Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1

May 1

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 1, 2024.

Bobita

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 12:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ Updated ] The participants did not support deletion and implied that the name is a Bengali language alternative. Jay 💬 07:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because there are no sources indicating that Farida Akhtar Babita's nickname is Bobita. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the credit part of the films she acted always shows the name "Babita", not her full name. The name Babita is actually her common name used in the film industry. Mehedi Abedin 11:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Exactly, bAbita with an "A", not an "O". --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also forgot to say that in Bengali language, we use "O" instead of "A" like Persian language. "Babita" is the hindustani pronunciation. And "Bobita" is bengali pronunciations. And Babita is Bengali actress. Mehedi Abedin 23:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mehedi Abedin although I would prefer that a Bengali speaking editor add sources to target article that would explain the Bobita nickname as well. --Lenticel (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

2033 World Men's Handball Championship

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FUTURE / WP:TOOSOON / not mentioned at target. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hemang Raval

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Person-to-employer redirect, for a person not named in the employer's article to provide any context for why the person redirects there. To be fair, they were named in the article at the time this was created, as the party's social media coordinator -- but that isn't a notable role that would be expected to get people into an encyclopedia in and of itself, so the role has been entirely removed from the section where it appeared. I have no way of knowing if they're still in that role today or not, but if they are there'd be no great value in readding their name, and if they're not there'd be even less value in adding their name as part of a complete list of all the party's past and present social media staff either -- but there's no value in retaining the redirect at all if the name isn't present in the target article. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for destruction

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect: No links, nearly no pageviews. Mondtaler (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unnecessary per nom. Also, deleted articles aren't destroyed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete possibly useful but also confusing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nothing really links to it, suggesting that wikipedians aren't using it in conversations on talk pages, which would be my main concern. That said, it gets... 2 or 3 uses a year? Meaning it's useful to someone (and WP:CHEAP would apply)? So..... meh. I don't have a strong opinion either way. Fieari (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nomination. TarnishedPathtalk 08:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Destruct per nom. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:519A:9A9C:BC66:215A (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unnecessary humor redirect, deleted articles aren't actually destroyed. The most recent pageviews were probably me adding the Rcat. I thought about taking it to RFD but I decided not to. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Wikipédia (disambiguation)

Because of the presence of "(disambiguation)", is an unlikely misspelling. No inbound links on Wikipedia. Bsherr (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List of Wikipedias. The current target does not include any titles with the accented é, but when this was created it targeted Wikipédia, which at the time was a disambiguation page listing the four (again, at the time) language editions natively titled with the accented é. Later that page was briefly retargeted to French Wikipedia, then targeted back after this RFD. The list of Wikipedias "serves a disambiguation-like function" so this is valid redirect, and even if it doesn't get much use it's harmless. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipédia is a redirect to List of Wikipedias. Given that, is there a need for "Wikipédia (disambiguation)", which itself has no history of being a disambiguation page? --Bsherr (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was originally created as a redirect to a disambiguation page which did not have the (disambiguation) disambiguator. At one time that was considered reason enough to create a redirect that we had a bot do it, I don't know if it still does though. Redirects generally shouldn't be deleted without there being a reason to delete them, and being redundant generally isn't a good reason on its own. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but then the reason the redirect should be deleted is that it is no longer a redirect to a disambiguation page, and thus, does not serve its original purpose, and is confusing indeed because it does not redirect to a disambiguation page. --Bsherr (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, to be clear, I mean that is presuming it is retargeted as you propose. --Bsherr (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or retarget this is harmless. --MikutoH talk! 01:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Culture Jam (mixtape)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 8#Culture Jam (mixtape)

Kawaii Leonard

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) Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a plausible typo, especially given the similarly pronounced Japanese term "Kawaii." The fact that no page links to this title is irrelevant, as it is reasonable for a person to search for this term. Frank Anchor 14:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible typo pbp 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible typo, adding two unique letters and taking away one. Leonard nor his name do not have any affinity towards romanji. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible typo, especially for those familiar with the spelling of Hawaii. Steel1943 (talk) 03:00, 26 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 16:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plausible phonetic or typographic error. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Nba allstar 2007 mvp

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (though it should be refined to Kobe Bryant#Scoring records and playoff upsets (2004–2007), as the current target no longer exists). Bryant was indeed the MVP in the 2007 NBA All-Star Game, so this is not an implausible search term IMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but possibly retarget to 2007 NBA All-Star Game pbp 15:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, random conglomerations of terms are a better fit for a Google search, and will not help readers. "MVP" is only mentioned once in the sixth paragraph in the section, not a useful redirect or precedent. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Utopes. Not a useful redirect. CycloneYoris talk! 22:48, 26 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 16:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Utopes. --Bsherr (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Utopes --Lenticel (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the odd use of capitalization makes this a very unlikely search term. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the first n would be lowercase too. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; cheap and unambiguous. Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Taylor Swift

Pointless redirect from a supposed draft article. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - totally pointless for inclusion and drafts are rarely or not at all linked on any articles on Wikipedia. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and delete the extra text): Actually, Swan, drafts do redirect to the articles once they get approved, that's a regular part of the process. In this case, it was out of process, because the draft was created in 2019 for an article that exists since 2006. However, having a "draft:article" redirecting to "article" is commonplace by now across the encyclopedia, so there's hardly a point in deleting this. Cambalachero (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SRE, this is the standard way of dealing with these. There is no benefit to deleting, but there is benefit in avoiding RFD discussions for them. Extra text should be deleted and then the page should be tagged with Template:R from Draft. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5450:3A3:46CC:17EC (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cambalachero's explanation. This was never a viable draft, so it should have been deleted instead of redirected. -- Tavix (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hang on, Cambalachero's explanation indicates this should be kept from that user's view, so it looks like both arguments are presented above. The removal of the extra text should not be a problem either way. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware. Cambalachero's explanation is a good summary of why it should be deleted. Cambalachero then pivots a bit and says there's hardy a point in deleting it, which is agreeable, but I think while we're here we might as well delete it—there's also hardly a point in keeping it. -- Tavix (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not an WP:RDRAFT. The draft was created 13 years after the fact (in 2019) and never should have existed. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ... ish. Someone created a draft under this redirect prior to it being nominated. If need be, disable the redirect and then send this to WP:MFD. Steel1943 (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the desire to send this to WP:MFD? There is clearly not any salvageable material in the draft so there's nothing to discuss on that front. If the redirect is disabled, it would become eligible for WP:G13 deletion six months later. (Although, I don't see the point in waiting that long given that it's already been nominated for deletion). -- Tavix (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2023 IP edit should just have been reverted. But now that we're at RfD, Delete per Tavix. What I understand from SRE is it is applicable at MfD. Any draft may be boldly redirected to a corresponding article, and this avoids an MfD, such as this draft under discussion, hence was not a case of SRE. Jay 💬 17:17, 26 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 16:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the reason given by Tavix. --Bsherr (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is all pretty pointless. The reasoning for keeping RDRAFTS isn't magically entirely invalidated by the fact that the redirect was created later and had no links. And yes, this comment is also pointless. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RDRAFTs are defined as redirects that are a result of page moves from the draft namespace to the main namespace. This redirect was not the result of a page move, so this is not an RDRAFT. -- Tavix (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that this is an RDRAFT. I'm saying that the reasoning behind keeping them applies to this redirect as well. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. For what it's worth, RDRAFT redirects should be retained because they show where drafts have been published. That does not apply here because the underlying draft was never moved to mainspace and was never viable, magically or otherwise. That said, I do appreciate that other rationales that can apply here came up during that discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were several other reasons, including:
  1. Prevent accidental re-drafting of published articles
    • including by showing the draft redirect title in search results for skins that aren't Vector 2022
    • including by blocking the article creation wizard due to having an existing page
  2. Redirects being cheap and such redirects being not harmful
I don't see any benefit at all for this redirect being deleted. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I've seen a fair number of drafts create for long existing articles and redirects like this are harmless. If having a redirect from the draft name to the article reduces that at all and gets the editors to improve the article, it'd be a net positive. Skynxnex (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Originaldo

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 22:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No page links here, also an implausible misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. Nickname as reference to disambiguate from Cristiano Ronaldo.Homei (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it could be used to disambiguate him from Cristiano Ronaldo, but it should be a widely known nickname I think, like "R9" for example. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 20:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unmentioned, unsupported portmanteau of a nickname. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: is used in many places e.g. reliable sources [1] and [2], and the less reliable Irish Sun. As such, plausible nickname and search term. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 30 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 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Diego Marradonna

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Plausible misspelling tbh but the site would probably offer the correct page immediately. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 24 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 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: per WP:CHEAP and doing a Google search it seems like this misspelling exists on the Internet (unlikely to be caused by this redirect, but who knows) so it could be useful. I've tagged it with {{R from misspelling}}. Skynxnex (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as cheap and used per Skynxnex. Queen of Hearts (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The King of Football

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 12:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The King of Football → Pelé  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The lead states that He was nicknamed O Rei (The King). There are multiple people with this nickname in various fields (see, e.g., Elvis Presley or Richard Petty), so "The King of Football" is a plausible disambiguator. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A word in a different language that translates to "King", does not equate being designated as the ruler of the entire sport, i.e. the translation + "of football". No evidence in the article that this player is considered the king of football, and all around an ambiguous search term as this varies depending on who you ask. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a closer look, and the full phrase "The King of Football" is actually mentioned in one section. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:32, 27 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 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Having no links isn't a reason to delete a redirect. This term seems to be very common to refer to Pelé and is mentioned in our article. (Other places: Messi, Ronaldo, Neymar & Mbappe pay tribute to Pele, the 'king of football', [3], [4], [5], [6].) Skynxnex (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Presidentman and Skynxnex. Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

DZHH-AM

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • If deleted, incoming links from 75 pages need to be fixed if we don't want this to be a redlink. Jay 💬 09:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP an old station that Philippine Air Force has been dated back in 1970s. It was mentioned on YouTube like this one, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjKYgmgMZB4. 2001:4454:733:4100:9DA9:E768:BA8B:C7CB (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's irrelevant if the target includes no information on the station. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • REDIRECT instead. 2001:4454:718:9400:1038:10E0:F21A:D6EE (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless sourced and WP:DUE information can be added at a target. signed, Rosguill talk 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Best cite that I got was it exists with address at the former Nichols Air Base. With that said, I don't think we have any material to work with to warrant a mention in any related articles. --Lenticel (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - a redirect from a radio callsign to relevant information like where it broadcast[s|ed] from is useful, like if you saw it on an old navigation chart or something. It's not very useful but it's also harmless. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Ivanvector. This is the only source I found about the station's ownership. Though, I don't know which part of the article this piece of info can fit. Nonetheless, a redirect is deemed harmless. ASTIG😎🙃 10:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep per Ivanvector. Although it is not mentioned, it gives information about where it broadcasts from. Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not appropriate to mention it at the target (for reasons Lenticel and others said) then why is it appropriate to subtly hint that it is in some vague way related without explaining how and leaving people confused. That's just mentioning it by the back door. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Seena

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Plausible misspelling tbh but the site would probably offer the correct page immediately. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. Homei (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a reasonable phonetic attempt. -- Tavix (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, overtly on the nose with 2+ errors, can be easily found without this redirect and we shouldn't be replacing "ce" with "see". Utopes (talk / cont) 07:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausible phonetic misspelling. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:13, 26 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 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per all. Created in 2006 and this has come to RfD now. Not a typo. Had good pageviews, but they started dying down since 2022 for some reason though. Jay 💬 16:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I strongly disagree with @Crowsus's assessment that the site would probably offer the correct page immediately. The search results, excluding this redirect, are for John Oliver, Jon Stewart, Seena Owen, and every single article featuring the name of these people. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone. Also, regarding the comment above: the autofill functionality of the search bar uses Javascript, and it doesn't work if the reader has Javascript disabled or is using a device which doesn't support it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems like a plausible and unambiguous misspelling. I'll note that deciding if a misspelling redirect is useful won't just be counting the number of errors but also thinking if a person could plausibly intend to type this thinking it's the correct spelling (so not typo (which can also be useful) but a true misspelling). Skynxnex (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Scorsesi

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) Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Plausible misspelling tbh but the site would probably offer the correct page immediately. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausible misspelling pbp 15:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. Homei (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: phonetic spelling, so plausible search term. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:10, 26 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 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scorsezi

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. This is numerically no consensus, but the delete camp's implausibility arguments are directly countered by the uncontested claim that this is a plausible phonetic spelling. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No page links here, also an implausible typo or misnomer. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Crowsus (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. Homei (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, two errors is enough to delete. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: phonetic spelling, so plausible search term. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:10, 26 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 16:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Phonetic spellings are plausible. WP:CHEAP applies. Fieari (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Implausible error. Okmrman (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausible search term, especially if the last "s" is mispronounced or misheard. Air on White (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Japanator.com

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 Enthusiast Gaming#Former. Jay 💬 22:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 - 2¢ 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]
  • Japanator should be bundled as well, I think? Not a super simple history. It was a sibling-ish site of Destructoid for quite awhile,[7][8] then was merged into Siliconera [9]. And so was part of Enthusiast Gaming (a possible retarget since it's mentioned there) but then Gamurs acquired some sites from Enthusiast (including Siliconera). So I think retarget to Enthusiast Gaming since it's mentioned there, including the transfer to Gamurs, and most of its system was part of that. Gamurs would be a fine (future) retarget if it's expanded. And open to other ideas if people know more (sadly lots of noise from the, hm, particular era that impacted gaming sites). (Pinging Neocorelight and Dennis Brown.) Skynxnex (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skynxnex Please do the bundling. I don't know how to. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neocorelight added (I think, oddly this is something I haven't done a ton of). Skynxnex (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gamurs would be an ideal target, but if no one's gonna write a mention of Japanator then I'm fine with retargeting to Enthusiast Gaming. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think redirecting it to an article with an unsourced single line mention is a good idea. For the redirect to stay, somewhere there needs to be a cite at least demonstrating it existed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added one. Neocorelight (Talk) 06:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is currently a sourced mention of "Japanator" at Enthusiast Gaming
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Climate change in Bahrain

We currently have many "Climate change in country x" titles that redirect to either "Geography of country x" or "Climate of country x". The style guide of WikiProject Climate change describe many aspects that should be in "Climate change in country x" articles that do not belong in articles about the climate or geography of country x. E.g. an article about climate change in a given country is supposed to discuss the greenhouse gas emissions that the country produces and the policies around emissions reductions in the country. The presence of these redirects discourages the creation of more complete articles so I propose that they be deleted. There are many other redirects following the pattern but I am starting with four of them to get community feedback before mass-nominating dozens. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:RFDHOWTO says that new nominations go to the top of the page. I moved the discussion accordingly. Nickps (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clayoquot: Deleting these redirects might also discourage the creation of more complete articles. Should an article about the climate of a given country not describe the effects of climate change in that country? Jarble (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Climate in country x" articles should describe the effects of climate change in that country. These redirects are not necessary to make those expansions happen. What these redirects do is leave no place to talk about the role of the country in causing climate change. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild support. If the deletion of the redirects is likely to lead to creations of new CCC articles then I am all for it (CCC = climate change in country X). I've been disappointed myself on a few occasions when I followed a link of "climate change in Country X", only to find that I was being redirected to "Country X#Climate" which then had only minimal info on climate change in that country. EMsmile (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Better a redirect to a good (or at least acceptable) article than a bad stub. In my (admittedly relatively short) experience on here, a hope that the community will passively take a hint and be nudged into doing something after a different action from you is not a plan. Good country-level climate change articles should be our goal - unfortunately, there is probably no substitute to either doing the work yourself and/or working with that country's WikiProject/most active editors if the WP is inactive. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Iceland, delete others Climate of Iceland#Climate change is a whole section dedicated to climate change in the country, and so it's sensible to redirect there. For the other countries, the target sections are generally about climate in general in those countries, with little to no content about climate change specifically, and so it's a misleading redirect, and deleting to encourage article creation is better. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:57, 26 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 15:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Iceland, delete others.--Snævar (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Iceland per Joseph. Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say keep only those that have substantial content (e.g. Iceland) but delete the rest. EMsmile (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deputy chief ministers of Puducherry

no such role exists or has existed -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:45, 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! 20:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't really see the point of redirecting it to List of current Indian deputy chief ministers, since there's no list of deputy chief ministers of Pudducherry there, either. -- asilvering (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is part of {{Deputy Chief Ministers of Indian states}}. So we either remove the entry from there, and have readers wonder why is Puducherry missing, or have it as unlinked. The non-link entry will provide the only information that a deputy CM is "Not established", whereas the proposed target adds some more. Jay 💬 07:42, 28 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 15:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget per Jay. The target explains the absence of this role. Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adriel Jasmear Green

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adriel Jasmear Green → A. J. Green  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Nominated redirect has the wrong middle name. Jasmear has no association with the target. Red Director (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom. Couldn't find this middle name as even having been suggested as his middle name. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, was misspelled. --bender235 (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Flexes

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 Flex. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone that performs a Flex, or perhaps are flexing (and/or doing the flexing (dance) all the while), can be said to be someone who "flexes". Flexion does not seem to be the only use for this term. Wiktionary or disambiguation might also be suitable here? Utopes (talk / cont) 23:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per ip Okmrman (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to soft redirect to wikit per cyclone 104.7.152.180 (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wikt:flexes per nom, which seems to be a better option than retargeting to the dab (where no items are pluralized). CycloneYoris talk! 07:21, 27 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 15:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Flex (disambiguation) per propositions to that effect above. There are several clearly pluralizable topics on the page. BD2412 T 16:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

J.

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 J (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple topics at J (disambiguation) spelled with a period, and other topics not noted there that would normally be spelled that way, such as the common abbreviation for "Journal" in legal citations, or of Judge/Justice in case citations. Retarget this letter-and-period to J (disambiguation). BD2412 T 15:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to J (disambiguation) per nom. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Harej (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Kyra Tierney

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 12:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While Kyra is not mentioned in the article, she is a main character and playable character, whose role in the plot is significant. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Wikipedia:LITTLEORPHAN

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

  • Another discussion from you about ANI redirects? What's next, you're gonna RfD WP:CESSPIT? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. In any case, that particular title has been at RfD four times since 2009, while this was made in 2021, with only one user, and hasn't been discussed here ever. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll agree that this is a title that is implausible, I just found odd that you nominated so many ANI redirects. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I suppose I appreciate the come-around despite the opening rudeness. I promise I'm not out to kill fun! 😁 There's plenty of other titles with more longevity. ^^ Utopes (talk / cont) 08:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, THIS one we can softify and tag as Humorous. The argument against Wikipedia:Room101 -- that it's actively harmful to compare ANI to a torture chamber-- doesn't apply here. This is just a cute pun. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would this page go here instead of WP:ORPHAN, with "little" being a likely term for orphan stubs? Specifically Wikipedia:Orphan#Articles that may be difficult to de-orphan, which details the "little orphans" that are hard to repair. At least Room 101 doesn't share a name with any existing Wikipedia topics that it could be confused by. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. I uh, somehow missed that bit. You're right in that some section of WP:ORPHAN might be a better target.
    Maybe we could disambig between ANI and ORPHAN somehow? ...I do feel like ORPHAN has greater pull probably... 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'd be fine with retargeting it to WP:ORPHAN, it's not really a plausible search term for that, so I'm leaning delete. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It isn't hurting anything, I doubt anybody has actually experienced confusion when trying to find info on orphan stubs and going there instead. There's no real reason to delete a mild pun that isn't causing any harm. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to WP:ORPHAN as I think would be a better target. I get the joke but I don't think it's useful for us here. --Lenticel (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per #5 the redirect makes no sense. I don't see an argument for a retarget because the suggestion also makes no sense as the redirect is not mentioned at the suggested new target. TarnishedPathtalk 10:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the proposed target talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:XY as it's a plausible shortcut for both Wikipedia:Orphan and Wikipedia:Stub (as in, a "little orphan") but isn't a useful redirect to ANI. Don't disambiguate: the "humorous" elements of Wikipedia are a walled garden for good reason. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:33, 19 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 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is no real good target here. ANI is too confusing, since orphan is a common term among editors, but WP:ORPHAN isn't a great target either per Ivanvector. We don't need to keep this. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per reasons given above. Not really a good fit for ANI or Orphaned articles. (Also you all are saying Annie? I always said the letters separately, which makes this confusing.) StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ANI are you okay? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Horse News

This redirect survived CSD through a charitable BLAR. Not mentioned at the target, not likely to be mentioned at the target. Not a useful redirect in the page's current form. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was/is a site run by 4chan's /mlp/ board as an alternative to Equestria Daily. Break that down-- this is a fansite run by a subsection of the MLP fandom because the main, more-notable site used by the rest of the fandom didn't conform to that subsection's views (because... it's 4chan.) I challenge ANYONE to find a credible secondary source for this, which would be required to mention it on any of the possible non-mention targets of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom, Equestria Daily, or 4chan#/mlp/. Send it to the moon. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 10:56, 19 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 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unsourced fancruft. Also, do not redirect to Hunterdon County Democrat#Sister publications because there is no citation showing they have a "sister publication" with the name "Horse News", and search of their own website finds no mention of it.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 14:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lack of citation is an article content concern. In fact the presence of the redirect will lead readers to Hunterdon County Democrat, and lead editors to decide to add a citation or remove content. Jay 💬 22:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is backwards. Not only was there no citation there, but I couldn't find any evidence that it was true. Though I could have removed the content, I marked it instead with "citation needed". My point was why send a redirect to something that might not even exist? It's not like the redirect already pointed there (and a citation has gone missing) but you're proposing that this redirect should be created-anew to point to something new based on what... an insource-search of Wikipedia for the words "horse news"?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You could have removed the content, but did not. It might not even exist, but no one has made that decision yet. But this is not relevant to this RfD since this will be a valid redirect as long as we have Horse News at Hunterdon County Democrat. Jay 💬 08:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King Karlomann

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 Carloman. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This misspelling is unique to Wikipedia, Google does not know about it. Delete. Викидим (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete two errors so unlikely misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above as an unlikely search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 13:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Carloman, a disambiguation page listing the many kings of the Franks known by the same name. The Franks spoke a Germanic language in which the kings were called Karlmann, and it's also written in Latin as Karlomanus; Karlomann is a plausible misspelling of both. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Karlomann also redirects to this target, which has "Karlomann" bolded in the very first sentence. It's not an error, apparently not a misspelling (either likely or unlikely), and not unique to Wikipedia. No objection to retargeting to Carloman if others think that's better than the current target. It has three Kings Karlomann and four non-Kings Karlomann, if that matters at all. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sourced mention added by Rich Farmbrough. Per Nyttend, no objection to retargeting to Carloman if others think that's better than the current target. Jay 💬 17:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Carloman. Reasonings per above. This is not a misspelling, it's just German. I don't see any reason to retarget to a specific king, since the German spelling is equally likely for any of them as far as I know. -- asilvering (talk) 03:43, 28 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 15:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Odiogo

Redirected to the history of podcasting after an AfD, because there was no sourced content worth merging. However, it doesn't appear at the target any longer, if it appeared to begin with if the merge idea fell through. Does not seem to be a useful redirect in the target's current form. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/add mention to target. The site isn't mentioned at the target article because an editor disregarded the outcome of the deletion discussion and WP:BLARed the article instead of merging it properly. - Eureka Lott 22:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging BLARer Aircorn and the participants of the AfD - @Ansh666, Northamerica1000, Kvng, Nakon, MSJapan, Davey2010, Coffee, Enterprisey, and SwisterTwister:. Jay 💬 15:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/add mention to target per EurekaLott - The AFD was closed as Merge so why Aircorn decided to go against consensus and do whatever they please I will never know, Obvious keep. –Davey2010Talk 15:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Not going to dig into a decision I made 6 years ago too deep. Judging from the timeframe, editnotice comment and content of the article at the time I would hazard a pretty good guess that I was working through the merge backlog and came across an article that closed as merge nearly 2 years previously, but had no mergeable content in it. A case of a bunch of editors saying merge, not providing info on what to merge and then being closed as merge without any guidance on what to merge (see Wikipedia:Merge what?). Its perfectly fine to redirect that in this case and is not ignoring consensus. Hopefully someone commenting here that it should be kept will follow through and add sourced content to the article if that is the consensus reached. Aircorn (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no mention at the target at this time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look how they massacred my boy

This redirect is categorized as follows: A meme quotation from film and television, that is not mentioned at the article. Wikipedia is not an infinite compendium of unmentioned memes. Not a helpful redirect as people who want to read about The Godfather would search for The Godfather. Specifying a meme implies a search for specific content that we don't have on WP. Delete. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, how often do people search for films via quotes? Regardless a simple search engine search will tell them the film's title and they can search for the title from there. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - stats show utility (WP:RFD#K5) and this is the correct target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Ivanvector; people could be searching this redirect in order to find out what the quote is from. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a meme, people are attracted to the novelty, but Wikipedia isn't a collection of memes to gawk at. Searching for a phrase on Wikipedia to see the movie it comes from is an absolutely unreliable method that works 0% of the time. A google search is more effective in 100% of situations due to the usability and predictability it offers, which are two things that "typing a quote and receiving a redirect coupled with no context at the target page" does not provide. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Utility Utilization per page stats is does not necessarily indicate usefulness. Readers looking for the meme, or a context of it, will be disappointed. Jay 💬 17:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No mention at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you're looking for this, knowyourmeme or google are going to get you the answer. Wikipedia will not; we don't mention it at the target. -- asilvering (talk) 03:25, 28 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 15:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: it's a page about a meme (memes are frequently notable, or later become so) and it redirects to what the context is.
jp×g🗯️ 18:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hornless unicorn

Unicorns are not real. The article makes no mention of unicorns. It would be impossible for a hornless unicorn to be a horse because that would require a fictional creature variant to be real, which it is not and never will be. The target page does not mention unicorns in the slightest. Anyone that specifies "unicorn" instead of "horse" is likely looking for a unicorn related subtopic, instead of the general WP:SYNTH explanation for horse. Unicorn, Unicorn horn, or deletion are all preferable outcomes for this title which currently exists unmentioned at the horse page. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's a valid search term, regardless of unicorns being fictional. One of the first things I found when searching was a definition on Urban Dictionary, as well as a number of images in which people refer to their horses as hornless unicorns. Using this logic, I do believe you should have also nominated horse with a horn (which points to unicorn). We also have horned horse and magic horse for consideration. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of those are fine titles. Urban dictionary is not a reliable source. People searching for the unmentioned "horses are hornless unicorns" meme will not receive any content at the target page, so that's another reason why a redirect would be harmful to those readers. At least with Unicorn and Unicorn horn, people can get context as to the crucial adjective of "hornless" in their search term, especially when the Horse article mentions neither "hornless" nor "unicorn". For all other cases you've provided, the article on Unicorn actually does a DEEP dive into those topics. "Magic" and "magical" comes up a bunch, and the topic of "horns" is thrown around in basically every paragraph. Nobody is confused when they type in a fictional phrase (i.e. "magic horse") and end up at a fictional article (unicorns). The same is not true of the inverse. The horned and magic horse redirects should be kept. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about urban dictionary being a reliable source, it's about whether it's a valid search term, is relatively unambiguous, and contextually makes sense. I strongly believe, based on some searching, that hornless unicorn is synonymous with a horse and fits these criteria. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible, and also already a stretch. Unicorns are a fictional species. Any variant of a fictional creature cannot be synonymous with a real creature. And especially for using such a specific term as "hornless unicorn", targeting "Horse" instead of a unicorn related article is original research. My childhood would be highly eager to see the reliable, published source that says that unicorns exist, in order for a hornless version to as well and justify this redirect targeting a real animal and not a mythology-related article. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OR? C'mon now. It's simply a reversal of a common description of a unicorn.
  • Unicorn's short desc on en-wiki: Legendary single-horned horse-like creature
  • Wikidata: Legendary animal, that looks like a horse with a horn on the forehead
If a horned (magical) horse is a unicorn then it's entirely reasonable to assume or draw a connection to a hornless unicorn being a horse. Again though, I urge you to do some Googling and see that it's a common thing to refer to a horse as. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just quoting what OR says: "On Wikipedia, original research means material for which no reliable, published source exists.". The term "hornless unicorn" does not appear at the target page. Moreover, it does not appear ANYWHERE on Wikipedia besides one passing mention at Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland. But definitely not at Horse. Even including a mention at the horse page would be wholly inappropriate there, as it's a real animal, fundamentally rooted in biology. The article isn't about how horses appear in pop culture or mythology, so unicorns shouldn't ever come up. Because we are redirecting a unicorn variation to a real animal, if there is no reliable, published source exists for this redirection-equation material, it is considered original research. Citing Urban Dictionary would also be considered original research, if no reliable, published source exists. A Google search funneling into various memes and the RuneScape wiki is also not a reliable source. If there is a reliable source that suggests that unicorns are a real thing, in order to justify the existence of hornless versions and target a real biological animal, then please let me know. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Unicorn: (would be open to other targets) my initial impression was to keep since "hornless unicorn" is commonly[by whom?] "known" to be a jokey way to refer to a horse. But, horse doesn't mention or link to unicorn and is unlikely to ever cover this term. While unicorn mentions and links to horse and says unicorns are horse-like creatures with a horn. Skynxnex (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is simply too vague, as it may refer to a horse, or a literal unicorn that lacks a horn. But, it would also be pointless to disambiguate, as DAB pages are not a search index. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as incorrect and unused. A hornless unicorn is not a horse. Maybe it's a unicorn whose horn has been cut off, or one which was [fictitiously] born without a horn (an anomaly). But it has nothing to do with a horse. Horse article doesn't mention unicorns. If you must keep the redirect, send it to Unicorn. Leaving it as a redirect to Horse is an uncited definition (WP:OR), which is also an incorrect meaning. If it was in Wiktionary, I'd say redirect it there, but it's not. There is no article in Wikipedia which uses this redirect. There is a single article which refers to a "hornless unicorn" (linked to Unicorn), and it is a creature on a tomb monument, which can be seen here. Delete.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this isn't ambiguous whatsoever. "Unicorns aren't real" is not a reason to delete this redirect; what matters is that people know what a unicorn is, and more importantly, know what a unicorn looks like and how that appearance relates to horses. My mind goes to the word games that non-fluent people sometimes resort to when they don't know the word for something-- the anecdote of someone in a grocery store, wanting chicken, not knowing the word for "chicken", picking some eggs up, heading to an employee, and asking, "Where's the mother?" 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a description in Unicorn article: "depicted as a white horse-like or goat-like animal with a long straight horn with spiralling grooves, cloven hooves, and sometimes a goat's beard" and often "an ox tail". Far from a horse; closer to cattle. If someone wants to know what a "hornless unicorn" is, they can go to Unicorn and figure it out. Going to Horse won't help them at all, since horses don't have cloven hooves, horns, beards, or tails like that.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Huh. That's... not usually what I think of when I think of unicorns. In the modern day, unicorns really are depicted as "just slap a horn on a horse"-- after all, if you need a live-action shot of a unicorn, getting cloven hooves and an ox tail is a tall order, and the thing people notice first has always been the horn anyways. There's also the My Little Pony franchise, where unicorns are simply ponies with horns, but given a pony is just a horse with dwarfism...
My point is that that article needs some work, clearly-- it completely fails to talk about contemporary understanding/depiction of unicorns. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lunamann: Reminder... WP:NOTFORUM. This RFD is about whether or not to delete or change the redirect Hornless unicorn. You're welcome to edit Unicorn to add whatever you can appropriately source, but based on your edit history you don't actually do any content editing, but just post comments on RFDs. I can't even imagine being holed up here. You really should branch out and get more experience around Wikipedia. It's much more fun.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this falls under NOTFORUM, as people's impressions of unicorns are indeed relevant to the deciding factor of this discussion. Though I agree that one might have a source. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think My Little Pony ponies are horses either: they have no separate hooves at all, and you can't really distinguish if that's an ox tail or a horse tail, so you can't see if they're unicorns that fit the article's description. I agree that you should probably get a really reliable source that says that hornless unicorns are just horses. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since any other action appears to be ambiguous guesswork. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A unicorn is a horse with special features, so when you eliminate those features it reverts back to its original state. The whole unicorn belief is based on the supposed magical powers of the horn. In fact, the horn is what makes the unicorn, not the horse. I rest my case. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 22:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a misunderstanding about this subject which is not supported by reliable sources.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, you just have to apply common sense here. Not everything has to be used/supported by reliable sources. Urban terms are a thing. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 08:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't take your word that unicorns are perceived as just horses with horns, and most people above seem to disagree. Evidence much? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: To suggest that people will search for a member of an empty set such as a hornless unicorn is laughable not an argument which has a solid basis. Incorrect search term that is not remotely likely to searched for. TarnishedPathtalk 13:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TarnishedPath: Laughable is an obviously extreme interpretation. I might avoid disparaging others with comments such as these. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh apologies I didn't mean disparage. TarnishedPathtalk 05:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I understand if it wasn't meant that way. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how it "is not remotely likely to searched for" when it does have pageviews (and substationally more than the similar pages horned horse and magic horse linked above if you think this RfD is the cause of those pageviews). Doublah (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is leaning delete but consensus could be clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep pretty much for Hey man im josh's reasoning. Redirects don't need to be reliably sourced; they need to be useful for navigation. This is a term others have used, clearly to refer to horses; there's no reason to not direct our readers there. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: An important purpose of redirects is to be useful for navigation and search engines, considering the substantial results on search engines for hornless unicorn in reference to horses does prove the usefulness of a redirect with no real downsides to such existing (And no, "Unicorns are not real" is not an downside).
Doublah (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will remind that the purpose for a redirect as a search tool or a navigation tool is to arrive at an article which says more about the topic. The article Horse doesn't even mention unicorns, let alone hornless ones. So anyone spouting "it aids navigation" is just fantasizing about something that doesn't even exist in Wikipedia. (As a member of the WikiProject Equine, I can assure you that any content about "hornless unicorn" would be unlikely to survive in the article Horse, should anyone try to add it there.) To make matters worse, since there is no source which says a hornless unicorn is a horse, to leave this redirect as-is would violate several Wikipedia key policies such as verifiability, no original research and WP:FRINGE (if not dozens more).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So anyone spouting "it aids navigation" is just fantasizing about something that doesn't even exist in Wikipedia. – @Grorp: That's quite the lofty claim, and an argument made in bad faith. ...to leave this redirect as-is would violate several Wikipedia key policies such as verifiability, no original research and WP:FRINGE (if not dozens more). – That's factually incorrect, it wouldn't violate any of those policies as a non-derogatory redirect. It's about expected result and possibility of usefulness (even if minor) when a redirect is searched. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It quite literally violates all of those policies almost immediately in each's first paragraph. You're saying that original research isn't original research as long as it's not derogatory? Per WP:OR policy, "On Wikipedia, original research means material for which no reliable, published source exists." Pseudo-science isn't derogatory either, but it sure is filled with original research most of the time. Is there a derogatory-clause that makes certain types of OR more acceptable than others as long as its nice enough? Per WP:V policy, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace must be verifiable from a reliable source". If you can find a reliable source that hornless unicorns are horses (and by extension that unicorns exist for hornless versions to exist), and can insert that into the article or even as a note on the redirect itself, that would actually be miraculous. WP:FRINGE is generous because that means that there's people out there studying a division of Unicorn Biology and can give a basis that hornless unicorns are indeed horses, but indeed per the WP:FRINGE guideline, "Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant [fringe theories]". What other reputable source is saying that hornless unicorns and horses are basically the same thing, if not Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not meant to spread "common sense" about what's left after taking the horn off of a unicorn, but only spread information that has been reported on by reliable sources. Wholly inappropriate redirect without mention. If you think it's a search term that's fine but it's current target is a major pseudo-scientific no-go across several layers. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but no prejedice to "retarget" a better target can be found. For example in Runescape there are unicorns but no horses. The in universe mythological "hornless unicorn" is clearly a meta-reference to the horse. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Rich Farmbrough and Hey man im josh. As for me, it seems plausible that a "hornless unicorn" might be a thing in mythology (i.e. what happens if you cut off a unicorn's horn? does it go back to being a horse or does it become some other third thing?). jp×g🗯️ 18:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be nice if we answered this mythological-specific question somewhere on Wikipedia, instead of sending these mythology searchers to a biology page with none of the content they were looking for. People who really want to know the dynamics of horn removal of mythological creatures would not be typing "hornless unicorn" on Wikipedia, and certainly would not be happy with a page about horses when they could have just searched "Horse" to begin with if they really were that interested. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After a month here, no one has yet to provide a single reliable source that even infers a "hornless unicorn" = a horse. One month in and the arguments are WP:ILIKEIT, WP:DOESN'THARM and "it's plausible" versus WP:OR and WP:V. Why is this not yet closed?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unicorn -- "a mythical, usually white animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse with long flowing mane and tail and a single often spiraled horn in the middle of the forehead". jp×g🗯️ 01:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Inadequate. Asked for a source for "hornless unicorn". "Depicted" isn't the same as "is", and doesn't mention hornless. You are engaging in SYNTH. It's a big leap to go from a mythical creature that allegedly "looks like" something known on earth, to a real live flesh and bone earth creature.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty clearly not SYNTH or OR, so I'd drop that stick. It also appears as though you're unwilling to be convinced, which is fine, but at this point you're best off leaving it to the closer to interpret. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:NN

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. wbm1058 (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Honestly, I have no idea how this WP:XNR survived RfD. "Cat:" is not a pseudo-namespace. Looking at WP:Shortcut#List of prefixes, "Cat:" appears nowhere. It is not widely accepted, it is nowhere accepted. CAT:NN has existed since 2006. This lowercase version was created in 2020. The RfD said "keep because it is used widely in links" which is simply entirely incorrect. The search result provided then, showed usage of EXCLUSIVELY the uppercase variant. From a quantitative perspective, CAT:NN has 500+ links. Cat:NN has zero, besides the deletion notifications. If someone wants to campaign for the existence of a new lowercase "Cat" namespace, that should be done before the existence of these redirects. (Which as per Pandora's WikiBox, the existence of one has since introduced two more also bundled). Utopes (talk / cont) 18:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Misleading, found no kitties inside the namespace. More seriously, having lowerspace variants of pseudo-namespaces would be unmaintainable. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I only made this two because of the existence of Cat:NN and because using caps lock sucks on phones, you're more than welcome to speedy them under author requests deletion so we don't have to drag this out for a week. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment! I was kind of confused why those two came about. A discussion seems inevitable though at minimum for Cat:NN as that was kept a few months ago. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cat:prod averages about 2 pageviews each day, since it's convenient to just keyboard type lowercase stuff. However the search thing "redirects" capitalization already anyways Aaron Liu (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cat:prod was created a month ago. I'm not surprised that it gets views because CAT:PROD also gets a substantial amount of views, and people type in lowercase expecting to autocorrect by the software (which it does). If redirects are meant to optimize view-numbers, we'd get rid of capitals entirely. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The lowercase spelling is not commonly accepted and would lead to a WP:PANDORA issue. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last 2 have been deleted as G7. Keep, don't see any harm. Queen of ♡ | speak 21:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cat:NN per PANDORA per StreetcarEnjoyer who had created the other two based on the presence of Cat:NN. Jay 💬 14:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

W2000

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 9#W2000

Neb-er-tcher

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 Atum. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neb-er-tcher → Osiris  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Apparently a god in Egyptian mythology, however this god is not ever described at the Osiris article, and bears no mention. People who search this term are left confused as to the correlation between this god and Osiris. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This redirect seems to be an error on the part of the creator (User:TUF-KAT, who last edited 15 years ago). A Google search for Neb-er-tcher turns up this page, an excerpt from Legends of the Gods (1912) by E. A. Wallis Budge, describing the creation myth found in Papyrus Bremner-Rhind. "Neb-er-tcher" is Budge's archaic transcription of a divine name meaning "Lord of the limit" or "Lord to the limit", which was generally an epithet of Atum, not Osiris. Budge doesn't identify this deity as Atum, but later sources universally do so (e.g.: Raymond O. Faulkner (1937), "The Bremner-Rhind Papyrus: III: D. The Book of Overthrowing ꜤApep" in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology; James P. Allen (1988), Genesis in Egypt; Geraldine Pinch (2002), Egyptian Mythology).
The redirect obviously should not lead to Osiris, who isn't directly related to this deity. Nor should it be retargeted to Atum, because nobody refers to him by this obsolete transcription of his epithet. (Note the pageviews.) A. Parrot (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Atum per A. Parrot's finding. A published work in Modern English refers to this god with this spelling of this name; that's all we need. Someone could read that page and decide to search Wikipedia for it. Obviously it's not going to be any problem for other aspects of redirects (causes confusion, ambiguous, etc.), and implausibility is not a factor if we can prove that it's been used like this. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is one of the google results for this name, we probably should redirect it to Atum. Otherwise we are perpetuating the Osiris error, looks like. -- asilvering (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further opinion on the retarget suggestion. Also notified of this discussion at the suggested target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing my !vote to Retarget to Atum, based on Nyttend's reasoning. A. Parrot (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Halo 1 pistol

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Halo 1 pistol → M6D Pistol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

According to the halo wiki, there are "many different pistols used in the Halo universe". I don't think this is a useful search term, zero evidence that "Halo 1 pistol" is an alternate name for this pistol even if used by Master Chief. Wikipedia is not a search engine to figure out "what's the name of the pistol that Master Chief uses in Halo 1". Not a great precedent for titles, i.e. based on MOS:POPCULT, and franchises that reference a real model of pistol. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Halo 1 also has the Plasma Pistol, making this an inaccurate term. It's generally referred to as the "magnum" to differentiate it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, this is specifically an alternative name redirect, intended for people who know about the pistol and it's significance, and call it this name. A google search gives a couple social media posts of people who call it that. I don't understand your last sentence. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 10:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful and redirects are cheap. I don't understand the nom's "Wikipedia is not a search engine" argument, and I'd love to see what policy/guideline that's based in. It certainly doesn't appear anywhere on WP:R. In fact, I might even argue that WP:R#KEEP #3 applies in this situation (and would be another reason to keep this page). Ed [talk] [OMT] 00:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is a search engine; readers come here to search for information, and Wikipedia has long been one of the options you can choose as your default search engine in many web browsers. But this one in particular is ambiguous (per Zxcvbnm) and search results would be better (example). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Turkish bath

The target of this redirect should likely be reconsidered. The most helpful solution may to turn this into a DAB, merging with Turkish Bath (disambiguation). Reason: The term "Turkish bath" in a Western context is fairly generic and might also denote other types of steam baths, in addition to the mainly Islamic ones covered at Hammam. Since this was last discussed in 2021 (see here), a more fully-fledged Victorian Turkish bath article now exists. Other articles might also be relevant to link. Note: This came out of a discussion at Talk:Turkish Bath (disambiguation) between myself and Ishpoloni. Feel free to read there for more context & explanation. R Prazeres (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget: I don't know the correct Wiki terminology to use, but searchers from different communities seeking information on so-called 'Turkish baths' (which no longer appears as an article) could equally be looking for Hammam or Victorian Turkish baths and some type of 'See:' reference should offer these two clear redirecting link options.
Hammam is neither primary nor secondary. Hammam and Victorian Turkish baths only have in common that they are baths, and are both derived from the ancient Roman thermae. Victorian Turkish baths are not steam baths. Nor are they really, as the Hammam article states, "A variation on the Muslim bathhouse"—which is why in France and Germany they are called Roman-Irish baths.
The only guiding principle here should be: 'Save the time of the reader' Ranganathan's 4th law. Ishpoloni (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, we follow our own policies and guidelines, not library science (for better or for worse, I can't say). The guideline for how to deal with ambiguous terms (like Turkish bath) is WP:D. The first step is to determine whether there is a primary topic. One way to do that is to look at page traffic. The page traffic for Hammam shows that most people get to that page via an "other-search", such as searching for the term "Turkish bath" via an external search engine, but that only 15% of people then click away to Victorian Turkish baths from that article. We can infer that most readers were, in fact, looking for Hammam when they searched "Turkish bath". We can also look at comparative pageviews, which shows that Hammam gets far more views than Victorian Turkish baths. Then, if we've determined a primary topic, the guideline tells us to redirect the ambiguous term to that page, with hatnotes to the appropriate disambiguation pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having had time to familiarise myself more with the often complicated Wikipedia guidance notes, I now believe that the most equitable solution is the one suggested above by R Prazeres, ie, to change the current Redirect into a DAB, merging with Turkish Bath (disambiguation). This could either be based on the existing one or, perhaps preferably, like the Mercury page example given in the guidance notes. I believe this is a solution on which we should easily be able to reach consensus.
Reasons:
1. Of the 22 reasons for a redirect given on Wikipedia:Redirect the overwhelming majority relate to different forms of words, grammar, punctuation, etc. Not one exemplifies a redirect of one subject to another subject.[a]
2. On Wikipedia:Disambiguation page the three important points seem to be:
(a) naming articles so each has an unique title, eg, Hammam and Victorian Turkish baths;
(b) making links so that a term points to the correct article;
(c) "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." (My emphasis)
Proposed resolution:
Change the current Redirect into a DAB, merging with Turkish Bath (disambiguation)
An allied matter:
In case there are Western European readers of this Wikipedia, there should be Redirects < Irish-Roman baths and < Roman-Irish baths > Victorian Turkish baths. Ishpoloni (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ For any newcomer to the discussion, 'Victorian Turkish baths' is not a subdivision of 'Hammam', Hammam being an Islamic steam bath and Victorian Turkish baths being Victorian (Roman-Irish) baths using hot dry air. Both are direct descendants of the Roman thermae.

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 💬 14:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baak film redirects

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 19#Baak film redirects

Opposition to Chavismo

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! 20:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Term not found in the article. TarnishedPathtalk 10:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RFD#K4. Result of a page move that happened a few hours ago. "Anti-Chavismo" is also given as an alternative name in the lead. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Anti-Chavismo" is not "Opposition to Chavismo". Per your argument WP:RFD#K4 to quote the policy "Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links ... Links that have existed for a significant length of time ... should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them". This is clearly not a redirect that has existed for a significant period of time. TarnishedPathtalk 13:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting that you skipped over "redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason" when quoting from the RfD guidelines! Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; you'll find plenty of references if you focus on "opposition to chavism", and those can be worked into the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while it has problems as an article title, it is more than fine as a redirect. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Aku Type

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i did some looking, and it's a word in some languages, and could refer to the fire, water, electric, and dark types, given some mental gymnastics, but it's mostly an informal-ish first person pronoun. no idea what basis i think this should be deleted on, but i want this gone cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it's the japanese name for the dark type StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:31, 29 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! 08:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague at best. So basically in Japan Dark type pokemons are known as Aku or Evil type. However, I think this particular redirect is both vague and confusing. --Lenticel (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Barely used and not very helpful. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Pokédex (Sinnoh)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 10#Pokédex (Sinnoh)

Bird Pokémon

not sure if this is referring to bird pokémon (like corviknight and the worse corviknight), in which case i'd say retarget to the list of pokémon or delete (more so delete) or to the unused bird type, in which case redirect to missingno without a second or first thought cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to MissingNo. due to the unique bird type trait. Bird type doesn't equal flying type so it's not vague per se. --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to MissingNo.#Characteristics per above "without a second or first thought". I'm putting that into my phrasebook. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Among Pokémon fans, this term is typically used to refer to the likes of Pidgey and Spearow, being weak Normal-Flying birds found early in the game. A redirect to MissingNo. would be too confusing, and this term doesn't have a good single Pokémon to send it to. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cogsan, Lenticel, and Aaron Liu: Pinging so that you can reconsider your positions. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not unlikely for people who heard of the missing type to search it. Hence, retargetting to relevant information at MissingNo.#Characteristics would be helpful. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    my opinion, after several minutes of questioning unrelated things like how hattrem can knock boxers out with punches when it has as much attack as an acorn and less than a mug, is that "bird pokémon" either doesn't narrow things down in the slightest or narrows it down to exactly one pokémon which has an unused type game freak forgot to completely remove. so i'm even more confused, and recommend deleting so i never have to think about it again :D cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 22:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also fine with deletion if we find the redirects too vague. --Lenticel (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Leaning towards delete. Why isn't Ho-Oh or Lugia considered a bird Pokemon? Seems ambiguous to me. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to MISSINGNO. -- the other pokemon aren't "bird" type, they're "flying". @Hey man im josh: Since this is one of few times anybody on Wikipedia gives a crap about my vast knowledge of the subject I will indulge you: MISSINGNO. is famously the only "bird" type because it's a glitch that exposed certain pieces of pre-release dummy code to the player, including a "bird" type subsequently unused in the following 30 years of games. The way MISSINGNO. works, you ask? Oh I'd love to explain...
jp×g🗯️ 19:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks for the explanation @JPxG. Believe me, I remember MISSINGNO and the sixth item slot! I'm neutral on this now, kinda leaning to support retargeting. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment legendary birds are also classified as bird Pokémon, such as Articuno in its official description. Hisuian Braviary is described as "ferocious bird Pokémon". I would support listifying or dabifying. --MikutoH talk! 00:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the pokédex also makes mention of plenty of "bird pokémon" when it comes to bullying bug types
this usually refers to pidgey and taillow lol cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Big One (earthquake)

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28#The Big One (earthquake). However, multiple sources prove that "The Big One" does not only refer to the anticipated mega-quake in Los Angeles, but also refers to a similar feared one that can devastate Metro Manila, the Philippines. Here are some of the reliable sources that prove "The Big One" is not just a U.S. thing: from Rizal Medical Center, from DOST, from Inquirer.net, from Manila Bulletin, from a World Bank blog, from Philippine Star, and from Manila Standard Today. This redirect should be made as a disambiguation page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate: Agree with nomination. Not everything is about the US and if there are WP:RS demonstrating the terms usage in reference to other occurrences then this redirect should be made as a disambiguation page. TarnishedPathtalk 10:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Master

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 Ash Ketchum. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is this really the best place to target, as opposed to pokémon masters ex? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Ash Ketchum. Pokemon Masters is entirely separate from the concept of one, and that game doesn't use the terminology beyond the title to my knowledge. The concept itself is almost entirely associated with Ash, so I'd suggest a retarget there. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Ash Ketchum: per Pokelego999. This exact phrase Ash is the best target and isn't a bad place to jump into other aspects of Pokemondom if this isn't what the user expected. Skynxnex (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ash Ketchum per above. --Lenticel (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Legendary Pokémon

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 the first three to List of Pokémon and delete Ledgendary pokemon.. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

maybe retarget to the list of pokémon as with mythical pokémon? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to match Mythical Pokémon as per Cogsan. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just noticed the 4rd one has a minor spelling mistake, should it be deleted? i'd say delete cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 18:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cogsan: To be clear, are you !voting to delete all four redirects, or just Ledgendary pokemon? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just the 4rd one cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to List of Pokémon per others due to the anchor no longer existing. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ledgendary pokemon as an implausible misspelling and retarget the rest. CycloneYoris talk! 07:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Yuno Miles

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. The redirect was converted to an article and is now at AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PROD'ed but redirects are ineligible for that process. The original PROD statement was: Redirects to an article that doesn't mention Miles. Appears reasonable to me, this person doesn't seem notable enough to be mentioned in the target article as far as I can tell and I don't immediately see a good alternative target. Pinging original nominator: @Frankoceanreal. Tollens (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This redirect used to target List of hip hop satirists, which was BLARed in March 2024. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 10:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think there may be potential for a Yuno Miles article, as I've seen him building traction recently and can find at least some coverage so far, but it's not quite enough that I'd want to jump on making one right away. In the meantime, we do not have a good redirect target for him, so this should go. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, turns out there is a draft which was started two days ago, so maybe we'll see this turn into an article soon enough. Regardless, I still say delete. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moot: the redirect has been replaced with an article which is now at AfD, which will consider redirection anyways. Tollens (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Hazeltown

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

  • Just added a {{cn}} at the target. The article was titled Hazeltown and mention has been there right from the first edit in 2008 - Keep as long as the mention is there. Jay 💬 13:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: any thoughts on keeping the redrect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to lack of attestation; just because something has been there since 2008 doesn't mean it's right. (Of course, just because something cannot be cited doesn't mean it isn't true - but it does mean we should exclude it and the redirect from Wikipedia until we're 100% sure). --GnocchiFan (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GnocchiFan Okmrman (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The Province of Bessarabia

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 [10], [11], 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Bessarabia given the ambiguity of several historical provinces being named "Bessarabia". Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winged spear

Between Corseque, Spetum, and the fact that this redirect is not mentioned in the current target, it's not clear which subject readers are desiring to locate when searching this term. (However, used to be a section at Polearm#Winged spear, a section which was present in 2012, but was removed at some point that year.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit the Bohemian Earspoon is not the most obvious redirect. Winged spears are probably ancestral to the spetum and corseque too. If I were to plump for one, it would probably be spetum. But there is an argument that a separate article or article section on the weapon would ultimately be preferable. Be hard to make it above a start though. Monstrelet (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, makes me wonder if the section I linked which existed over a decade ago should be restored, or even used to overwrite the nominated redirect with an article. Steel1943 (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete per WP:REDYES Okmrman (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link baiting

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=9WE1AQAAQBAJ&pg=PT112&dq=%22linkbaiting%22&hl=&cd=2&source=gbs_api#v=onepage&q=%22linkbaiting%22&f=false
I don't suppose I could ask how you're defining "link baiting?" 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
apparently, the difference is the target demographic
clickbait is for general #ContentConsumers™ who love consuming content. for examples, uh, open up youtube and go to incognito mode
link bait is for creators, to try to get them to advertise, sponsor, or otherwise promote your slop. for an example, get offered a raidy shady sponsorship i think
so my pedantic ass would say delete unless a section or article on link bait can be made cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term is ambiguous. Link bait can mean both "clickbait" as well as "content designed to attract incoming links". We have no content to link to for the latter meaning, so there is nothing to do for now. Paradoctor (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete to encourage article creation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Paradoctor, but without prejudice to dabification/hatnoting if the term is added to another article in the context of digital marketing/SEO. The Wiktionary page includes examples of the term link bait being used in both contexts, but we don't currently seem to have an article which mentions the term in an SEO context. While WP:PRIMARYRED states that [t]he existing article is not automatically the primary topic in cases where other uses of the term are red-linked, it also states that MOS:DABMENTION still applies - and, as Wikipedia doesn't currently seem to have a mention of the term in the SEO context, DABMENTION isn't met - meaning that a disambiguation page for the term (by my understanding) couldn't currently exist. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 11:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Battle of appommatox courthouse

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The misspelling combined with the miscapitalization make this not very useful. Delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Courthouse" and "Court House" are variant spellings, and it isn't too surprising that someone would type it in lowercase. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Appomattox is also misspelled. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, didn't catch this. Yeah, delete in this case. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Enby's initial opinion on lowercase and spacing. Appomattox/Appommatox swaps the doubled characters with m for t, so isn't an unreasnable misspelling, as this isn't a common word. Tag {{R from misspelling}} -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is this a reasonable {{R from misspelling}}?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - plausible misspelling, cheap, and has existed since 2008 (engaging WP:R#K4). WP:R#CRD states that we should consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones; and so, in the absence of evidence of ambiguity or other harm caused by this redirect's existence, my !vote is to keep. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 11:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "courthouse" is not a misspelling, it's an alternate spelling, and the double-m in Appomattox is a plausible error. As for capitals, the first letter is capitalized in every page title (it's a technical restriction) and otherwise many readers don't bother typing capitals in the search bar. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Old and not harmful. Fieari (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_1&oldid=1224651085"