Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)
XFD backlog
V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
CfD 0 0 5 16 21
TfD 0 0 8 3 11
MfD 0 1 0 2 3
FfD 0 0 0 1 1
RfD 0 0 0 16 16
AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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, do not 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. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
  • 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.)

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion edit

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

The guiding principles of RfD edit

  • 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 after at least 7 days, 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 non-trivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such links coming from older revisions of Wikipedia pages, from edit summaries, from other Wikimedia projects or from elsewhere on the internet, do not show up in "What links here").

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

Reasons for deleting edit

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 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
  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 also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
  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. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English 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 the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. 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 deleting edit

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; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. 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 (e.g. WolVes) and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  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. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects edit

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, therefore perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is 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 notes edit

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 discussion edit

STEP I.
Tag the redirect(s).

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

  • 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 ("Publish changes").
  • 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.
  • If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated.
STEP 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.
STEP III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.

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

{{subst:Rfd notice|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 respective creator/main contributors' redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Notices about the RfD discussion may also be left on relevant talk pages.

  • 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 list edit

April 16 edit

Link baiting edit

Deletion, link baiting differs from clickbait to the degree that the redirect is misleading. Link baiting does not have the deceptive nature of clickbait. [1] Acalc79 (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose I could ask how you're defining "link baiting?" 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian concession in Sarandë edit

Romanian Institute in Albania was originally created under this title. The author, blocked since 2019, appears to have misread the sources he used. Albania granted a Romanian historian property in Sarandë and he established an institute on it and granted half of the land to the Romanian state, but this does not mean a part of Sarandë stopped being a sovereign part of Albania to become part of Romania. The "concession" thing is original research. No sources talk about this using the word "concession" [1]. This is ultimately a hoax. Draft:Romanian concession in Sarandë should be deleted too. Super Ψ Dro 13:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phone computer edit

This seems overly technical. Nobody would really refer to smartphones as a phone computer outside of drawing some comparisons between smartphones and computers. Okmrman (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is what a smartphone is, and I wouldn't be surprised if the terms were used before "smartphone" became the established term (I can't check as Google is refusing to show me results that are both verbatim and before a given time, and either one alone is overwhelmed by irrelevant results where the two words happen to be adjacent, especially in lists in adverts). Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't this actually link to telco equipment? Such as a PBX or other phone computers -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The phrasing of these redirects makes me believe they could also refer to Modem, thus making these redirects ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think it is easy for English first speakers (or young people) to say they aren't needed, but they probably serve some utility and they perfectly describe what they are. Dennis Brown - 11:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify. As Steel mentioned, a viable interpretation of this would be Modem, being "a phone used by a computer". However, I'd also think that VoIP phone-- a phone that uses the Internet instead of normal phone lines-- or softphone-- a software program that could call other people, which could be downloaded and installed on a PC-- would be valid interpretations of "Phone computer" or "Computer phone". Given I'm sure none of the above- including Smartphone (a phone which is a computer)-- would be a primary target, dabification is warranted. edited at 14:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faulty thinking edit

I just created this. But to be on the safe side, I wanted to ask for opinions, as this is actually a psychological term that does not appear in the given target as such, in fact. Hildeoc (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. My first thought is that a fallacy is only one type of faulty thinking, others being using incorrect logic, extrapolating from a misunderstanding, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhh, "using incorrect logic" is a formal fallacy, "extrapolating from a misunderstanding" is (at a minimum) an informal fallacy. Paradoctor (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question this is actually a psychological term Can you provide a source defining this psychological term? The only uses I could find were all literal uses, i. e. talking about thinking that is faulty.
    Thinking is more general than reasoning/arguing, and from what I've seen, a case could be made to target cognitive biases instead, or in addition. Paradoctor (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paradoctor: Thanks for taking an interest. Well, if you google the term (using quotes), the hits you get are like almost exclusively related to uses in a psychological context; cf., e.g., here. Hildeoc (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    two [...] conceptions of faulty thinking That's two different terms. So we'd need to a) disambiguate, b) find articles to link to, which are defining these idioms. Alternatively a set index article would also be conceivable, though this would require a whole lot more sources.
    More to the point, the hits are uses, not definitions / discussions of the concept. Extracting definitions from usage would be WP:SYNTHESIS Paradoctor (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 16:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poopoo edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Immigration control in Russia edit

I'm not sure this is the best target for this redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Illegal immigration to Russia. Doing a history dive, this was the original target, before being retargeted to Federal Migration Service 20 days later by its own creator. As it stands, this seems like the most relevant, widest-shot page on this topic (Because one agency has not been in control of this issue for Russia's entire existence as a country, retargeting to any one of said agencies would be a disservice.)
...Alternately, we COULD Dabify between Immigration to Russia, Illegal immigration to Russia, Federal Migration Service, and Main Directorate for Migration Affairs. There IS a third agency listed as a predecessor to the Federal Migration Service in its article, but that agency doesn't have a page. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dabify or retarget? If dabify, anyone want to draft a dab up?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of the suggested targets Illegal immigration to Russia and Main Directorate for Migration Affairs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Main Directorate for Migration Affairs. No need to dabify: this is a single subject regardless agencies and articles where else it is covered. I added a lazy section "History", from which one can traced down all previous Russian migration control agencies, as well as "See also" about immigration to Russia. - Altenmann >talk 06:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pepitos edit

Delete. Not mentioned at target. Though retargeting to Pepito as a {{R from plural}} also seems viable. CycloneYoris talk! 06:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore to original redirect form: #REDIRECT [[Pepita]] {{R from misspelling}}. This is an obvious and easy typo for pepita, that could be made by anyone with imperfect memory of the word and uncertain of the linguistic gender of the Spanish name (which is commonly used at least in the southern and western United States for roasted pumpkin/squash seeds, even if not widely used in English more broadly). If I had noticed the strange change to redirect this to a cookie brand for no source-supported reason (and an edit-summary reason that suggests it is a re-branding trademark of that specific product line but used only in a particular Spanish-speaking country, not within the Anglosphere), I would have reverted it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify There is Pepito name and Pepito (sandwich). If we trust SMcCandlish, we have three distinct pluralizable items. Not to say that victionary says "pepito" used to be a gold nugget. ... Oh and there were Los Pepitos , see José Luis Cabezas and Charlie Rivel; and Pepitos: The Beak Saga in 80th Venice International Film Festival although seem no more. - Altenmann >talk 07:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. And there are plenty of "Pepitoses" in latin america es:Chips Ahoy!#Como "Pepitos" : it says that its name changes to Pepitos! for Argentina and Uruguay , so this can be added to chips ahoy, and the DAB page is for good. - Altenmann >talk 07:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's already a disambiguation page at Pepito. There are very few items on that page that could be pluralized, though, so targeting the nominated page there may not be appropriate. - Eureka Lott 14:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pepito as an {{R from plural}}. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Becker edit

Couldn't find Wiren Dale Becker referred to with only his middle name, anywhere. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Becker for the original article under that title. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japanator.com edit

Target article doesn't mention Japanator. Anyone has any idea? Neocorelight (Talk) 01:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I actually tried digging around, including the history of the (now community banned) person that created the redirect. Maybe a troll creation? No valid reason can be found, so Delete. Dennis Brown - 11:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not a troll creation. I found this redirect by a link from another article. Neocorelight (Talk) 12:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


April 15 edit

Drew Curtis' FARK.com edit

An implausible, unmentioned synonym for the subject. Very unlikely to be searched instead of Drew Curtis (from link) or Fark or Fark.com Utopes (talk / cont) 22:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep exists enough on the Internet to be a useful redirect; current page title for fark is "Drew Curtis' FARK.com"; and, for example, the Telegraph used it: "When you go to the front page it's not just Fark.com, it's Drew Curtis's Fark.com.".[2] Even made it to print media [3] [4] [5]. Lack of mention is fine here since there's no possibility of confusion and readers will quickly learn they arrived at the correct place, from the lead of our article "Fark is a community website created by Drew Curtis ...." Skynxnex (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the sources found by Skynxnex. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Catching edit

A film that is not mentioned at the target article. I presume it's about the target, but with no mentions to Mill, the connection is unclear? Dreamcatching is a similar redirect that currently points to Dreamcatcher, which this is a variation of. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Deco edit

I presume this might have once been [mentioned], but now this concept of Dark Deco is not mentioned at the target. It has minor mentions across Wikipedia in reference to properties such as Batman: The Animated Series (across this and 2 other related pages, Gotham City and Andrea Beaumont), and also at Skullgirls in a quote. As it looks like 75% of all mentions of "Dark Deco" are at Batman pages, perhaps sending this to Batman: The Animated Series is the primary topic? Searching "Dark Deco" externally, 50% of my results are all Batman, with the rest of the topics being neologism hodgepodge across blogs and such. Now that I look into this more, I'm close to believing that "Dark Deco" is a specific Batman-related topic, and one that we cover across multiple Batman pages and basically nowhere else, but I wanted to bring this here as the current target has been fairly longstanding. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Mountain (logo) edit

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

While the logo might be a mountain, the words "dark" nor "mountain" do not appear anywhere at the target page. We don't have any encyclopedic about a dark mountain logo, which encyclopedic content about a logo seems to be specifically requested through this search term, by including "logo" in the title. With this being tagged as a "related meme without a mention", I'm not too convinced about its plausibility standalone. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actions Prior to Grant's Landing edit

Vague and unhelpful redirect, not to mention the improper title case- which landing? Meant to imply for the Vicksburg campaign, but other operations during the war commanded by Grant involved the landing of troops. Very old R from move from 2003, was only briefly at this title before moving to Actions Prior to Grant's Landing Before Vicksburg, which was moved again to Actions Prior to Grant's Landing Before the Siege of Vicksburg and finally Actions prior to Grant's landing before the siege of Vicksburg before being blanked and redirected in 2005, so can be safely deleted. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete per nominator. "Grant's Landing" appears to primarily refer to Vicksburg campaign and a place in Oregon (and this redirect would be unlikely to be used for searching for anything related to the Oregon place). But - this doesn't seem to be a phrasing found anywhere in the major secondary literature that I can tell, so I don't think that it's useful to keep around. Hog Farm Talk 01:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronomian edit

The target article does not mention the word “Pronomian” nor explain what the word means. Bwrs (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This seems to be an R from antonym, given the "Anti-" in the target article is getting swapped for "Pro-", with the implication that the views of "Pronomians" are opposite that of "Antinomians". That said, I'd like to point out that R from Antonym as an rcat is one of those rcats that populates a maintenance category, so we can't just tag as Antonym and keep. (Which is odd to me? If we don't have an article on something, but we have an article on its direct opposite, and we can reasonably and competently explain the first thing as "the complete opposite of this second thing", then that seems to be a good place to have a redirect. Why is this rcat populating a maintenance category?) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baffle Of Chancellorsville edit

The unique substitution of "Baffle" for "Battle" along with the incorrect capitalization make this redirect highly unlikely to be of use. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clean vocals edit

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No mentions of "clean" at the target page. At the target page, the act of singing is never implied to be "clean", or even consist of "clean vocals". The primary justification for this redirect existing is that unclean vocals is a redirect to death growl. Yet, its antonym has no mention at the general page for "singing". If clean and unclean vocals are antonyms, and both are redirects, this seems to imply that the concepts of "singing" and "death growl" are also "antonyms" in regard to vocal quality? Likely true, but never addressed (nor does it need to be imo). For someone specifically looking for information on the topic of "clean vocals", it seems to be preferable for these readers to end up at a topic that is directly pertinent to vocal quality. If people wanted to end up at Singing instead, they'd type singing, a concept everyone would have already been familiar with. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, an RfD for Clean vocals closed as retarget in 2015, but was pointed back to Singing after its conclusion three different times by two users, citing different material at the page for Screaming (music) (the resulting retarget). Utopes (talk / cont) 21:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with the nominator that someone searching for "Clean vocals" or "Clean vocalist" is looking for more than the page on singing, and wants to know about the quality of the voice instead. I've been searching around, and the best page for information on vocal quality appears to be at Vocal pedagogy, but that page is super technical and seems a bit more deeply theoretical and broad topic than someone looking for information on voice quality. I'm not sure we actually have the perfect article to target for these... in which case maybe WP:REDLINKing it (that is, deletion) would be appropriate to encourage article creation. But I'm on the fence, so no formal !vote from me as of now. Fieari (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clean vocals is a highly likely search term Geschichte (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This thing is really begging for a WP:RA, isn't it? Bwrs (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Independent MPs edit

Template:Independent MPs in Canada used to be at this pagename until I moved it to clarify its scope and avoid potential confusion with other navboxes, e.g. Template:Independent MPs in the United Kingdom. Now that the Canadian navbox is transcluded directly through its new name, I suggest that the old name be deleted to avoid any future mix-ups, e.g. being added to a British MP's biography by mistake. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 20:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate make a template-space dab page (yes, those exist). It would show an error message when transcluded. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with the IP editor who says to disambiguate (although the resulting disambiguation page could potentially get very long, couldn't it?) Bwrs (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Deuce edit

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Not mentioned alternative name. Basically any time it comes up on Wikipedia, is people (including residents) saying that they've never heard this alternative name. The sources raised have all been mediocre, and as this was never added post-discussion-conclusion, it does not seem to have any use and only adds confusion for those who search this term and end up at a city where its colloquial(?)/uncommon nickname is not mentioned. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft retarget to wikt:acey-deucey? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would advise against that. Wiktionary redirects are good for likely dictionary terms. And redirecting Title A to a completely separate Title B across different projects, with several variations between each, is highly unideal. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ace deuce craps wants four
delete, i guess. from some looking, i found gambling jargon and... nothing else worth a specific redirect. there's a rapper with this name and a one piece character named "masked deuce" whose leader led by a guy named ace, though, so do with that what you will cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 22:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who wants the, who wants the hard four? Five want four
For the record, I don't terribly oppose deletion. There's really not very many good places to redirect. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technofascism and Techno-fascism edit

Same terminology, different meanings. Does its meaning depend on the absence/presence of the hyphen, or can it have both meanings either way? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • My thought exactly. Either it is a term legitimately attested to in the literature, or else it is POV and should be deleted. Which of these it is, I will leave to smarter contributors than myself – the top Google “hit” points to one of the target Wikipedia articles and the second one points to this RfD itself! (and subsequent “hits” point to academic articles that are way “above my head.”) Bwrs (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
did some looking around and "technofascism" apparently means "fascism that uses technology", not "fascism in technology", so both of those are wrong
either retarget them to fascism or a more fitting target, or cause them to mysteriously disappear delete cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 14:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GWGFJ edit

no evidence of abbreviation Okmrman (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awooo edit

It just feels questionable, especially considering that you could put any amount of trailing Os and it would still be "valid". Okmrman (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 is a good number, honestly
"awo" is more of an acronym than anything, "awoo" is momiji inubashiri's famous totally canon catchphrase (she does not officially have a catchphrase, and that catchphrase is not "awoo"), and "awoooo" would be a little too much
so i'd say keep cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7.92 edit

searching it up on google doesn't result in 8 mm but it does show another bullet type Okmrman (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify, there are quite a fair number of ammunition types and/or firearms that we have articles on, that could be targeted to. Of note are the following:
7.92x57mm Mauser
7.92×33mm Kurz
7.92×94mm Patronen
7.92×107mm DS
7.92×36mm EPK
7.92 mm Rifle Anti-Tank Mascerzek
7.92mm Bergmann MG15Na 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh yeah i also found out related redirect 7.92 mm. Might as well put this out there as well for you to decide on it. Okmrman (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dabify or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably gonna go with Dabify per Luna and redirect 7.92 mm to that disambig Okmrman (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Retarget per Travix Okmrman (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 7 mm caliber, which is for the 7.00 to 7.99 millimetres (0.2756 to 0.3146 in) caliber range. Anything at 7.92 mm should be listed there. -- Tavix (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might as well bundle 7.92 mm and 7.92mm along with this Okmrman (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deplorable edit

Another confusing vocabulary word redirect. Not everything that is deplorable is part of Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables". We don't have deplore, so maybe a soft redirect to Wiktionary will have to do. Duckmather (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crosswiki to wiktionary per nom Okmrman (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
  • Delete I'm partial to the stance in the previous discussion that search results are adequate here and there does not need to be a DAB page for partial title matches. However, there are partial title matches so I don't think a soft redirect to Wiktionary is the best option. Though, I'm not really familiar with when it is best to use them. ― Synpath 06:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Combine a {{Wiktionary}} link with a “see also” section as well. Bwrs (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The F-Bomb (movie) edit

Per WP:RDEL #8 BilledMammal (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F-Bomb (documentary) edit

Per WP:RDEL #8 BilledMammal (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F-Bomb (film) edit

Per WP:RDEL #8 BilledMammal (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The F-Bomb (film) edit

Per WP:RDEL #8 BilledMammal (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F-Bomb (movie) edit

Per WP:RDEL #8 BilledMammal (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The American Dodgeball Association of America edit

Not mentioned at target. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to add related redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per nom. Okmrman (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Bessarabia edit

Inaccurate redirect. The Ottoman Empire annexed both Budjak (south of Bessarabia) and northern parts centered around Khotyn [6] [7]. No appropriate alternative target, lack of incoming links show the redirect is not useful. Super Ψ Dro 12:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find those links (to a user-generated map in a Wikipedia article and a bibliographic citation) very helpful. Are you saying that, because the Ottoman Empire annexed more than one place, they didn't give the name Bessarabia to one place (and some other name to the other place)?
What I found in looking into this is that the area the Ottomans called Bessarabia (e.g., in 1600) is not the same as the area the Russians called Bessarabia (e.g., in 1820). The Ottomans used that name (e.g., in 1600) for the part of the world that is described by our article on Budjak, and which that article calls historic Bessarabia. The Russians used that name (e.g., in 1820) for a much larger area. Budjak therefore appears to be the correct target for the Ottoman use of the name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(pokémon character) edit

closed before with no consensus

aron and golem are species of pokémon, not individual characters cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Absolutely nothing wrong with these redirects, they're a predictable disambiguation. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the point made in the previous rfd was that this was akin to "wookiee (character)" or "cow (character)" being used to refer to entire species, as opposed to a single, identifiable wookiee or cow. as far as "notable" members of those species go... i guess a golem is a minor character in the pokémon mystery dungeon series? maybe there's a reason no one remembers team rumblerock :( cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 17:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Golem because it is a minor character in the pokémon mystery dungeon series. A page discussion Golem as a character would be the only appropriate target, yet Pokémon Mystery Dungeon has no mention of this. Delete Aron too per nom. Nickps (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, that was part of what i could retroactively call a joke. that golem is so minor i'm pretty sure he only gets one non-missable line in the entire main plot of the rescue team games. it would take a miracle for that to afford even a passing mention anywhere
    and aron doesn't even get that, so cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 00:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, nom's argument still applies, so my vote stays the same. I'll strike that part though since it's just me not getting the joke. Nickps (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Pokemon Character). As I stated at the tail end of that discussion (and should've mentioned FAR sooner): Aron and Golem are species of Pokemon, not the proper names of individual characters-- it'd be akin to Wookiee (Star Wars character). While I will acknowledge that there are instances of individual Pokemon being referred to by the name of their species as if it were a proper name-- with perhaps the most notable example being Ash's Pikachu-- at no point are there notable discrete characters with these names that aren't at the level of fancruft. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Chinese FA Super Cup edit

The subject never existed to begin with, similar to the 2022 edition in the same compeition.

Law of fives edit

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discordian concept (e.g. [8]), so the redirect should go to Discordianism. Furius (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect whose topics are not mentioned at the target do not help the reader at all. Veverve (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep, what is this mass deletion of much of Discordian concepts? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore relevant section, which can be found here. I'll note that there may be more-recent revisions of this section somewhere in the page history and/or relevant sources to cite (given the section I'm linking didn't have sources at this time); finding said sources/newer revisions will be an exercise left to the editor, given holy hell, the page history for this page is a nightmare. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This cannot be restored as it is unsourced (WP:BURDEN). Veverve (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the correct page in the Principia Discordia (the holy book of this religion), and should serve as a fairly good source for this section, especially given it already claims to (and upon checking, DOES) quote said book. As a note, this took FIVE SECONDS to find, given said book is literally linked to, multiple times, by both this old version of the page AND the current version.
    There's a time and a place to use WP:BURDEN. "I don't feel like taking a five second check to see if I can find a source myself in the most obvious spot(s)" isn't the time nor place. (edit at 12:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like the Bible is most of the time not a RS to talk about Christianity, using this book the way you propose is OR from a primary source and not the use of a secondary RS. Primary sources should often be avoided, and in this case it should. Yes, you can WP:SELFSOURCE, but the relevance of the information (WP:ONUS) is to be decided by secondary sources (do they mention the information? do they say it is an important information, how much do they dedicate to said information?) and not by the presence of redirects. Veverve (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, all right, let's just check the next most obvious spot, being one of the sources we already have, and... Oh hey look, Invented Religions (the book cited multiple times already in these discussions) has a mention of the Law of Fives, too.
    Would be helpful if Google Books had a way to see the full discussion of the topic without buying the book but w/e
    In any case, that brings me back to my main point, there-- it's unhelpful, and actively harmful, to take a broad hatchet and hack away at unsourced parts of an article without first checking the most obvious places to see if you can find a source yourself. Those most obvious places including texts referenced in/quoted by the article without linking to them (which can quickly become sourcing FROM those texts), texts already used as sources elsewhere in the article, and a five-second search on Google Books. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tantras edit

It makes no sense for the links tantra and tantras go to different articles. Retarget to tantra. JIP | Talk 19:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as per nom. Given the proposed target already has a hatnote pointing to the current target, I don't see any sort of problem with this change. (Don't forget to mark as R from plural.) Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oop, also, forgot to add: Apparently, this was an R from page move. Still, feels like it makes more sense to point to the singular form. Lunamann 🌙🌙🌙 The Moooooooniest (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep since it does not seem to make sense to refer to the subject at Tantra in a plural form. (However, if a disambiguation page were to be created for "Tantra/Tantras", this redirect could be retargeted there.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget to Tantra. Never mind, seems the English language defines the word "tantra", as well as the subject at Tantra, as a noun, so a plural is plausible. Steel1943 (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Tantra per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a disambig for Tantras (Hinduism) and Tantras (Buddhism). Tantras in plural refers to Tantra texts, not the Tantra system.--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, are you saying the page should be changed into a dab? Brusquedandelion (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 07:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Countering the nomination, it does make sense for the two titles to point to different articles. For any confusion, hatnotes are already in place. Jay 💬 05:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does it make sense? Brusquedandelion (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One is a singular and the other is a plural. Why does it not make sense? Jay 💬 07:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist for further consideration of disambiguation proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Tantra but yes, a DAB would cover every one of the topics and is maybe the most direct way to seek the plausible topic that many readers would be searching for. It should be a well-done DAB page in order to put the most sought after topics high on the list and maybe make a few primary at the top. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dependence liability edit

Needs adequate inclusion. Hildeoc (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the creator of this redirect, I would like to mention that this term features in most articles using the | dependency_liability parameter in Infobox drug such as Caffeine, Cocaine or MDMA, where it pipes to the same article as the redirect's destination. That being said, it could be expanded into an article since there's probably enough information on the subject, or at the very least something like List of psychoactive substances by dependence liability could be created to further establish the term. — Mugtheboss (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing, I had a look through WP:R#DELETE to refresh my memory, and there isn’t a criterion for redirects not having adequate usage. I also thought that maybe my redirect could be seen to fall under 8 or 10, but the term "dependence liability" is mentioned in this section of the target page, and that section does delve into the topic, albeit pretty shallowly, so my view is that neither apply. — Mugtheboss (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mugtheboss: But it's not at all defined there, only peripherally mentioned in a single instance. Hildeoc (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hildeoc: The term "dependence liability" should be self-explanatory in the context of that article, I.E. how liable a substance is to cause dependence. As I mentioned, the term is present in practically every article using Template:Infobox drug with the | dependency_liability parameter being active, making it widespread across the wiki. — Mugtheboss (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mugtheboss: I'm sorry but, in fact, that is not how WP:R#PLA works imho. Hildeoc (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hildeoc: If you believe that it fails RPLA, then the best option would be to redirect it to the section of the target page I linked above, which would make it adhere to this part of the guideline: "Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" … are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes." If you agree, I'd happily do it myself. — Mugtheboss (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Ukraine missile strike edit

Obviously problematic redirect. Inclusionists let's use common sense. Just delete the redirect. We don't have disambiguation pages like 2022 Ukraine missile strike or 2023 Ukraine missile strike. There is few people who would look up something as general as this. Let's simply delete the redirect, it is of not much use. Super Ψ Dro 00:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My first reaction was to keep, as it seemed like this was "2024 strike" (singular) to "2024 strikes" (plural). Then I noticed the "22 March" part of the target. Delete as per nom, definitely don't keep on current target. (A potential target if kept MIGHT be to Russo-Ukrainian War, which takes a more wide-shot, general look at the concept... but if any missile strikes happen in Ukraine NOT part of the Russo-Ukranian War, the reasoning for that retarget falls apart.) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as per Pppery, although I do recommend adjusting to Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present)#January 2024 given this one doesn't specify March. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 14 edit

Adelaide–Darwin rail corridor edit

I would like to delete the redirect "Adelaide–Darwin rail corridor" so that I can move the current article, "Adelaide–Darwin railway line" to the name currently occupied by the redirect.

Rationale: There are 5 major rail corridors between Australia's capital cities (as in the map here). For 4 of them, the Wikipedia article uses the word "corridor" (example: Sydney–Brisbane rail corridor). Only the Adelaide–Darwin one uses "line". The action requested would unify the terminology of all five. SCHolar44 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Bounds(novel) edit

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the missing space before the disambiguator. Nickps (talk) 23:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think I messed up here actually. Some of these might be eligible for WP:G6. Oh well... Nickps (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gobshite edit

For the first time I think at RfD... I'm at a complete and total loss of words. I have, no idea, about any of this history. But it's certainly wrong. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The word gobshite refers to a person who talks shite (speaks nonsense or is a fool), not to verbosity or (necessarily) a verbose person. I would delete, or perhaps as an alternative retarget to Shite, which is a DAB pointing to Shit among other things. Cnilep (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Was mainly looking at the... interesting history behind this title, and its past and former targets. 😅 Utopes (talk / cont) 05:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to the wiktionary entry
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gobshite Okmrman (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per Okmrman. Don't read too much into the history, WP:POINT is pretty much written about the editor who picked the current target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect per Okmrman; don't keep it at its current gobshite target. Queen of ♡ | speak 20:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eater(Novel) edit

Delete per WP:RDAB due to the missing space before the disambiguator. Nickps (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete it was at this title for a few months in 2005 and has a capitalization error. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Kate? edit

Despite the history of an article being at this title, this search term is very much implausible. Delete and salt so we can finally get rid of it. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While the term may be implausible for a de novo search, the article and its controversy is mentioned throughout the Internet, e.g., Reddit here. As I mentioned on my talk page: Those who come to the redirect for 'bad' reasons get the real article with its terse, more carefully curated content... just like those who follow an old link would. I'm struggling to think of a policy-based reason for deletion. I get that a lot of people have strong feelings about this... but I don't. We do not need to break redirects to Right Great Wrongs. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don’t see how it’s implausible, seeing as the article from which it is derived was quite popular. Also I'd say that the use of the phrase in other language Wikipedias and the usage of the phrase in the media, which was no doubt spurred by the existence of the former article, necessitates this redirect.
Slamforeman (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How else can we avoid Where is Where is Kate? Edwardx (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been known to stuff beans up my nose before. Don't make me do it. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (no salt), due to no mention, or discussion, or any indication on why this question [Where is Kate?] exists and targets the page. Saying "conspiracy theories arose" is not enough. If kept, (which should only be done if a mention gets added), probably keep the title protected, and/or restore the previous history, and/or keep talk page unredirected? If it's going to exist on Wikipedia, mind as well maintain the storied background for archival purposes, although I'm not super bothered either way re: its inclusion to page history. If the history is specifically G10 speedy deletable, then maybe keep the history deleted, but the fact that there were a good chunk of RSs and a lot of !keepers at the AfD makes it seem the history could at the very least be useful to be aware of, especially as none of the past AfDs are linked at the redirect's talk page or any indication of its past life at all, beyond the first edit summary (as I would have expected for an AfD-recreated redirect). Utopes (talk / cont) 05:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfDs were mentioned at the talk page of the now-redirect, but have since been removed by Alalch_E., whom I've pinged to explain his reasoning which I don't feel strongly about one way or the other. Jclemens (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the remark that the redirect's talk page is the wrong page for the Old XfD was a not fully though out / poorly phrased way to say that if it's useful to redirect the redirect's talk page, it doesn't have to be kept just because of the Old XfD template about AfDs which did not determine the fate of the redirect as a redirect anyway. I believed that it's useful to keep that talk page redirected because discussions about the subject matter that had been covered under the title of "Where is Kate?" belong at the target article's talk page where they can get proper visibility, and I believed that the redirect's talk page might attract forum-like commentary, etc. —Alalch E. 12:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirection of the talk page is not maintainable because the outcome of this RfD will need to be recorded on it, so I will self-revert. —Alalch E. 12:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no mention at target. TarnishedPathtalk 09:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Silly nomination, sorry.—Alalch E. 11:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Obvious search term, the phrase is used in sources, and many on Wikipedia know about the deleted article. While the phrase is not verbatim at the target, the target exactly matches, but encyclopedicly, the topic that the phrase refers to. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-starter. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at what's in the Category:Redirects from non-neutral names. We serve knowledge to people who look for it using problematic terms too. We don't say to them "bad reader with bad thoughts, we will not serve you the article". No, we will serve him the article so he can get educated and so he can get to see how a topic is treated when it is treated encyclopedically. —Alalch E. 13:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong keep as a highly likely search term evidenced by a Google search of "Where is Kate?" having over a million hits; the first several pages are exclusively devoted to Princess Catherine's health and related absence from public events. Frank Anchor 18:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously - "Where is Kate?" provably refers to the media sensationalism surrounding the event that is now properly covered at the target section. When readers come to Wikipedia looking for information on this topic, this is where they will find it. The topic drew nearly 15,000 daily pageviews at its height, and since being recreated as a redirect it's pulling a couple hundred a day. One's opinion of the monarchy is not a reason to delete a redirect that is plainly serving a useful purpose to readers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Due to the high profile nature of this article when it existed and the attention the 3 AfD's attracted, it is helpful to keep this around, at least for now. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question? What was the original article (that is now deleted) about? I would be inclined to delete because the title is more appropriate to disambiguate between articles (if any) about missing persons named Kate. Bwrs (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The former article was widely discussed on reddit and other forums, and cited in the media, e.g. [9] which tells us The princess' absence from public events since Christmas last year has, as you might have expected, spawned all kinds of conspiracy theories. It even gave rise to a whole Wikipedia article entitled "Where is Kate?" [...] (link in the original). Rosbif73 (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I voted twice to delete and merge the article. That being said, the phrase is not implausible. Keeping the redirect will also funnel people to the proper location with encyclopedic coverage. Please, can we drop it and move on? TNstingray (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyra Tierney edit

No discussion of a character called "Kyra Tierney" at the target article. Only mention on Wikipedia is at the disambig page for Tierney linking here, but the presence of a blue link implies we have content about this character, which we do not. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep. It seems "Kyra Tierney" is an actual character in the show, so it’s reasonable to expect someone searching the character's name on Wikipedia would be interested in that particular article. Slamforeman (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kobold (Shannara) edit

No character called Kobold at the target article, has always been a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Keating (Fair City) edit

No mention of a character called Dan Keating at the target article, has always been a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 1, 2003 edit

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

No information about this date at the target page, although contains some further unique history. Unlike Jan 2, this has been to RfD before, and closed as no consensus. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2, 2003 edit

No information about this date at the target page, although contains some history. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jailarity edit

No mention of this related word at the target article, or anywhere on Wikipedia. I have to guess this has been unmentioned at the target for at least 15 years, maybe its entire redirect lifetime. Has always been a redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checked. Redirect was created on April 22, 2006-- and on that day, "Jailarity" was defined under "Farkisms and cliches". At this point in time, the section was a long list of examples of various "farkisms", instead of a few paragraphs discussing the concept of a "farkism" in general. The last revision to have this "list" version of the section was here, before it was stricken as unencyclopedic-- it would then be readded a couple of times and immediately re-removed, before this revision added the section that would be molded into what we have today.
"Jailarity", in summary, was defined in a section that was removed for being unencyclopedic and replaced with a section that is far more encyclopedic, but doesn't define or even mention this term. Delete. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackahuahua edit

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Dog breed redirected at a 2008 AfD, seemingly been unmentioned at the target for over a decade. It's misleading to maintain breed redirect for a dog type that holds zero information on Wikipedia. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could go to list of dog crossbreeds but that page doesn't mention it; however, it's only had 3 views in the past 30 days which probably includes me looking at it. I don't think this designer dog breed has much notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ŽS series 711 edit

When this redirect was created, it pointed to RA2 Multiple Unit, which is the model that ŽS series 711 (manufacturer's designation: DP-S) is derived from. An anonymous user later disputed the redirect, pointing out RA-2 and DP-S are two different series. User Malcolmxl5 then made the redirect point to ŽS series 812, which is absolute nonsense since ŽS 812 and ŽS 711 have nothing in common besides operating on same routes. As the English wiki does not have a page about ŽS series 711 or DP-S Multiple Unit, I propose this redirect be deleted. Upwinxp (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hazeltown edit

This is not attested anywhere, and its addition to the article was solely referenced to the article's "version history". 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. A. Abbott edit

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add to target. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. The name today (according to a quick Google search) is more closely associated with Helen Blenkinsop, for which we don't have an article. While Samuel Spewack also used the name as a pseudonym and would warrant a disambiguating hatnote should an article exist on the primary topic, redirecting as-is is more likely to confuse readers. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blenkinsop is a recent user of the name (there's also the author of The Bazique-player's Hand-book, and various others). If you are prepared to write an article for her, then great. If not, don't destroy a valid redirect on that basis. (There also some other A. A. Abbotts.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    Also the founder of this town: Kalkaska, Michigan. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • comment would this is better off as a set index? --Lenticel (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mention has not yet been added to the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep adding a mention at the target is most appropriate here. Frank Anchor 20:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikipedians by article count edit

Cross namespace redirect that is primarily linked to old archives. Note that it links to WP:List of Wikipedians by article count, but is a rather self redirect. Toadette (Let's talk together!) 11:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oorum Unavum edit

Not mentioned at target. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the pre-redirect page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 04:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. Page history didn't seem very useful either. DrowssapSMM 14:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD if not notable, was an article for 7 years before being single-handedly blanked by an IP a couple months ago. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Trotskij edit

Delete per WP:RFD#D8. This appears to be the spelling of Trotsky's name in various North Germanic languages and this spelling isn't used in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - appears to be the spelling of his name in Danish and Norwegian, neither of which are particularly relevant. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moldavia Province, Ottoman Empire edit

The Principality of Moldavia was never a "province" of the Ottoman Empire. It was never a part of the empire. It always remained a separate country with its own laws and administration under vassalage. These redirects are inaccurate and misleading. Also the "Bogdan/Bogdania/Boğdan" redirects are made up original research. Super Ψ Dro 12:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Moldavia Province and Boğdan Province Referred to as such in several books (on "Moldavia," see [10], [11], [12], etc.) (on "Boğdan," see [13] and [14]). Cannot find references for the others, so delete. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why should we keep blatantly inaccurate redirects. Moldavia (known in Turkish as Boğdan) was never a formal part of the Ottoman Empire, much less something organized into a province. If anything some parts of Moldavia, fractions, were formally annexed and organized into distinct sanjaks ("provinces") that did not even border each other [15] [16], adding a layer of ambiguity to this issue. That sources with a wide general scope have chosen to use a common word to describe a detail that was clearly not given much attention do not change Moldavia's status in the past. Professional academic sources on the history of Romania will never refer to Moldavia as a "province". Super Ψ Dro 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are concerned about the inaccuracy, the redirects can be tagged with {{R from incorrect name}}. As it stands, there are indeed sources which refer to this area as a "province" of the Ottoman Empire, so the redirects are plausible search terms. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This idea (I do not see why should we keep blatantly inaccurate redirects) seems to come up fairly often. The telephone game by which we teach editors how Wikipedia works is not good at this kind of subject. So, because a lot of editors don't know, let me say that the point of a redirect is not to be accurate information, but to take readers to accurate information. An incorrect name can make a perfectly fine redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Province of Bessarabia edit

Nonsense redirects. Bessarabia is a region in Eastern Europe. Budjak is a subset of it. Super Ψ Dro 12:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to Bessarabia Governorate. "Province" appears to be an alternative translation (see [17], [18], etc.) - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In both links you gave province is not capitalized, there is no proper names but a descriptive combination of words. There was also Bessarabia Governorate (Romania) by the way. We could disambiguate but I see it as really unnecessary. Also, come on, The Province of Bessarabia is completely implausible, it should be deleted. Super Ψ Dro 23:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it matter if it's not capitalized in the specific sources I found? It will still be a plausible search term. I thought about disambiguation, but I think the hatnote at the proposed target is sufficient. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the key word in the nominating statement is: "is". Bessarabia is a larger region in Eastern Europe. However, it appears that it was a smaller Turkish province/governate/eyalet, from the late 15th century through the early 19th century. Here's the article as it stood before being redirected in 2005:

    The Province of Bessarabia or Besarabya pashalyk in Turkish, was an Ottoman province from 1478 to 1812. Its size varied, however by 1600, it included the towns of Cetatea Alba, Izmail, Tighina, and Kilia.
    The Ottoman Province of Bassarabia was annexed by the Russian Empire in 1812, along with all Moldovan territory east of the Prut river, which the Russians governed jointly in one single Russian province of Bessarabia.
    The Ottoman Province, only, is more or less the same size as the territory of modern-day Bugeac, which is currently part of the Ukrainian Odessa oblast.

    This is uncited but sounds plausible, and it aligns with the bit in Budjak#Name and geography (i.e., the redirect's target) that uses the name historic Bessarabia. There are sources such as this 1927 book (about the Russian annexation of the province) and this 2019 book (about ethnicity, but summarizing the pre-Russian state, in which Bessarabia was vaguely delimited but generally congruent with Budjak), and "province"+"bessarabia"&pg=PA59&printsec=frontcover this book (which confirms Izmail was part of the province of Bessarabia when the Russians took the province from the Ottomans, before they gave it to Moldovia) that verify at least parts of it. At any rate, though I'm unfamiliar with the history of this area, it appears that it's not "nonsense", but merely a detail of history that is not widely known. Consequently, we should probably keep this redirect, and probably improve the target article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:→ edit

Ambiguous with Help:Edit summaries § Section editing. In fact, since "→" is not on most keyboards, copying it from an edit summary should be one of the most likely ways it is being searched. Also, WP:← redirects to H:AES which causes the two redirects to be inconsistent with each other. I suggest we dabify. Nickps (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Though I've recommended disambiguate I'd be happy to see this just redirect to AES as that is probably more likely given people see that in the history. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 abortion performed on a 10-year-old in Ohio edit

Delete as inaccurate and implausible. The abortion was performed in Indiana, not Ohio. -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jax 0677: Why? WP:CHEAP doesn't explain why this redirect should be kept, it explains the general state of redirects. That's why you'll rarely see others cite it at RfD, it doesn't say anything in particular. Instead, it'd be more helpful to explain why you created it and why it may be a useful redirect, despite being inaccurate. -- Tavix (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Some people do not know that the abortion was performed in Indiana. Additionally, the redirect is not blocking any other article from being created. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also see this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_5#10-year-old_Ohio_rape_victim_required_to_cross_state_lines_to_obtain_abortion Okmrman (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Searching this term is entirely plausible, as the title lends itself to potential confusion by mentioning both Ohio and Indiana. TNstingray (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is fine. Someone searching for this term will find out the facts of the case. BD2412 T 02:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a search engine, redirects should not be accommodating inaccurate keywords cobbled together into a never-before-seen title. As the abortion was not performed in Ohio, this cannot be an alternative name for the subject. Typing this into the search bar is far more insightful than maintaining this as a redirect, as readers will see the correct title and realize "Ah, it was the Indiana abortion case; the abortion was not performed in Ohio". This redirect currently causes confusion and presents a faulty equalization that a Ohio-abortion case = Indiana-abortion case, as there's no mention of a "Ohio-abortion misconception" or anything that would imply such a misconception. The redirect in question does not appear written at the target page (as it's untrue), nor does it appear anywhere on Wikipedia (as it's untrue). Utopes (talk / cont) 07:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects don't have to be mentioned in the article; there is no requirement for that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that being mentioned is a requirement. Thousands don't, probably. But not being mentioned, heck, not even ever alluded to, absolutely demolishes any of the little motivation for keeping misleading information in the form of a redirect void-of-context. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible – though apparently not popular – search term, because not everyone is going to remember where the abortion physically happened. It sounds like the concern is that some editors parse the title as meaning that Ohio was the location of the abortion, rather than the (usual) location of the child – i.e., that "2022 abortion performed on a 10-year-old in Ohio" is equal to "2022 abortion performed in Ohio on a 10-year-old" and is factually inaccurate, but "2022 abortion performed on a 10-year-old from Ohio" would be accurate. I see their point, but I think that asking for grammatical perfection in a redirect is not necessary. The point of a redirect is to get people to the article that contains the accurate facts, and this will achieve that goal. Just as I think the incorrect hyphenation is not a good reason to delete a redirect, I think the suboptimal preposition isn't a good reason to delete it. Also, it looks like an RM during the first weeks of the article's existence introduced the "in Ohio" idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Plausible, but not very popular" is a wild misrepresentation of the fundamental facts. This makes the assumption that A: writing a backwards, incorrect, non-existent / Google search prompt is "plausible", and B: a grand total of zero views with the last 12 months is "apparently not popular"... "Apparently"?? Even with the clunky overly-specific and still somehow incorrect title out of the way, was there a world that this title was even going to get a view? No, it's completely unnatural and would be expected to exist by zero people on Wikipedia. If you ask 100 people to describe the case in 30 different ways, I'm nearly positive that this title wouldn't appear ever, much less make the shortlist for likely and useful redirects. This is a search term, not worthy of a redirect. Search terms as redirects are a horrible precedent as is, as there's literally infinite search terms in existence and not worthwhile to entertain as long as Wikipedia has a build-in search box that captures every single variety, and everything I've tried has led to 100% accurate results as long as the text exists.
    And yet, with all of those tests, there are thousands of theoretical implausible search-term-redirects that could (and don't) exist. And all of the thousands would be far better options that 2022 abortion performed on a 10-year-old in Ohio in its current state, as it's literally a lie. On the chance that this is naturally typed into Wikipedia, with someone asking themselves "was this abortion in Indiana or Ohio?", they get a wrong answer. Why click further? The title implies the events already, and the implication is simply untrue. There's like 30+ other redirects currently here that capture every reasonable (and unreasonable) outcome, this untruth variant is simply not necessary. It's harmful and confusing and deletable per WP:RDEL #2. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Wikipedia is not Google, and even if it was, the redirect is still inaccurate. DrowssapSMM 13:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inaccurate and implausible search term. TarnishedPathtalk 09:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a search engine StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - search term with enough relevant facts to identify the target, and catches searches where the reader doesn't know (or care) which particular state the specific events occurred in. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search term. Frank Anchor 20:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because often times you don't see the redirection header when viewing the article; hence, such incorrect redirects may cause confusion. Bwrs (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easing function edit

Without a mention of "easing", making this already not a great target, there's also no mention of a "function" at the target either. While the page admittedly talks about an "ease-in" and an "ease-out", this is not necessarily an "easing function" and several other topics deal with "easing" as well. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easing function is a common term in computer graphics, see [19] [20]. Maybe there's a better redirect target, or a new article is warranted, but this was the best I could find. 11wx (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easing edit

"Easing" not mentioned at target, many possibilities for this term, including at Ease and the many many other articles that also use "ease" as a term or title. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Ease: better target, since they're different forms of the same verb. DrowssapSMM 14:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ease as better target per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Business for the Creative Industries edit

Not likely search term; only usecase was for the creator to link it on their user page as their PhD, and was eventually blocked for WP:PAID editing. I don't foresee this getting any further use, convoluted name and no definite target it seems. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is basically a redirect-from-bizarre-definition and the likelihood of this being used again is vanishingly small. (It's also pointlessly vague - there are many other forms of creative industries besides music.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 13 edit

Environmental Analysis of Computing edit

At this title for a few days. As far as I can tell this phrase is not used, it has exactly one Google hit. Rusalkii (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jake the Jailbird edit

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target article unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Mr. Monopoly#History, which mentions the name-- In the book, all of the characters that appear on the Monopoly board or within the decks of cards received a name. Uncle Pennybags' full name was given as Milburn Pennybags, the character "In Jail" is named "Jake, the Jailbird", and the police officer on Go to Jail is named "Officer Mallory". 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finite dimensional Hilbert spaces edit

The current target may be too technical for the search term. Alternatives could be Hilbert space or Euclidean space (or Euclidean space#Technical definition). Also note that the singular Finite dimensional Hilbert space, or the more correct hyphenations Finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces/Finite-dimensional Hilbert space do not currently exist. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal tart edit

Should delete as to WP:FANCRUFT. BaduFerreira (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Animals (2023 film) edit

Should be retargeted to Animal (disambiguation)#Films, like Animal (film) currently, or be deleted. Per the above DAB there are two 2023 films called "Animal", so targeting one specifically is inappropriate. Additionally, neither (including the Indian film) seems to actually be called "Animals". Toadspike (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Animal (disambiguation)#Films - this seems plausible enough a typo that a redirect to the dab doesn't seem too out there. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as censusing, while plural and singular are often interchangeable "Animals" doesn't appear in either of the 2023 films named "Animal". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Company, Ltd. edit

This redirect is technically correct, since the only Microsoft entity we have an article that is a "Company, Limited" seems to be the Japan subsidiary. However, I think the vast majority of users would be looking for Microsoft, which is also the first and basically only result on Google. Thus, I propose retargeting this redirect to Microsoft. Toadspike (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this redirect also created several others targeted at Microsoft Japan around the same time and was later blocked for being a sockpuppet. I am not sure if WP:G5 applies, since the redirect might be useful. If someone else determines that G5 applies, they may freely CSD the redirect and close this discussion as moot. Toadspike (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Microsoft - G5 does not apply here because the sockmaster was blocked a week after the redirect was created, on 21 Dec 2023. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 16:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verticon edit

No mention of "Verticon" at the target page, nor anywhere on Wikipedia besides in a section of ASCII art as a section header without any meaningful content nor specific description. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Verticons, as far as I know, are basically an alternative name for Kaomojis, but they can be composed of Western characters as well. Since the term occurs in the net (and I even saw it in a book some while ago), deletion is no valid option, as people might enter the term into our search engine. I have therefore added a sentence about them to the target page, so they are now covered explicitly rather than only in general. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doooo you have a source for that? If so, happily keep. If not, we probably shouldn't have it added to the page. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological addiction edit

Needs adequate inclusion. Hildeoc (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Tagged the redirect as a "R from merge" and notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Okmrman (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdur Rahim (politician) edit

The person in question does not have a Wikipedia article, and the article where Abdur Rahim (politician) redirects to, is a general article about the Muslim name 'Abd al-Rahim that has absolutely nothing to do with the person in question.Crampcomes (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The redirect is tagged "R from incomplete disambiguation", and the target article is indeed a disambig page; there are multiple "Abdur Rahims" and "Abdul Rahims" listed on the page that are politicians, such as Abdul Rahim Hatef, Abdul Rahim Malhas, and Abdul Rahim (Afghan politician). While I do think that the disambig page could do with a bit of reorganizing, this redirect is entirely correct. Note, for the record, that Abdul vs Abdur is a transliteration issue; in Arabic they'd all be written the same way. (edit added 13:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lunamann. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Grandstaff edit

Delete due to no suitable target, since Grandstaff is not only known for voicing Daria and is mentioned in several other articles, including those related to Beavis and Butt-Head, The Real World (TV series), and Taina (TV series) (see [21]). — Goszei (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose. While Grandstaff may have been involved with those other series, I would argue that Daria remains what she is primarily known for. DonIago (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D10/WP:REDYES (to encourage article creation). Basically nothing about her at the current target anyway. A7V2 (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking my above, I'm not sure now. This has history as an article, but it was merged (though I don't see that much, if anything, has been added from the old article) after a brief discussion here Talk:Daria#Merge. I still don't think this is a suitable redirect as things stand, and I wonder how appropriate it would be to add information about Grandstaff's other roles at the current target. A7V2 (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the current situation isn't ideal. I'm not aware of any precedent for a scenario like this, nor do I have ideas for the best way to proceed other than leaving the redirect in place. Part of the problem seems to be that there aren't many sources that talk about Grandstaff herself, which makes having her own article (the best-case scenario) challenging, and wedging what we do have into Daria, for instance, is a bit awkward. It's not even clear to me whether we have any information regarding the casting of Grandstaff as Daria; presumably it's based on her involvement in B&B and TRW, but we obviously can't just say that. So, essentially, I'm left with being open to suggestions while feeling that deleting the redirect doesn't really benefit anyone. DonIago (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hail eris edit

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, seriously? This is definitely a good redirect, as are almost all the others, which are going to be a weekend time-sink. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randy Kryn: Is there a reason "Eris" starts with a lowercase letter? It looks like a mistake to me, but for all I know, there could be some Discordian symbolism behind it. Note that Hail Eris does not exist. Nickps (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, thanks Nickps, this is just a lowercase redirect that someone lowercasing the proper name would use. I haven't done a count of how many deletion requests are here, but I do know that the editor has opened an ANI thread on me for my concerns and reverts that a WikiHatchet is being taken to this topic in a two-day time period unlike anything I've seen on Wikipedia, with most of it apparently not knowing the topic. You're right, the uppercasijng didn't have a redirect, fixed. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the uppercased version to the RfD because the nom's concern (no mention) has not been addressed. I won't comment on the nom's intention, that's for WP:ANI, but the argument itself has merit in my opinion. Why have this redirect if the reader finds nothing about its subject when they follow it? Nickps (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. These terms should be on the page itself, as they are well known elements of the topic (were they removed in the deletions?). Even if not mentioned, they are directly related to the topic Discordianism and known among people who know of the topic and have read the books. It is a parody religion, or religion, or philosophy, but has people like me who know of it but don't run around practicing it (although I do carry a pope card in my wallet so am on the sidelines somewhere). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, known among people who know of the topic and have read the books is generally not quite the argument for keeping a redirect with no explanation at the target, since those people aren't really provided any further information by looking up the term either, while other readers may just be confused. (Not saying this necessarily applies here, but it does not seem like the correct argument.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but it goes to knowing that the wording of the redirect is a real thing and that some readers may be looking for it. It's original research/knowledge but attesting to the redirects usefulness ought to be counted, no? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Eris (mythology); Discordianism is not the only religion that worship(ed) Eris, and given the redirect title, it's probably far more helpful to redirect to Her page specifically. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no sense at all. "Hail Eris" only refers to Discordianism. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I'm not terribly opposed to Keep as per "yeah no this IS specifically Discordian". I'm mainly opposed to outright deletion. I will note, however, that Eris (mythology) does have a section on Discordianism-- should we target to Eris (mythology)#In Discordianism? (edited on 13:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC))𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We should target the redirects to a section or WP article which covers the "Hail Eris" sentence, and if such a sentence is not covered anywehre on WP then the redirects should be deleted. And it turns out that the sentence is discussed nowhere on any WP article. Veverve (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most likely that Discordianism is the topic searched for with this term. Eris (mythology) is linked in the first sentence of the article. Retarget to Eris (mythology) would not be an improvement but would be preferable to deletion. Peter James (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to Eris (mythology) or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avanturine glance edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn by nominator

Punctured plane edit

This used to be an avoided double redirect to Punctured neighbourhood, which used to redirect to this glossary (though has since been retargeted). However, this is not really conceptually related to punctured neighbourhoods. One place where this is described is Scheme (mathematics)#Examples, though there might be similar content portraying this topic from some other mathematical field's POV. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • REDIRECT I would have expected this to be a redirect to Puncture (topology), or perhaps to Complex plane (in the context of meromorphic functions), both of which I would prefer to the current situation. Redirecting to the top of a glossary page doesn't help the reader much, I think. Tea2min (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One might also consider redirecting this to the disambiguation page for Punctured, which may be expanded with additional uses in mathematics. Redirecting to the complex plane seems like a good idea for something like punctured complex plane, but the current title can refer to planes over other fields as well. Note that there are also the Punctured set and Punctured surface redirects. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of context, "Punctured set" does not seem to mean anything useful. And it does not even appear in the Glossary of topology. I would delete that redirect. PatrickR2 (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go. A lot many targets to consider.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget While there is not really any information specifically on punctured planes at Puncture (topology), it does mention the Moebius strip as an example of a punctured projective plane. Among the presented options, this seems to me the most obviously useful target. Felix QW (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Differential algebraic variety edit

Not mentioned at target, and there does not seem to be a proper description of this anywhere. Maybe redirect to Differential algebra or Differential algebraic geometry (which claims that this is different from a diffiety)? Note that differential variety does not exist. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, such a discussion should be better placed at WT:WPM, since the interested editors are necessarily participants to the wiki project mathematics. D.Lazard (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to diffiety. "Diffiety" is a portemanteau for "differential variety", and this is the only mentioned article that contains a definition of something that may be called a differential algebraic variety. D.Lazard (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of the three proposed targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 10:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me, differential algebraic variety refers to the subject of papers such as this one from the intersection of differential algebra and model theory and to the work of Ellis Kolchin. We mention this body of work in Differential algebra#open problems, but don't give an actual treatment of the term. I would therefore be reluctant to retarget to diffiety, but that may well be biased because of my own background in model theory. Felix QW (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filtered ring edit

Not actually mentioned at target (which only describes the case of algebras over a field), and IMO Filtration_(mathematics)#Rings_and_modules:_descending_filtrations is a better target. The compatibility with multiplication is often not required. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the talk page of proposed target - Filtration (mathematics).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Accendo edit

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this used to be a full article and was merged to Discordianism for some reason. As a merge this redirect is both allowed and useful. Maybe the nominator can withdraw this and several others? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not connected to target article. This is not Discordianism, but something different. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its former full article said it was a spin-off of Discordianism. Seems the two routes here are return the article, which is reasonable, or redirect it to Discordianism, which is even more reasonable. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD. Not discussed anywhere on Wikipedia, is not a useful redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note that this used to be a full article and was merged to the target and, for some reason or a'nutter, was removed. As a former merged article there should at least be a redirect to the original target page (or, as an alternate, bring back the original page). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and ship to RFD as per Utopes. While this isn't a useful redirect, the article could become useful. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POEE edit

No mention at target, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Restore POEE, Delete POEE.org & Poee.org (which, from wayback snapshots, does not appear to be operated by the original POEE) DefaultFree (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP article should not be restored, as per WP:BURDEN. Veverve (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it turns out there are no non-primary sources to restore POEE in the article, that doesn't call for deletion of the redirect. WP:RFD#D10 supports deletion If (1) the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and (2) the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. (2) is currently true, but (1) is not, as there isn't scope for a full standalone Paratheo-Anametamystikhood of Eris Esoteric article. There isn't a general prohibition on redirects not mentioned in the target, only specific prohibitions in specific situations that don't apply here (WP:RFD#D8, WP:RFD#D10). Also see WP:RFD#K5 and the POEE pageview stats - it has several daily pageviews, even before being RfD'd. DefaultFree (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore. This is associated with the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no mention at target. #8 above "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. " and #10 from above "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." This cannot be expanded into an article based on current information. And the article should not be restored unless independent sourcing can be found and based on BURDEN. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page history the term used to have its own page and was merged. Merges usually get redirects, yes? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some articles get merged, then the merged content is deleted, then the redirect is deleted. This happens often. Veverve (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • POEE was the original organizatioanal denomination of Discordianism, and is mentioned at the article on the book. What seems determinative to this nomination is that this used to have its own article, which was merged in 2005 (the redirect/merge is the subject of this discussion), which goes to show its connection to the redirect target is substantial enough to allow this redirect to stay. The original article contained: "Paratheo-Anametamystikhood Of Eris Esoteric or POEE is a manifestation of the Discordian society. According to the Principia Discordia it is a tribe of philosophers, theologians, magicians, scientists, artists, clowns, and similar maniacs who are intrigued by Eris goddess of confusion and her doings. Furthermore it states that 'POEE subscribes to the Law Of Fives of Omar's sect' and 'POEE also recognizes the Holy 23..'. Paratheo-Anametamystikhood can be taken to mean "equivalent deity, reversing beyond-mystique". Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, section has been partially restored with a third-party source and others are available. Skyerise (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deputy chief ministers of Puducherry edit

no such role exists or has existed -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George W's palace edit

Not mentioned at target. Possibly non-neutral name. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled George W’s palace.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajnibala edit

The redirect is for non-notable character not listed in the target article. The Google search returns many more relevant results that can be notable. Delete to avoid confusion. Alternatively, within Wikipedia, a plausible possible redirect is Saglikade Bombabomb where Rajnibala is a character. Викидим (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black French (disambiguation) edit

Until yesterday, Black French was a disambiguation page with two entries: Black French people and Immigration to France. Then another user removed the second entry, which I agree with. Therefore I redirected Black French to Black French people. I don't believe a disambiguation page is needed, as "Immigration to France" doesn't seem like a page someone would be looking for if they search for "Black French". Kk.urban (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amc interview with the vampire edit

Redirects are not the same thing as search engines, this version seems unlikely to be directly linked. Mason (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a theoretically plausible search term, but I do concede that it doesn't seem to get much (any?) use. I mostly object to the implication behind nominator's assertion that "redirects are not the same thing as search engines", which implies that the vast majority of useful redirects need to be deleted. Not so. Redirects merely need to be useful to be kept, per WP:CHEAP. If WP:PANDORA has a use, and usually I say it doesn't, I'd say that this is a good case for it-- nominating redirects simply because they are things that people might type into a search box is not how we do things here, nor how we should do things here. Redirects based on things that honestly and plausibly might be typed into a search box is practically the definition of a good redirect. Fieari (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because <channel name> <show name> is not an unusual or unreasonable title. This is the equivalent of specifying "Disney's Cinderella", when you want to make sure people know that you're talking about the famous film and not the generic fairy tale. In this case, it means "the version of the Interview with a Vampire franchise that was published by AMC (and not the book or the other ones)", and there's nothing wrong with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This topic would not be specified this way on Wikipedia. We are not a search engine that accepts dubious variations on any topic as redirects. The carelessness through lack of any formatting, plus the creator being partially blocked as a result of their redirect creations, leads me to believe that this redirect is wholly unnecessary. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per #8 because "Amc interview with the vampire" verbatim is not found in the article. TarnishedPathtalk 13:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garv Sangwan edit

Not mentioned at target. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was originally an article with two inline citations. jlwoodwa, "not mentioned" isn't a criteria except when the redirect is "novel or very obscure synonym" per WP:RFD#DELETE. Since there's more than just the redirect in the page history, I wonder whether we should be considering whether the subject is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (sports), rather than just whether we want it to be redirected to this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afflux edit

No mention at target, and it is only a word of which only a definition can be given (WP:NOTDICT), so I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Discordian calendar. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Literally don't know how flowing air or water relates to even Discordian calendar or Discordianism Okmrman (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok apparently, Afflux is a holyday. Still gonna keep my vote unless there is some other reasoning since most people probably know afflux from the actual word. Okmrman (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, have done so and changed by !vote here. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominika Hašková (Q105156345) edit

Per longstanding consensus redirects with Wikidata codes aren't useful. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Makes sense. But for context, I wish you had added a link to prior discussion on this consensus or referred to a guideline. Grk1011 (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I also concur that a link to the relevant consensus/policy would have been helpful when listing this nom. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 12 edit

Penny station edit

Unlikely a flag stop is the primary topic for this generic term. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not only is this the primary topic according to my research, it's the the only notable topic with this exact name - the only other thing that might be notable (but I'm not convinced it actually is) is called Copper Penny Station and there is no content about that on en.wp anyway. Additionally, this redirect is the result of a BLAR so it should be taken to AfD if you want it deleted, but as previous AfDs for Canadian flag stops resulted in a consensus to redirect we'd likely be back here anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ponton station edit

Unlikely a flag stop is the primary topic for this generic term. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I don't believe "Ponton Station" is a generic term; I could only find two instances: this flag stop's redirect and "Great Ponton Station" in the UK. I spent hours on the articles associated with this route; see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Silcox station. Others agreed with redirects for all these flag stops. I think there will be an occasional search for this term. Redirects are cheap. --A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is the only line with a station with that exact name. Train stations on this line used to have their own articles but they were either WP:BLARed or redirected per AfD, so general consensus is to keep these train stations as redirects. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per both above. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun edit

...this is a ridiculous title. Nothing about "speaking fast" means that we should remove the spaces between every word within this slogan, even if people try to say this all in one breath. Would not make sense to have space-less titles for all fast phrases. As it's not expected for any other title, it would not be expected here, and is an unlikely search term. Views have plummeted since last time and now only seem to be due to the novelty of a 71-character redirect written like so. Was previously deleted at RfD. (Note: It was cited in the past RfD that this is the "first title that comes up when typing 'Twoal'"; this is explainable as it's the only page on Wikipedia that starts with "Twoal", and therefore is the only titlematch after those five characters) Utopes (talk / cont) 18:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Other note: The page has been indef fully protected, and an edit request has been put out for the nom template.) Utopes (talk / cont) 18:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm split. On the one hand, this is an actual 1975-era slogan, and the image in the article shows it being typed out this way in official media, including the complete lack of spaces between words. On the other, I don't see anyone typing it out like this in the search bar, as multiple people have pointed out.
I'd also like to point out that we do already have a LOT of variations of the redirect Two all beef patties special sauce lettuce cheese pickles onions on a sesame seed bun, all with subtle changes to how it's typed out (are there commas? Is there a hyphen between "all" and "beef"? Is there a period at the end? Is there an en dash, or em dash, right before "on a sesame seed bun"? Et cetera), as well as the redirect Two all beef patties, all of which point to the same target.
In any case, what I do know is that if kept, the target is definitely correct, do not retarget. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the use in official marketing. Sure, not every slogan said fast should have a redirect like this, but when marketing particularly emphasizes it, it's a reasonable redirect to have. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Leave this redirect in place. Christopher Rath (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above and the lack of any evidence that anything has changed since the last discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't see any reason to delete this; not harmful, was even used in marketing. Skynxnex (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chequia edit

Czech republic in Asturian (?). WP:RFD#DELETE #8. Викидим (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chipre edit

Cyprus in Spanish. Little affinity between the language and the topic. WP:R#DELETE #8. Викидим (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladés edit

Spanish for Bangladesh. Since Spain was not involved there, makes little sense. Delete. Викидим (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Scrabble Championship 2023 edit

No information in the article that was last up-to-date in 2019 (the championship was held). Delete to avoid confusion until the data appears in the article. There are no other redirects of this type. Викидим (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

جمادى الآخر أو جمادى الثان edit

Unlikely search term. MSMST1543 (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, looks to be a pretty standard WP:RLANG, with these two variations listed immediately in the lead. Not an unlikely search term, were there other reasons for this nomination? Utopes (talk / cont) 17:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this redirect different from a redirect from level or stage to level (video gaming)? MSMST1543 (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not at all similar to that redirect (but WP:OTHERSTUFF would apply even if it were) - this redirect is unambiguous, mentioned at the target and is the name for the subject in a relevant local language. The other redirect had WP:XY issues and could refer to multiple different types of level and/or multiple different types of stage. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not the name of the subject in Arabic. It’s two names separated by “or” with the last word misspelled. MSMST1543 (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Utopes. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tracfone promo code edit

No information about promo codes is present at the target. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There was a terribly spammy article at this title once, on 26 February 2006, but it was redirected after less than a day, and it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell if restored. Also, Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for distributing promo codes of any sort. Duckmather (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a 2006-era BLAR of what would today probably end up deleted for being basically an advertisement. History is not significant enough for us to keep. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deactivate per nom. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: At minimum spam-adjenct awhile not being referred to as a phrase. Skynxnex (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Out Boy's fourth full-length album edit

why does this exist? for one, infinity on high is the fob's third full-length album and I looked at the page views for this redirect and nobody is using it Cherrell410(t · c) 14:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a search engine, leave this title to a Google search. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the lack of pageviews and inaccuracy making this an unlikely search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perplexity AI edit

  Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: wrong venue

Frankie Goes To Hollwood edit

Implausible typo. No pages link to it, therefore it can be deleted. 8086-PC (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unlikely. Hollywood is easy enough to spell, and would be completely unnecessary to have "Hollwood", "Bollwood", and similar for all other pages that include Hollywood in the title. Notably, Hollwood doesn't exist, and this is the only page that contains "Hollwood" in any capacity in the title (besides Hollwood Victory Caravan). Utopes (talk / cont) 17:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hekt edit

Not mentioned at the target. External searches don't pull up anything related to this scale, although it appears to be an alternative name for Heqet, says Google. However, it does not appear at Heqet (our page on Wikipedia uses "Heket", but Google's definitely uses "Hekt"). In any case, "Hekt" is short enough to have a surplus of other mentions on Wikipedia as a word, appearing across the board in terms of viability as a redirect. Also sometimes short for "Hektor" and several others. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:LITTLEORPHAN edit

While seemingly in reference to the pronunciation of "ANI" as being for "(Little orphan) Annie", I fully thought a shortcut with this name would have been in reference to little orphaned pages on Wikipedia. Anyone familiar enough with the WP culture of "ANI sounds like Annie therefore Little Orphan is a functional redirect", and can solve those literary gymnastics on the dime, would also be familiar enough to use one of the several other more-convenient avenues of reaching this noticeboard. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Format specifiers edit

Reopening as a separate nomination this time. Again, this shoud be dabified since the name also refers to scanf format strings. Nickps (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambig or move?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 04:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]