Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 29

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 💬 20:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Killed yourself → Suicide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No value as a search term or link, therefore not redirect-worthy. An anonymous username, not my real name 18:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I didn't find any useful targets for this term. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete killing yourself can be entirely accidental, not that this term makes sense, as the person would be dead instead of searching Wikipedia -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 04:44, 30 March 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).

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 💬 20:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Outline of Palestine (disambiguation) → Palestine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Formerly led to Outline of Palestine (moved to Outline of Modern Palestine with its history), which was a disambiguation between what is now Outline of Israel and Outline of the State of Palestine, the latter being the current target of Outline of Palestine.
No such DAB page seems to exist anymore, and the current target isn't useful, so this is likely an uncontroversial deletion. Currently leads to Palestine, a disambiguation page, so not eligible for WP:G14, and it doesn't seem to fall under other speedy deletion criteria either. Randi Moth ^Talk_Contribs 18:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The target does not disambiguate "Outline of Palestine". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:23, 1 April 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).

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 – bad faith nomination by block-evading sock. Favonian (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2010 Keswick coach accident → Keswick School  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not notable Chikn Nuggit (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – This request was made by a new account 12 minutes after it became active, four days after creation. Please compare the recent edit history of the redirect, which caused me to protect it. Favonian (talk) 18:18, 29 March 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).

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 💬 06:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• U-Stor-It → Snow Crash  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target, not sure of what the connection is. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or expand into its own article about the storage company. Note that the redirect was created with the message the term U-Stor-It featured prominently in the novel Snow Crash, alternatively, there's an actual company as well ustorit.com if someone wants to create an article for that which is insufficient as, for example, tables are featured prominently in novels.Aaron Liu (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaron Liu (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only mention is at Metaverse which is not a good target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:27, 1 April 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).

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

The result of the discussion was keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Big'uns → Al Bundy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This has a minor mention as the (parody) magazine at the target which is of a fictional character. An external search associates the magazine more with multiple characters of the sitcom Married... with Children, than with a single character. The sitcom article also has a mention, but as the BigUns magazine. The magazine name in the sitcom is shown as BIG 'UNS [1]

At a recently closed RfD - WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 19#Bigun, while I had initially suggested a disambiguation with the Dayna Danger work Big 'Uns, I thought the Al Bundy reference is too minor to be kept as a redirect. I would prefer deletion, but am open to other suggestions as well. Jay 💬 07:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is ambiguous with Big 'Uns which leads to substantive information at Dayna Danger. I suggest a hatnote to disambiguate. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shhhnotsoloud: Why would the current target, which is one character of the sitcom, be better than Married... with Children? Jay 💬 06:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There's not much in it. A hatnote is sufficient disambiguation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. If the redirect cannot be kept, it should be retargeted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jax 0677: Retargeted to where? Jay 💬 06:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep. Culturally well-enough associated with the character that someone might conceivably look it up. BD2412 T 03:02, 30 March 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).

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• First President of the United States → George Washington  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Propose retarget to Presidency of George Washington.

Reason: while readers might be interested in George Washington, I think the title is more related to his presidency. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – On the contrary, people looking/searching for "First President of the United States" would probaby expect to be directed to the biographical article on the person. Drdpw (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and found that the other "#" president of the United States pages redirect to the respective president's biographical article. I also found that pages, such as Washington administration, redirect to the person's presidency article. Drdpw (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Drpdw. "President" here refers to a person, which in this case, we obviously have an article on. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Drpdw. Rjensen (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: If I were to use that search term I'd be looking for the person, not Presidency of George Washington. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the others Starship 24 (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is per above, though I do see the case for a retarget. J947 † ^edits 21:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First President is most likely looking for the individual, not his tenure. Estar8806 (talk) 23:53, 29 March 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).

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 speedily deleted as G3 (presumably). (non-admin closure) Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 22:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• PRussian invasion of Ukraine → Russian invasion of Ukraine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This redirect is misleading, as Prussian is a redirect to Prussia which itself was involved in historic conflicts with political entities in the Ukraine. Mvqr (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst this might be a typo, yes it seems odd. I agree this needs deleting. Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Implausible typo, completely changes the meaning. Unless there's a relevant diambig it could direct to instead that involves conflicts between Prussia and Ukrainian entities. — Czello 13:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it implausible? @Czello Starship 24 (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"P" and "R" are not near each other on a standard keyboard. — Czello 16:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The meaning is different when referring to Prussian vs Russia. The capitalization would of "PR" would also make it unnecessary. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I suggested R3 on the article's talk page to save editor time, but since we're here now, let's just handle it here. There is the obvious issue that Prussia is a historical entity and thus should not be confused with Russia. There is further the implausibility of Prussia arising as a simple typo in place of Russia as the r key and the p key are on opposite ends of the qwerty keyboard layout. I suppose now's my chance to say that we don't need to create a whole qwertyuiop's worth of redirects to address every possible typo. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See my other comments @Mr rnddude Starship 24 (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. There is no article called "Prussian invasion of Ukraine". It is a plausible typo of someone accidently hitting the p key. With an article with a total 50 million views (including redirects), probably hundreds have made this typo. Also, WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. I doubt anyone who types PRussian invasion of Ukraine by accident means to go anywhere but the Russian Invasion of Ukraine page. @Hey man im josh @Mvqr @Czello @Slatersteven Starship 24 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really that plausible given the positions of the keys on the keyboard? Should we have "ERussian invasion of Ukraine" as well if we're basing it strictly on keys accidently being hit? Even if it were, I'd still vote delete based on the capitalization. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalization is more likely than not @Hey man im josh I do agree that ERussian Invasion of UKraine should be a redirect @Hey man im josh Starship 24 (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Why is the typo plausible (when the P and R keys are not near each other on the keyboard)? Why not have a LRussian Invasion of Ukraine, or ORussian Invasion of Ukraine, or MRussian Invasion of Ukraine? — Czello 14:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those should all exist too. @Czello Starship 24 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship 24: By this logic, every article should have enough redirects to include every possible typo (letters, numbers, and symbols) at the start of the title. Hell, why stop there? We could also have a typo in every space between letters, too. — Czello 16:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Implausible typo and potentially misleading given the history of Prussia. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no article called Prussian invasion of Ukraine @Presidentman Starship 24 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Whether a DAB or redirect for Prussian invasion of Ukraine if it were to exist, in my view is outside of the purview of this RfD. The capital PR make it relatively unlikely for someone trying to target things about historical Prussia, but also the confusion with Prussia makes the redirect itself not WP:CHEAP as it's an ambiguous and relatively unlikely typo in my view. TartarTorte 14:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What confusion with Prussia is there. Being that there is no prussian invasion of ukraine, i see no confusion @TartarTorte Starship 24 (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone typing it might think "there was one?" go there and think "but this is not about Prussia", as has been said it's hard to see how this is a genuine type, as neither R P or U are that near each other, which means that they must be looking for Prussia. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I had thought that in the Seven Years' War Prussia fought a battle in Ukraine, but I cannot find that in the evidence, so it's seemingly not ambiguous. Striking my vote. TartarTorte 16:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've speedy deleted the redirect as pure ptrolling from psomebody too fond of pattention, and will warn the creator. Bishonen | tålk 16:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  Now close this discussion. 176.88.80.110 (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Stop. This is rude. I am not trolling. Also stop adding the random P's, no one is laughing @Bishonen Starship 24 (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For @Starship 24: since I think it still could've been created in good faith: "Plausible search term" is used as in "It is plausible for a person searching for the target article to enter this term" rather than the other way around as you probably are using it here: "It is plausible for a person entering this term to search for the target article". In this case, it's a plausible typo in the manner that a person making it will likely be searching for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but it is implausible (yet not impossible) in evaluating the chance of a person that's searching for the Russian invasion of Ukraine making the exact same typo. Since it's highly unlikely for any given person to make this typo out of the infinite ways to misspell it, this redirect will almost never see any use, and so is more WP:COSTLY than it is useful, making deleting it more beneficial than keeping. Randi Moth ^Talk_Contribs 20:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for telling me. By the way, why is there two contradictory policies (Redirects are cheap and Redirects are costly)? @Randi Moth Starship 24 (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starship 24: those are essays (advice / opinions) not policy statements. Drdpw (talk) 21:06, 29 March 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).

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 Reza Shah. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Shah Reza Pahlavi → Mohammad Reza Pahlavi  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to Reza Shah because the words "Shah Reza Pahlavi" has greater affinity to him. NotReallySoroka (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Reza Shah per nom. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:15, 5 April 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).

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 Kendriya Vidyalaya BHU. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Kv bhu → Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in target page. Could be a short form of KV Bhutan. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Kendriya Vidyalaya BHU which has an acronym of KV-BHU --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Lenticel. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:12, 5 April 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).

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

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Salvio ^giuliano 08:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ferdinand I of Spain → Ferdinand II of Aragon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This should be a disambiguation between Ferdinand I of Castile and Ferdinand I of Aragon, or should outright be deleted. While Ferdinand II of Aragon was the first Ferdinand to rule a (mostly) united Spain, he wasn't numbered as Ferdinand I. This is evidenced by the fact that the next Ferdinand to rule Spain was Ferdinand VI of Spain. This redirect feels extra strange considering that Ferdinand V of Spain also redirects to the same place. Estar8806 (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per nom. Well-argued. BD2412 T 03:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per nom. This is a confusing situation and a DAB seems to be the only way to sort it out. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:15, 31 March 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).

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. Salvio ^giuliano 08:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Primus sucks → Primus (band)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This appears to be a very unlikely search term. Not mentioned at target. I propose deletion. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 00:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to accomplish? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to have an unlikely search term not mentioned at the target page discussed by the community. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 01:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have not proposed a discussion. You have proposed a deletion. Your response to my question is hard to read and harder to understand. Again: what are you trying to accomplish? Please be specific. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@C. A. Russell The nom clearly proposed deletion, so I bet they would like to accomplish the deletion of that redirect. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously. That's not an especially helpful remark. It shouldn't be this difficult to get a coherent response to what is being asked.

The redirect has been proposed for deletion. By doing so—deleting the redirect named here (Primus sucks)—can you please state clearly: what are you trying to accomplish? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of an unlikely search term that is not explicitly mentioned at the target. The name seems to be an attack, too. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 22:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It looks a bit like G10 to me, for what it's worth. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not, and it wasn't when User:HighInBC deleted it while citing that reason in 2015, either. [2] -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the redirect deserved to be G10'ed is subjective, although I do believe that HighInBC made the right call. However, the fact that you re-created the redirect unilaterally, when it is credible to say that the redirect disparages the band, is objectively inadvisable.

I admit that I erred in attempting to G4 your page (though I have then voluntarily reversed my action), but just because your page cannot be G4'ed doesn't mean that your action was advisable. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea what you're talking about ("the redirect disparages the band"). It's not subjective. G10 has no relevance to this redirect. The only way to get there is from the mindset of someone pattern matching on "<X> sucks" and concluding, erroneously, that it has something to do with attacking X.

Please spend less time slipping foregone conclusions into your responses here. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's a term of endearment by fans encouraged by the band: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/does-primus-really-suck-249254/ Primus bassist, vocalist and all-around figurehead Les Claypool explains that in the band’s early days, “We’d just get up there and say, ‘We’re Primus, and we suck.’ And it kind of caught on.” The band helped it along with PRIMUS SUCKS T-shirts adorned with various things that suck, such as a vacuum cleaner or a baby with a bottle. “I think it’s the greatest thing, myself,” says Claypool. It probably should be mentioned in the article but that isn't a hard and fast rule if it's a commonly enough related to the target, which this is. Skynxnex (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to refute this for one moment: There have been 16 recent page views. I doubt this is a likely search term commonly associated with the target. https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Primus_sucks Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 22:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A redirect doesn't have minimum number of page views to be kept. It can just be part of the discussion if it's otherwise borderline. This redirect seems perfectly helpful and not harmful. It's not a "novel" (it's been written about in musical press since 1991, at least!) or very "obscure" phrase since there's discussions about it on the Internet about it. So I don't see how it improves the project to delete this. (I also don't really understand what happened with this RfD since this does seem like a perfectly reasonable good-faith nomination even if I think it should be kept.) Skynxnex (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Based on Skynxnex's comment. Would however definitely prefer that it be mentioned in the article so people don't get the wrong idea. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible search term. G10 does not apply, but since when did we start redirecting company slogans to their own articles? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Awesome Aasim Reason 3 for not deleting covers this: 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. We have redirects from slogans/phrases associated with brands and such and even have a redirect category, Category:Redirects from slogans, to see some examples of other redirects tagged as a slogan. We won't have redirects for all slogans but given Rolling Stone, among others, have written about the redirect in question, it definitely meets WP:V as well as being something that exists outside of purely self-promotion. Skynxnex (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The redirect was not created by accident. "Removal of an unlikely search term", although it has been used by multiple respondents, is hard to parse and not recognizable as a problem, even if the factual premises are taken as true. Removing a working redirect, including the process of proposing the removal, only (a) consumes contributor/infrastructure resources rather than alleviate them and (b) leaves seekers who are benefiting from the redirect (however unlikely it is as a search term) staring at a search page rather than a revelant encyclopedia article. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have clearly articulated my reason for this proposal: it does not appear to be a likely search term, especially to that target. If there was a page called "List of terms of endearment for Primus used by fans", okay. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 22:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think 8 of reasons to delete covers this: "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." Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 22:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing my nomination. Whatever mess this has become, I don't want to deal with it. Leaving open for discussion as ineligible for SK1 (another editor has proposed deletion). Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 23:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Limp_Bizkit#Live_performances where it is mentioned OR Keep but add an explanation on this trademark using a reference. (note that the current Limp Bizkit cite points to archive.org which doesn't show the actual page where this info is mentioned). --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Limp Bizkit#Live performances is so terrible as the suggested target for this redirect that I initially mistook it for a joke (in the same spirit that led to the genesis of the phrase that is the subject of this RFD) and wanted to applaud you.

  If the fact that the page doesn't include the text is a problem, then that can be fixed by... adding it so it is in the article.* That doesn't require an RFD—nor does stumbling upon the discussion of the two words that are the subject of this redirect on the article talk page. (The same talk page that the RFD notice was left on.**)

  * which is what used to be the case until the now-blocked user White Devil summarily removed it without stating a reason why.**

  ** all of which is information that is readily available and found by undertaking a basic, no-brainer, cursory search (involving literally just randomly clicking a few things) that should have been done prior to opening (not to mention during) this proposal; in other words, this entire discussion was a monumental waste of Wikipedia contributor resources from the moment it was opened -- C. A. Russell (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added a brief paragraph mentioning this with two sources to the article: Special:Diff/1147370684. Skynxnex (talk) 14:19, 30 March 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).