Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 22

January 22

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 22, 2023.

2022 Indiana abortion

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Abortion in Indiana#2020s developments. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The target article is about a 9-year-old who was raped in Ohio and had to travel to the neighboring state of Indiana to obtain an abortion due to Ohio's laws. Although it was a "2022 Indiana abortion," it wasn't the only abortion that happened in Indiana in 2022, and "2022 Indiana abortion" is not a term used to describe this event. Note also the existence of Indiana abortion, which is a redirect to Abortion in Indiana. I am also concerned about the impact this will have on search engine results for abortion in Indiana. This does not seem to be an appropriate redirect in light of WP:RFD#DELETE #1, 2, 3, and 8. Levivich (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. Someone might type this term in order to find out about this monumental case. It is not likely to cause confusion, not offensive nor abusive, novel nor obscure. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Among other things, there's an Indiana abortion ban that took effect in 2022 and was suspended in 2022, and is the subject of a 2023 Indiana abortion case, all of which is discussed at Indiana abortion. If anything, "2022 Indiana abortion" should point to Abortion in Indiana, although we just don't need the year specified. But I don't think I've seen any RS that calls this event "the 2022 Indiana abortion", so I don't think anyone would search for it by that title. Levivich (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does seems like an unlikely search for an article about a 9/10-yo girl who had to travel from Ohio to Indiana to have an abortion. Valereee (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer - the current target is subject to a move discussion (see Talk:2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio#Requested move 27 December 2022) so if this is kept it may need to be changed to avoid a double redirect if that discussion closes first. A7V2 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a likely search term for this, and also someone searching this might be looking for the 2022 legal rulings etc in Indiana. A7V2 (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Abortion in Indiana#2020s developments, which is a header I have just created to split the lengthy section on the history of abortion there. Add content on the Ohio/Indiana case to that section. BD2412 T 05:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget: per BD2412. Redirs are cheap, but only when they make sense. UtherSRG (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BD2412. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget works for me too (as nom) and thanks to BD for creating a suitable target. Levivich (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Unpartitioned India

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to British Raj. (non-admin closure) A7V2 (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the results I can see on Google Scholar and Books use this phrase in the context of British India prior to partition. Redirecting to Presidencies and provinces of British India seems most appropriate, but a section of History of India may be an alternative as well. Either seems more appropriate than the current target. signed, Rosguill talk 05:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to whichever article best covers India as a whole prior to the partition, a quick look suggests that British Raj might be the best but I'm happy to consider other suggestions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, although I am not suggesting a specific page to retarget to because there are multiple candidates. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to British Raj. "Unpartitioned India" translates into Hindi as "Akhand Bharat", but the English term is mostly used in reference to the Partition of India, whereas the latter term has come to be associated with specific groups who use to mean something similar to Greater India. British Raj is the most appropriate target. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Multiple potential targets have been proposed…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • No objection as nominator to the British Raj suggestion if it helps us come to a consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 17:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Transwiki

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 16#Transwiki

Math rap

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 30#Math rap

Eray Erdoğan

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect surname, corrected by a page move. The sources back the current title, and there doesn't seem to be any basis for the error as a common nickname or misnomer. signed, Rosguill talk 04:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the above. Gingermead (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I've got no idea where this would have come from as even looking at the sources used when this was created, they seem to use Erdoğan or Erdogan. However, it was at the incorrect title for a year so unless there's an issue (ie someone potentially notable with this name) then I think it should be kept per WP:RFD#K4. Also note there are sources which use this name, though this might be due to wikipedia having used it for a year (eg [1]). A7V2 (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per A7V2. This is an incorrect name, but one that seems to be used for some people which is why {{R from incorrect name}} exists. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Might be an incorrect name, but was from a move and seems to be used in some sources. Clyde!Franklin! 21:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Let me go to the house of the Father.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Pope John Paul II#Final illness and death. signed, Rosguill talk 17:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are apparently John Paul II's last words (see also ABC News report). It is also the title of a book about John Paul II.

The expression is never mentioned in the article, and there is a "." at the end; therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably include his last words somewhere on Wikipedia if they are widely reported. Deletion seems premature. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, the phrase is mentioned in List of last words (21st century)#2001–2009 but this isn't really going to help someone searching for information about this, especially as the target is in the middle of a large section. There is no mention of this at Wikiquote so there is no possibility of a soft redirect there. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget to Pope John Paul II#Final illness and death per Veverve below, given the words were spoken in Polish multiple slightly different English phrasings are highly plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Thryduulf: this does not fix the problem with the "." at the end of the redirect. Veverve (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For a search term that is a sentence I regard that as plausible. I wouldn't recommend or encourage the creation of redirects like this, but once they are created I see no problem with keeping them. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : there is a "John Paul II spoke his final words in Polish, "Pozwólcie mi odejść do domu Ojca" ("Allow me to depart to the house of the Father")" at Pope John Paul II#Final illness and death. Veverve (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

KN (car)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. -- Tavix (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KN (car) → Kia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • KN Car → Kia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Kia is not KN Qwv (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I accepted it is because of this provided source: [2]. I don't see any reason for these to be deleted or retargeted. If one was going to be considered though, it should be this one: KИ, which also redirects to Kia and doesn't seem like a popular search term. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 00:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've bundled both nominations which shared the same rationale and target article. CycloneYoris talk! 02:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget KN (car) to K&N Engineering; Ambivalent on KN Car: K&N Engineering makes a fair amount of car related products as well the company is involved a bit in American motorsports previously having sponsored the now ARCA Series East and ARCA Series West. I would personally expect KN (car) to go to K&N as that's more intuitive to me than a misspelling of Kia as a lack of ampersand. TartarTorte 14:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 03:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both. According to the dab page at KN, KN seems like a search term for Kia based on the appearance of one of their logos. Looking at it myself, the I and A form a backwards N. Google hits seems to support this being a common search term for Kia. I think the proposed retarget to K&N may be a bit of a stretch, though a google search for just KN seems to default to K&N. I'll add K&N to the KN dab page. As for KN Car, I am wondering if KN car would be more appropriate, but I guess it's fine (not sure it's worth suppress-moving the redirect). Mdewman6 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Many people interpret the new logo as KN. That issue has been discussed in many independent reliable sources. Here are US News and The Verge articles. The Kia Wikipedia article explicitly discusses the confusion, citing the article at The Verge. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The new Kia logo is frequently interpreted as "KN" so these redirects are legitimate search targets, and the confusion is mentioned in the Kia article. --Sable232 (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Stay focused

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Revert the move. The template may be listed at WP:TFD by someone who is actually seeking deletion. Jay 💬 08:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User subpage created in Template space by mistake, or never documented and adopted as a general-use template. I have moved it to the creator's user space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert move without leaving a redirect, and send to WP:TFD. The page was in the "Template:" namespace since 2006 ... about 17 years ... prior to the move. (Either way, in the template's current form, it seems somewhat similar in function to {{Talk header}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with Steel1943. This reads like it was intended to be a general-use talk page template, not a user subpage, so the move to userspace doesn't seem appropriate. Of course, the "never documented and adopted" part is a valid rationale at TfD for the deletion of a template and I would not be opposed to seeing that entertained there. (Note to closer: I think the filing for TfD should be left for someone who is actually seeking deletion of the template.) -- Tavix (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template of LOR

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 06:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No template of a letter of recommendation is provided in the page or was provided when the redirect was created, and such a template would be inappropriate on Wikipedia per WP:NOTHOWTO. No history to the redirect other than fixing double redirects. Delete. Randi Moth (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of document outlines, and if it were Letter of reprimand would be an equally plausible thing to have at this title. Additionally there is no template:LOR, the closest appears to be template:LOR colour which is not a reader-facing (or even article editor-facing) template and definitely does not need a redirect from the mainspace. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Dog cemetery

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Pet cemetery. There's no consensus regarding whether to add a hatnote; the case for a hatnote would likely be stronger if we had a dedicated article for Kolašin massacre (likely notable), the event that this moniker referred to. signed, Rosguill talk 17:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Total nonsense. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate or retarget with hatnote  – "Dog cemetery" within that page refers to a massacre in Montenegro, where it's the name of the pits into which the bodies were thrown. This redirect does make sense, but this is very obviously not the primary topic for the term. A disambiguation page could primarily link to pet cemetery with this as one of the entries.
However, I'm not sure whether a DAB page would even be appropriate: specific dog cemeteries may not fit in the DAB page under WP:PARTIAL, and WP:ONEOTHER states that if there's a primary topic and one other, then a DAB page is unneeded. If there's nothing beyond the massacre and the pet cemetery that would fit within the DAB, retarget to pet cemetery with a hatnote, otherwise disambiguate. Randi Moth (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pet cemetery, the primary topic of this term. -Vipz (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can have the war crimes article moved to dog's... with a hatnote. Savasampion (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sentence in the article is actually unreferenced... https://www.google.com/search?q=%22pasje+groblje%22+1942&tbm=bks seems to confirm that the term exists, but it's hardly common in sources, certainly not as mainstream as a generic meaning, and it's just one possible literal translation, so it makes little sense to direct English readers there by default. --Joy (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pet cemetery as the clear primary topic, I'm neutral about a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Kiss My Ass Tour

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was restore article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiss My Ass Tour. (non-admin closure) Clyde!Franklin! 22:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been redirected because it failed to meet WP:NTOUR. I have previously tried to revive it with a few sources, but there is not many in regards to this concert tour. There is one book that covers on it, but I do not think it is enough to make the article notable on its own, even after looking through for multiple sources on this tour. I believe that it may meet for deletion if needed. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this should be restored and send to AFD. It seems as though the nom disagrees with the BLARs made by Onel5969, and the place to discuss that is AFD. As to the redirect itself I don't think it's appropriate due to only a bare mention of this tour. A7V2 (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. I think that a restoration to the last version and then opening an AFD would be most suitable regarding this. HorrorLover555 (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. If there is a dispute about whether a page should be an article or redirect the correct course of action is to restore the article and discuss the matter at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to WP:AFD. Whatever it passes or fails WP:NTOUR, despite HorrorLover555 have presented new sources which have strong desire to be enough for a standalone tour article. Tagging Aspects, the original BLARrer to set the record straight about the Kiss tour article. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:E4A7:C9F3:C852:8EA0 (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. I originally redirected the article for using primary sources and having been tagged for twelve years with no improvement. More non-primary sources were found and added where I would not object to it being its own article again. Aspects (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Scandal sheet

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 29#Scandal sheet

User-generated tour

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. No content from the BLAR appears to have been merged. signed, Rosguill talk 17:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • User-generated tour → Eventful  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • User generated tour → Eventful  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • User Generated Tour → Eventful  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
  • Fan Generated Tour → Eventful  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirects originate from User-generated tour, an article that appears to have been an advertisement for a service that generates entertainment tours with input from potential viewers that got BLAR'd to the company that provides the service mentioned in the text. While this service is mentioned on the target article, the redirect titles seem to be generic terms rather than referring to the service specifically, and they're not mentioned in the article. Delete unless the term is shown to be specific to Eventful and a mention is added. Randi Moth (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Robustness Principle (Temporary Name)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. (and I think this would have been a straightforward WP:G6). -- Tavix (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient, unused, implausible redirect. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—Alalch E. 23:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

David K. E. Bruce (Template)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More redirects similar to #Vladislav Surkov (Template). All created by the same user 5 or more years ago and probably intended as {{R from statistical redirect}}s; these have no links anymore and get zero or close to zero pageviews a month. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Kepler-277

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 31#Kepler-277

Comox people (temp)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete (and I think this would have been a straightforward WP:G6). -- Tavix (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comox people (temp) → K'ómoks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unused and implausible redirect. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need; just part of a round-robin to get the article back to COMMONNAME. It's now at "K'ómoks", which besides being typeset incorrectly, says in the first line "usually known in English as the Comox", so we may need to go through this again, — kwami (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Vladislav Surkov (Template)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguator doesn't seem to relate to the target article in any way. Delete as an implausible search term. Randi Moth (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No history either. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This misuse of the title would have been safe to delete boldly or list for speedy deletion.  —Michael Z. 04:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:R from Hiragana

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was soft delete as unopposed. -- Tavix (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think these should be deleted for the same reason we don't have redirects like {{R from German}}. While the target template accepts parameters for the redirect and target languages, this one suggests that it is not necessary to use it with the redirect. If deemed necessary, this could alternatively be expanded to a template; there also appears to be a single wrapper of this sort in Category:Templates for redirects involving diacritics or language change, {{R to English}}, but creating more might imply completeness, achieving which would require quite a bit of additional work. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Rcat functional index

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible WP:XNR. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

R from alt lang

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible WP:XNR. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Comida

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 30#Comida

Juho

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. RFD not needed, can be actualized at WP:RM/TR. UtherSRG (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After moving former article Juho to correct title Juhö, redirect should be deleted to move Juho (name), which correctly belongs there. --KnightMove (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC) KnightMove (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close – This does not fall under RfD, instead WP:Requested moves/Technical requests is used to request non-controversial page moves where a redirect having non-trivial history prevents it from being done by yourself. Randi Moth (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not sure - maybe someone says that the brand is called Juho in English literature, objects and would prefer a disambiguation page at Juho?! That's why I have listed it here. --KnightMove (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would fall under a regular requested move in this case. Randi Moth (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

List of Christian heresies

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 29#List of Christian heresies

Nabbit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to New Super Mario Bros. U#Gameplay. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Please delete this redirect, I notice no section in the target article that mention's Nabbit's name. 45.72.195.21 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like Nabbit was removed by Landfish7's in this edit back in September. In the edit summary, this talk page discussion is referenced. However, there was another discussion started a few months later that created a criteria for the article. "To be included in this list, a character must either have their own, stand-alone article or have appeared in four Mario games, of any sub-series. The second one is the one that matters in this case. Briefly looking at an unreliable source suggests that the second criteria would be easily fulfilled as long as useable references can be found. (Some brief searches suggest that this is possible.) Before I start digging up sources, I think it might be best if the criteria used could be discussed by the users that participated in both linked discussion as it would be silly to re-add Nabbit to the article, only for consensus there to re-remove Nabbit, and force us to re-discuss the redirect in the near future. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC) (Amended: Would also support Czar's suggestion to have this point instead to a section in New Super Mario Bros. U. There is also an alternative target at New Super Luigi U where Nabbit is discussed more. Amended by Super Goku V (talk) on 07:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC).)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I added him back to the list, as he satisfies the new inclusion criteria DecafPotato (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to be removed again as a minor character. Just restore the original redirect where it's detailed and not going to be contested and call it a day. czar 16:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Kx5

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. I realized that I really wish for an article split, which can be handled sometime else. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has a WP:XY problem, as Kx5 is literally Kaskade and Deadmau5; it cannot be fairly pointed at a single target. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the Deadmau5 article has a dedicated section and the Kaskade does not. A7V2 (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A7V2. This redirect targets a section created specifically about the project (founded by both Kaskade and Deadmau5), so it targets exactly where it should. I honestly see no XY problem here. CycloneYoris talk! 01:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

WIMBL

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a typo for WMBL (FM) (which also redirects to Moody Radio and is mentioned in a table in the article), but improbable enough that it gets virtually no page views. (No US radio station has a five-letter call sign, excluding stations with a three letter base call sign with an "-FM" suffix.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Implausible and useless. CycloneYoris talk! 03:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

2022 Haitian constitutional referendum

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it was repeatedly postponed. The referendum wasn't held in either 2021 or 2022. Santiago Claudio (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. However, if there is enough press coverage using this name then it could be kept. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per WP:CHEAP. The topic of the article was scheduled to occur in 2022 initially so I'm not sure what the fuss is about having redirect to the 2023 article. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the referendum was originally to be held in 2022 so this is a plausible search term. Further, as the result of a pagemove WP:RFD#K4 applies. A7V2 (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Knight and A7V2. Just because it was postponed doesn't mean this redirect isn't plausible. Regards, SONIC678 14:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the postponement is explained in the article. --Lenticel (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Eng wikipedia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect, I see no reason for this to exist ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the term Eng is commonly used as a shorthand for English. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the incorrect capitalization of "Wikipedia"? ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We also have similar redirects for other language Wikpedias: Fr wikipedia and It wikipedia for example. Meters (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thanks I wasn't aware of that- those redirects are an interesting case on their own, as I don't personally think those have a reason to exist (they aren't linked to, and as previous reasoning, incorrect capitalization of "Wikipedia"). ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_22&oldid=1140076315"