Washington, it can be disambiguated - the article about the place just mentions one that has been proposed. Peter James (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. I have provided a draft. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

October 9Edit

Interstate 80S (disambiguation)Edit

Not in target. Zerach (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Both highway targets at the dab page were once known as Interstate 80S, as it says on their respective articles. IffyChat -- 18:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Iffy: as an expert, would you mind, please, editing the disambiguation page to that effect? Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

2019-20 Kazakhstan CupEdit

Doesn't make sense. The cup ended in October 2019. Zerach (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - the Kazakhstan football season runs a calendar year, so there will be a 2020 Kazakhstan Cup next year. This redirect serves no purpose and is confusing. GiantSnowman 08:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Netherlands women's national under-20 football teamEdit

I don't think this redirect makes sense, since it's an under-19 not under-20 team. Delete. Zerach (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Sb008 (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - not the same team. GiantSnowman 08:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeter ve-HaserEdit

Do not occur in target. I was unable to verify that they mean something relevant. Zerach (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "Yeter ve-Haser" is the transliteration of the Hebrew words for "plene and defective scriptum," which in Hebrew are יתר וחסר, sometimes referred to as such by editors who speak Hebrew here on Wikipedia, as well as Jewish seminary students. Its use as a phrase, of course, is restricted to a small Hebrew-English speaking audience.Davidbena (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Taking your word for it, I've added the phrase to the lead of the linked topic—and reworded the lead a bit for clarity, as it was awkwardly phrased, and the definition needed some clarification. I hope that resolves the issue! P Aculeius (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 1. The standard combination is first "Haser", then "Yater". 2. According to WP:HEBREW these terms should be written without the dash. 3. Also notice the different spelling "Yeter" and "Yater". Debresser (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I've corrected the occurrence in the article per your suggestions. Please check to make sure that it's correct, and feel free to correct it again if it's not! P Aculeius (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Davidbena. While Debresser is correct about the most correct way to include this phrase in an article, plausible counter-conventional spellings are fine for redirects, since readers may not be aware of WP:HEBREW. signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Davidbena. Guettarda (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

NightcrawlEdit

Delete. After searching it seems this term does not have a main topic or obvious target. It does not seem to refer commonly to "yobai" or any of the Nightcrawler media. There is also a song called Nightcrawl recorded by apparently NN group Odd Couple. Zerach (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Mary Young (Q19043392)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete.

ZnásilněníEdit

Delete per WP:FORRED, the redirect is Czech for "rape". signed, Rosguill talk 22:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Space cruiserEdit

Previously deleted redirect. I doubt that it is very useful as "space cruiser " is an ambiguous term best dealt with by search result. Zerach (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

If you say so, but it's commonly used in science fiction.--Noah Tall (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Here's an example of a space cruiser from that context. --Noah Tall (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"Untitled" subjects no longer untitledEdit

...And time for another one of these discussions. These redirects' targets are no longer untitled. Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

"Upcoming" subjects no longer upcomingEdit

Time for another one of these discussions. These redirects' target subjects are no longer "upcoming". Steel1943 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Uttarakhand Cricket AssociationEdit

This page shouldn't be redirected to the article Cricket Association of Uttarakhand since the Uttarakhand Cricket Association is a separate unaffiliated sports organisation and not related to the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand. Also there hasn't been any merger of Uttarakhand Cricket Association into the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand. Hence I propose the deletion of this redirect. Hemant DabralTalk 13:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I have no personal familiarity with this subject but if the nom statement is correct then it should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 23:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Is the separate organisation notable in its own right? If so then the redirect can be turned back into an article describing it. I notice that there used to be content (describing the CAU), which was all deleted a couple of days after the target was created. Should there be a WP:HISTMERGE? Spike 'em (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
No, the Uttarakhand Cricket Association is not a notable, neither a recognised sports organisation to govern the sport of cricket in the state of Uttarakhand. Initially there were four unrecognised cricket organisations in Uttarakhand competing to get official recognition and affiliation of the national level governing body for cricket in India, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI); the four contenders were Cricket Association of Uttarakhand, United Cricket Association, Uttarakhand Cricket Association and Uttaranchal Cricket Association. Out of these the United Cricket Association merged with the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand back in 2017. In August 2014, BCCI decided to grant the affiliation and official recognition to the Cricket Association of Uttarakhand to govern the sport of cricket in Uttarakhand, leaving it the sole cricket organisation to officially represent and control the Uttarakhand cricket team in the domestic inter-state cricket tournaments. Therefore, I've proposed the deletion of the redirect page Uttarakhand Cricket Association altogether, since it carries no significance anymore. Check out the related ESPN news article here for the reference backing my rationale for deletion. Hemant DabralTalk 11:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
There is mention of UCA (and other rivals organisations) in the history section of the CAU page, so I think this is a valid redirect if there is no content on this page. Maybe amend the redirect to go to that section rather than the top of the page. Spike 'em (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Ground biscuitEdit

The term "ground biscuit" does not appear on the target page. Tea2min (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Although the picture shows ground biscuit, the biscuit is not sold ground, ergo the redirect is confusing rather than helpful. Zerach (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - If I remember correctly, there was a page named "Ground biscuit" which I moved to "Plazma biscuits" (with the intention to rename the article). Analyzing the former name from new perspective, it was probably a bad translation of word "Plazma" from Serbian to English, as users (in this case that would be @User:VS6507) whose mother tongue language is not English, tend sometimes to translate everything to English, even brand names..--AirWolf talk 05:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Rename and restore the original article's content. The name was changed without prior consultation by the user AirWolf whose mother-tongue is Serbian. The main topic of the article is ground biscuit/biscuit powder and not the Bambi's brand Plazma biscuit. Vs6507 18:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment - @VS6507: Please do some research before putting such non-sense in a discussion. On the following link - [5], you would find the content of then-"Ground biscuit" article before I moved it to "Plazma biscuit". And here is the content of article after your initial edits - [6], clearly referring to Plazma biscuit and not certain type (i.e. "ground" biscuits) of biscuits in general.--AirWolf talk 20:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    Ground biscuit (/ˈɡɹaʊnd bɪskɨt/) is a form of biscuit, usually baked, flour-based food products, that is specially processed by grinding.

Ground biscuits are usually combined with milk or very thin pancakes, called crepes. It is a common form of sweet, particularly well known in states of former Yugoslavia and in Serbia, and it is often exported to other countries, or sold by some web selling service,[1] like Amazon.[2] It is also usually used by confectioners as a supplement for their meals. It can be also used as an ingredient of many sweets, like i.e. ice cream cake.[3] It can be eaten daily.

Well known brand of ground biscuits is Bambi's Lane Ground Biscuits (in Serbian mleveni plazma keks), that doesn't contain trans fat.

This was the original content of the intro section of the article. I don't see anything questionable here, as I was discussing the main topic, and mentioning our Plazma keks as an example. Vs6507 20:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

DX50Edit

Not mentioned in target. Paul_012 (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: DivX has used the DX50 FourCC since version 5.0. I have re-added DX50 with a reference to FourCC.org. RJ4 (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: It is unlikely search term for DivX. It is more probably that people who searched were looking for DirectX 5 runtime. flowing dreams (talk page) 06:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per the source-supported reference added by User:RJ4. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

October 8Edit

SchlockiverseEdit

A fan nickname not discussed at the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Every redirect doesn't need to be discussed at the target page. Redirects are there to help people find information. It's even part of the official wiki created by Howard Tayler, the creator of the comic. Also, WP:Redirects are cheap. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, a quick search for the term on that official wiki turns up several other official uses of it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Moscow MitchEdit

This redirect is just an abusive political slur. Nowhere in the article is this pejorative discussed, so it should be removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

If we didn't have a Donald Trump nicknames article, I think that Clinton would be an appropriate target for that redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 20:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Dramatis personae of the SchlockiverseEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete

EstolidesEdit

Could be a typo redirect for Estoloides, which is a subset of Desmiphorini, so it needs at the very least a retarget. However, even if the typo is plausible (I don't think it is), the word is an (unrelated to biology) chemical term. I recommend deletion as an immediate action, and recreation as a redirect to fatty acid ester with an appropriate paragraph at the target. (I can write that paragraph but do not have the time right now.) TigraanClick here to contact me 16:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak keep, looks like it's mentioned as a synonym for the scientific name in the relevant sidebar at the target. If kept, the issue of confusion with fatty acid ester can be resolved with a hatnote. signed, Rosguill talk 19:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget; seems to be viable as an alternative search term for either the tribe or the compounds, thus point either at Desmiphorini and add hatnote to fatty acid ester, or the other way round (possibly the latter - that may be the more commonly used meaning). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

New York City Board of EduactionEdit

This is a typo and a wrong title, an implausible combination. I don't think this is much use. Reyk YO! 21:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Maroon Line (Hong Kong)Edit

Mistaken color. The color of the line is brown, maroon does not appear to be mentioned in the article. Onel5969 TT me 09:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm not an expert on colors, but maroon and brown seem reasonably close. I think this may be a reasonable search term. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. The line is never referred to as "Maroon Line" in Hong Kong. "Brown Line" is common. feminist (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Leftist errorsEdit

These redirects ought to point to the same place. Leftist errors redirects to Ultra-leftism which has a hatnote to Leftist errors (Yugoslavia) but does not otherwise mention the term, but the capitalised version Leftist Errors redirects to Left communism which has no mention of the term. To me the choice is either (a) retarget the second to the target of the first, or (b) move Leftist errors (Yugoslavia) to the base name and retarget the capitalised version there. I think I prefer (b). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support (b) - move Leftist errors (Yugoslavia) to Leftist errors. I am creator of this article and I support (b) alternative as per nominator's rationale.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A. Redirect both terms to ultra-leftism. Just because the only page we have on this topic is the Yugoslav one does not mean that that is in fact the primary meaning of the term. It is not. Srnec (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A, a Google Scholar search would suggest that the most common usage of this term is in the context of analyses of the history of the Chinese Communist Party, where it's used analogously to the pejorative definition described at Ultra-leftism. However, I think that a properly-sourced mention of this alternative term needs to be added to that target, otherwise it seems like an inappropriately non-neutral redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 22:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A per Srnec, left errors have applied to almost all communist forces at some stage. Both should redirect to ultra-leftism. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • B - while "leftist errors" might refer to historic analyses of [Chinese] communism, the Yugoslav policy is the only topic that actually has "leftist errors" as a title. Add to that article a hatnote of the sort "for Marxist critiques of far-left groups, see ultra-leftism". Also note that our article on ultra-leftism mentions that it's a term rarely used in English, suggesting that something with that actual title (the common English translation of the native title) is a more appropriate primary redirect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Bill WeaselEdit

Obscure Looney Tunes characters, none of whom are mentioned at the target article so the redirects are of no help to the reader. None of these are former articles, hence none have any substantive history. PC78 (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

HTF CHEdit

Delete. These do not appear to be recognised abbreviations in general use and are unlikely search terms. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Crusius hypermarket shootingEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Wikipedia:TERRORISTEdit

This page has been a well-known shortcut since its creation in 2007, and there are (presumably) numerous incoming links in places we can't fix them (edit summaries) intended to refer to the "contentious labels" section of the Manual of Style specifically over editors describing living persons as terrorists. A few months back Levivich in good faith changed the target to point to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Terrorism, aligning with WP:TERRORISM and such, and created MOS:TERRORIST as a replacement. I think this was improper and I have reverted, but Levivich's concept is worth discussing so I am opening this discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm somewhat inclined to put it back. I understand the impulse to change it, and I'm glad that Levivich tried to boldly improve things. Also, WP:TERRORISTS is a redlink, and that might be a more appropriate shortcut for the WikiProject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The thing that confused me was that WP:TERRORISM and WP:TERROR pointed to the WikiProject, but WP:TERRORIST pointed to the MOS. So I re-pointed WP:TERRORIST to the WikiProject and created MOS:TERROR/TERRORISM/TERRORIST (TERRORISTS is probably another good permutation to have, hadn't thought of that one), and (more recently) added a hatnote to the WikiProject page point to MOS:TERRORIST. There are no mainspace links affected (I checked, and recently changed some). There are, of course, a plethora of Talk: and other namespace pages that point to the link. I didn't change those because I wasn't sure if that was kosher under WP:TPO. I hadn't even thought of the edit summary issue that Ivan raises. I think it's confusing to have WP:TERRORISM/TERROR point to one place and WP:TERRORIST point to another, but I'm not sure what to do about edit summaries and talk page backlinks, other than perhaps "bite the bullet" and just change it over, with the understanding that some of the old links will now point to a different page. I could do an AWB run to change talk page links over (if that's a good idea), but nothing that I know of can be done about the edit summaries. Levivich 20:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that Levivich's change was an improvement, despite the concerns listed above. The inconsistency is confusing, and I myself have ended up at the wrong target because of it more than once. It's regrettable that this may break edit summary links, but as it stands, someone is equally likely to link to it in an edit summary in error. signed, Rosguill talk 20:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about it being accidentally linked in edit summaries; namely I don't think I link to wikiprojects in summaries that often, and definitely not with the frequency I link to essays in summaries. I think the best option is to keep the target where it has historically been (per WP:ASTONISH) and place a hatnote at the MOS page so that users linked in error can quickly navigate to the wikiproject. While it's unfortunate that the TERRORISM, TERROR, and TERRORIST do not follow a clear pattern, I think enforcing consistency in this case would do more harm in link rot than we would gain in usefulness. Wug·a·po·des​ 23:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The Godfather: Part II (1974 film)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete
  • @Ivanvector: Can this discussion be reopened? Since the redirect was recreated, WP:G7 no longer applies. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Might as well start a new discussion if you feel strongly about it, it can run for 7 days from that point. G4 could apply but it looks to me like it's going to end up in a new discussion one way or another. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
G4 does not apply because the page would have to have been deleted as the result of consensus at a deletion discussion. In this case, the redirect in question was deleted via CSD. -- Tavix (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

LaylowEdit

Redirect points to the article on an area of London, but there is no reliable source that this word actually means that part of London. Nominating for deletion. Viennese Waltz 07:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete - page history indicates this was spam. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

ThyskalandEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 7Edit

SonicToonEdit

Not mentioned in target. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Taking a closer look the Japanese version of the of the original Sonic Boom as well as the 3DS game Fire and Ice were released under the name Sonic Toon [[10]].--67.68.29.177 (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Fbi2018Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

TpotaEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Fernandinho (footballer, born 1985)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Great AllianceEdit

None of the items listed in the disambiguation page to which this points are known by this name ("Great" as opposed to "Grand"), so the redirect is potentially confusing. There are other political and military alliances that are known by this name, or variants thereupon, but only the Great Alliance for Change (a Colombian political grouping) has an article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Emergency Unit (Hong Kong)Edit

Redirected to a larger topic - Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF), and that article does not conclude that subtitle. It should be rewritten or translated (zh:衝鋒隊 (香港)) rather than just redirect to a wrong page with no introduction. だ*ぜ (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. Redirects for discussion is not a place to request article creation. One lined mention is easy to do in the Hong Kong Police Force's article to fix this redirect to related topic. Matthew hk (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Like Nastya VlogEdit

It serves zero purpose simply redirecting to the top list, especially since the target is no more than a list that provides no details about what this channel is nor any further details that a reader would actually be looking for. With 34 mil on YouTube it seems notable, but it really should have its own article in that case. I feel it would even serve better as a redlink until something is written. Gaioa (T C L) 18:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep, the list contains quite much information about the channels, such as subscriber count, network, primary language and content category of the channel. Definitely useful for both linking and searching. Not a very active user (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Those details hardly counts as "information" in the WP sense and as of WP:NOTDIR. Such loose details might be valuable to simply define what the term refers to, but it won't work for a user. If a user enters any of these channel names in the search box, they definitely knows what the entity is and wants to find specific information rather than simply "it's a famous YT channel". I would definitely be willing to write proper articles on the subjects, but expecting the target to be providing encyc-sufficient information is just wrong. Gaioa (T C L) 16:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, provided they're still listed in the most subscribed. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 21:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep all except Rezendeevil – which no longer appears in the list – per the above users. LifeofTau 00:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget Like Nastya Vlog to Like Nastya. No opinion on the rest. Steel1943 (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: The nominator has since converted two of the listed redirects into articles. As they are no longer redirects, those pages will not be subject to the result of this RfD. Two of the other redirects have been retargeted by the nominator. Cocomelon and Badabun have not been altered. LifeofTau 15:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC); edited 00:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

TacomaEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Innisfail Evening AdvocateEdit

Irrelevant. No referral to this title in the article The Banner talk 13:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Question - Was the name of the newspaper Innisfail Evening Advocate or just Evening Advocate? Either way, this seems like a plausible search term, but it would make a difference for purposes of wikilinking. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Black Falcon: - (The) Evening Advocate Bogger (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Hmm... I was not expecting that and am not sure what to make of it in the context of this discussion. :) Thanks for confirming, though. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Decision 2000Edit

Ultra-ambiguous as 'decision' does not suggest anything in particular. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak keep decision 20YY is a common way for TV pundits to refer to the US presidential elections. May be worth retargeting to Bush v. Gore since a google search for "Decision 2000" turns up a lot related to that case. Third choice is probably delete per nom. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Bush v. Gore per Wugapodes. Seems like the most likely destination. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 23:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Wugapodes, but strong oppose retargeting as "Decision XXXX" is used specifically in reference to elections, not surrounding events (including the court case that decided the 2000 election). -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Steven Universe: FutureEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

AfsheenEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

October 6Edit

Dempsey RollEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

He Dedalus Book of the 1960s: Turn Off Your MindEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Agyptische Hieroglyphen‎Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Blu HydrangeaEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Like a Virgin (Veronica Mars) (redirect)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

DolvakEdit

Not mentioned in the target page. Not a very active user (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hoklo BoatEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Hoklo chauvanismEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Pakistan Occupied BalochistanEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

Avatar (film series)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

SvevladEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 15#Svevlad

October 5Edit

夏バテEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

AfsheenEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Procedural Close

Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Rule XLIIIEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy Keep

Interfaces in computing (disambiguation)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Returning citizensEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

DOABEdit

I'm not sure it's appropriate to redirect from an acronym to an article that does not use said acronym and only mentions the referent of the acronym in the external links section, particularly when Doab is an existing article. I would lean toward deletion for this redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 21:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep: You could push for that but it should be noted that there are such articles in other Wikipedias, e.g., namely: ca:DOAB which represent Directory of Open Access Books (Q21750281). I created the redirect because is a common abbreviation for a well-known organization (I created Directory of Open Access Books at the same time). I do not think the redirect hurts anything and someday someone might actually write the pertinent article (which you are welcome to do instead of lobbying for the removal of harmless content). It should also be noted we have DOAB publisher ID (P5062), a Wikidata property related to this topic and a Google search for DOAB has Directory of Open Access Books as the first hit and then Doab (that you mentioned above; if that is any measure of notability). Uzume (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The general consensus (as codified in WP:R#DELETE #10) is that if there's little-to-no information about that subject at the target, it's better to delete it to encourage the creation of an article. signed, Rosguill talk 01:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Clearly this is a discussion for a different time and place, however, I fail to see how deleting a redirect encourages anyone to write an article (and it seems like it would discourage anonymous IP users that cannot create items in article space anyway) whether the redirect target contains much material on the subject or not. In fact, when I want to know more about something and I find an article entry that is a redirect and it seems to point at something that contains a brief comment or small section about the item, that makes me want to create the article and flesh out the topic so your logic (and apparently some consensus logic) seems inverted by my way of thinking (of course it is possible there is some rampant way of thinking going around that I am not privy to). I find it hard to search for something that does not exist. If I find a redirect, I know someone else knows about the topic but has not created a complete article on the topic for some reason. I find it easier to consider the merits of creating a complete article when I know what other information in our other articles already exists on the topic (perhaps it lacks notability or reliable references are difficult to research, etc.; hopefully it is just a sign that there have not been enough interested editors about). In any event, I am not sure how your comments apply to an abbreviation (and acronym) to a prospective article (unless you think people would be more inclined to write DOAB over Directory of Open Access Books for some reason—I would tend to think the opposite despite the existence of ca:DOAB). Uzume (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Uzume: I wrote User:Wugapodes/Better as a redlink to explain why redlinks are important, and it might give you more context on why WP:RDELETE 10 exists. You raise really good points and it can be a balancing act between when a red link or redirect is better. I agree with you that in this case a redirect is better than a red link, but there isn't a one-size-fits all answer. Wug·a·po·des​ 23:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback and I am aware of the value of redlinks. I agree this is better as a redirect (or I would not have made it in the first place). I believe in this case the consensus of WP:R#KEEP #4, #5, #6 & #7 apply (at least as I read them). I like to think I know something about redirects being a WP:PMR for a few years (but review and feedback is always welcome). Uzume (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • If you are going to consider this, you should also consider OAPEN which is similarly represented (both acronyms to something that is redirected to Open-access monograph and thus also redirected to the same target to avoid double redirection). Also Open Book Publishers currently uses DOAB and if deleted would return to a redlink. Uzume (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

A Boy Is a Gun*Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Sonic RacingEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy keep per WP:RENOM.

Jacobite Orthodox ChurchEdit

Jacobite Orthodox Church (disambiguation) should clearly not target Jacobite Syrian Christian Church because the target is not a disambiguation page (or disambiguation-like page). But Jacobite Orthodox Church targets something different. So, for the first either verify the target or retarget, and delete the second; or turn the second into a legitimate disambiguation page (which would require entries with actual mentions in articles. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment - after being lost in a series of renamings and bot actions, the disambiguation page is currently located at Syrian Jacobite Church. Note that these two organizations are actually part of the same church. One is the mother church, located in Syria, the other being the Indian branch. Place Clichy (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Place Clichy: Yes, I see. So retarget the first to Syrian Jacobite Church; delete the second? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I'd say leave the first redirect where it points (which is the primary topic) and redirect the second one to the dab page. We may also rename the dab page to something more likely to be looked for by users. Place Clichy (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Retarget first, keep second per Place Clichy. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: actually my latest suggestion is to keep first (as primary topic), and retarget the second to dab page Syrian Jacobite Church.   Place Clichy (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The various combinations of Syrian, Jacobite, and Orthodox confused me. Thinking about it more, is there a reason we have this DAB page? Could we redirect the first to the primary topic (whatever that is) and hatnore the two pages? That might go far in simplifying this naming scheme. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
An alternative would be to redirect the (dab) alias to Jacobite § Religion, which I tried to rephrase, and to redirect the dedicated dab page Syrian Jacobite Church there. The names of these churches are undoubtedly confusing, and the current dab page is very ill-named. Primary topic is not obvious, as the Syriac Orthodox Church (based in Syria) is historically more significant, but is today outnumbered by the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church (its own Indian branch) according to § Demography, and even together they are outnumbered by the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, an Indian church of the same tradition which split from them in 1975. Quite confusing! I also found another dab page on the same topic: Malankara Jacobite Orthodox Church! Place Clichy (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

H:IPA-AECEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Spider-Man: Homecoming 2Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

October 4Edit

Wikipedia:BoxOsandEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Heny HigginsEdit

Implausible misspellings of either Henry Higgins (character) (which redirects to Pygmalion (play)); or, in the first case, Henry Higgins (which is a DAB page). Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget first to DAB, Keep second All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete both. No affinity to French where Henry would be spelled Henri. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "Heny", retarget "Henri" to the dab page. The French spelling may have no affinity to the play, but to the ambiguous term it may. bd2412 T 23:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Suede knotEdit

I think that this redirect may have been made in error. An image on the target article includes the caption that includes the phrase "suede knot". Nowhere else in the article, however, is a "suede knot" mentioned, nor is anything similar mentioned in the linked deWiki article. Scholar and internet searches for "suede knot" turn up nothing. My guess is that the original introduction of this term into the article was a typo, and I would thus argue that this redirect should be deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 19:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I made it in error. I thought is a synonym to Suebian knot. It was mentioned with this name in Battle of Adamclisi and Bastarnae.Codrin.B (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Russian-Iranian military intervention in SyriaEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Unification Church/ElijahEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

African Sorghum BeerEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 12#African Sorghum Beer

Boris JEdit

Unlikely search terms that could make it more difficult to find other people named Boris. Virtually no usage history. Yes, at this moment Boris Johnson is far and away the most well-known Boris J or prime minister in the English-speaking world, but once he's out of office that could very easily change. signed, Rosguill talk 20:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose. As of right now, Boris Johnson is the most well-known Boris who is a prime minister or whose surname begins with J. This is a plausible redirect, and I believe there is a disambiguation at Boris. No need to compromise what is best in the current situation for speculation into the future. From AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 21:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral on Boris J. Rosguill is right that it probably makes it harder to find other people named Boris, but looking at the Boris disambiguation page, he's the only Boris J on there. I don't think we lose much either way. Keep Boris (prime minister) for the reasons that AnUnamedUser gives as Boris Johnson is definitely the primary topic for prime ministers named Boris. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    Boris (given name) has a Boris Jordan. signed, Rosguill talk 07:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Wugapodes and Rosguill: See: @realDonaldTrump (25 Aug 2019). "Leaving now to have breakfast with Boris J" (Tweet) – via Twitter. AlbanGeller (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Rosguill: Weird that these lists weren't synced; I've updated Boris to transclude the list from Boris (given name). W/r/t Boris J, there's a case to be made that Boris Johnson is primary here. See page view comparison with Johnson consistently receiving 100x more views than Jordan over the past year. But Rosguill's point about making it harder to find other Borises (see also WP:XY) is also reasonable given the periodic spikes Jordan receives. I'm still neutral on the Boris J redirect, but if it's kept then {{Redirect|Boris J|the American billionaire|Boris Jordan}} should be placed at Boris Johnson. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    The list on the dab page is not supposed to be synced with the list on the name page. MOS:DABNAME: Persons who have the ambiguous term as surname or given name should be listed in the main disambiguation list of the disambiguation page only if they are frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g., Elvis, Shakespeare). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

LaicizationEdit

We need to establish a consensus whether the term is a generic synonym for Defrocking or it specifically refers to only the Catholic Church. wikt:laicize has multiple definitions, so conversion to a disambiguation is something to consider. One definition is "To reduce from clergy to layman"... noting that it does not say "To reduce from Catholic priest to layman". wbm1058 (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

  • The article should be redirected to defrocking. The lay and clergy distinction is one that is found in other Christian denominations apart from Catholicism, including Lutheranism, Anglicanism, etc. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In the Catholic Church, laicization is a formal legal process that is never called "defrocking". Are there any other Christian denominations which use the term "laicization" and not "defrocking", other than, perhaps, Eastern Orthodoxy? I have not heard of any. In the mainstream media, laicization is often erroneously labeled "defrocking" and results in confusion. It contributes to the confusion when "laicization" appropriately linked in a discussion of the Catholic priesthood erroneously sends the reader to a discussion of "defrocking" which is a slang term never used by Catholic Church sources. Elizium23 (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    • In such cases, articles should link to Laicization (Catholic Church). wbm1058 (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    • The defrocking article was started in August 2003 with the lead To defrock a priest is to deprive him of the right to exercise the functions of the priestly office. Various religions with priests have different procedures for doing this. and only one section, with the heading ==Roman Catholicism==. You should be aware that Wikipedia generally favors commonly recognizable names over officially-recognized names, and I believe the term "defrocking" has been used by lay news sources. The Catholic Church may be exceptionally weighted in sources due to the scandals around priests abusing children. But I hear your concerns regarding the term "defrocking" having unduly negative connotations, and conveniently my check of Google Ngram for laicization vs. defrocking shows that the former is more commonly used. So perhaps moving Defrocking to Laicization would be a solution for your concerns. I was kind of surprised by that Ngram because personally, before I ran into this as part of my patrols, I would have immdiately recognized the term "defrocking", but would have needed to look up that "L" word. Also note that laicisation redirected to defrocking from August 2003 until January 2014, when Catholic Church-specific content was split to a separate article. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I've notified WikiProject Catholicism and WikiProject Christianity of this RfD since those editors probably have expertise on the relationship between laicization and defrocking. Wug·a·po·des​ 05:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Etymologically, to defrock means to prohibit one from wearing clerical attire (i.e. from dressing like a priest). The Catholic Church doesn't use this term because it's too narrow in meaning. Instead, the Church uses the phrase "loss of clerical state" (see this passage from Catholic canon law). In the context of Catholicism, "loss of clerical state" is considered the "most correct" term, followed by "laicization" (considered an informal term), followed by "defrocking" as the "least correct" term (at which point we're well into slang territory). It is, therefore, appropriate that Catholicism-specific material remains under the article entitled Loss of clerical state (Catholic Church). As for the name of the general article, follow the ngrams. Jdcompguy (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Defrocking" implies that it is entirely involuntary, while a number of priests have petitioned to be laicized -in order to get married, or for some other reason. (I actually preferred laicization, as although the Church might view it as a "loss", perhaps less so by those who request it.) Manannan67 (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Andrea SachsEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Boy next door (stock character)Edit

The discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy next door (stock character) concluded with targeting it to Girl next door. I object it and suggest to use soft redirect to wikt:boy next door. Reasons:

  • GND article does not define the term (no refs), while wiktionary does.
  • There is no evidence that BND is basically same as GND (otherwise we could have written this up in GND article, right?)
  • the argument in AfD that BND is a variation of GND does not hold water has no solid founding in sources, and I find it dubious. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I did exercise a good deal of due diligence, and I found not a single reliable source that discusses the term rather than simply uses it. Otherwise I would have simply added the ref to the GND article (since I have already wasted lots of time to find it) without bothering the community. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Wrong venue: if you think the AfD was wrongly closed you should list this at WP:DRV. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
    No. The AfD was closed correctly. Please read carefully what WP:DRV is for. And this venue is exactly what I need: "central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. ". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    The AfD was closed correctly, but you "object [to] it" anyway? Please clarify. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
    I stated my reasons, see above. In Wikipedia we discuss articles, not editors, and my intentions are none of anybody's business, unless they interfere with "wikipediting". That said, here is my story: I voted for deletion. After closure I tried to make the redirect reasonable, i.e., tried REALLY FREAKING TOO HARD (for such a trifle) to find sources with minimal discussion, to use in in GND article; in vain. During the search I found that the term is defined in wiktionary, and here you go. You may also want to ask why did I exert myself for a piece of trivia. Because I am kinda linguistics buff and non-native English speaker. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I believe that you could not find any sources, and if there are no sources supporting usage of the phrase, the redirect should be deleted. Even though there is a Wiktionary page, Wiktionary is not considered a reliable source, as far as I am aware; therefore, linking to an un-sourced definition is not advisable either, imo. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
    @El cid, el campeador: We do use wikt-redirects occasionally, we even have a template for this: {{wi}}. Wikipedia is not an RS either :-) but we do redirect to it. See also my another remark about wiktionary here.Staszek Lem (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think I know why there is GND, but there is no BND cliche. My long search shows that unlike GND, a BND can by of any possible character: nerd BND, gay BND, "good boy" BND, villain BND, serial killer BND, etc., in addition to standard love target, with the only thing in common is being an "ordinary" (or seemingy ordinary) one. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see a problem with this. I agree with the AfD that the BND is really just a gender-swapped GND. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Absolutely no. Please prove your opinion using sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    Why is the current treatment in Wiktionary more appropriate than what we have here? --BDD (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
    Wiktionary has its own rules. In particular, they don't require WP:RS; usage examples suffice. Also, please do not confuse A term and A term (stock character). Yes, I agree that as plain English words BND and GND are 100% parallel, but there is no evidence that BND is a literary cliche, or stock character. There quite a few other "gender-non-symmetric" stereotypes. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wiktionary. I did find a source referring to the "boy next door" stock character (see here), thought it is just a passing mention. However, that is beside the point... it is original research to treat BND as the male equivalent of GND. Consider, for example, the "bad guy"/"good guy" and "bad girl"/"good girl" tropes—they are linguistic parallels but have vastly different stock characteristics. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Tv Tropes mentions Boy Next Door in their entry for the Girl Next Door, though this is propably not enough reason to keep the redirect. 85.76.8.173 (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep There doesn't seem to be a problem with how the AfD closed. "Boy next door" is the spear counterpart of "girl next door", and the definition of "girl next door" is adequate to describe the male version, just gender-swapped.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    [Citation needed]... Linguistically, you are correct; however, please consider the example of "bad guy"/"bad girl", which are linguistic counterparts but not narratological equivalents. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    definition of "girl next door" is adequate to describe the male version, just gender-swapped - false. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - From the arguments it seems that all 'yes'-voters confuse the expression "boy next door" with the concept "Boy next door as stock character". Yes, an expression "BND" is gender-swapped "GND", but there is no shred of evidence that "BND" is a notable stock character. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Notifying participants of the previous AfD which resulted in the creation of this redirect (except Zxcvbnm and Staszek Lem who've already participated here). @Pontificalibus, JzG, Aoba47, BD2412, Deepfriedokra, TTN, Genericusername57, and Epinoia: Wug·a·po·des​ 05:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note I believe that Boy Next Door should be sufficient to cover this topic, and a one-line explanation of the term should be added at the start of that dab page. The idea that the concept is adequately explained by girl-next-door with some gender-swapping is patently false - as demonstrated by the significant coverage I found in the source I gave at the AfD. ----Pontificalibus 06:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete the existing target is not adequate. I agree with Pontificalibus that the disambiguation page at Boy Next Door should cover the situation, including the link to Wiktionary. The problem is the delimiter "stock character", which lacks independent existence. --Bejnar (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wiktionary per Black Falcon. --Soumyabrata (talksubpages) 03:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

SeeteeEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

PnP (professional wrestling)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy keep

Thalapathi (2018 film)Edit

No film by this name released in 2018. It was a tentative working title for Mersal, but that film came in 2017. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the discussion PC78 refers to was closed with a retarget to Mersal (film). I'll retarget Thalapathy (2017 film) there likewise. I will also add Thalapathy (2018 film) to this discussion with the relist since this discussion concerns the year.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete both since the year is incorrect. PC78 (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes-Gerard IllovzEdit

Unlikely redirect, triple typo. Fram (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't know if this would make it plausible but this redirect is because I was playing a board game called Balderdash and the question misspelled his name as Yes-Gerard Illovz. So I was wondering if people who played Balderdash and wanted to look him up would search by Yes-Gerard Illovz because I myself created this article calling him that and I didn't realize that was not his name until the article's name changed and the redirect was up for deletion. --Otis the Texan (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Otis the Texan: Would you be able to provide evidence of the typo? I was trying to find something online but was unsuccessful. If so, I think this would be a solid reason to keep the redirect as {{R from misspelling}}. -- Tavix (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Tavix:I have a good solution to this. While unfortunately it looks like there is no proof on the internet so I suggest you look at the latest version of Balderdash and look through all the cards and their questions and answers. I'm guessing you do not own this game and the newest version (me neither, I played it at game café) so if you don't own I suggest you go to your local game café, board game store, or any store that sells board games and ask for permission to look inside. I would suggest going to the game café because in stores they are wrapped up. If happen to be at a game café also make sure it's the newest version. --Otis the Texan (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom., as an unlikely search term, particularly the misspelling of "Yves". The existence of the this typo in one version of a game isn't sufficient. --Bejnar (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hurrricane huntersEdit

Implausible typo, was created back in 2005 by an IP for unknown reasons. I suggest deletion or a retarget to Hurricane hunters. CycloneYoris talk! 15:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Just delete it. NoahTalk 22:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Akhuwat (Microfinance)Edit

Not mentioned in target. From an internet search, it seems like this is the name of a microfinance program, which would make this redirect of minimal use. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 15:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Here are the links which talks about Akhuwat (Microfinance). All of them are very reliable references. I wanted to create full article but because of time, I created a link. Let me know if reliability of links is a question [11], [12], [13], [14]. Secondly, there is already a list of Microfinance bank at List_of_banks_in_Pakistan and I have added the section Microfinance Bank section. --Spasage (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
This establishes that Akhuwat is a microfinance institution. What hasn't been established is why this is a useful redirect, as someone following this redirect has to already know that Akhuwat is related to microfinance, and will learn no additional information from reading the target. signed, Rosguill talk 21:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Better option is to create an article.--Spasage (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Spider-Man (Marvel Comics)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Hawkeye (2020 TV series)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 3Edit

Blood in the sandEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate

50 Cent: Piece in the Middle EastEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Second referendumEdit

There are dozens if not hundreds of plausible targets for this, and I'm having trouble seeing why a vote that probably isn't even going to happen should be the primary target ahead of (e.g.) 1995 Quebec referendum, the 2017 Catalan independence referendum, the 2006 South Ossetian independence referendum or the 2005 Curaçao status referendum, all of which (with the possible exception of Curaçao) were probably equally if not more significant. Even in the context of 2019 British politics, a putative referendum on the terms of the Brexit agreement isn't an undisputed primary meaning of "second referendum", not only was the 2016 vote technically the second referendum on EU membership (the first being in 1975), but the rise in nationalist support in their respective nations means there are second referenda on the status of both Scotland and Northern Ireland looming.  ‑ Iridescent 17:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate using the links provided in the nomination. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC) Delete per nom. WP:XY is an obvious reason to delete this, but also WP:NOTCRYSTAL and a bunch of other alphabet soup links. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per Wugapodes. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate — Interest (as measured by pageviews) in the proposed referendum is comparable to (but less than) interest in the Catalan referendum, and the population eligible to vote should such a referendum occur would be far greater than for any of the examples given by Iridescent.—AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

BATXEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 15#BATX

Spanish TroublesEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 15#Spanish Troubles

Indian general election, 1985Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

2029 Indian general electionEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Maria CaireEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

ΜBlock OriginEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy keep

Magazines appEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 15#Magazines app

On-oqEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: soft delete

AVGoldEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

MarioPlexEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

QWERTEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 15#QWERT

Lost DivisionEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

User:SrGangsta/Eminem's eight studio albumEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 2Edit

Black Bridge, PlasseyEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Hypno-ChipEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Alfred Hitchcock’sEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Europe's last dictatorshipEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 15#Europe's last dictatorship

Creepus explodusEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Venerable MasterEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 15#Venerable Master

WwwwwEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 13#Wwwww

Australia-HungaryEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Transfermarkt.usEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete.

Donegal TuesdayEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: accept draft article

Template:Quảng Binh ProvinceEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

VanzoliniusEdit

Is this correctly targetted (vice Leptodactylidae)? The term isn't mentioned in either article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

According to this paper, Vanzolinius is a proposed new genus for Leptodactylus discodactylus. So, since this promotion of L. discodactylus to Vanzolinius discodactylus does not appear to have been challenged or vetoed, it should either be redirected to Leptodactylidae, and mention of this situation made there, or have the redirect made into its own article.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Ms NinaEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

The Kidd Creole (Emcee)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus.

Wikipedia:WhyArentThesePagesCopyeditedEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: restore

Teri Meri Kahaani (song)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

EPIPEEdit

Not mentioned in the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Someone searching this term wanting to find out more information about it will be confused or disappointed to end up at a place that does not offer that information. Note that my !vote is conditional. If anyone with more knowledge on the subject than myself were to update the target to include information on EPIPE, I will withdraw my recommendation. -- Tavix (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Conditional delete per Tavix. Right now, it seems this redirect is only helpful to readers who already know what EPIPE is, if even to them. Any readers looking to learn what it is will be confused or disappointed. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I almost closed this as "delete per consensus" but then changed my mind. It's interesting that no competing topic has popped up, which means that anybody searching for "EPIPE" will almost certainly have been coding things in C/C++ and coming across this error message in the process. A redirect that sends them to errno.h, even though the article doesn't explain EPIPE, will tell them that the EPIPE has something to do with the errno.h header file. The reader can then look up further documentation about errno.h. This redirect facilitates a step in a workflow which is useful information for the reader, so I think it has value even though it's a {{R without mention}}. Deryck C. 16:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Nickelodeon ProductionsEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 12#Nickelodeon Productions

Only «Old Men» Are Going to BattleEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete.

User:SimonTrew/IvanvectorEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete

AnthropomorphEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete.

DöblinEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

MOS:CONSISTENCYEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Bina GangulyEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Back RotoEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 12#Back Roto

Why'd You Have to Go?Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Herr WolfEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 10#Herr Wolf

БурыйEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

MFxEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Fox of FireEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

THe Magic of Christmas (Nat King Cole album)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Eastern Catholic Churches not in full communion with RomeEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

🏴󠁴󠁨󠀵󠀷󠁿Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus, default to delete

Draft:Untitled Mr. Men & Little Miss filmEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 10#Draft:Untitled Mr. Men & Little Miss film

Child of Prince William, Duke of CambridgeEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

October 1Edit

Leverage ResearchEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

First synthesizedEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

FoursquareEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 15#Foursquare

Supercharger (comics)Edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 13#Supercharger (comics)

DQw4w9WgXcQEdit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 13#DQw4w9WgXcQ

СамоубийствоEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Хасаг улсEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Redirects from Cyrillic transcriptions of celebrity namesEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

David Jones (Baptist minister)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Southwest SumatraEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete.

Southwestern Bell (original)Edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete.

Walt Disney Animation U.KEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete.

Union of IndiaEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

ISO optimizerEdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete.

BAEREdit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate