Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 0 0 83 110 193
TfD 0 0 0 5 5
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 2 23 25
AfD 0 0 0 25 25

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

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
  • If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Please do not change the target of the redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for both potential closers and participants.

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at "Search results 1–10 out of 378" instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD can also serve as a central discussion forum for debates about which page a redirect should target. In cases where retargeting the redirect could be considered controversial, it is advisable to leave a notice on the talk page of the redirect's current target page or the proposed target page to refer readers to the redirect's nomination to allow input and help form consensus for the redirect's target.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
  • In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "Orange". (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first or that it has become broken through vandalism.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then the title needs to be freed up to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, or alternatively (with the suppressredirect user right; available to page movers and admins), perform a round-robin move. If not, take the article to Requested moves.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links; consider tagging the redirect with the {{R from misspelling}} template to assist editors in monitoring these misspellings.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. Evidence of usage can be gauged by using the wikishark or pageviews tool on the redirect to see the number of views it gets.
  6. The redirect is to a closely related word form, such as a plural form to a singular form.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Tag the redirect.

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

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

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

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
Notify users.

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

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

{{subst:Rfd notice|RedirectName}} ~~~~

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

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

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

Current list[edit]

June 25[edit]

Epikh Pro[edit]

Not mentioned at target, article previously at this location (converted back to redirect for lack of apparent notability) doesn't mention target. firefly ( t · c ) 10:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article previously at location was meant to be a draft page. Epikh Pro (subject of new article) and Symbolyc One (S1) are two different people. S1 is Epikh Pro's colleague and former business partner, mentioned in incomplete article that has been removed. Due to the incorrect redirect, I would like the redirect to stay deleted, and the previous article restored as a draft so the article can be completed, fully sourced, and updated. As long as the redirect stays in place it inhibits the ability for an article to be written for this multi-platinum, twice Grammy-nominated, ASCAP award winning producer. 247ice (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terço dos Homens (Men's Rosary)[edit]

I would like this redirect deleted because it mixes English and Portuguese. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Not sure what this means. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no sources (reliable or not) that use "lebro" as a synonym for "volleyball". NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tetramethylammonium auride[edit]

I don't think it is a good idea to link to a different compound like this. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 04:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as outright misleading. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 24[edit]

Sze Kai-Kit[edit]

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

Draft:Yasmeen Fletcher[edit]

Cross-redirect from draft namespace into article namespace. The draft that was here was recently moved into article namespace, but the mover left behind a redirect.

I'm interpreting R2 speedy deletion as being applicable only if this were the other way around (a redirect from article namespace to draft namespace), so this is why I'm bringing it here. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is no longer a draft, thus a redirect in draft space is misleading. It is true that redirects from draft space are normally left behind (see WP:RDRAFT), but the only rationale I have ever heard that makes sense for keeping these is that it is a bookmark for the author to find the draft if needed. However, the draft author has edited the page since the move, so they know where it is. -- Tavix (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RDRAFT. To delete all draftspace redirects would be an unimaginable waste of community/administrator time (so many pages). To litigate the existence of WP:RDRAFT, there should be another VPR proposal like the original one where consensus was found against deletion. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bangladeshi film of 2022[edit]

Redirect left over from page move. No reason to search for the grammatically incorrect singular "list of film" instead of "list of films". ComplexRational (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Street Design of Santa Margherita[edit]

Unlikely redirect to empty section of dubious notability Fram (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Border of Santa Margherita Ligure[edit]

Redirect to empty section, useless Fram (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

93 FM[edit]

There are a lot of 93.0 FMs, so I don't see the point of linking specifically to this station. Iseult Δx parlez moi 09:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2027 French presidential election[edit]

The target has no mention of the 2027 election or the next election. Delete, or retarget to an article that is helpful to the reader. See the articles from where the redirect is linked: European Council and List of members of the European Council. All future dated title links there are of either articles, or redirects to articles that talk about the future elections. Jay (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


My computer can't even render this one, but based on the other alchemical redirects created by this editor (see below), I imagine that it is likely an alchemical sign. Delete unless evidence can be found that this sign unambiguously refers to melting. signed, Rosguill talk 18:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill According to a google search this emoji is a "melting face". (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction, I see it here as well. I guess it's relatively unambiguous, but it still doesn't seem particularly useful to readers and would lean towards deletion, redirecting to Emoji, or redirecting to a unicode block. signed, Rosguill talk 18:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that deletion is probably the best outcome per WP:REMOJI. "someone's face melting" is not an actual encyclopaedic topic and it's rather ambiguous, the current target isn't really a good fit, I imagine most people would use it to refer to warm weather, hyperthermia or something similar. (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This looks like a good fit. -- Tavix (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't keep. How does a "melting face" emoji relate to the physical process of melting? Faces are not literally undergoing a change in state from solid to liquid. Seems like an inappropriate target to me. Delete or retarget. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The emoji is showing a representation of a face undergoing a change in state from solid to liquid as if it were an ice cube. I mean, there's a puddle around the partially-melted face... -- Tavix (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • And someone would be seeking the content at Melting by using this emoji? It's only mainspace links are from articles about Emojis. Based on the external links, it is being used figuratively, to suggest someone is hot, or some other feeling, not the literal physical process. In terms of actual processes, could possibly also mean Dissolution. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Taking the examples of past Rfds linked at WP:REMOJI, we keep redirects from emojis for which there is an article about the specific thing depicted by the emoji, and otherwise we tend toward deletion. We do not have an article on Face melting or Melting face or similar (nor should we be expected to). Mdewman6 (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The emoji is a melting face emoji so Melting seems like a good target. If a better one is proposed, please ping me. Regardless of target, emoji redirects should never be deleted. Worst case, redirect to Emoji or to the specific block. Gonnym (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow the reasoning for never be deleted. I've seen several editors assert this, but it's not clear to me why this should be the case. signed, Rosguill talk 23:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - inherently foolish, if we start looking things up by emojiis I don't want to live on this planet any more. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too ambiguous to merit redirecting. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix and Gonnym. I also think that Melting is a good target for this emoji, and contrary to what both editors above have stated, I don't see any problem with keeping this as long as it redirects to the current target. CycloneYoris talk! 23:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Family buisiness[edit]

Implausible typo. Only received 910 views in the past 7 years, and not linked on any article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. MB 00:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even excluding the two day bump, that's a lot of views. This redirect seems to aid navigation (also note RHARMFUL). J947edits 00:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was an eight-day bump for mysterious reasons (maybe someone accidentally linked this on a live article?), and that yielded 775 views. Excluding this unusual anomaly, there have only been 135 views for the past seven years. "Buisiness" is hardly a common typo, it's not even on this list. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Serves me right for not investigating further. Of course, that doesn't invalidate my argument. J947edits 06:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Likely typo possibly, but I concur with the nom that it's also an uncommon one, and therefore not worth keeping. CycloneYoris talk! 02:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna go with Keep I've seen redirects kept with more than the 15 views that this had in the past year, and its not that implausible as a typo. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This is a redirect from move of an article, Joey Gosiengfiao, from an obviously malformed title. It was previously a redirect to 26th Milestone, Isle of Man before the article was created, and it only lasted as an article at this title for two days. IMO this should be redirected to Joey as ambiguous or straight up deleted. eviolite (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 23[edit]

Coat of arms of Harrow[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Withdrawn/Keep.

Anthonie Palamedesz.[edit]

I don't see the point of this redirect which is just the name of the article with a period at the end. The only link here is from a User page. Its existence would just confuse readers searching for the actual article Anthonie Palamedesz. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This type of name for Dutch persons of that era typically include the full stop at the end as the name is an abbreviation of Palamedeszoon (son of Palemedes). See the following authoritative sites: RKD:; Ecartico: See also: Sotheby's: Mimentalist (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If in doubt, User:Liz, do a little research before initiating a RfD. You could, for example, have tried to Google " Anthonie Palamedesz.", and would have come up with something like this: Indeed, given that a glance at the sources in the article show that Anthonie Palamedesz. is the most common use of his name, there may be an argument for renaming the article to Anthonie Palamedesz.. SilkTork (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El Fantasma (wrestler)[edit]

Deletion. Not the subject. El Fantasma is another wrestler, the father of Santos Escobar. El Fantasma is notable for his own article.. Also nominating El Fantasma (wrestler) HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've added "El Fantasma (wrestler)" which wasn't nominated initially by the nom. CycloneYoris talk! 08:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into new article. Hansen SebastianTalk 08:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split if El Fantasma is notable. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • About the Split, the article only mentions El Fantasma once (His father was a professional wrestler, known as the enmascarado "El Fantasma"). I would prefer the deletion to encourage the article creation, as Lentice said. Sadly, Mexican lucha libre is not my field. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomical event[edit]

As with the verdict for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celestial event, this phrase is too nebulous (snark) to be of any worth. Its current redirect target has a different, more precise meaning. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Alaska[edit]

I'm unsure what to do with this redirect. On one hand, it's a pointless cross-namespace redirect. On the other hand, it couldn't really mean anything else. Qwerfjkltalk 20:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It works for this account and my main account, it also makes it easier, small function but can't be confused for anything else Mycranthebigalt (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Match (Video game)[edit]

No WLH; implausible capitalisation; delete per WP:PANDORA. Qwerfjkltalk 20:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Falling through the cracks[edit]

This phrase has a much broader use than this. It's not even mentioned at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the standing orders! Read them and understand them![edit]

Delete. The section this redirect points to has been removed, the article about the incident in question, Cheshire East Council bullying and misconduct allegations was recently redirected to Cheshire East Council folowing an AfD, but the article does not contain this quote. Handforth Parish Council does have an article, but that does not contain the quote either. A search suggests that this redirect is also now the only page to contain both the whole quote and the shorter "Read them and understand them!", leaving nowhere that will enable someone searching on this phrase to learn anything about it, and given the sparsity of what we have it is likely that arriving at the town council's article will just lead to confusion.
I'm mildly suprised that this isn't included in a list of memes, and I would certainly support retargetting there if it is added, but while it isn't I can't see any good alternative to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Dove's Necklace[edit]

There is no mention of the necklace anywhere in the target article, so the redirect should be deleted. If deleted, The Dove's Necklace (novel) should then be moved to replace the deleted redirect. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ark Nova[edit]

Retarget to Ark Nova (board game) or change to disambig? Right now, it points to a biography of an artist whose concert was named Ark Nova, a rather borderline meaning. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bocce (Locality)[edit]

Completely unverifiable that such a locality exists. It supposedly is the namesake of the "Monte delle Bocce", for which there is one, unreliable, source[3], and which isn't mentioned in any book[4]. Either such a locality doesn't exist, or it is extremely, extremely minor and thus very unlikely to be a useful search term anyway. The target article also has no further information on the locality. Fram (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about it being a unlikely search term and being minor but I have a source, the only problem being I realised that I misspelt it. But it's clearly listed as a locality here N1TH Music (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reliable source, and shows a picknick bench... Fram (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The closest thing to a reliable source I found is this (in Italian), which is a route plan from the Calco section of the Club Alpino Italiano, which still isn't a verifiable source. The name of the supposed locality appears to be Bocche / Bocche di San Lorenzo. Hecseur (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The map used in the route plan (Le Vie Del Sale 1:25000 n°4 La Val Fontanabuona e i Golfi Paradiso e Tigullio) could actually be used as a source, although quite a weak one at best. Hecseur (talk) 10:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that there are no written or primary sources available, only a few maps like the ones all 3 of us have listed, but I'm sure the Commune has something written about it and when I go to Santa Margherita next, I could go and ask about it if they have a document or anything like that. But besides that the settlement appears on multiple maps and the mountain is named after it. It may only be a junction between trails with some picknick benches and a signpost but WP:GEOLAND clearly states that any officially recognised settlement has notability on it's own, even an abandoned one, and Bocche has some roads and picknick benches all of which are in use. Therefore by any reasonable definition, it meets the criteria for a standalone article although I was just writing a redirect as I wanted to write it one section about it as well as all of the other localities in Santa Margherita which meet the same criteria in the article, Geography of Santa Margherita Ligure. N1TH Music (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the redirect has since been moved to Bocche (Locality), and then to Bocche. Both should be deleted as well. There is no evidence at all that this is a "officially recognised settlement" or even an unofficial one, and nothing reliable can be said about it in the target article. Fram (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram But several maps refer to it's existence and all of them are independent from one another, plus an entire mountains was named after it, off course it's real. and all these sources were found searching with the wrong term even I'm certain there's more. N1TH Music (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram here you go Map from the official site of the Park of Portofino whom own the land of which Bocche sits and their map clearly states that Bocche is a real settlement. Is that enough evidence now? N1TH Music (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It says nothing about being a settlement, it is a place called Bocche, but there is no indication that anyone lives or lived there at all. The world is filled with boulders, crossroads, outcrops, ... which have a local name but which aren't settlements at all. Fram (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:GEOLAND states that the place doesn't have to still be populated to be notable, it just must be official. "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." While I agree that this place hasn't got much history, but if I went digging next time I actually go to Santa Margherita Ligure, I'd find something, this settlement simply has a large hiking milestone for people travelling in the area and has a mountain named after it. Also WP:GEOLAND is for places to be notable enough to warrant an article; this is a redirect to what I want to become a section of another article which has a lower bar to clear, which I am certain it does clear. Maybe only if I start writing about it, which is completely fine by me. Tell me what you think. N1TH Music (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


No evidence that the small Luxembourgian village of Contern actually has an English name, as claimed in that article and when creating this redirect. Fram (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I live hear and well it's a coloquial name, it's really official so therefore I can't find much evidence so I assume you should delete it then. N1TH Music (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. This is the surname of several people, so disambiguation is doable (I've drafted a dab below the redirect). I've included Contern in the "see also", but if "Conton" is an alternative name for the village (rather than just a respelt form indicating how the name is to be pronounced) then there should be sources for that, and once sources are found then the entry can be moved up into main body of the dab page. If no sources are found, then the mention of the name should be removed from the article. – Uanfala (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Uanfala has made a clear point. There are many names attached therefore the page should remain a disambiguation article N1TH Music (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This redirect does not in any way get mentioned in the article. Perhaps an article for "Edgelord" would be better suited. Th78blue (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't know if the generic concept of being an 'edgelord', as partially distinct from being a 'troll', is worth an article. It may be, though. At any rate, the current redirect isn't appropriate. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as can't see a suitable target. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 12:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a song on the album My Agenda that has this name, perhaps a disambiguation page between the current target, the song and a link to the Wiktionary definition would be reasonable? This has been getting a lot of page views (100+/month) so we should probably have something at this title. (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate per 192. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure Poseur, the current target, would bear mention at such a dab, which leaves the song (which most readers are probably not looking for) and the wiktionary entry. Edgelord appears like it might be in-itself notable (per [5], [6], [7]), so I would lean towards deletion to encourage article creation. signed, Rosguill talk 19:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is still not 100% clear on this one…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per above, this is a potentially notable subject, has a primary meaning, and the redirect is getting traffic. I suggest a soft redirect to wikt:edgelord and tagging it as a {{r with possibilities}}. - Eureka Lott 11:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aroostook County Jane Doe[edit]

Thanks to overzealous trimming of the target page, this now leads nowhere. This case is recently back in the news, so maybe a proper article is in order. Or at least an entry at the target. Sumanuil. 19:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Content was removed from the target article due to the core policy of WP:No original research. Not convinced that this is a notable topic warranting inclusion in that list or in its own article. As such, there is no need for a redirect. Routine news coverage does not make a topic encyclopedic per WP:NOTNEWS. We need evidence from secondary and tertiary sources other than the media to prove notability. Further Aroostook County has multiple Jane Does in their cold case files stretching back decades, so the naming of this topic is problematic. 4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who removed the target section. Does anyone not involved in this mess have an opinion? Also, if anything in "the media" doesn't count as a secondary source, then 99% of Wikipedia is OR. And WP:NOTNEWS does not invalidate the use of news outlets as sources. Sumanuil. 20:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sumanuil This is not the place to have this discussion as it is only tangentially related to dealing with this redirect. I am happy to discuss the issues with you on the relevant talk page, but please do not de-rail this nomination with side issues. The use of news sources on Wikipedia is permissible, but should be done with following the policies at WP:Verifiability, WP:NOT, WP:OR, and WP:SUSTAINED. In this instance, the topic lacked multiple independent secondary sources as required by those policies, and the use of those sources (some primary sources in addition to one secondary reference) was pieced together in a way that violated the no original research policy on wikipedia (i.e. original synthesis). If you wish to discuss this further, please do so at Talk:List of unidentified murder victims in the United States. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. Not right now, though. Maybe later. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? Sumanuil. 07:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Retarget to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Objecting because the BLP Contest has long concluded, and its page currently receives no page views. This redirect The redirects also receives little incoming links. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Singkong is just an Indonesian translation for Cassava, which in my opinion, is not a manifestation of culture with special significance, as shown in WP:RFOREIGN. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. It is listed as an Indonesian common name at Encyclopedia of Life, but among names in 100+ languages. Cassava is of South American origin and widely cultivated in the tropics, so there is no particular significance to Indonesia. Declangi (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Complex exponential[edit]

I suggest retarget to Exponentiation#Complex exponentiation or Exponential function#Complex plane. I think Euler's formula is exponential(s) rather than complex exponential(s). --SilverMatsu (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This is a widely used redirect so I don't love bringing it to RfD, but I think that it's come to be relatively confusing that WP:CRITERIA specifically means the criteria for deciding an article title. There is a {{redirect}} hatnote that links to Wikipedia:Criteria (disambiguation); however, I think this should retarget Wikipedia:Criteria (disambiguation). TartarTorte 21:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an RM may be in order. But no matter which venue, count me as a support. We will need to note that this was the longstanding target. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I just looked at the first 20 links on the WhatLinksHere page, and all of them use criteria in reference to article titles - removing this would both likely cause a significant amount of confusion in the short term, and make older discussions harder to read. BilledMammal (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While I agree that the term is technically ambiguous, this redirect is so well established that changing it can only create additional mess. Policy shortcuts are a project-internal thing that should only be changed when there is a demonstrable problem, and I don't see one here. No such user (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have long thought it silly that WP:CRITERIA redirects to a section on article titles that doesn't even use the word rather than what is by far the primary topic for criteria, WP:CSD. However, it's "established" so disambiguation would have to be the best solution. I disagree that this would cause confusion. If reading archives regarding an article title, the entry regarding article titles would clearly be what was meant. -- Tavix (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per No such user. In the WP world CRITERIA has referred to title decision-making long before the short cut was created. This proposed change would only create problems without solving any. —В²C 04:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm more interested in page titling than deletion so to me this is what it means but I expect not for most users. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There was no WP:RM initiated per the initial suggestions, hence continuing with the RfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. While this is not the most intuitive title, the only real change from this move would be making old discussions a pain to read since WP:CRITERIA wouldn't go to the relevant page. Hecseur (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – the cure is worse than the disease. "Criteria" is indeed somewhat ambiguous, but this is a longstanding redirect that has been used over 2000 times, almost always correctly. Making our shortcuts slightly less counterintuitive is not a strong enough reason to keep those links from going directly to their intended target, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quahog, Rhode Island[edit]

I am requesting to delete this redirect in order to accept Draft:Quahog, Rhode Island as an article. After reviewing the draft, I tagged the redirect with {{db-afc-move}}, the variety of G6 used by AFC reviewers when there is a redirect that will be replaced by an article, typically, as in this case, where the draft will expand on a subtopic in the article. The G6 was declined by User:Jay with the comment "Removing G6 - this has been there from 2004, I would suggest a merge-and-redirect from the draft". I respectfully disagree, and am using RFD as the process to obtain consensus. I don't think that a subtopic or related topic redirect having existed for eighteen years is itself a reason to keep the redirect rather than to replace it with an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't understand what Jay means by a merge. In general, replacing redirects with articles is "wholly encouraged" and moves from draftspace over redirects can be requested at WP:RM/TR. I guess if a user (Jay) has objected to what amounts to a technical move request (the G6 request), it should either go through the WP:AFC process, where the draft will be moved over the redirect if accepted, and further disputes can be resolved at Afd. Rfd is not the correct venue for this. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it's already in AfC, and you are trying to accept it. I guess if there is an objection to the move from draftspace, this needs to go through a RM? Really, someone should complete the move and then take it to Afd if there is still disagreement about whether there should be an article at this page or a redirect. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • By merge and redirect, I meant a cut and paste move if considering there is nothing much in the draft page history to preserve. I'm not very particular about this, and didn't mean this to become contentious. I understand that AfC scripts work better by a page move. Robert McClenon, if you can repeat the G6 and is accepted by an admin, then the RfD can be procedurally closed. Jay (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cut and paste moves from draftspace aren't really consistent with policy and guidelines, unless the draft content is being merged into an existing article. I see your goal was to preserve the redirect history rather than the draft history, but maybe a round-robin move is a compromise? Idk. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Moving the draft over the redirect, which deletes the redirect history, and then restoring the pre-draft redirect history would be the best way to preserve almost everything in one place (the June 2022 edits to the redirect would not be preserved, which I presume is okay). The result would look like the draft was started by overwriting the redirect (except for the move entry from draftspace). -- Tavix (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Jay, User:Mdewman6, User:Tavix - Are you saying that you want me to do a round-robin move to accept the draft while moving the redirect into draft space? I can do that, but all that it will do is to preserve the history of the redirect. The redirect has been there since 2004, but has only been a redirect. Its history just consists of tweaks to its status as a redirect. Do you really want me to do a round-robin accept to preserve the history of a redirect that has always only been a redirect? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fine with any of the options, but I am offering to perform a history merge if that's what it will take to bring this to an amicable conclusion. -- Tavix (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Jay, User:Mdewman6, User:Tavix - I've done a round-robin acceptance and move. The redirect has been rolled into Draft:Quahog, Rhode Island. However, I have a question, and maybe I need to ask it at Village Pump. Either I didn't understand when redirects were thought to have minimal history, or new rules are being made about when redirects need to be retained. I thought that the history of a redirect was considered minor if it had never had article content. This redirect was never an article, only a redirect. So is there another rule as to when a redirect acquires a need to be preserved as a museum piece? Drafts to replace redirects with articles are not uncommon. The AFC reviewers would like some set of rules as to what to do about them when. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects do not cross the threshold of originality, thus do not need to be preserved when there is no article history to consider. That being said, they can be preserved, either with a round robin move, a move-without-redirect somewhere else, or a history merge. Cut and paste is not recommended, so I think that covers the bases. -- Tavix (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 22[edit]

Spotted Caribbean stingray[edit]

Not clear what species this refers to. Not mentioned on any Wikipedia page. Possibly an undescribed species present in the aquarium hobbyist trade. Search engines bring up pages that say this is Urolophus halleri, which doesn't occur in the Caribbean, and Chinese websites that associate this name and Urolophus aurantiacus, which also isn't present in the Caribbean. Plantdrew (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Not described as synonym at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's listed under synonyms at the bottom of the infobox, and collapsed. Abductive (reasoning) 20:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the fact that this is a synonym can easily be checked at e.g. PoWO. Any thoughts, 1234qwer1234qwer4? – Uanfala (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooops, sorry, I'm going to withdraw this then. However, I would like to know whether there are any problems with Synthyris missurica and Synthyris reniformis (which made me think this wouldn't be a synonym in the first place). 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    According to PoWO, Synthyris reniformis is a synonym of Veronica regina-nivalis, and Synthyris missurica – of Veronica missurica. I don't know if the taxonomic scheme followed by those two articles is now obsolete, or if it's an acceptable alternative. – Uanfala (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2019 FIBA 3x3 Europe Cup[edit]

No mention in the target page. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep. Target page needs improvement, but it does mention that there were separate men's and women's tournaments, and it is intuitive that there would be some means of qualification. BD2412 T 22:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1&2 - Neutral on 3, its not mentioned at the target - will let others decide. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 01:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand the parent article to cover the qualifying and the events themselves. Better to have one better quality article about this than multiple separate crap articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian disco[edit]

Disco is not mentioned at the target, and is not equivalent to EDM. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete disco isn’t mentioned a single time in the target article meaning someone potentially looking for info on the subject wouldn’t find what they are looking for. I can also confirm that the Disco article doesn’t mention this either.-- (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find a good target article for this one. We do have a mention of the drummer Christian "Disco" Schellhorn in Lord of the Lost but I think that counts as a partial title match.--Lenticel (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirecting a disco redirect to an EDM page is rather misleading. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety[edit]

There is no mention of this court case on the target page. I am not sure if the court case is independently notable as I have not looked into it too much but this redirect is not appropriate unless we are going to discuss the court case on this page. Could possibly redirect to the article on the current Supreme Court term though, we may have a better redirect target after the case is decided, which should be in the next week or so. Smartyllama (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spam/vandalism. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The court should not lose sight of the elephant-in-the-room: why is Torres not entitled to a service-connected disability pension?
Leroy Torres v Texas Department of Public Safety, Docket 20-603, Reply brief for Petitioner (18 March 2022), p.8: "Whatever the outer limits of Congress’s power to authorize suits under its war powers might be, suits by soldiers for discrimination on the basis of war injuries are at the core."
This court has NEVER ruled on disability pension rights for mobilized reservists that 38 USC 4318 cites a right. This court should grant Torres his disability pension rights as perquisites of seniority protected under the statute and restructure the USERRA regulatory enforcement process.
The conundrum herein is if Torres is granted the ability to enforce Congress' War Powers, it is an acknowledgment that the federal regulatory process is not working and should be changed, possibly to the Department of Veterans Affairs. If Torres is denied, Torres has no further recourse and is denied USERRA's 38 USC 4318 disability pension entitlements.
Torres' reemployment rights are to treat him as if he had not incurred a break in service for pension purposes, see 38 USC 4312(f)(3)(B) and 38 USC 4318(a)(2)(A). Employee pension benefit plan rights are entitled, see 38 USC 4316(b)(6).
"Providing reemployment rights for those who have been called to the service of their country is, in our view, a legitimate exercise of Congress's power to raise armies." Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U.S. 275, 284 (1946).
"We conclude, therefore, that pension payments are predominantly rewards for continuous employment with the same employer. Protecting veterans from the loss of such rewards when the break in their employment resulted from their response to the country's military needs is the purpose..." Alabama Power Co. v. Davis, 431 U. S. 581 (1977) at 594.
“[W]e held in Alabama Power Co. v. Davis, 431 U. S. 581 (1977), that pension benefits are perquisites of seniority protected under the statute.” Coffy v. Republic Steel Corp., 447 U.S. 191, 195 (1980).
A benefit is a right of seniority secured to a veteran if it would have accrued with reasonable certainty, as opposed to being subject to a significant contingency, had the veteran been continuously employed by the employer, McKinney v. Missouri-K.-T. R. Co., 357 U. S. 265 (1958); Tilton v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 376 U. S. 169 (1964), and if it is in the nature of a reward for length of service, rather than short-term compensation for services rendered, Accardi v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 383 U. S. 225 (1966); Foster v. Dravo Corp., 420 U. S. 92 (1975) Pp. 431 U. S. 585-589.
38 USC 4318, Internal Revenue Code 414(u) and the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008 (“HEART Act“) Pub. L. No. 110-245 Section 104 discuss the interrelationships of what constitutes an Internal Revenue Code 401(a) "qualified pension plan" regarding USERRA. The "forcing function" would be finding pension plans in violation of USERRA and losing their tax-exempt status. That forfeiture is considered catastrophic without merit by State and local government employers so their argument is to cite USERRA as unconstitutional, the obfuscating MacGuffin. Any payout that causes pension fund depletion requires those employers to contribute to prevent insolvency. Government agencies draw upon their General Funds to maintain solvency and thus run counter to political pet programs. And yet these agencies continue to draw federal dollars...
An all-volunteer force, because they answered their nation's call, disenfranchised. Disability pension rights are not some added benefit, it is to not be treated less than those who did not answer the call. Not better, only not less than. "Out of luck" in violation of USERRA's "on-the-job" equivalency requirement for “those who have been obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burdens of the nation”, see Boone v. Lightner, 319 U.S. 561, 575 (1943).
"But if petitioner is to be placed on an equal footing with his co-workers, his military absences cannot be treated simply as personal leaves of absence.[...] A reservist's absences...result from obligations vital to our national defense that other employees have not assumed, and the primary purpose of the reemployment rights statutes is to protect reservists against disadvantages in employment caused by these obligations. Indeed, the essence of the statutory guarantees provided by Congress is that employers must give special treatment to the military absences of veterans and reservists. [...] However, unless the statute is read as safeguarding reservists from the adverse effects of facially neutral rules, much of its practical significance is lost. " Monroe v. Standard Oil Co., 452 US 549 (1981),572-573.
So why is Torres not entitled to a service-connected disability pension?
There is a large military reserve population increasingly relied upon by the United States who may come home maimed from conflicts who have no reason to believe that the monies paid into their civilian pension plans will ever come to fruition. Those pension plans will deny benefits unless the US Supreme Court realizes that Texas performed a "bait-and-switch". (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Euro T20 Slam records and statistics[edit]

Pointless redirect, as parent article has no records or stats, as the event has never happened. Even if the Euro T20 Slam does happen this year, we shouldn't be encouraging that article to be bloated with excessive statistics, as per WP:NOTSTATS. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Euler-alpha equations[edit]

I don't think Euler's formula are also known as Euler-alpha equations. So I think it needs to be retargeted, but I don't know the target. Also, according to the comments (thanks !), it seems to be related to fluid dynamics. SilverMatsu (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The target is definitely wrong. The only reasonable target I can see on WIkipedia is Euler equations (fluid dynamics) but it does not mention this. As far as I can see it is a way of approximating the equations so cutting the cost of computation, but I'm not familiar with it. So unless someone wants to actually write section or even an article on the topic I think it should just be deleted. Anyway they seem to be referred to as α-Euler in some places and Euler-α in others. NadVolum (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation, or (second choice) retarget to Euler equations (fluid dynamics), of which these are a variant. Whatever happens, don't keep as is. —Kusma (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already mentioned. Also note that deleting this will not affect much as no article currently links to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickR2 (talkcontribs) 04:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Beast[edit]

At least two editors, (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Praxidicae (talk · contribs), disagree on the proper target of this redirect. The IP wants to retarget this to the YouTuber MrBeast, who receives vastly more pageviews than the album Mr Beast. It is also possible that the correct solution is to disambiguate. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 03:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. MrBeast is most likely the PT for "Mr. Beast", making it a good target for the term in quotation marks. However, the album is also a plausible target for the term as an R from punctuation. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Creating a draft DAB is needed for closing this...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, a (draft) dab is not needed. There is a primary topic, the YouTuber, and one other topic, the album. Per WP:ONEOTHER, we can simply hatnote to the other topic without using a disambiguation page. -- Tavix (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I missed Ramos in my earlier read. Mr. Beast (disambiguation) can include him, the album, and the YouTuber. -- Tavix (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus on the primary target, but still no agreement on whether the disambiguation is for 2 topics (hatnote) or 3 topics (for Peter John Ramos).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The two-revert rule doesn't exist. There is a 3RR, a 1RR, and a 0RR but not a 2RR. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Redirects are cheap, and this is the most likely target someone might be looking for. I'm not sure it's true that there are no 2RR restrictions on any editors or pages across the project. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The two-revert rule isn't mentioned on Wikipedia:Edit warring, which is why I nominated this. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @FAdesdae378, the point of such a redirect is that it's a plausible mis-type or misunderstanding. Please don't waste others' time by trying to delete redirects that aren't actually causing problems. valereee (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to being plausibly a mistake, some people have linked to the redirect with clear and accurate intention. Reviewing Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:2RR, they've used it to say something like "I only reverted twice within 24 hours" or "I think there should be a 2RR rule". Despite not being mentioned explicitly, these meanings of 2RR are reasonably intuitable from the target page's explanation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Students in Harry Potter's year[edit]

The target article isn't about students in Harry Potter's year. Many of the entries on the list do not fit this description. (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Misleading redirect, as not all students in Harry Potter's year were also in Dumbledore's Army, and some members of the DA weren't in his year either. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very misleading redirect, per Joseph. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 21[edit]

Anthony Sardinha[edit]

This actor has other roles in notable works, such as Epithet Erased. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 22:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, for the same reason given. This is not the first, most prominent, or most definitive role he's had in a work listed on this site. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably better off as an article --Lenticel (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Marnocha[edit]

This actor has other roles in notable works, such as Transformers: War for Cybertron Trilogy. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 22:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, for the same reason given. This is not the first, most prominent, or most definitive role he's had in a work listed on this site. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possibly better off as its own article --Lenticel (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to encourage article creation. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Empire[edit]

maybe better to redirect to Persian Empire (disambiguation)? What do you think? I have no strong opinion myself, but feeling that the current situation is not the best for navigation. BlackBony (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget since the title has little affinity with the monarchism article while the title encompasses more than just the Achaemenid Empire. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Association[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, not seeing any indication that this is an alternate name for the target based on internet and Google Scholar searches. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Most hits in wiki are partial title matches like "Asian ________ Association" --Lenticel (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World order (disambiguation)[edit]

Now that the target is no longer a disambiguation page or a list article, this redirect can be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbest Member of Congress[edit]

The target article says Scott was characterized as such by the NYT in 1974. I don't know it the NYT 10 dumbest list continued in subsequent years, but I would expect this redirect to take me to something more contemporary. Delete. MB 04:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • New Times (magazine), not the New York Times! Easy mistake to make. No opinion on the merits of this redirect, but more information can be found through searches and the linked page. J947edits 05:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the source, its not that he just happened to be on top of a regular poll one time, its that he was overwhelmingly considered such by other members of congress and the media. Similar to Dana Rohrabachers nickname as "Russia's Favorite Congressman". So the redirect is for a nickname specific to one person, not the name of a regular poll. Theres a bit more context in the article of the person who wrote that one-off poll for the New Times. There is no other article on Wikipedia mentioning the same phrase, so I think the redirect is fairly unambiguous. jonas (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 06:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: While this was a moniker applied to him, at this point there is no consensus on who it is. While this is the only instance of the term on wikipedia, it does not necessarily make it an appropriate redirect and with a member of congress who has not remained particularly significant after his term, it seems to approach WP:SURPRISE even if there is appropriate rationale behind it. If it is kept, I highly recommend it be protected because this has incredibly high potential for vandalism as a redirect. TartarTorte 18:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Condah swamp[edit]

Not mentioned at target. This is a separate locality. Swampland is mentioned at Lake Condah but that is further south than this locality. Delete. A7V2 (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 20[edit]

List of berries[edit]

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


Current redirect is not main topic ★Trekker (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. There are indeed at least three templates that this title can refer to, but ambiguity like this can be resolved by pages even in template space. The precedents for that along with the long (and confusing) edit history make a disambig page seem like the best option to me. I've drafted one already. Glades12 (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or disambiguate - Keep, or disambiguate per Glades12. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Template disambiguation is really only necessary for templates that are used often. These navboxes are used at max, once on a page, and on a very limited number of pages. If not delete, then support disambiguation. Gonnym (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The erased emperor[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. The few uses of this phrase on Google Scholar suggest that other emperors may have been known by this moniker. Deletion seems appropriate unless evidence of unambiguous use can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague. I think Damnatio memoriae is the closest target article which discusses the erasure of Emperor Geta's memory. However it is really a very long stretch for a retarget. --Lenticel (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague and useless. Even given Lenticel's idea, the redirect with the definite article remains unnecessary. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manifesto Politik[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. Google scholar search results suggest that this is just Indonesian for "Political Manifesto" and is not predominantly associated with any particular group. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as generic foreign-language term with no English-language use. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Hafeez[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, likely independently notable (see: [9]), delete to encourage article creation. signed, Rosguill talk 19:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Rosguill's rationale. Being creator of the redirect, I've also requested CSD G7. Thanks AHatd (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Amin al-Hafiz where Amin Hafez and Amin Hafiz also redirect. Jay (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well "hafeez" and "Hafiz" are two different surnames. And this case redirect under discussion is intended for this Amin Hafeez [10] [11] [12], who used to work for the Geo News. I don't see anywhere Amin al-Hafiz being called Amin Hafeez, so it'll be not very appropriate to retarget this Amin Hafeez to Amin al-Hafiz. Thanks AHatd (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagavath Singh[edit]

This was tagged for speedy deletion to make way for the film article Bhagavath Singh (film), however the redirect creator didn't think it appropriate for the film title to be moved to the title. Bhagat Singh was not known as Bhagavath Singh, and there is no mention at the target, so it is unclear why the redirect exists. Jay (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No mention of Bhagavath at Bhagat Singh's article. The creator may have misassumed that the revolutionary's proper name was Bhagavath since Bhagat is a derivative from it. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as redirect creator. The nominator and I had a discussion about this at the redirect talk page. To pull out a couple of my points. The target doesn't mention Bhagavath Singh but the film article does. From Bhagavath_Singh_(film)#Release: "The film opened in December 1998 to negative reviews with a critic from stating that the film spoils the freedom fighter Bhagat Singh's name...". I will be honest and say I can't remember why I did create the redirect but it seems plausible that this film in some way biographical and so therefore redirecting to the primary topic makes sense. If someone could find reviews or even just a plot summary that would likely clarify whether it is unrelated or not. Tassedethe (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of Creation[edit]

A Google search shows that All of Creation (song) is clearly the primary topic and therefore should be the target. Veverve (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget with hatnote to current article. According to target article this is a partial title match of "All of Creation Rejoices in Thee" but it is still a plausible search term for it. --Lenticel (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's already a hatnote placed at current target article which solves any ambiguity. No need to retarget anywhere else; and I'm not sure if the song is notable enough for it to be considered the primary topic. CycloneYoris talk! 08:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs decision on primary topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris: a Google search clearly shows the pop song is the primary topic, not the liturgical one. Veverve (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Joint Opposition[edit]

Years after draft promotion, would anyone ever need this? Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral, but we do usually keep the draft redirects around just because they're cheap and there's no benefit to deleting them. Anarchyte (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this one after disambiguating the title. Should we move the draft title accordingly? It seems cheap, but this seems like more waste of volunteer time... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay based on an RFC from 2016. This is becoming increasingly arcane :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the discussion here is on the Years after draft promotion part, then yes it helps to keep the edit history right from the first edit, regardless of number of years. Jay (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I now get the point about the potential overhead of keeping the draft title in sync with the mainspace title over different moves over the years. It did take some time figuring out the page history of this case, since the mainspace article underwent a move without redirect. I may revise my vote depending on any strong opinions coming in. Jay (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The draft that was at this title is the article now at Joint Opposition (Sri Lanka), so if it is kept it should be pointing there due to the "help article authors find their draft" rationale that pops up by the keepers of these redirects. However, the draft was accepted over five years ago and any benefits from this redirect have long since expired. Couple that with the title mismatch which makes it a bit more confusing to keep it around, so it should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:RDRAFT maybe Retarget to Joint Opposition (Sri Lanka). As something that WOULD HAVE been an {{R from avoided double redirect}} (but obviously dont tag as such since it isnt.) Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No real reason to delete a redirect like this. The benefits to keeping it are few, but even they outweigh the benefits of deleting it (which also takes more effort). Glades12 (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Worcester Tornadoes players[edit]

The team disbanded in 2012, so there haven't been any "current" players in 10 years... Fram (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as useless, misleading, and unhelpful. No current players for that team exist. `— Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Mariduena[edit]

David Dobrik is a separate person who, although being associated with Mariduena, is not Mariduena. If a Vlog Squad page existed this would make sense, but such page does not exist. Gtag10 (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NYCS stations[edit]

Template was deleted as part of a TFD on 28th May. But was recreated as a redirect to another template on 29th May. The redirect is still unused, so should be deleted. WOSlinker (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The redirect was created so the link at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Rail succession templates will work since Template:NYCS station does the same thing as the "x stations" templates. Without this redirect, this template won't appear on the list. Gonnym (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gonnym, the template doesn't even work with the succession templates such as {{S-line}} as that passes over the "line" and "station" parameters rather than using a numbered "1" & "2" parameters, which NYCS station uses. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So? The fact that the design is different does not mean it's not related to the set. Hiding it will only make replacing these harder. And I know, as I'm categorizing a lot of uncategorized templates in these sets. Gonnym (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Conversions to Template:Station link are still a work in progress. Cards84664 12:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


There is a brief mention at target. There is another at Roman Sadovsky, and searching WP shows a few others. None is any better than the others. Probably best to just delete. MB 06:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. and possibly WP:REDYES. Veverve (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, retarget or create article - Keep, retarget to a more suitable target, or create an article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The recording artist of this name is mentioned in several articles, but there's no good place to point the redirect. - Eureka Lott 01:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral Johnson[edit]

Having just created Admiral Johnson (disambiguation), I doubt that Alfred Wilkinson Johnson is the primary topic of this title-and-name combination. There have been numerous other admirals with the surname Johnson, some of higher rank. I would move the disambiguation page over this redirect. BD2412 T 00:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Delete redirect as there are no current transclusions. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No problems with this redirect have been identified. Being unused isn't a valid reason for deletion. - Eureka Lott 00:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eureka Happy Editing--IAmChaos 20:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 19[edit]

Wikipedia:DuSable Black History Museum and Education Center[edit]

Fixed from a bad page move; unnecessary redirect that doesn't meet G14 or R2. Iseult Δx parlez moi 19:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as bad cross-namespace redirect. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DuSable Museum of African American History[edit]

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


Neologism I doubt anyone uses. Very unlikely search term. ★Trekker (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Another cross-namespace redirect, yes, it has existed for quite a while but the only links to this page are from two User space subpages. And I also can not find the term "Geouf" any where on the target space, as either a word or acronym. Liz Read! Talk! 14:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Failing Flesh[edit]

Because of the nature of this page title ("Project: Failing Flesh"), this page is also classified as Wikipedia:Failing Flesh which is confusing. The only links to the page are from User space. I suggest either deletion or removing the colon from the page title so that this doesn't appear to be a cross-namespace redirect. I'll just add that on the target page, Eric Forrest, the term appears several times as "Project Failing Flesh", without a colon. Liz Read! Talk! 13:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this was a technical workaround. The band's name is Project: Failing Flesh, which leads to the nominated page. Because of the technical limitation, the article about the band was at Project Failing Flesh until it was merged in 2020. - Eureka Lott 14:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Project: Failing Flesh is the correct name of the band which had an article for 11 years, so a redirect for that title is highly useful even if it messes with our namespace system. The redirect page explains why "Project:" becomes "Wikipedia:" here, which clears up the confusion for any reader who noticed the change in the first place, and we editors aren't harmed by this type of technical quirk. Glades12 (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The band is attested as "Project: Failing Flesh" per [13]. -- Tavix (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page is actually Project:, but this is a MediaWiki thing, that it automatically displays as WP:. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 20:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:American Heritage Dictionary representation[edit]

This redirect is the result of a page move discussed at MfD here. It was discussed previously at this RfD five years ago. It was kept because of concern about existing links to this project page but the ones that exist now are from archived User or MOS talk pages or from pages that track cross-namespace redirects. Since the MFD, the target page, Phonetic notation of the American Heritage Dictionary, has had several other moves so I think that whatever rationale existed in 2017 is no longer pertinent. Liz Read! Talk! 13:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.; the main space an the rest of WP should be kept separated. Veverve (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Oversight[edit]

I propose deleting this unlinked-to redirect because it gives the impression that Oversight can be as easily requested as right such as AutoWikiBrowser (Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser). NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep anyone following the redirect to the target will understand how difficult it is to request the Oversight permission. feminist (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful, as it does legitimately point people to how they can get oversight permissions. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CU/OS are on Template:Requests for permissions, just like EFM and IntAdmin are, which are also more difficult to obtain than AWB. Also it directly points to the page describing how it is harder to get (only given by ArbCom). Happy Editing--IAmChaos 20:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Target says "in Korean, it is called paengi beoseot (팽이버섯) which means "mushroom planted near catalpa". Paengi doesn't appear to be a stand alone term for the mushroom. Wiktionary has paeng'i as a term for a spinning toy top. Plantdrew (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shep Unplugged[edit]

During Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shep Unplugged, the nominator repeatedly rebutted comments by other users because none of the sources provided are simultaneously reliable and support the name of the talk show. I was likewise unable to confirm this title. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 01:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close per WP:RENOM. The AFD was closed eight days ago. There's no sense in re-litigating this now. If you have an issue with the closure, please bring it to WP:DRV. - Eureka Lott 14:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree this is a renomination, this is a fundamentally different question. The AfD asks whether or not there should be an article on the topic, the RfD asks whether or or not there should be a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. There are only two potential outcomes here, should the discussion continue. Participants rehash the same issues already discussed (which is already happening), and:
  1. The discussion reaches a different conclusion than the AFD, contradicting the !voters in the recent discussion and potentially opening up more avenues for controversy; or
  2. It reaches the same conclusion, after expending unnecessary time and energy to end up exactly where we started. - Eureka Lott 01:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem with the RfD finding a different result than the AfD. It seems in the AfD, participants got hung up on WP:ATD without realizing that a redirect is problematic, and/or assumed there would be material to merge and a redirect would then be cromulent. However, that did not occur and we are left with the unfortunate situation we now find ourselves in. Bringing the issue to RfD is a Good Thing because participants then get a chance to rectify the problem: either find sourcing for this to add a referenced mention of "Shep Unplugged" to the target or delete the redirect. I offered a "conditional delete" because, from what I read, I am optimistic that such a sourced mention can be added (which would be the "same conclusion" case you mentioned, but with the benefit of improving the target article which is never a waste of time or energy). Clamoring for a premature close to this discussion on shaky procedural grounds does not help bring this to a amicable conclusion. -- Tavix (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for not deleting ("They have a potentially useful page history", "They aid searches on certain terms", and "Someone finds them useful"). Here are three comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shep Unplugged that support retention of this redirect:
    1. From Skynxnex: "The evidence I've found is a New York Red Bulls fan blog post from April 2008 that mentions it, [14](archive: [15]):'s Video Library (Check out Shep Unplugged, a recap of the Revs match, and more). Sadly, it appears that MSG Networks pretty completely have lost/scrubbed basically all content from before ~2018 but the original Wiki article seems earnest enough plus the non-Wiki sourced blog post makes it seem to have existed."
    2. From Sammi Brie: "There's definitely enough circumstantial evidence to prove that this thing existed, but at no time should it have ever been labeled as notable, and the fact it falls in the 2000s (the pre-social-media, few-live-websites-today "dark ages" for this type of search) does not do any favors. I submit a forum post from 2008: He has also been the lead analyst for the MetroStars and the re-branded New York Red Bulls of Major League Soccer for several years. During these broadcasts, Shep hosts a segment during halftime entitled Shep Unplugged. Shep is usually outspoken during this segment about league issues and global soccer news."
    3. From Dream Focus: "I found him mentioned here with a comment statement about his "unplugged" segment. I believe it was a real thing. Not enough information for a standalone article so just redirect it."
    Cunard (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, @Cunard for the ping. I think the redirect should remain as sites confirmed that this segment existed. Thanks, Cunard, for aggregating those links that were presented in the AfD. The RBNY post is a blog, but the link is to the network's own site. I wasn't able to access a media site on the internet archive, but it's possible one of the other archive sites would have it. If offline sources are (and should be) OK, there's no reason to penalize a pre-social media show whose web format didn't archive well. The segment was by no means notable, which is why no one at the AfD was arguing for a keep, but it makes sense to help the reader learn more about Messing's career. This is not a BLP issue.
@LaundryPizza03 the nominator repeatedly rebutted comments by other users because nearly every !voter disagrees with him doesn't make him repeating himself and utterly bludgeoning the discussion have more weight. I'm not sure who you're so against a redirect existing @TenPoundHammer when we know Shep Messing had a broadcast career that included the MSG halftime show. It helps the reader and doesn't harm Wikipedia for this to exist. Star Mississippi 11:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So a blog pointing to a link that isn't in the Wayback Machine is considered sufficient evidence? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 15:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The link is in the wayback machine. The media content is not. Star Mississippi 15:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nine people said to redirect it, two said to delete it, it was closed as redirect. Dream Focus 11:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete unless content on this subject is added to the article. As of now, if I were to be seeking specific information on "Shep Unplugged" I would not be able to find it at the place I was redirected to, which is problematic. -- Tavix (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonable force[edit]

This could apply to things besides law enforcement. Delete as too vague. MB 00:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 18[edit]

Walter Engelmann[edit]

Fails WP:R#DELETE #1. It makes readers it unreasonably difficult for readers who are seeking the character by the same name in Frau Margot to find that article. BilledMammal (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate: Seems like the best way to resolve this where they are both redirects is to create a WP:DAB page. Hatnotes could work as an alternative, but we'd need a WP:PT. TartarTorte 13:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to allow for search. NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Buder[edit]

Per WP:R#DELETE #1. Another Johannes Buder is mentioned at University of Wrocław Botanical Garden. They appear to be different people; the Olympian studied philology, while the other Johannes led the Botanical Garden.

WP:REDLINK may also apply, as it is possible that the other Johannes is notable. BilledMammal (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep meets WP:R#KEEP #1, as well as WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP. User has previously recommended a redirect on articles after they added a prod ("I do not mind if you remove the prod and redirect the article"), so I'm unsure why they feel so strongy that they MUST delete the page instead. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the same post, I also say that if I disagree with a redirect, we can then discuss that at RFD or an RM. BilledMammal (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed they two Johannes Buders are different people. The more notable one is de:Johannes Buder, so the ideal outcome would be an article about the botanist with a hatnote for the gymnast. I suggest to move the history under this redirect to Johannes Buder (gymnast) when the article about the botanist is created (which I could do in a few days if there is interest). —Kusma (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or move to Johannes Erwin Buder. Jay (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This camera was never mentioned by name in the target article, even when the redirect was initially created. Unused otherwise. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a real product, and two other models ar elisted on the target page (idk why those two and not this one) And one of them was linked as a WP:SELFRED (which I just removed.) I suggest either Add to list and keep or bundle other redirect and delete Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There has been no updation at the target, so do we bundle the two other models here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Derbyshire[edit]

Propose retarget to John Derbyshire (swimmer), four-time Olympic swimmer, gold medalist, and coach featured in International Swimming Hall of Fame, where he is called "Rob Derbyshire" see (International Swimming Hall of Fame and Olympedia). (In fact, I propose to also rename John Derbyshire's page to "Rob Derbyshire" and have "John Derbyshire (swimmer)" redirect to "Rob".) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was created as a redirect to the swimmer and this stayed for close to 3 years before being retargeted to present target. Disambiguate or hatnote from the primary target. Jay (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to John Derbyshire (swimmer) as his alternative name. NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Highly highly ambiguous as the possesive form of a very common name. I don't think a chain of 25 supermarkets in Texas is what most people would be expecting to find if they searched for this. (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, which is the recommended solution when something is "highly highly ambiguous". The supermarket and David's Bridal are the only ones I can find that popularly go by "David's", but a see also to David (disambiguation) and St. David's should cover the common "possessive of David" use. -- Tavix (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per Tavix. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to David (disambiguation) as the possessive of the word "David". NotReallySoroka (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If someone is searching for David's and not David, they are unlikely to be looking for the name so the disambiguation page is not helpful. Mark's is an article and similar redirects such as John's don't exist; Matthew's is automatically redirected to Matthew S when using the search button. This company is usually known as David's and the only reason it is not the article title is that the company has other brands, whereas the other is not usually referred to just as David's in sources. There can be a link to the disambiguation page. (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usze 'Taham[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article. Has two namedrops in Halo 3, but I'm unconvinced that there's enough content there to be worth redirecting to. (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

N'tho 'Sraom[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article. Has two namedrops in Halo 3, but I'm unconvinced that there's enough content there to be worth redirecting to. (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomy for East Pakistan[edit]

I saw no section at the target about autonomy. I am not sure what this redirect is refering to. What do you think should be done? Veverve (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Bangladesh Liberation War#Background This is the most comprehensive section I have found on Wikipedia about the aforementioned topic; however, if someone else finds something better I am open to a new target. TartarTorte 12:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Described here, "Face With Diagonal Mouth", ambiguous facial expression. Delete, retarget to Emoji, or to its unicode block. signed, Rosguill talk 18:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to go literal with this one and say retarget to Diagonal. -- Tavix (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the emoji redirect. A better target might be appropriate, if one is proposed, please ping me. Oppose redirecting to Diagonal as I doubt anyone using this emoji is meaning that. Gonnym (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Described here, "Dotted Line Face", ambiguous emoji that should be deleted, retargeted to Emoji, or pointed at its unicode block. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as perhaps the primary topic. I considered being literal with this one, but Dotted line isn't very helpful. I thought the Emojipedia entry had a cool fact: An established comic book trope, dotted lines around a character can represent someone that is invisible or hidden. There doesn't seem to be a good landing spot for hidden or hide so that leaves invisibility. -- Tavix (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the emoji redirect but target to a better target. This isn't an invisibility emoji and as can be seen here not all versions of this emoji is white. Gonnym (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


There is a similarly titled target R.O.S.E. which is an album by Jessie J. Not sure why the redirect exists without the period at the end. Delete. Not a plausible search term. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, retarget if the current target is not considered appropriate then. I created it because I had seen it in Google search results without the period the end; I would not have done so if I had not seen it, but as it was years ago, I'd be damned if I could find it again. There are plenty of acronyms where periods are left off the end letter but kept only between the letters; S.O.S for instance is one; U.S is another. It's a bit of a stretch to say it's "not plausible" when some readers clearly type acronyms like this, hence similar redirects. Ss112 22:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is, as always, hard to Google for a punctuation variant, but this forum thread from 2006 does suggest that this punctuation is not-unheard-of. So I'd say keep as a WP:SMALLDETAILS distinction from R.O.S.E.. If the article is deleted before this RfD closes, I'm undecided as to whether the redirect should go too (it would be speedied G8 if not for the active RfD, after all), or whether it should be retargeted to the album. I lean toward deletion in that case, absence evidence that this punctuation variant has been used to refer to the album. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO both R.O.S.E. and R.O.S.E should be redirected to Rose (disambiguation). The inclusion / exclusion of the period is so small and minor it could easily be missed particularly as R.O.S.E. the album is likely to attract a different audience to R.O.S.E the game. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bear children[edit]

Another bad redirect from UserTwoSix. Humans are not the only species to bear childern. This should either be deleted or retargeted to something more general (Reproduction? Pregnancy?) (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bear#Reproduction and development. -- Tavix (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget to Childbirth per Tamzin. With my previous !vote, I was throwing something at the wall to see if it would stick. It did not. -- Tavix (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually think this is a pretty reasonable redirect to exist, since "bear children" is a phrase someone could easily hear, not know, and search Wikipedia for. In which case the question is what the phrase usually refers to. We usually don't call other animals' young children. The article Childbirth is about just birth in humans, for that reason. And I think that's the right logic here, so retarget to Childbirth. Hatnote to Tavix' proposed target (which is also the target of Bear cub): {{redirect|Bear children|bear cubs|Bear#Reproduction and development}} -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Retarget to Childbirth per Tamzin. I found this RfD from the first paragraph of Dwarfism, a use case which would best lead to Childbirth or the current target, either of which is perfectly reasonable. I think it is incorrect to say that other species "bear children", so a more general redirect is unnecessary and would likely break many existing wikilinks. Redirecting to Bear is ridiculous, bordering on humorous, as I have never, ever, heard someone using the phrase in that sense; bears have cubs, not children. Hence, I support the current target, Human reproduction, or Tamzin's suggestion, Childbirth, but I oppose deletion and the other suggested retargets. Toadspike (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad to hear that I have more material for my upcoming stand up tour. Coming soon to a den near you! -- Tavix (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Retarget to Childbirth, per Tamzin. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Childbirth per above. The phrase bear children is usually applied to humans; other species are more often said to bear young. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Initially I thought this was a Neelix redirect because it certainly sounds like one. However, it is too ambiguous whether it is referring to bear children or bearing children, therefore it should be deleted to let the search engine actually do its job. Redirects that interfere with the proper functioning of search shouldn't be allowed to stand. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 18:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bear paw.jpgThis user supports the right to arm bears.

(Off-topic ... bear with me) Note that Bear arms (disambiguation) has a See also to Bear#Morphology. Jay (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Childbirth. The possibility of someone using this phrase to search for the children of bears or for carrying children seems vanishingly remote. BD2412 T 02:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer [Bear # Reproduction and development] over childbirth. I think it is a bit WP:SURPRISE ing to go to humans when you type the word bear. I get that it is a verb, but it seems quite implausible for everyday speech. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the origin of the term may refer to "bearing down" during childbirth, in common use the term is used more broadly to refer to the entire process of pregnancy and childbirth, so the current target seems more appropriate. For that matter, Child bearing currently redirects to Pregnancy. However, I'm not strongly opposed to a retarget to childbirth. A hatnote to Bear cub can be used for anyone searching for that. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Not included in the list of characters and not mentioned anywhere else on the site. (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely add Samuel-034 to the list of characters. It seems the reason why it wasn't their on the first place it's because there was a stand alone article for Samuel-034 on the site and was taken down with the order of merging it with the List of Halo characters what the latter was never done. ImAbetastico (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't merged because the regular contributors to the "list of halo characters" article decided the content in the page history wasn't worth merging, see The discussion here. (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See relevant discussion Talk:List of Halo characters/Archive 2#Merge of Samuel-034.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Private Jenkins[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article. There are a bunch of games with characters called "private Jenkins" in reference to Leeroy Jenkins, and a few real people. (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Catholic Eparchy of the Blessed Virgin Mary Assumed in Strumica-Skopje[edit]

Very broken English translation of "Beata Maria Vergine Assunta in Strumica-Skopje" (source). It is very unlikely to help the reader. Therefore, it should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corporal Perez[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article. Has a name drop in the article of the actor that voiced the character. (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that content was merged to the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If the content at the current target that presumably justified a redirect was removed, this should probably be deleted; it doesn't make sense to redirect to the bare mention of the character at Tim Dadabo. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeant Banks[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article. We have 3 mentions of someone called "Sergeant Banks" that I can find - a mention in the article on the actor that voiced this character, a mention of someone who fought in the Irish civil war, and George L. Banks (soldier) (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that content was merged to the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate or delete. Disambiguate the three mentions on WP, but if the character is the only entity actually known by the term and barely has a mention, deletion to defer to search results seems appropriate as well. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Linde[edit]

Used in two articles. In both instances it redirects to the wrong subject, whose Germanized name was also "Friedrich Linde". However, the subject is never referred to by this name, being a Russian of German descent. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oshkosh International Folk Festival[edit]

Delete Not mentioned in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Halley Finn[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. Is mentioned at Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., where her role as casting director for the MCU is noted, and even more briefly at a handful of other pages. My sense is that until substantial information is included at Marvel Cinematic Universe (and it may not be DUE to do so), deletion to allow for uninhibited search results seems most helpful to readers. signed, Rosguill talk 19:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe that, given the subject is mentioned at the AoS article for casting, that it should be redirected there, unless it is expanded at a more suitable article. I understand the rationale for deletion, but I think having the redirect is useful to navigate readers to a direct bit of information on the subject. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Trailblazer101 (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the current target is the place where there is the most information about her, and the MCU page is the most intuitive place to link it to. NotReallySoroka (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by this since there is no information about her currently at Marvel Cinematic Universe? A7V2 (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Jeans[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, internet search results suggest that the formation of a Hybe girl group by this name is still just a rumor. signed, Rosguill talk 19:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Army of Holland (France)[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, based on Google Scholar search results, Armee de Hollande appears to be a military grouping of the French forces during the Napoleonic Wars, but isn't currently mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia except in a list at French Revolutionary Army. Unless someone can find a due place to add information about it on Wikipedia, deletion seems like the best option, although redirecting to French Revolutionary Army could also work. signed, Rosguill talk 19:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Antigua and Barbuda Coast Guard[edit]

Entirely made-up term. Not used anywhere other than Wikipedia. Peter Ormond 💬 14:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Antigua and Barbuda Defence Force[edit]

The Defence Force of Antigua and Barbuda doesn't use "Royal" as prefix in its name. Peter Ormond 💬 13:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I couldn't hit the ABDF web site to see what they say about their history, but a Google search finds nothing (except for Wikipedia mirrors and other user-created sites) showing that they were ever called the Royal ABDF. —C.Fred (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFD#K4. Article appears to have been at this title from creation in 2002 until April 2022, 20 years (there's some mess in the history due to a histmerge and some vandalism, certainly uninterrupted since 2009 at the very least). So we run the risk of breaking links, in particular external links but in this case many internal talk page links as well. There is also no requirement for redirects to be correct. Also certainly a plausible search term given that other commonwealth defence forces have similar names with "Royal", and the police force is known as the Royal Police Force of Antigua and Barbuda for example (which is correct). A7V2 (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to do with this redirect, so please keep me out of this. I did not create it. CROIX (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Ormond CROIX (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I proposed this for deletion via Twinkle. So, the notification was sent automatically to your talk page, which suggests you have something to do with this redirect. Peter Ormond 💬 04:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seem's that CROIX correctly moved it to Antigua and Barbuda Defence Force on 2022 April 13 per the move log and a redirect was left-over from the move. TartarTorte 13:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:A7V2 – when possible, we should avoid deleting redirects from page moves, especially if the article was at the former title for a long time. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Consort Mei[edit]

Consort Mei was a disambiguation page with two entries - Jiang Caipin and Noble Consort Wen - but has been redirected to Jiang Caipin by @Yinweiaiqing:. Noble Consort Mei is a redirect to Noble Consort Wen. Is this correct? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chongqingbei Railway Station Station[edit]

The names of Chongqing North railway station, Chongqing North Station North Square station and South Square of Chongqingbei Railway Station station are confusing enough without retaining this redirect from a 2013 move Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balochki language[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, zero hits on Google Scholar, seems more likely to be a misspelling off Balochi language than anything else, but I may be missing something due to lack of familiarity with the topic. First choice is retarget to Balochi language, pending other arguments. signed, Rosguill talk 18:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Balochi language per nom. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 18:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be seen from Google Books results that this is an obscure and obsolete term has been used for both Saraiki and Balochi. This means that the options for us to choose from are deletion and disambiguation. (I'm adding the related Balochki to the nomination). – Uanfala (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've drafted a dab at Balochki. Any thoughts, Rosguill? – Uanfala (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems reasonable to me. signed, Rosguill talk 15:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Balochi language per nom. NotReallySoroka (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the newly created DAB at Balochki, which provides a better explanation of this obscure term in detail. CycloneYoris talk! 08:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fools' Day[edit]

Retarget to Fool's Day, or delete altogether: Whereas it only takes moving the apostrophe to go from "Fools' Day" to the song, the April Fools' Day page does not state that the day is simply known as "Fools' Day". Also, the redirect is unlinked to. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the Day is more often called "April Fools" than "Fools Day", it does not mean that "Fools' Day" and its variants should not be redirect pages to April Fools' Day. They are still the Day's alternative names.--Neo-Jay (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget all to Fool's Day (disambiguation). To varying degrees, these can all be misspellings of the song titles or a nickname of the day, so probably best to send users to the disambiguation page. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it be a malplaced dab if we were to have Fools' Day -> Fool's Day (disambiguation), notwithstanding the small detail of the apostrophe? In this case, should we consider moving Fool's Day (disambiguation) to Fools' Day? NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

n-C Hydrocarbon Redirects[edit]

Delete as an implausible redirect that is humorous but not useful to people who know chemistry and bewildering to everyone else TartarTorte 01:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Government[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Retarget the first two, and keep the third


Deletion of this redirect (PVS-8 to PVS-4) as well as the PVS-20 to PVS-4 redirect. The redirects were made 10 years ago and the AN/PVS-4 page mentioned that the PVS-8 is "a large-objective-lens version of the PVS-4", mainly because they use the same image intensifier tube. Which is kinda like saying two computers are related because they have the same CPU. I already removed those claims from the PVS-4's page since they just don't make any sense. Overall, the redirect is just wrong and misinforms the reader. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The PVS-20 page had been tagged, but not included here. Done now. Also the RfD notice meant for the talk page was inadvertently added to the redirect page. Moved it. Jay (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would suggest another 7 days because of the late redirect listing corrections. Jasonkwe, would you want to add AN/TVS-5 as well to this nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: Sorry, did not see this till now. I think the AN/TVS-5 redirect to AN/PVS-4 is ok. I don't know enough about those earlier models but the TVS-5 does seem to actually be a modified version of the PVS-4. Thanks! Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Micheal Corner[edit]

Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

Thomas Fleetwood (1661–1717))[edit]

After the hyphen variant was deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 7 § Dave Cummings ((pornographic actor)), AnomieBOT recreated it as a variant of the en-dash title. I was going to just delete the en-dash one in the spirit of the previous RfD, but then I noticed that it's an {{r from move}}, so I guess this should have a second RfD. Pageviews on the en-dash one were weirdly high for a while, but have dropped off since 2019; on the hyphen one, they've been consistently high, but I assume that's due to the link at Martin Mere, which I've just removed. So I think both are safe to delete. Also we should block AnomieBOT for edit-warring.[Joke] -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. NotReallySoroka (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unhelpful misbracketed redirect. The hyphen redirect has been G4'd and salted. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Home Along Da Riles guest stars[edit]

AfD closed as delete, now only exists as a WP:SELFRED Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. @SBKSPP: Why did you create this redirect when no one else at the AfD supported that, it was closed as delete, and there was no relevant content at the target article? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's an ATD. There's nothing wrong with making it a redirect. Besides, a redirect won't hurt at all. SBKSPP (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the AfD discussion. It already ruled as delete by RL0919 resulted for the reason "moved from draftspace" by the original page creator twice, however despite the three Delete votes and the only Redirect voting on its discussion, the author instead recreate it by simply turned into a redirect for Home Along Da Riles just six hours after its article deletion. When the majority has spoken, just hereby accept the results. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even aside from the recent AfD result, there is nothing resembling this list in the target. A7V2 (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a potential search term. SBKSPP (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]