Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

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, you do not need to 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 ยง When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

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 criteria G10 and G3 may apply.)
  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 "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may also apply.)
  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, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, 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 it needs to be deleted to make way for the move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion. 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.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, if someone sees the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. 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.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it usefulโ€”this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. The pageviews tool can also provide evidence of outside utility.
  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. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore 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. Climategate โ†’ Climatic 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 โ†’ 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.

  • 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.
  • 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]

January 26[edit]

List of suburbans of Dhaka city[edit]

Originally tagged as R3 but rejected after move. Article created on 24 January 2021 with an implausable title. Article has no links to mainspace (which I can see). I believe this should be deleted.  // Timothy :: talk  12:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Tier 1b[edit]

"Tier 1b" is ambiguous and not mentioned at the target: delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete the only mention of "tier" in the article is for Scaled Composites Tier One and a Google search for "Ter 1b" in quotes returns many things for coronavirus and several other unrelated terms. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Tier one university[edit]

The target article does not mention "tier" and does not contain any direct information about tier classifications of universities. A reader searching for "Tier three university", for instance, will therefore find nothing helpful at this target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  • There is some mention of tier 4 here for Sheffield AC and here for Hertfordshire but I'm not sure it belongs in the article and if it doesn't then i should be deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Account suicide[edit]

Wiktionary redirect without entry on Wiktionary. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


Wiktionary redirect without corresponding Wiktionary entry Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

DTU (redirect)[edit]

Leftover from page moves; implausible and not more needed. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 07:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete I don't remember the initial problem, and I was rather new to Wikipedia when I did the move. Considering there's a disambiguation page for "DTU", this redirect isn't really necessary. WQUlrich (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Maine (redirect)[edit]

Leftover from page moves; implausible and not more needed. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 07:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

12 Years a Slave (film) (redirect)[edit]

Created for testing purposes; does not seem to be needed any more. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 07:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete as noted the test seems to be over. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Americas (redirect)[edit]

Created for testing purposes; does not seem to be needed any more. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 07:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete as noted the test seems to be over. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Notorious B.I.G. (redirect)[edit]

Created for testing purposes; does not seem to be needed any more. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 07:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Despotovac[edit]

This redirect should be deleted. There is no documentation that there was ever a Battle of Despotovac. In the Stefan Lazareviฤ‡ article there is no mention of any such battle. So in effect readers are given the impression that a fictious battle occurred and are sent to an article where no mention is made.

A search of the Internet for "Battle of Despotovac" will only produce other Wikipedia articles linked in some manner to the term "Battle of Despotovac" or articles that have sourced Wikipedia. This article was created without sourcing by a non-existant user.

Thanks VFF0347 (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete unless a properly sourced entry is added to the target article. As stated by the nom there's no mention of this supposed battle at the target and the only mention of Despotovac is with regards to the monastery he built there. As it stands this redirect will simply confuse readers. The one line stub article that was at this redirect target was apparently a copyvio from a myspace profile, which does not bode well for verifiability and reliability. (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Marriage equality[edit]

Per discussion at Talk:Same-sex marriage#Wording of lead, the term "Marriage equality" has been misapplied here as a synonym for Same-sex marriage (the current target), rather than to the legalisation of same-sex marriage, which is the usual meaning. Per this, I propose retargeting to Legal status of same-sex marriage. CMD (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


According to Emojipedia, this character is intended to represent any planet; on most systems, it appears as a beige or orange ringed planet resembling Saturn.[1] Should it target Ring system, Planet, or Saturn, or should it be deleted as ambiguous? โ€“LaundryPizza03 (dcฬ„) 00:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


  1. ^ "๐Ÿช Ringed Planet Emoji". Retrieved 26 January 2021.

January 25[edit]

Honey K Balani[edit]

Not mentioned at target. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 22:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Geoffrey Chalmers[edit]

Not mentioned at the target. Previously blanked by Homechallenge55 with an edit summary of No apparent connection to known target. Delete unless a justification for the redirect can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I created this a long time ago so I don't remember exactly where I got the info from, but at least IMDb and ANN mention that Michael McConnohie was credited as "Geoffrey Chalmers" in some roles. Not sure if we can find more reliable sources to include it in the article. nyuszika7h (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. McConnohie has been credited as Geoffrey Chalmers, and as there's no notable person known as Geoffrey Chalmers (though there is a Iain Geoffrey Chalmers), this redirect isn't ambiguous. I've added Geoffrey Chalmers as an alternate name in the target article's infobox but I don't believe it was needed to keep the redirect. โ€”J947 โ€ก message โ“ edits 04:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Sindarin#External history, where there's a whole paragraph about it. Hog Farm Talk 21:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment we sure this is the sole notable target? The concept of a "gnomish" language exists in several fantasy settings, also including WoW, Runescape, and Dungeons and Dragons. It's also an adjective, meaning gnome-like, or related to gnomes (i.e. a gnomish race or people, which is a sense that it is used in in the page Gnome (Dungeons & Dragons)). Could it be worth adding a DAB for some various gnome pages, with a "not to be confused with Gnomefish"? That said there aren't many extant direct mentions of gnomish languages on gnome articles even where the race speaks a language by the name, but I'm sure it's the sort of thing that could easily be referenced out. Could help avoid Tolkien-centrism? BlackholeWA (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Good point. I'm pondering whether there's enough to disambiguate here. I went ahead and created the non-ambiguous Gnomish (Tolkien) and pointing it to the proposed target above. Hog Farm Talk 02:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Good point -- but, simultaneously, those are all quite heavily Tolkienesque, and none to my understanding (I'm less familiar with WoW and Runescape, but certainly no edition of D&D/Pathfinder I'm familiar with delves that deep into linguistics) are very concerned about the Gnomish language. On the gripping hand, there's an argument to be made that 'Gnomish' doesn't necessarily refer to a language... Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Anarchism in Somalia[edit]

The existence of this redirect implies that the politics of Somalia are inherently anarchist, or that there exists a notable anarchist movement within Somalia's political system, which doesn't appear to be the case. There also isn't any mention of "anarchism" within the article itself. Grnrchst (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Czar. signed, Rosguill talk 23:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to History of Somalia (1991โ€“2006) as such a retarget helps the readers the most IMO. While it is not strictly about anarchism, it is still better than delivering readers onto a search page devoid of helpful information (as this one is). โ€”J947 โ€ก message โ“ edits 04:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


Don't know what language this is in, but it is not in Serbian or Albanian, so it shouldn't exist. (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep Google Translate, sv:ร‡yshk (which cite, but that site isn't working for me atm), and every other source I can find says it is Albanian. Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Seems to be an alternate Albanian name. โ€”J947 โ€ก message โ“ edits 04:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Dawnless Day[edit]

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Southbank (2)[edit]

The page now at South Bank, Redcar and Cleveland was created here in 2005 before being moved to a more appropriate title around 11 minutes later. The redirect has no real connection to the target other than the fact that there are 2 in North Yorkshire though called "South Bank" and this was was created first (the other was created in 2006). A Google search returns a number of places and there is an infobox for South Bank 2 Ferry Terminal in Australia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, useless. BD2412 T 02:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


Term as such not included. Hildeoc (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I've added a note on their languages in case we decide not to retarget, but the easiest (re)target is actually Elvish languages (Middle-earth)#Internal history which explains all the languages, with links which once went to a page on every language but now all go to Elf (Middle-earth) which says less than the Elvish languages page does. I suggest we retarget ALL the redirects for the various individual languages to Elvish languages (Middle-earth)#Internal history, and remove all what will become self-links from that page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with CC. That's the most logical thing to do, and the most helpful for readers. Hog Farm Talk 18:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Day of Broken Glass[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, appears to be based on a comment that Arnold Schwarzenegger made about the Jan 6 incident but does not appear to have gained much wider currency. IMO, this is more likely to be an erroneous search for Kristallnacht than it is for the storming of the capitol, but should probably be deleted, as that article only has a vague reference to Schwarzenegger's comments that does not explain this term. signed, Rosguill talk 16:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Remove I doubt even Schwarzenegger intended to call the storming that outside of comparison. Juxlos (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. All search results are about Kristallnacht, which is also called Night (not Day) of Broken Glass. โ€” Chrisahn (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Either retarget to Domestic reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, where there's a sentence describing Schwarzenegger comparison to Kristallnacht in the section "Other domestic reactions", or delete. I'm leaning towards deletion on the basis that all relevant results for this phrase seem to be from the 10th and 11th of January with no sustained coverage and that searching for the phrase alone mainly turns up results for Kristallnacht. (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete both. I would support retarget to Kristallnacht but I oppose the redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol as I do not find reliable sources making that connection. JaredHWood๐Ÿ’ฌ 18:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete both. No indication that they are plausible typos in a search for Kristallnacht. VQuakr (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete both. The name is easily confusable for that of the Kristallnacht (Night of Broken Glass) and is not widely used outside of that specific video. BanditTheManedWolf (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Yikes. One politician made a video and made the comparison. These terms are not in wide currency in multiple reliable sources - other than referring perhaps to this one politician comparing the US Capitol Hill Insurrection Attempt with the historical anti-Semitic event that happened all over Nazi Germany. Shearonink (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Subrata Roy President SurfPlasma[edit]

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Surfplasma is not listed in target, and this does not seem a plausible search term for this person. Onel5969 TT me 15:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment, according to their website Subrata Roy is president of SurfPlasma, inc.[1] so it's not totally without connection and I expect this is an attempt at disambiguation. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlikely search term. MB 02:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Lady Gaga's third studio album[edit]

Another case of a nonsense redirect... anyone who wants to know about Lady Gaga's albums can just go to Lady Gaga discography or Lady Gaga articles. I'd consider deleting this redirect. Hฤ (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep unambiguous, correct, harmless and not an implausible search term. Deletion is not going to bring any benefits here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • See my rationale (and Ss112's) below. Also, look at the statistics and you'll see the redirect is not helping readers navigate any more easily. Hฤ (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete not a plausible search term. Must agree with nominator here. Walter Gรถrlitz (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. It doesn't really matter how unlikely it is someone will search for this since if they do, they will be taken to what they are looking for and there is no reason for deletion given. A7V2 (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Unless the redirect helps clear up a common misleading name, then being "harmless" is not a compelling reason to keep for me. Also, see my comments below for Maroon 5's albums. Hฤ (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
You haven't explained how this meets any of the 10 reasons to delete a redirect at WP:RFD#DELETE, whereas this (perhaps arguably) meets reasons 1, 3, 4 and 5 of WP:RFD#KEEP. This seems more like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT than any policy based reason to delete. A7V2 (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This (arguably) satisfies criterion 8, which is "a very obscure synonym for an article name". Hardly anyone who wants to browse through an artist's album would search the specific order of their album (1st, 2nd, 3rd...?). Probably "artist + [year] album" may be more useful, but that is another case.. Hฤ (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Studio" looks important here. I can absolutely see someone searching for an artist's 'third album', but I can't so much see them searching for an artist's 'third studio album', and there seems to be some conflation going on. (This applies to all the 'nth studio album' RfDs.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree. Either way, as I said in one of the nth studio album RfDs, a certain redirect like this is harmful for readers who expect to search "artist + nth + studio album". Hฤ (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Cookie cutter (lighting)[edit]

Not included. Hildeoc (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Maybe Retarget to Cucoloris, which seems to be the correct article for lighting cookies? (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "lighting cookies"! Love it! Agree REDIRECT to Cucoloris but better still, the latter (Cucoloris) could be 'corralled' into Gobo as a subset of that device, an article covering uses in theatre and photography, with the Cucoloris content now covering cinema - all disciplines which deal with issues of lighting and shadow-making. Jamesmcardle(talk) 22:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinnath Gelin[edit]

Not explained in target. This does not help readers seeking information on the lemma. Hildeoc (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - Minor detail in the backstory that doesn't really have much significance. It's not mentioned anywhere, and I'm not convinced it should be. Hog Farm Talk 18:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

7 degrees C[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Although the page has some history, it mostly consists of a copyright violation, and the topic does not seem notable. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 09:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Comic Book Roundup[edit]

This website/company title currently redirects to Review aggregator where it is not mentioned at all. WP:EASTEREGG etc. PS. To be clear, it wasn't mentioned even before I removed the unreferenced section listing few random companies/websites. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's not helpful to readers to redirect a company to an article where they are not mentioned. (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete It was once mentioned on the article when I made the redirect, but that was a long time ago. I was planing on making the redirect into an article eventually, but I later realized as my experience grew that the subject likely didn't pass GNG.โ˜…Trekker (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


This is an example link in the documentation of {{Copying within Wikipedia}}. I don't think such a redirect needs to be in mainspace. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 06:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete needless XNR. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace usage in the template documentation with WP:Example. I don't think it's worth having this cross namespace redirect for the purpose of one template's doccumentation. (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Human Genetic Branching[edit]

Not mentioned in target article, and the results of searches of mine suggest this target probably isn't what people searching for human genetic branching are searching for, although I'm not quite sure where the best target is. Hog Farm Talk 04:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Child Welfare[edit]

Child welfare and Child Welfare should probably have the same target. Note that there is a journal Child Welfare published by the Child Welfare League of America (which is listed in that article). Child Welfare Services should also be considered since it is closely related and currently redirects to a country specific article. MB 03:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


Convert into a disambiguation of COVID-19 and COVID-20 variants, as COVID-19 is only one of many SARS-2 varieties. Erkin Alp Gรผney 19:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep as is the variants are all the same virus, not different viruses. There's no real "COVID-20" in any case. It's not like it is SL-CoV-WIV1 or something else. They all cause the same disease, COVID-19. -- (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment They have different spread rates, different incubation periods and slightly different symptoms, though. Erkin Alp Gรผney 09:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
      • They are all SARS-CoV-2, they are not different from SARS-CoV-2. "B." (UK variant) is SARS-CoV-2; "WIV04/2019" is SARS-CoV-2; "ฮ”FVI-spike" (Denmark mink variant) is SARS-CoV-2 -- (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Pruple heart[edit]

Implausible, given that pruple doesn't exist. Dominicmgm (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep as a common enough misspelling to be reasonably typed searching for the topic. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as an implausible typo. The redirect only gets an average of 4 views a month, so it doesn't seem to be getting any use. (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. AngusW๐Ÿถ๐ŸถF (bark โ€ข sniff) 03:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We don't have the redirect "pruple", so this is the only mention of "pruple" in enwiki, as Dominicmgm states.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as an implausible typo. MB 04:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment it is a simple transposition error, thus a plausible typo. -- (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete implausible typo. If it got more hits, it should be kept, of course, but it doesn't. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. As the 70. IP says above, this is a perfectly plausible transposition error. There is no valid explanation above as to how this redirect constitutes an implausible typo. The fact that no one has bothered to create the redirect pruple is beside the point. Every redirect is evaluated on its own positives and negatives and I don't see how this redirect has any negatives. In fact, this redirect has a major positive โ€“ that it is highly used. From experience, more than 700 views in 5 and a half years is good usage. Why should we disadvantage those readers? โ€”J947 โ€ก message โ“ edits 04:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

January 24[edit]


It would be better to delete this redirect to allow uninhibited Search than to target this one name-holder article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. There are no other plausible search terms for "Chaffe" that I can find so a {{R from surname}} to the article about the only notable person with that surname is best. If there are other uses then a hatnote or disambiguation page are also better than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

11th millennium[edit]

All of these should be deleted - after the 10th millenium, these are very rarely linked and unlikely search terms, and we have very little coverage at the target article on these millenia. โ€” Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliot321 (talk โ€ข contribs) 20:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep they are all getting uses, there is some coverage at the target, we don't want to encourage article creation and deletion wont bring any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Indeed we don't want to encourage creation. I think some of these should probably be salted. Looking at statistics, all of these except for 11th millennium have only gotten a few dozen hits in the past year. 11th millennium got significantly more until November 2020, when it dropped to levels similar to the other pages. I have no idea why this is, I would guess a link from a highly-trafficked page, maybe. Regardless, the rest aren't significantly used. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
*10001 redirected there until recently. (I was mistaken; it redirected to Timeline of the far future, and only until August.) HotdogPi 23:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Next election in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

Next Liberal Party of Canada leadership election[edit]

Implausible redirect, and also no longer next. "Next" means "in the future" and 2013 is clearly not. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


The name "Kamalam" has been given by the government of Gujara, India to this fruit. This is easy to verify. Seems like a reasonable redirect, but it's not mentioned in the article because all attempts to do so are reverted as WP:UNDUE - regional name only. So do we delete the redirect or add the mention in the article? MB 19:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep the redirect can be kept regardless of if the name is mentioned. Nominations like this skirt the line of WP:POINT, please don't do that. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
We delete redirects all the time if they are not mentioned in the target because they confuse the reader if it is not clear why they are sent to an article. MB 01:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Redirects are cheap. Discussion of whether the term invented by the Gujarat government is actually notable enough to be mentioned in the Pitaya article should occur at Talk:Pitaya. - Donald Albury 23:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Should a redirect exist (and I'm not saying it should/shouldn't) the correct target for this title would be Nelumbo nucifera, as that is what the long standing definition of the Sanskrit word เค•เคฎเคฒเคฎเฅ is and is referred to as such in historical/mythological literature. —SpacemanSpiff 10:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
{{redirect|kamalam|the Gujarati dragonfruit|Pitaya}} or somesuch
  • Comment if it does point to lotus, then a hatnote could be added for dragonfruit -- (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Flight 4951[edit]

Not mentioned at target. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 16:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


Not mentioned at the target, an internet search turned up a variety of seemingly unrelated Jewish organizations, and a Scholar search just turned up papers by authors with Eitz as a surname. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Insurrection Day[edit]

While there's a few recent opinion pieces referring to the Jan 6 events this way, a Google Scholar search suggests that various other events and commemorative days are more likely to be known by this name in a lasting fashion, including public holidays in the former Yugoslav republics. I think that deletion to allow for uninhibited search results is more appropriate than a redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 16:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Belgic Oppidum[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Chaungtha language[edit]

There is no mention of "Chaungtha" in the article, and Glottolog indicates there is no assured link. I'd like to put a hatnote at Chaungtha, Pathein saying "Chaungtha redirects here. For the language see ..." but I can't do that unless the nominated redirect is legitimate. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete yeah, this redirect is iffy. I see the idea but there's no reason to keep it. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. Why create needless redlinks that will just need to be recreated? Your link says it all -- Chaungtha is a variety of Arakanese. This is a former ISO language name and code that existed for decades (at least 40 yrs) before being retired. So, unless you want to write a dedicated article on Chaungtha, it needs to rd to the correct article. Also, it would be weird to have a rd for the code but not for the name.
We should probably have that hatnote at 'Chaungtha, Pathein'. The rd is legitimate, as the link above shows. โ€” kwami (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete list of United States Supreme Court cases[edit]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete list of encyclopedia topics[edit]

See WP:COMPLETELIST. This is not a good use of an XNR, this was previously nominated but ended with "no consensus". Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: per nominator. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 12:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. The target page states at the top "This is a non-comprehensive list of article lists, arranged by topic.". Since the page itself states that it is not a complete list this redirect is inaccurate and may confuse readers into thinking that a list they are looking for does not exist. (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Unique case compared to the others. This is the most complete list of lists that we have, so this is seemingly the best place to send anyone searching in this manner. Additionally, this has been around since 2001, (see previous rfd for an explanation of why the history only goes back to 2003); no need to break old links wherever they might be, etc. โ€” Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Godsy and the previous discussion. Note that WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) and WP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody. While this isn't a complete list of titles it's a approximately complete list of topics and so is directly relevant to the content people using this plausible search term will be looking for and closer than any other page so the benefits of keeping outweigh the non-existent benefits of deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete List of Murdered Harry Potter Characters[edit]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete List of Beyblade Characters[edit]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete list of Booknotes interviews[edit]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete List of Secondary Colleges (Mauritius & Rodrigues)[edit]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete List of My Name is Rachel Corrie Performances[edit]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete List of Jasoosi Dunya (Old)[edit]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete list of authors published as UK first editions by Collins Crime Club[edit]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete List of Imran Series (Old)[edit]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete list of species in genus Persea[edit]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete list of Grewia species[edit]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete list of Rock Band Network songs[edit]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete list of works produced by Hanna-Barbera[edit]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete list of downloadable content for the Rock Band series[edit]

Implausible WP:PANDORA redirect, see WP:COMPLETELIST. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Astray (video game)[edit]

This should not be a redirect to a category. Delete to encourage article creation. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 11:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete I'd retarget it to a relevant list, but I could not find it in a list like 2015 in video games. Redirecting to a category like this is terrible. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find a mention of a video game called Astray. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - The video game is non-notable. The only existence of a 2015 game called "Astray" is a random Steam game with only 155 reviews. Yoshiman6464 โ™ซ๐Ÿฅš 20:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no point redirecting this page to a category that contains no relevant information on the video game. If neither the video game or developer/publisher are notable enough for an article then this should remain a redlink. (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete list of extinct species[edit]

Unlikely search term, "complete list" -> "list" should not be something we redirect in general Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete list of NJ Transit stations[edit]

Unlikely search term, "complete list" -> "list" should not be something we redirect in general Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


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

Complete List of C.O.P.S. Episodes[edit]

Unlikely search term and miscapitalization, "complete list" -> "list" should not be something we redirect in general Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete List of Garbage songs[edit]

Unlikely search term and miscapitalization, "complete list" -> "list" should not be something we redirect in general. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete list of non-English Wikipedias available[edit]

Unlikely search term, "complete list" -> "list" should not be something we redirect in general Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete List of Pokemon[edit]

wrong capitalization and no need for the word "complete" in redirects. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Between the incorrect capitalisation and unnecessary "Complete" this is an implausible search term. Only got 8 page views in the last year. (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep the nomination is completely incorrect - the search term is extremely plausible, WP:PANDORA is not a thing (redirects are evaluated only on their own merits) and WP:COMPLETELIST is too blunt to be of use to anybody. While there is not a single list of Pokemon, anyone searching for such will easily find what they are looking for as complete lists by generation are linked from the target. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


This seems to have resulted from an error; no point in having this XNR from mainspace. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 11:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Complete list of Michael Cimino's unrealized projects[edit]

If kept, this should be retargeted to Michael Cimino's unrealized projects, where more information is provided; however, I don't think this is a likely search term. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 11:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • @Thryduulf: (only replying once, though this addresses most of your comments on this page) fair enough. I wasn't trying to act like WP:COMPLETELIST was a policy, more that it's more efficient to link a short essay than to write the reasoning in every nomination. I do think that the redirects are generally harmful to the project, though. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Photography workshop[edit]

These aren't the only instances of these kinds of workshop. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 10:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete or retarget somewhere relevant, these are egregiously bad XNRs. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Lude Media[edit]

There's no mention in the target article. May be related to the YouTube influencer mentioned on the Lude page, I don't know - but nothing is explained. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


There's more than one category related to a topic with "fringe" in its name, like Category:Fringe festivals, Category:Fringe (TV series), or even Category:Fringe science, so I suggest deleting this shortcut. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 11:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - Shortcuts may be and generally are ambiguous; they are not intended for readers but rather for editorial purposes. That aside, theses shortcuts usually point to maintenance categories etc. (not "regular" categories for lack of a better way to put it offhand).โ€” Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's not the target I would have chosen, but it is a valid redirect - and the Edinburgh Festival Fringe is "the Fringe". All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC).
  • Retarget to Category:Fringe science, in the same way that WP:FRINGE and {{Fringe}} already go to fringe theory topics. โ€” Preceding unsigned comment added by HotdogPi (talk โ€ข contribs) 22:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per HotdogPi, this is clearly what the "FRINGE" shortcut means on Wikipedia. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per HotdogPi - all other things being equal, the current target would be a reasonable one for this shortcut, but WP:FRINGE is a commonly used shortcut with a specific meaning in Wikipedia, and it seems best to make this consistent. ~ mazca talk 13:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget, but to Category:Fringe theory, which is the catch all category for fringe material including Fringe science. Both WP:FRINGE and {{Fringe}} are about generic fringe theories, they're not specifically fringe science, and they could equally well be applied to pseudo-history or Conspiracy theories, for example. (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


Delete per WP:COSTLY. The article was created 10 years ago today at this title and redirected the next day. Today I filed a RMT to move the edit history to the correct title saying that the redirect might be able to be suppressed but since it was created nearly 10 years ago it probably doesn't qualify. Its unlikely however since having been a separate article for less than a day to have gathered links so can probably be safely deleted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Suppressing the redirect would only be legitimate if the page was recently created (WP:CSD#R3 and WP:PMRC#7). Ten years is not recent by anyone's standards. The reason we don't allow that is that if the redirect has existed for a long time then deleting it may contribute to link rot (see also WP:RFD#KEEP point 4). I don't see any particular reason why that doesn't apply here. Hut 8.5 09:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • What is the issue with the redirect? Nothing clear stands out to me. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete The issue is that the spacing is ommited, which would certainly be WP:COSTLY if widely applied. The correctly spaced Digg, Skye is of course appropriate. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per the spacing and the proper redirect brought up by UnitedStatesian. Yoshiman6464 โ™ซ๐Ÿฅš 20:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Implausible spacing error, only got 4 page views in the year prior to being listed here. (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


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

Red Indian[edit]

These should definitely link to the same article, but I was wondering which one of these would be appropriate, if either. A (admittedly very brief) look through the pages which link to both seem to suggest that people are linking to Red Indian as an (outdated and offensive) term for Indigenous Americans, rather than the naming controversy itself. While I don't think the term should be used in Wikipedia's voice, I think that for people linking to the term (within quotations for example, in a limited manner as per WP:LWQ), link to Indigenous peoples of the Americas/Native Americans in the United States may be more helpful. Or maybe a disambiguation page. โ€“Bangalamania (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

January 23[edit]

Marianne Schifferer[edit]

As mentioned in the article, Marianne Schรถnauer's real name was Schifferes after her father Karl Schifferes. Schifferer appears to be a plausible typo, as this is the more common and 'natural' name in German. But we should not prolong and encourage the error by having that redirect. KnightMove (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Mordecai Blue jay[edit]

"Blue jay" is not the character's surname, and it's highly unlikely anyone would type the character's name and their species. Dominicmgm (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak keep I counted less than 1 PVS d-1 since records began. But we don't have any redirects similar to this one, which is otherwise a plausible search term. โ€“LaundryPizza03 (dcฬ„) 05:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Dave Creek[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a duly sourced mention can be provided signed, Rosguill talk 21:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Now mentioned and referenced in the target. Was quite easy to find. Took me 2 seconds. Royalrec (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


Delete ambiguous redirect with unhelpful target. ~Kvng (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Don't delete (i.e. keep or retarget) this is the only entry at Orchid (disambiguation) which is plausibly rendered in all caps, however if it is felt to be ambiguous it should be retargetted to that dab page and the link there change to point directly at the IPv6 address article, probably the IPv6 address#Special addresses section. If it isn't ambiguous then it should be refined to the section and a hatnote to the dab page added. Thryduulf (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
ORCHID appears to refer to a manufacturer and a network protocol. Neither appears to be notable. If we created ORCHID (disambiguation) as you seem to be suggesting, it would have two redlinks and a WP:TWODAB problem. Deleting this redirect appears to be a better solution. ~Kvng (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting creating ORCHID (disambiguation), I'm suggesting possibly retargetting the redirect to the existing dab page that covers all capitalisations of the word. The manufacturer is definitely not notable and we have no content other than their name in a list, the network protocol is notable in context given that it's covered (albeit briefly) in about three places in the IPv6 article, and it's also something that people will definitely be looking for encyclopaedic information about. The only question is whether the network protocol is the primary topic for "ORCHID" in all caps, if yes then we should refine the redirect to the relevant section of the article, if it isn't then we should be targetting the disambiguation page. There is no situation here in which deletion is appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Drive pulley[edit]

There is no direct link between "drive pulley" and "drum motor" (many types of motors may have a pulley). I am not sure that "drive pulley" needs a page, deciding about this is beyond my technical knowledge, but for sure, if it exists, then it should not redirect to a type of motor. "drive pulley" may possibly redirect to just "pulley", that would already be much better I think ("drive pulley" is used in at least one wikipedia page on turntables, where pulley would be fine). Pmarbaix (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Test template[edit]

No reason this should redirect to the signpost. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


If anything, this should be retargeted to Anime and manga, though I don't know how plausible this portmanteau is. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 14:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

European English[edit]

This would be better targeted at English language in Europe. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


XNRs like this should use a pseudo-namespace; this one doesn't. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 13:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The correct WP:PLAYPOLICY was created by the same editor 3 minutes later, and this one is unusued. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Station1 (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Stats grok[edit]

Not mentioned at target. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 13:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Before the current page view statistics tool was created, article traffic statistics were only available at and until very recently was still the only source of the data for pre-Juky 2015 data (WikiShark now also includes historical data). Retarget to Wikipedia:Web statistics tool where it is mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't these be moved into WPnamespace then? -- (talk) 14:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Catalogue of IDs[edit]

This could be any kind of ID. I don't think this is a likely search term. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 13:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Counterproductive cross-namespace redirect. Nardog (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: maybe a likely search term, but the search term is much to broad to merit a specific XN target. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Bardo Nerang/sandbox[edit]

CSD R2 does not apply for XNRs to Wikipedia namespace, so I nominate this here. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 13:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


XNRs like this should use a pseudo-namespace; this one doesn't. As AFCRC is also a redirect, this might result in additional confusion. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 12:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Advanced CANDU reactor, where it is used as an acronym for "Advanced Fuel CANDU Reactor" in the section "Prospects". (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per IP, given that we don't have an article for American Federation for Clinical Research. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


XNRs like this should use a pseudo-namespace; this one doesn't. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 12:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Common name (disambiguation), which includes links to both the Wikipedia policy and relevant articles. (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names. The only time anyone is likely to put this in all capitals and as all one word is when trying to indicate a Wikipedia policy. In normal English it is two words, and would not be in all capitals.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per the ip. We should generally prefer targets in the same namespace where possible. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: does not properly invoke the WP pseudo-namespace. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete avoiding breaking links unnecessarily is good, but last August is still pretty recent, so I'm fine with deleting it. Consistency, while useful, does not need to take priority over existing links. (edited to switch to Delete per Station1) JesseW, the juggling janitor 16:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. This was created only last August, has a total of only 28 views since then, has no incoming mainspace wikilinks and is a term used only within the WP universe. It does not belong in mainspace. Station1 (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTUS. Nardog (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


Once redirected to bioware subpage, but has since been retargeted to the root WikiProject Video games page. Confusing and probably unnecessary. --C o r t e x ๐Ÿ’ฌtalk 11:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Dow Village, California[edit]

Redirect resulting from reversion of an undiscussed arbitrary page move โ€” the problem with the comma-California title will become instantly apparent when I reveal that the target is in Trinidad and Tobago, and not the United States as any normal person would have expected upon seeing "comma California". While there is a populated place in Trinidad named "California", its article describes it as a neighbourhood within the larger town of Couva rather than a standalone town in its own right -- and while Dow Village does happen to be near that California, our naming convention for municipal neighbourhoods that require disambiguation is "neighbourhood, town", not "neighbourhood, other neighbourhood", so the correct disambiguator here is "Couva" rather than "California". Since this title is not just harmlessly incorrect according to our naming conventions but crosses the line into being actively misleading, and the original page move to this title was arbitrary and undiscussed in the first place, the redirect should be deleted rather than being left to stand. Bearcat (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

May I assume that the disambiguator is supposed to be an "official" one? In Trinidad the smallest administrative unit is the community, and the next bigger one is the region already, apart from two cities and three boroughs. Couva is a town, but it is not an administrative unit. The disambiguatro should be Couvaโ€“Tabaquiteโ€“Talparo then, and Siparia region for the other Dow. The "California" redirect can be deleted. Just my 2ct. Kind regards, Grueslayer 11:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. The normal way the town is described in TT is "Dow Village, California", not simply Dow Village, to distinguish it from the other Dow Village (Dow Village, South Oropouche). At issue here isn't Wikipedia's disambiguation rules, but the actual COMMONNAME. To illustrate this, try searching "dow village, couva" which gets 19 hits versus "dow village, california" which gets 197 hits. The fact that there's also a California in the US/ Mexico is beside the point - California is Trinidad is believed to derive from an indigenous group, and like other names of this sort form the oldest substratum of place names. The construction of the Point Lisas Industrial Estate (in California) and the construction of several government housing developments (in California) have led to the whole area being perceived as being "Couva" (especially by outsiders). Guettarda (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Guettarda's explanation, and strongly urge someone to add a paragraph explaining this to the article (or at a minimum, to the talk page). Maybe also create the redirect Dow Village, California, Trinidad and Tobago. JesseW, the juggling janitor 16:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment if kept, the target may need a {{redirect-distinguish}} hatnote for Dow, California (and perhaps vice-versa). (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep with {{redirect-distinguish}} hatnote. MB 19:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


Delete. I cannot figure out what these redirects are supposed to be refering to. It's not an initialism of the games name, they're not mentioned in the target artice and none of my searches online turned up any revevant results. These have very low numbers of page views, 4 views a year each. (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - I can't figure out a connection either. I'm getting a recentish chemistry thing, a corporate product, and OCR scanner errors. I just don't see a connection here. Hog Farm Talk 05:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


Soft redirect to deleted Wiktionary entry. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


Soft redirect to Wiktionary, but not mentioned in target page or independently on Wiktionary. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. I can't find that it was ever included in the Wiktionary appendix, and it isn't mentionend anywhere on Wikipedia or elsewhere on Wiktionary. Although I can find several definitions on Google saying it's leet for "sex" I can't immediately find any actual uses. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - This was added to List of Internet slang phrases (as of 21 January 2006, at 11:03) by Deleted revision, without a listed source. I then created the redirect a few months later (on 09:47, 20 March 2006โ€Ž). I don't have a strong opinion on keeping or deleting the redirect (but it's nice to see people paying attention to something this old!) JesseW, the juggling janitor 16:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


Interwiki of a very rare word to wiktionary that only has a definition in Middle French. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


cross-wiki redirect to Wiktionary, only language there is French, this is not a heavily-trafficked redirect or common word Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Spider-Man 11[edit]

This is not the 11th Spider-Man film. Retargeting would be just plain WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:TOOSOON. I suggest delete. Dominicmgm (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - Far From Home is the 2nd Spider-Man film in the THIRD cinematic iteration of the Spider-Man series. Yoshiman6464 โ™ซ๐Ÿฅš 07:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't have an opinion on the matter, really. I created the redirect in 2019 after reading an article that referred to the film as such, and redirects are cheap. I don't remember the source anymore, and didn't include it because I've never seen a sourced redirect. โ€” Fourthords | =ฮ›= | 17:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of whether this is kept the current target is wrong since itโ€™s actually the 12th film not the 11th. looking at Spider-Man in film we had 3 US made for TV films, 1 Japanese film based on the Toei series, the Raimi trilogy, 2 Amazing Spider Man films, and the actual 11th film Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse between the most recent live action films (the last of which being Far from Home). My best guess is that whoever called it the 11th film either forgot Spider-Verse came first or was unaware of the Japanese theatrical release.-- (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
So basically either delete or retarget to Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse.-- (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - counting only the US-made films you can make a rational argument that this is the 11th Spider-Man film, but I can't see any evidence they're actually ever referred to in that way. There's no common continuity or production company across the 11 films, and any unofficial numbering used in media is only really used within the individual groups of films. As this is only arguably the 11th film, with no real usage of the term, this seems more likely to be ambiguously unhelpful than it is to actually assist someone. ~ mazca talk 13:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Devastator (Ratchet and Clank)[edit]

This weapon appears in the first game in the series the target article covers, but it isn't mentioned in either article. These redirects also don't seem to get very many pageviews nowadays, and nothing links to them (at least not anymore) As such, I'm thinking they should be deleted (especially the one with the error in disambiguation) unless a justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 03:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

January 22[edit]

Moral Government Theology[edit]

"Moral Government Theology" is a theology that Alan Gomes found taught in YWAM from the 1970s until the 1990s (cf. his book: Lead Us Not Into Deception, page 1). It incorporates some theological distinctives: Open theism, Pelagianism, Governmental theory of atonement and specific teachings about the attributes of God. This redirect is misleading because it can lead to think that Governmental theory of atonement includes all what is included in "Moral Government Theology". I propose then to delete this redirect.---Telikalive (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I used the redirect name you are talking about only to emphasize an additional factor of confusion. But, I tried to make my explanation clearer.---Telikalive (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm now completely uncertain what you are proposing. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Realy ? then I rationalized it a little more. ---Telikalive (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • keep Not having read every word of Gomes's paper, it still seems to me that he's basically in the same camp as everyone else who connects the phrase with Grotius's ideas; he literally says that the people he's writing against go beyond Grotius. My impression is that Gomes's accusations are not notable (there's no indication of that in GScholar). The huge caveat I have to this analysis is that there is every indication that the term is unique to Gomes and that other references on line derive from WP, and that on a scholarly level nobody really cares except for a bunch of apologetics sites. Mangoe (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


This redirect can be considered confusing, going against WP:POLA. I looked for more appropriate pages to link to, but came up short. I also realized that I removed the only instance of this redirect from List of meat substitutes so I don't know if this should even still exist. There are no mentions of "Allma" except a single short mention on the Chlorella page. Sfern824 (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete Almost all of the first two pages of google results for "Allma" relate to a construction company in Glasgow, and the only two relating to food are from the manufacturer's website. This, combined with the lack of any information on Wikipedia means this is not a useful redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a company Allma [5] that is a manufacturer of chlorella, and there is a relevant mention in the article supported by a legitimate reference. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Shhh. MB 19:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Admiral Benbow[edit]

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

Second impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump[edit]

This is an unneeded redirect. Who is really going to search "second impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump" rather than "Second impeachment of Donald Trump"? Also, there was no inquiry during this impeachment, and having such a redirect, sort of implies that there was. I'd say delete this redirect. SecretName101 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not sufficiently useful. MB 03:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete if there was no inquiry. Geschichte (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

James MacQuarrie[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep He is mentioned in the article as having been the commander of the aircraft. Thincat (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: "Flight 103 was under the command of Captain James B. MacQuarrie". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Harry Potter: Book Six[edit]

The two directs are not needed anymore; nobody types these types of titles with a colon, followed by the book number. Also, none of the other books in the Harry Potter series have this type of redirect (such as Harry Potter: Book One.) Yoshiman6464 โ™ซ๐Ÿฅš 17:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep - they're unambiguous, correct and harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep both per Thryduulf. To add onto that point, some people might use this terminology to search for the books. Regards, SONIC678 19:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Obviously correct, obvious keep for both. Enjoyer โ€” talk 11:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Correct and unambiguous, and a somewhat reasonable search term. These are ancient redirects from page moves - the articles for the 6th and 7th books started out at these titles before their name was publicly released - so there may be some incoming links out there in the internet. (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


Doesn't seem to be particularly plausible, suggest deletion. Hog Farm Talk 17:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep - Per "Category:Redirects from misspellings". Yoshiman6464 โ™ซ๐Ÿฅš 17:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly plausible misspelling - there are literally hundreds of examples on the internet of this exact spelling being used to mean "yacht". Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Is this an alternative spelling in another language? AngusW๐Ÿถ๐ŸถF (bark โ€ข sniff) 18:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think so - all the results I looked at were in an English language context (although many in places that suggests it was written by non-native speaker, not that that matters and not that there weren't also examples from probably native speakers), Wiktionary has no entry at wikt:yaugt. Google Translate detects it as Hmong but I think that's incorrect - when I ask it to translate the English word "yacht" alone or in a sentence ("the yacht has yellow sails.") it gives me "yacht" ("lub yacht muaj daj daj.") suggesting it doesn't have the word in its lexicon, and a google search for "yaugt" "hmong" finds nothing relevant (mostly pornography for some reason). Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
It looks like a phonetic spelling to me. Some people just pronounce the word this way, unlike the Monty Python pronunciation. -- (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

South Africaร [edit]

A quick search is not bringing up anything that suggests that the special character is frequently added to the end, will withdraw if proof of common usage can be found. Hog Farm Talk 17:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete implies this is different from South Africa, and is not a variant like Hawaii / Hawai'i AngusW๐Ÿถ๐ŸถF (bark โ€ข sniff) 18:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete implausible as a typo (t · c) buidhe 19:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

G Horned Owl[edit]

Doesn't seem particularly logical to abbreviate the first word in this manner. Hog Farm Talk 17:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. Plenty of examples of it being abbreviated this way or as "G. Horned Owl", e.g. [6], [7], [8] (p. 14), [9], [10], [11] (p. 4). Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


This seems rather misleading to me, since the term in question is actually only indirectly mentioned within the linked section. Also, it will probably mislead in particular users seeking an article on the pertinent language (in analogy to Sindarin or Eldarin, for instance). Hildeoc (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - There's a whole section about the language at Sindarin#Noldorin Sindarin. Hog Farm Talk 17:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment This really depends on whether Noldorin refers to the language or the culture. If it's the culture, then it's fine where it is as it talks about Noldor, which itself redirects to Fictional history. If it's mainly about the language / dialect then redirect to Sindarin. Note that ร‘oldorin should also be grouped with this, and if it requires a hatnote redirects here then consider adding that. AngusW๐Ÿถ๐ŸถF (bark โ€ข sniff) 18:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget (ALL) Actually, there are MANY redirects for individual elvish languages at Elvish languages (Middle-earth)#Internal history, which is basically the new home for all of them. The links used to go to many separate pages full of primary details, but they are all deleted, leaving redirects to Elf (Middle-earth) which says very little about them. I suggest ALL the redirects go to Elvish languages (Middle-earth)#Internal history which at least sets them all in context and gives some detail on them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Menas Teroth[edit]

Not an actual name of the subject, or even as a draft name so far as I can tell. Possibly a butchered spelling, this doesn't seem like a likely attempt. Hog Farm Talk 15:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Warren (near Mojave), California[edit]

delete as an unnecessary disambiguation from a now-deleted page. In all likelihood the target is going to be deleted as NN anyway. Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Recommend withdrawal - The target page was at this title for over 10 years, so it would likely be kept per WP:RFD#KEEP #4. It's better to wait for the Warren, California AFD to close (it looks NN to me), in which case this redirect can be deleted per WP:G8. Hog Farm Talk 15:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hog Farm. If the target page is kept this should be kept to preserve any links, etc., if the target page is deleted this will be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G8. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Over 90% of the links to this were in the Kern County places template where it was piped through for "Warren"; eliminating that and one other case of the same ilk eliminated all of the article space examples, leaving only some admin references in discussion of the renaming itself. Even if the target is kept, there is no need for this redirect, and there's no need to keep it so that it can be used anew. Mangoe (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Whatlinkshere only shows links from current revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia, it does not and cannot show links from anywhere else on the internet. As a former article title such links are not unlikely. Thryduulf (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep if target is kept else delete. It's not an unreasonable Search term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Tubb tubb[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5.

Real teletubbies[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5.

SPIRE Institute and Academy[edit]

spire is NOT related to or considered an official Olympic training center. this article should be moved to draft to be fixed. Thatcontentcreator96 (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I've been watching the back-and-forth of the article/redirect movement and have these quotes to contribute:

"The facility is home to Spire Academy, a sports performance program for international, high school and postgraduate students."
"The Plain Dealer reported in 2013 that Spire had been selected to be an independent U.S. Olympic and Paralympic training site."

The latter quote is interesting in the fact that it identifies SPIRE as having "been selected" yet doesn't confirm that it was at the time of the newspaper article; however, I have not seen a source that disproves that it is or that it was and no longer is. In spite of the ambiguity, there seems to at least be enough evidence that this is not spam and would be legitimate enough to mention on the training center page if it can be confirmed that at one time that it was affiliated, if not still. The former, while not directly related to this discussion, seems to me to convey that the facility is on the level of, say, a charter school, and therefore could be eligible for an article, assuming guideline adherence within WP:EDU or similar project, and therefore the need for a redirect would no longer be an issue. Mapsax (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Existential threat[edit]

Misleading redirect, an existential threat also refers to threats to any entity which are not usually global catastrophic risks:

  • "Dementia thus represents an existential threat that creates profound emotional and psychological challenges for those who are directly affected by the illness."[12]
  • "Former CIA officer Marc Sageman concluded that โ€œal Qaeda is no longer seen as an existential threat to the Westโ€"[13]
  • "[deportations] rapidly radicalized monstrously into an opportunity to rid Anatolia once and for all of those peoples perceived to be an imminent existential threat to the future of the empire."[14]

Since there are reliable sources about existential threats in general as well as there rhetoric of existential threats,[15][16][17][18][19][20] I would say delete to encourage article creation. (t · c) buidhe 09:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose There have been many and significant discussions about this term on the talk page of the main article. We are not creating a separate article on this topic, it will be a content fork. Attempting to end-run around those discussions "to encourage article creation" with this deletion request is not appreciated. If you believe there can be a new article that will not en up largely being a copy of the existing article topic, discuss on the article talk page first. -- GreenC 13:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Oppose" what? Do you mean "keep", "delete", or something else? Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Seventyfiveyears: in context GreenC clearly opposes deletion but is expressing no opinion about a retargetting should anyone suggest that. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussions I'm seeing on the talk page are whether "existential risk" should be its own page, which consensus points to no. AngusW๐Ÿถ๐ŸถF (bark โ€ข sniff) 18:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, "existential risk" is used mostly as a synonym for "global catastrophic risk" (it's bolded in the introduction of the article) but "existential threat" is certainly not. (t · c) buidhe 19:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Misleading redirect as it is often used for less than the world e.g. "Israel sees an Iranian nuclear weapon as an existential threat".Chidgk1 (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


Through a variety of redirections to targets that were later redirected, we get a redirect that's not mentioned anywhere. It wasn't in Gondor proper, IIRC, so the current target isn't appropriate. It appears in the map of Eregion at Geography of Middle-earth, but that seems to be about it. Not sure if retargeting to the minor mention in the (Spanish-language) map or deletion is better, but the current target doesn't work. Hog Farm Talk 05:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I think we can delete this one, though I agree we could point at Geography of Middle-earth if anyone can be bothered to add a name to the map and a mention to the text. I guess the general point is that Tolkien provided an impression of depth by creating and naming features never used in the tales, but there's only a limited extent to which we can hope to cover those. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Gaius Julius Caesar I[edit]

I've never seen anybody, let alone a reliable source, distinguish general Romans by numbers. It all seems arbitrary and gratuitous, not to mention that some of these numbers do not correspond with their chronological order of appearance in history. They should all be deleted. Avilich (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete all. The only one of these I think I've ever seen used is Drusus II and even then that's in very old sources and rarely.โ˜…Trekker (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all. None of them are likely search terms; to the extent that a dictionary or encyclopedia might use numerals to distinguish between homonymous individuals, it doesn't mean that those numerals are meant to be part of their names, and it's unlikely that readers will assume otherwise because of a few occurrences. P Aculeius (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep all โ€“ The ordinals occur in 19th-century sholarship, e.g. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, copies of which (several editions) are widely spread on the internet โ€“ a reader might try to find more updated info on these persons of Roman antiquity in Wikipedia, and that is hampered if it isn't clear exactly who indentifies with whom from the outdated sources to the more modern sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
These numberings are outdated and inacurate, I'm not sure if Wikipedia should encurage that. I also don't believe the majority these terms are commong enouh to make them plausible search terms.โ˜…Trekker (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Presumably this 19th-century (!) source used ordinals as an ad hoc method to distinguish the relevant persons of the same name, and did not intent to follow or establish a general procedure. Further, as Treker said, they're outdated (scholarship on the Julii Caesares has changed since then) or outright wrong and inaccurate (Tiberius Gracchus and Marcus Porcius Cato). Finally, ordinals are just not commonly used in a way that justifies redirects: already they were probably seldom used in the 19th century and are virtually non-existent in the 21st. An internet search returns basically zero results other than wikipedia mirrors. Avilich (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
None of these occur in the work now repeatedly cited or blamed for themโ€”apparently without anyone bothering to check whether it had anything to do with thisโ€”it doesn't contain biographical articles at all. To the extent that any dictionary or reference work uses numerals to distinguish between homonymous individualsโ€”a practice still seen in the present dayโ€”it's invariably clear that these aren't part of the subject's names, and exist only to distinguish between the entries in the work. It's equally clear that these numbers in Wikipedia are largely the invention of the article creators, who bear the sole responsibility for introducing a confusing and largely useless set of distinctions. P Aculeius (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Neologisms unsupported by reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Aulus Postumius Albinus Magnus[edit]

The first has a wrong surname, the second has a wrong office and wrong year, and the third has his name misspelled and also a wrong office. Delete as incorrect and not particularly plausible. Avilich (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete 1 and 3, keep 2, as it was just closed as a plausible redirect yesterday following a previous nomination by the same nominator for the same reasons. Nothing has changed since the previous discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
    I did not include the other 'propraetor 110', but it's still pushing too far to have a 'praetor 89', no less than having a 'consul 89' just b/c he was of consular rank that year. Avilich (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all per my comments in the AfD. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Abbas Nouri[edit]

Delete good faith redirect, as Abbas Nouri competed for Iran at the 1992 Summer Paralympics#Athletics (in Long jump J4 and Triple jump J3โ€“4), thus cannot be the redirect targeted to Mรญrzรก สปAbbรกs Nรบrรญ, who died in 1839. Jmg38 (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

January 21[edit]

Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton[edit]

Redirect to 2016 United States presidential election, which Trump vs. Clinton and Clinton vs. Trump already redirect to. The election is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC under that name. Additionally, this seems to have been the conclusion of a prior RfD. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump vs. Joe Biden[edit]

Redirect to 2020 United States presidential election, which Trump vs. Biden and Biden vs. Trump already redirect to. The election is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC under that name. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Butcher of Queen's Road East[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7.

Climate Barbie[edit]

Unlikely search term. This isn't a widespread nickname for Catherine McKenna so much as it is an insult used by her political opponents; there isn't anybody who knows the phrase "Climate Barbie" who doesn't already know her actual name. It would be like having something from the List of nicknames used by Donald Trump redirect to the person in question (Low Energy Jeb et all exist, but redirect to the nickname pageโ€” not the person).

But don't just take my word for it: it's received a grand total of six pageviews in the past 30 days. โ€” Kawnhr (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. Opponents calling McKenna "Climate Barbie" went on for several years while she was the Minister of the Environment, and there is a significant discussion of it and her reaction in the article. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. Unlike with the other redirects mentioned, the principal discussion of this nickname on Wikipedia is on the person's article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


Digitalization and Digitization are, according to Gartner's IT glossary and other sources, ([21] and [22] for exemple) 2 different concepts. The first being the use of digital technologies to change a business model and the 2nd being the process of changing from analog to digital form. I believe a better target would be Digital_transformation#Digitalization_(of_industries_and_organizations). SAP actually mentions this redirect here saying that it reinforces the ambiguity between these terms Dom from Paris (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment if the two lead to different targets then both targets need hatnotes to the other. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Thryduulf: I'm sorry I don't quite follow. When you say "the two" what do you mean? Digitalization is a redirect but Digitization is a main space article. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
      • If entering "Digitalization" and into the search box and pressing go means you end up at a different place than if you'd entered "Digitization" then you should see a hatnote pointing to the other page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Digitalisation is currently a red link, but it should be created as a redirect to the same place as consensus determines the z spelling should lead. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a hatnote at Digitization to resolve any ambiguity. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


Term not included in target. Hildeoc (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The right to remain silent[edit]

I propose to retarget all these to the dab page at You Have the Right to Remain Silent (to which I've added a link to Right to silence, the general concept article) as the phrases are not exclusive to the scripted warning used by US law enforcement. I'm not opposed to targetting the first listed redirect directly to Right to silence. Thryduulf (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment For reference, here are the page views of related links at DAB "You Have the Right to Remain Silent".โ€”Bagumba (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect "The right to remain silent" to Right to silence, and the others to DAB You Have the Right to Remain Silent. "The right to remain silent" is a generic topic, and "Right to silence" has links to Miranda for those specifically looking for its used in the United States. "You Have The Right To Remain Silent" is a possible proper name and is best disambiguated, as I don't consider there to be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that longer phrase.โ€”Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Right to silence because "The right to remain silent" is synonymous with that title, and the other phrases derive from a fundamental part of law enforcement phrases used widely, not just in the US. Right to silence is essentially the primary topic for all these phrases. (I have added a further information hatnote to Right to silence#United States targeting Miranda warning to assist readers to more readily navigate to that page). I think we also need to go further and move the disambiguation page to You Have the Right to Remain Silent (disambiguation) and redirect the base name to Right to silence as well. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    • If the consensus here is to target the nominated redirects starting with "You" to the general article (something I'm not opposed to) then yes absolutely this dab page should be moved. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Per WP:SMALLDETAILS, a reader who goes out of their way to actually capitalize the phrase is looking for a proper noun, and should be sent directly to the capitalized dab. That dab should remain the primary topic for capitalized titles without ellipses.โ€”Bagumba (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget each according to Bagumba. The first redirect should target the general concept, whereas the others likely refer to the Miranda warning but should be disambiguated from the music entries at the dab page. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget all and move dab page per Shhhnotsoloud. Upon further thought I do think making the general Right to silence page the primary topic will benefit the most searchers (with a hatnote to the dab page there of course). Mdewman6 (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget The right to remain silent to Right to silence, and keep all the others. The Miranda warning is so well known that people outside the only country where it applies can recite it from memory and/or expect it to have legal force in their own countries; it is clearly the primary topic for common variations of its opening lines, not a handful of musical works that also clearly refer to it. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 20:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget all and move dab per Shhhnotsoloud's proposal, I concur with their reasoning. BlackholeWA (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per the nom. Although the Miranda Warning is the primary topic, there are many other uses for that phrase that could fit in the dab page. Yoshiman6464 โ™ซ๐Ÿฅš 17:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 Washington D.C protests[edit]

Too broad, there have already been other protests this year and there are likely to be more. While the Jan 6 incident is definitely the most prominent so far, it is not guaranteed to stay that way, and it's also more likely to be known by words other than "protests". I think that deletion to allow for search results is appropriate at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 16:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: Agree with the nom. Too broad. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too broad. Perhaps a different article (which discusses all of the protests which were and which are to be for this year) can be called by that name.Davidbena (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete โ€“ It's not even spelled correctly: there's no dot after 'C'. We don't have a page 2021 Washington D.C. protests either, so let's delete this one. โ€” Chrisahn (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and Move to 2021 Washington D.C. protests Then why do even broader redirects like Capitol Riots and Capitol protest is kept when that can mean different things as well? And that rationale is a certain example of WP:CRYSTALBALL. As of right now these riots are the most notable covered topic when referring to this term. This should be kept. โ‚›โ‚’โ‚˜โ‚‘Bโ‚’dyโ‚โ‚™yBโ‚’dyโ‚€โ‚… (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep until there are other protests in Washington DC this year with articles/significant sections, then disambiguate or setindexify. This is a highly plausible search term and will remain so. A setindex or dab will be much more helpful to readers than search results (which may be several clicks away and are not guaranteed to find what the reader is looking for). Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep until something else becomes the "2021 Washington D.C. protests." Whatever the page redirects to on Dec. 31 should be the best known subject by that name. If it's not, this discussion should be had then. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep until/unless another notable event describable as "2021 Washington D.C. protests" occurs. For now, its target is pretty unambiguous, and implying that there will be other events is a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. However, I would prefer a redirect with the correct punctuation (Washington D.C. or Washington, D.C.), in which case I would argue strong keep the correctly punctuated one and weak delete this one. ComplexRational (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete or Move to 2021 Washington D.C. protests. I would agree with the Keep arguments if the dot wasn't missing from (D.C.) The errant version of this search term should not be kept. JaredHWood๐Ÿ’ฌ 21:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delrte per Chrisahn. An implausible typo to make. WaltCip-(talk) 12:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, but Move to 2021 Washington D.C. protests. Also, WP:CRYSTAL per ComplexRational and โ‚›โ‚’โ‚˜โ‚‘Bโ‚’dyโ‚โ‚™yBโ‚’dyโ‚€โ‚…. So far, the Janaury 6th protest is the most prominent one. Yoshiman6464 โ™ซ๐Ÿฅš 17:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete now that 2021 Washington D.C. protests has been created. MB 03:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Bush era[edit]

This redirect could be confused with George H.W. Bush. I recommend disambiguating this redirect. Interstellarity (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to George Bush, a disambiguation page who's first 4 links are George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush and their presidencies. (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I think BDD's suggested target is better and more accurately fits what people would expect to find when searching for Bush era, I missed that page when searching. I'm therefore changing my vote to support retargeting to Presidency of George Bush. (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per above. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to George Bush DAB page is a good proposal, better than simply disambiguating the Bush era redirect. Drdpw (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Retaget, but to disambiguation page Presidency of George Bush. Trump era and Nixon era redirect to their respective presidency articles; Reagan Era is an article, with a hatnote to the presidency page; but Kennedy era redirects to John F. Kennedy#"Camelot Era". (If my proposal here is accepted, I intend to retarget it to Presidency of John F. Kennedy unless anyone thinks it should be discussed separately.) We don't have analogous redirects for other presidents since 1932, as far as I can tell. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retaget to Presidency of George Bush, according to BDD's proposal. An "era" can not be targeted to a biographical article. Dimadick (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to presidency DAB per BDD. The Bush DAB option is decent, but the presidency one covers the only two meanings people are likely to be thinking ofโ€”basically what this title would itself say if it were DABified as suggested by Interstellarity. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to presidency DAB per BDD. The normal Geroge Bush dab page contains many other George Bushes who weren't the President of the United States. Yoshiman6464 โ™ซ๐Ÿฅš 18:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to presidency DAB per BDD. That page also has a link to Bush (disambiguation) in case someone really wanted to look for the Kate Bush era. AngusW๐Ÿถ๐ŸถF (bark โ€ข sniff) 18:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Frederick the II of Prussia[edit]

The article was briefly moved to the redirect on 22 Oct. 2020 in an act of vandalism by a now-banned editor. Using 'the' with Roman numerals is neither correct nor a usual mistake and so I propose it be deleted. Avilich (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Weak delete as relatively unlikely search term (due to the "the"), although I don't think the history really factors into this, so long as neither G3 nor G5 applies (which AFAICT they don't). -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 04:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


Not mentioned at target. (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


This has nothing to do with Dragon Ball. (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep. This might not be the best targetโ€”it is mentioned at several Dragon Ball articlesโ€”but the nominator clearly has not done their research. Oozaru is the Japanese name for the Great Ape that Saiyans, including Goku, in Dragon Ball can transform into. ร” is just an alternate way of representing a long vowel (the "oo" in "Oozaru") in Japanese; ลŒ is more commonly used instead. Ss112 07:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete it and all the other iterations (Oozaru, Ozaru, Golden Oozaru). It is mentioned in several articles but there is no coverage of this specific topic, which has been the status quo for about 11 years. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Goku as mentioned there, and add a hatnote. Keeping it with Dragon Ball franchise article is also okay but may need an {{R without mention}} AngusW๐Ÿถ๐ŸถF (bark โ€ข sniff) 18:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

รbรฏtoso language[edit]

Not mentioned at target. (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep Please make sure to check "what links here" (Special:WhatLinksHere/รbรฏtoso language) before nominating redirects for deletion. This is a dialect of Chamacoco that is mentioned in multiple academic publications, including Campbell (2012), a widely used standard listing of Amerindian languages. The target mentions it as Ebidรณso, and Jolkesky (2016) spells it as Ibitoso. โ€” Sagotreespirit (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Onian Li language[edit]

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

ศช, ศฌ[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Refine section to Livonian language#Alphabet. (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Europe's last dictatorship[edit]

What the heck!?!? (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump's mental health[edit]

This should be retarget to Goldwater rule#Regarding Donald Trump per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 30#Mental health of Donald Trump. Sun8908โ”€โ”€Talk 04:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: Jack Upland just deleted the health section entirely. โ€”Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 04:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
    I have restored most of that. starship.paint (exalt) 08:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I strongly disagree, this should be restored as a separate article, or at least redirected to the appropriate coverage in the Trump article. Redirecting to the "Goldwater rule" would reflect an inappropriately narrow US bias that ignores that the topic itself (i.e. Trump's mental health) is considered highly notable by the whole world. The so-called "Goldwater rule" is a non-binding opinion of just one private association on the individual conduct of American psychiatrists who are members of that association, it has nothing at all to do with the coverage of the material in Wikipedia or the media in general. As long as a stream of experts are in fact both willing to offer their professional expertise on this matter and RS widely cover it, the material belongs in Wikipedia. Many experts have explicitly argued why it's both appropriate, ethical and important to comment on Trump's personality and mental health, and why it's unethical and inappropriate to attempt to obstruct such discussion with bogus, dogmatic postulates about a "Goldwater rule" that fundamentally misunderstand both the purpose of that supposed rule (individual conduct within a particular profession) and its professionally and geographically highly limited scope. We have extensive material on the health and personality of other politicians, e.g. Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler, an entire article that rightly completely ignores the "Goldwater rule". As the world's most powerful person during his presidency, whose behaviour and decisions greatly impacted the world, Trump must accept a greater degree of scrutiny than some B celebrity. --Tataral (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Create article Like it or not (I have some skepticism that it's a productive area of inquiry), mental health of Donald Trump is clearly a notable topic, having received significant RS coverage. (t · c) buidhe 08:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Do not retarget to Goldwater rule. Donald Trump's mental health is clearly a sub-topic of Donald Trump, not anything else. Either keep, delete or create an article. (Almost no one ever uses the redirect anyway.) Station1 (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget or delete โ€” Although Trump's mental health is highly relevant to his presidency and thus world history, all the information we have about it is speculative. Unfortunately, that's not enough for a Wikipedia article (not even enough for a section in Donald Trump). At the moment, I don't see a better solution than that section in Goldwater rule. โ€” Chrisahn (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Create article - This is my preferred solution since there are several whole books devoted to this subject, including Twilight of American Sanity and The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump. Until the article is created though, the current redirect to Donald Trump is better than to Goldwater rule. The scope of the Goldwater rule article doesn't even come close to covering all the material from the books that have been written on Donald Trump's mental health. IvoryTower123 (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Gay Republican[edit]

Gay Republicans is a documentary film about four Log Cabin Republicans and the debate over gay marriage in the United States. I would retarget there. Cnilep (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
A disambiguation page that was at 'Gay Republicans' and linked to the film and to Log Cabin Republicans, and had the various conservative LGBT articles in its See also section, was deleted about a month ago. Those things are not actually ambiguous as Wikipedia defines it, since they are not called Gay Republicans as such. I moved the film to that title after the DAB was deleted. Cnilep (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
If not a DAB page then how about a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE article? LGBT and the republican party seems like a notable topic that could have it's own article. It could be structured in such a way to cover all the related topics above, e.g. History and party views; Legislative history; LGBT members; LGBT groups and organisations; Depictions in the media etc. (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. No primary topic or really any topic with this exact name, and the DAB relating to this title was deleted. Maybe if there was a similar DAB somewhere this could point at it, but I certainly don't think one should be created at this title, so given that I'd just delete it BlackholeWA (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete โ€“ As others have pointed out, there's no useful target article. Here are the three Pages that link to "Gay Republican":
  1. Paul Koering: He is believed to be the first openly gay Republican elected official in Minnesota
  2. Ezola Foster: ... to protest its recognition of the Log Cabin Club, an organization of gay Republicans.
  3. The Mostly Unfabulous Social Life of Ethan Green: a controlling and even emotionally abusive gay Republican
(These links should be unlinked, or split into gay and Republican.) โ€” Chrisahn (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


I don't see how you can mistake a "K" sound for an "M" sound. Furthermore, the second letter is supposed to be an "a", not an "o".  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a nickname. I don't think it's going to be a frequent search term, but it's not a simple misspelling. Her stepkids call her "Momala". โ€”valereee (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep it! The familiar nickname is famous. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: Widely known nickname: [31][32][33][34][35]. --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 03:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete None of the sources cited imply "Momala" is used to refer to Harris outside of her family. This may be a well known fact, but I dont think anyone is going to go looking for Harris via Momala. Rklahn (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ahecht and the others. WP:CHEAP. Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: It is her nick name. Many sources have used this, in reference to her children. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: dumb nickname, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to delete a redirect. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment this depends on whether the press uses the nickname as much as Octomom AngusW๐Ÿถ๐ŸถF (bark โ€ข sniff) 18:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Family of Kamala Harris#Cole Emhoff, which actually explains this nickname. We should not be pointing this nickname to a target which does not explain it. (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


WP:RFOREIGN. I don't think Kamala Harris has any special relationship to the Chinese language or any Chinese-speaking countries.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden[edit]

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

January 20[edit]

Mithridates Pontus[edit]

The first is just wrong, vague and useless, the second is technically wrong too, and the third appears nowhere and doesn't seem like what someone would type. All three are orphaned and without traffic. I don't think anyone will miss them. Avilich (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete all. I can't see anyone typing 1โ€”it even sounds nonsensical to me. 3 requires the searcher to keep typing far beyond what's necessary to locate the right article, and in so doing combine titles that wouldn't normally be combined, so it seems both improbable and unnecessary. At first glance, 2 looks like a possible mistake, since we say "Mithridates the Sixth", but it's not normal to write "the", and I wouldn't expect anyone to make this mistake. Even allowing for the unlikely chance, I don't think we do this for most other monarchs with iterations, and if it's unnecessary for them, it's unnecessary for Mithridates VI. If I'm mistaken, and we do have this for a lot of monarchs, then maybe 2 would be justified. P Aculeius (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all Per Aculeius comment. --StaleGuy22 (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Steven King[edit]

This has been a redirect to Stephen King (disambiguation) for years, but even per the disambiguation page, Stephen King (the world-famous author) is the primary topic for this spelling variant. In other words, readers typing "steven king" in the search box are most likely looking for information on the prominent author and aren't sure how to spell his name, rather than looking for any of the individuals listed on the disambiguation page. None of the individuals listed by the spelling "Steven" are prominent enough, nor sufficiently more prominent than any of the other Stevens, to compel different treatment for this common variation. Propose that Steven King should be retargeted to Stephen King, where there is already an "other people" hatnote. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep as is since it is not the correct spelling of the author's name. And the author's name appears in big boldface at the top of the disambiguation page, so the current state is not a problem for people unsure on how to spell it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Stephen King per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In support of the OP here are the 30 day page views for Stephen King and other Steven Kings: Stephen King received 247,203 views, Steven King (footballer) received 705 view, Steven King (ice hockey) received 113 views, Steven King (journalist) received 90 page views, and Steven King (jockey) received 71 views. This data shows clearly that when people come to Wikipedia and search for Stephen King or Steven King they are most likely looking for the Stephen King article. JaredHWood๐Ÿ’ฌ 23:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Retired U.S. congressman Steve King is still getting nearly 1000 views a month. (He left congress a few weeks ago, and his page may become less active in the coming months depending on how much he remains a public figure.) โ€”jameslucas โ–„โ–„โ–„ โ–„ โ–„โ–„โ–„ โ–„โ–„โ–„ โ–„ 00:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
    Congressman King has a good argument for primary topic for "Steve King", but not for "Steven King". If you Google "steve king" you get almost all results for the congressman, while if you search for "steven king" you get mostly results for the author, or for other non-notable authors who do spell their names "Steven", rather than anyone else on the dab page. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 11:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom and Jared. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Carmanville, Ontario[edit]

Delete this redirect. There appears to be no Carmanville in Ontario (only in Newfoundland as per Canadian Geographical Names Database). -- P 1 9 9  โœ‰ 18:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - there's some evidence that a community by this name did exist at one time in the township now known as Stone Mills (e.g. [37]), and it's pretty harmless to keep the redirect (there are no other Carmanvilles in Ontario). Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 20:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Actually the link does NOT provide any evidence. The entry on this website (which would fail as a RS) is just speculation. It says: "While Carmanville could be some kind of landmark, we think that it's more likely to be a community. We've added Carmanville as a placeholder with the hope that we'll be able to add more information in the future. ... We haven't been able to find any evidence that it still exists." Note my highlights. Furthermore, the links has already created confusion before, see Talk:Stone Mills (which was my reason for nominating it for deletion). -- P 1 9 9  โœ‰ 01:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Caius Valerius Daja Maximinus[edit]

None of these redirects closely resemble the subject's name, they don't seem particularly plausible search terms, and they get basically zero views. I propose deleting them. Avilich (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete 1, 2, and 4: all but the third seem very improbable. That one might still be usefulโ€”we have "Gaius Maximinus Thrax" and that's what pops up alongside it in the search window if you search for "Gaius Maximinus", which is quite possible if readers don't recall the nomen "Valerius", which had become ubiquitious and generic by the third and fourth centuries. Of course their shared praenomen was generic at all periods of Roman history, but still might be remembered. So the third one seems useful as a means of directing readers who forget his nomen to one article or the otherโ€”and reminding them what the likely alternatives are. Number 1 is improbable as it uses both the archaic "Caius" and the unusual "Daja" instead of "Daia" (is this actually used in English sources prior to say, 1920, when "Caius" is still likely to appear?), and placing the name before Maximinus also seems unlikely. Any one of these variations is plausible, but combining all three makes for an extremely improbable search term. Number 2 is equally improbable: it combines the unlikely "Caius" and "Daja" with a "surname first" format that isn't used anywhere on Wikipedia. Number 4 is superfluous: anyone typing "Maximinus II" will get the right article without having to type "(Daia)". I would be less inclined to delete if "Daia" appeared without parentheses, as someone might guess that form of the name, but I can see no benefit to and little probability of anyone searching with parentheses. P Aculeius (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think he was even called Gaius though. His first name was Galerius, which could, I suppose, be confounded with Gaius, but neither is the primary way of referring to him. Avilich (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I found one inscription that calls him "Imp(erator) Caes(ar) C(aius) [Val(erius)] [Ga]l(erius) Maximian[us Aug(ustus)", or at least I assume it refers to him. But I doubt that's how we came up with the praenomen. It's not mentioned in Grant's Roman Emperors or the Chronicle of the Roman Emperors, which are my print sources, and it's not in DGRBM either. But I'm guessing someone has it this way, and I'd like to know who before deciding that it's wrong. P Aculeius (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
A brief search indicates that his name is given this way in both the Oxford Classical Dictionary and the Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization, as well as at and on's profile. So it seems to be generally accepted, even though I'm still not sure as to why. P Aculeius (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
That inscription you provided (ILS 8933) is apparently the only one which assigns him the name Gaius; it appears neither in his coinage nor anywhere else (PLRE). Its accuracy is questionable, though: his other nomina are given in the wrong order, and the inscription also mentions the emperor Galerius, who was himself called Gaius and whose name was very similar to Maximinus's to the point which a confusion might've been made. I presume this is why sources disagree here. Avilich (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Since Maximinus was the nephew of Galerius, and as far as we know he assumed his uncle's nomenclature around the time he was adopted as his uncle's heir, I think it's fair to say that he would have assumed the same praenomen. That was the standard, if not invariable, Roman practice stretching back to the Republic. And as they both came from a recently Romanized familyโ€”one that only seems to have assumed Roman names in the middle or later third century, it's unlikely that they had any tradition of using their praenomina to distinguish between one anotherโ€”a practice that even old Roman families had been abandoning gradually since the first century. For now, multiple reliable sources assume that Maximinus' name was Gaius, and I think that's presumptively correct in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. If the only evidence is that no praenomen appears in the majority of inscriptions, the evidence to the contrary is at best very weak, and insufficient to overcome the presumption that he assumed his uncle's full nomenclature. P Aculeius (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Fuck her right in the pussy[edit]

Since 809946854, Fuck her right in the pussy is not mentioned in the target article any more, so this redirect can be deleted. โ€“ Rummskartoffel (talk โ€ข contribs) 15:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete because we have nowhere to send readers seeking any information about this topic. The AfD concluded this topic should not have its own article, while the mention at the current target was removed three years ago and hasn't been contested (rightly so, since the target only lists videos with their own articles). (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Could maybe add a mention at List of Internet phenomena and Retarget there. -Vote changed to Restore article content with new sourcing per below.- This was a fairly big deal back in the day and I think should be mentioned somewhere, and we shouldn't let technical criteria for a particular list page take it out of the encyclopedia. BlackholeWA (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget - Retarget to List of Internet phenomena. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of Internet phenomena. (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete This page has been deleted four times already. Internet memes come and go and I don't think a 2014 meme is particularly notable or newsworthy any longer in 2021. Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Notability is not temporary. If it was notable in 2014 it is still notable in 2021. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete A redirect to a page containing no information about the redirect text is of no use to the reader. -- Hux (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This has gotten a bunch of news coverage from reliable sources sine the last AFD in November 2014, and that's probably enough to a mention a mention somewhere. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Restore article content. I think my link shows that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources for the content to be restored at the original page., or moved to the internet phenomena page, since the trend it inspired isn't necessarily because of the virality of the original video. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Adjusted !vote given more thorough source analysis by Ivanvector below. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I would also support a restore. BlackholeWA (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Restore. I reviewed the DYK for the article back in 2015 and I was impressed with the sourcing at the time. The subject is definitely notable and I maintain that the AfD got it wrong. -- Tavix (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Note I've added FHRITP to this discussion as it doesn't make sense for one to be deleted and not the other or for them to lead to different content if not deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Restore - I agree with Tavix that the AfD (the second one, at least) was closed incorrectly; there was demonstrably not clear consensus to delete. On the issue of notability: there have been numerous widely-covered criminal incidents involving someone shouting the phrase at women, including the 2014 suspension of Jameis Winston ([38], [39]), the 2015 firing of a Canadian public service worker ([40], [41]) and extensive coverage of his eventual rehiring ([42], [43]), and here are a series of news hits about ongoing incidents and other coverage from May 2020, July 2020, October 2020, and two days ago. The French articles both don't discuss specific incidents but address the broader issue of the phrase being used as harassment, and one discusses significant art projects addressing the trend. There's easily enough for a full article. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In light of how much news coverage this is apparently still receiving, I'm changing to restore as well (and retarget FHRITP, of course). When I nominated it, this redirect just looked like a leftover from a long-dead, non-notable meme, but a phenomenon that has spurred controversy multiple times over the course of a few years definitely feels like it deserves mention in Wikipedia. โ€“ Rummskartoffel (talk โ€ข contribs) 10:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Previous RfD closing admin here, thanks User:Thryduulf for the notification. I haven't been following this debate since I closed its precursor five years ago, and from my cursory reading of this discussion, circumstances have almost certainly changed, so there is no need to treat my closure from five years ago as a binding precedent. Deryck C. 10:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget Per comments. --StaleGuy22 (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

WWE Tag Team Championship (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete because these redirects do not target a disambiguation page, and the target is not disambiguation-like because "WWE Tag Team Champions" and "WWE Tag Team Championship" are not ambiguous terms Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment when the redirect was created the target was a dab page, the redirect was created in 2016, pages change. โ“โ“Ÿโ“Ÿโ“˜โ“ง Talk 15:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: I have tagged both of those pages as WP:G14. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I've declined the G14s as, with slightly different organisation of content, the lists at the target could form a disambiguation/set index page so they are clearly forming a disambiguation-like function. This doesn't mean the redirects are necessarily useful (I'm undecided at present) but they are not speedy candidates. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
      • @Thryduulf: The redirects ending in "(disambiguation)" that target a disambiguation-like function are also eligible for WP:G14, see this: "A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
        • @Seventyfiveyears: what you've quoted explicitly says that a redirect targetting a page that performs a disambiguation-like function is not eligible for G14. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I would refine it to Tag_team_championships_in_WWE#Overview_of_titles. Based on my reading of the article, there is a valid DAB page that could be made, since the WWE has a history of tag team championships, but the resulting DAB page would be more confusing and difficult to navigate โ€“ strictly speaking some of the entries might only be in a "see also" section if not branded under WWE โ€“ and would duplicate the work done at the "#Overview_of_titles" section. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete "championships", keep "champions". The target page is not nominally a disambiguation page although it could serve that purpose. "Championships" has no hits at all, while "champions" has quite a few pageviews for a redirect which suggests external linking or some other use, and readers visiting that link will find the information they're looking for (a list of pages with more information about WWE tag team champions) at the current target. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 20:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


Shortcuts originally intended for a task force that is now merged into the main project, this is confusing and serves no purpose. Not being actively linked. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Added other similar redirects. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 22:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Redirect and retarget. Seems plausible that someone who still thinks of those defunct task forces would want to be steered to a project that is familiar with the subject matter. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect, as above. People do discover the project by looking for more specific things. โ€” ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The issue I see here is that the defunct task forces already redirect to the target meaning that redirecting to them would mean that we would be creating double redirects which I donโ€™t believe would be helpful.-- (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, shortcuts that no longer make sense as the task forces they once pointed to have long been folded into the larger WikiProject. These are ambiguous and more likely to be confusing than helpful at this point. ~ mazca talk 12:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all as there doesn't seem to be a suitable target. I'm opposing retarget proposals from Shooterwalker and ImaginesTigers because I have no clue where they want to target them. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    Exactly what the nominator suggested; retargeting them to WP:VG. โ€” ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    This is not what the nominator suggested. The way a redirect is listed here is in the form of redirect title -> current target title. The nominator didn't make a specific proposal but the fact that they already point at WP:VG suggests the nominator wanted them deleted. ~ mazca talk 23:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    Exactly, since itโ€™s been established that the nominator knows WP:VG is the target they wouldnโ€™t have created the RFD in the first if thatโ€™s what they wanted.-- (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep all per ImaginesTigers; this is what I presume he and Shooterwalker meant with their comments since the shortcuts already target the main project and not the defunct task forces. Given that there is no proposed alternate use for the shortcuts, keeping them as-is is a reasonable approach. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 20:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

One horse pony[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy deleted by user:Maile66 under criterion WP:CSD#G10.

Bolger station[edit]

No mention of Bolger or any station at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • A better target would be Whitestone, Ontario, where Bolger is listed as one of the communities. No prejudice against deletion either. -- P 1 9 9  โœ‰ 02:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't delete but I'm not sure what to do with it. Per P199 and this, Bolger is the name of a defunct CNR station located near Whitestone on the CN Bala Subdivision. It's also the name of a VIA Rail station on the Montrealโ€“Senneterre train, but I can't tell if the stop is in service or not. There's enough available information that the station in Ontario could be included in a list somewhere (probably the Bala subdivision article) and I didn't look as thoroughly for the one in Quebec, but our coverage of Canadian heritage railways is pretty incomplete. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment it is mentioned at Montrealโ€“Senneterre train, so if nothing else, it should redirect there, as it isn't anywhere else. -- (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Bedell station[edit]

No mention of Bedell, or any other rail station, at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Bedell was primarily a railway operations point and a full article is likely not merited for the station itself. It was heavily connected to Kemptville which was just to the north of it, and Bedell and Kemptville stations are often referred to together. E.g.: this short documentary and this description of the railway operations at Bedell. Unfortunately the article on Kemptville doesn't seem to cover any of the community's 150-year railway history aside from a single brief mention in the history timeline, and this is the main context Bedell would be mentioned in. I would like to improve this but don't have enough references yet to be comfortable making substantial additions to the article, and am also working to flesh out coverage of railway history in the area in general. Having a redirect pointing to the Kemptville article felt most appropriate as any content relating to Bedell station would be added there. In the future this would likely be a redirect to a section. Julius177 (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


Not mentioned at the target, no relevant results in an internet search, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete I have been completely unable to figure out what this redirect is supposed to refer to. It's not mentioned at the article, it wasn't mentioned in 2008 when the redirect was created and google only turns up results relating to surnames. There does seem to be a Facebook fan page related to the club with the same name, but it has less than 30 likes and is in no way notable. (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Likewise, I could find no relevant mentions to the redirect. Furthermore, it is the only edit by the initial creator the redirect - it could possibly be years old vandalism that was never detected, simply because it was so layered in obscurity? Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Their former coach Mark Williams was nicknamed Chocko so I'm guessing that this is a variation on that. No relevance now, if there was ever any at anytime. Could also be a thing about them choking in big games, but I don't think it's worth spending too long analysing it. The-Pope (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete seems to be some form of obscure vandalism or self-promotion. โ€“ Teratix โ‚ต 12:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Chayote. Choko is an alternate name for this gourd (which is mentioned at the article), the plural of which is chokoes ([44], [45]), so it seems like a plausible search term. A7V2 (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Central, California (disambiguation)[edit]

Only one of the entries on the dab page seems to be known as "Central, California", so I'm not sure that this (disambiguation) redirect is useful. Hog Farm Talk 15:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm actually not particularly concerned about it either way, but I think it's harmless to have. BD2412 T 16:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Central, California" is not ambiguous and the target page does not disambiguate articles that might otherwise be called "Central, California". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as no other Central, Californias to disambiguate. There is a Central City neighborhood in Santa Ana, California but that is not mentioned in the Santa Ana article. AngusW๐Ÿถ๐ŸถF (bark โ€ข sniff) 18:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Cricket In China[edit]

Split or bespoke decisions Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: redirect to Chinese Cricket Association.

Metropolitan Tabernacle Police[edit]

No mention of police at the targets, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to List of defunct law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom#Other police forces (or the more specific subsections) where they are mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Looks defamatory. This has no place in an encyclopedia. Delete. Cpsoper (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Cpsoper: Please can you explain why you think this is defamatory - it is the exact name of a former police force responsible for the Metropolitan Tabernacle (a church in London). Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Metropolitan Tabernacle Police, as I'm honestly struggling to find evidence it exists or ever has, unless it goes by a different name. Searching for it in quotation marks shows up basically nothing in a web or books search, other than incidental crossovers between "Metropolitan Tabernacle", "Metropolitan Police", and the separate words "Tabernacle" or "Police". It's certainly mentioned in the section Thryduulf suggests retargeting to, but with no further context, and at this point I think I'd be happier removing both the redirect and the list entry unless someone else can find something. ~ mazca talk 14:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget per Thryduulf. A recent Rfd did the same for Larne Harbour Police, though that entry both had years of activity and a reference, compared to just years of activity for one of these forces (and nothing but a name for the other). We can at least tell readers "this agency is defunct, and we don't have an article", which is something. --BDD (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't like redirecting to a bare list entry without a reference, which is why I was fine with the Lorne Harbour Police outcome, but I am hesitant about doing the same for these. My search for "Metropolitan Tabernacle Police" came up empty, so I agree with Mazca that the best way forward (unless a reference can be found) would be to remove that entry from the list and delete the redirect. My search for "Eton College Police" also was lacking, but I did find this which would be evidence of existence, but not much else. I'm weaker on deletion and removal for that one, but I'm still uncomfortable having the entry without a reliable source. -- Tavix (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: this is a WP:INVOLVED relisting to clear the 6 January log page, it can be closed whenever someone uninvolved determines there is consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Amelia Gentleman, Baroness Johnson of Marylebone[edit]

The article was created in error. Amelia Gentleman is not a baroness by virtue of her husband's peerage; she is afforded the courtesy title of 'Lady Johnson'. Zadradr (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Weak keep and tag with {{R from incorrect name}}. It's a plausible error that has been independently made a couple of other times as well at least. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Amelia Gentleman is Baroness Johnson of Marylebone by virtue of being married to Baron Johnson of Marylebone. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • That is not correct; see Forms of address in the United Kingdom under 'Baroness (in her husband's right)', which specifies that Gentleman would be The Lady Johnson of Marylebone. Zadradr (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
    • It is correct. "The Lady Johnson of Marylebone" is a form of address for Baroness Johnson of Marylebone. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


This is not mentioned at the target article, and the ฮœ used is the Greek ฮœ, not the Latin M. This possibly is referring to one millioth of a bitcoin, but it's not mentioned there. (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Previous RfDs for this redirect:
  • Comment the Greek ฮœ is an artefact of the first letter of Wikipedia page titles always being capitalised, it is correctly rendered as "ฮผBTC" which does indeed refer to a micro-bitcoin (one millionth of a bitcoin).[46] Accordingly the mixed script is not a reason for deletion in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Refine target to Bitcoin#Units and divisibility. The capitalisation problem has since been fixed with a lowercase title template. (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal[edit]

Journal is not mentioned at target, and likely never will be. This is not the same journal as Soundings (journal) and not the same as Soundings A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies either. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment The journal seems to have a long publishing history - 1968-2020 as stated on JSTOR. It can be mentioned in the target article if we list all the journals by Penn State University Press. The question is - should we? Less Unless (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think it was necessary to add the full list but there you goโ€”it's mentioned now. And the JSTOR listing doesn't just go back to 1968โ€”it extends to 1917 under former names. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, until a full article is created for that journal. Headbomb {t ยท c ยท p ยท b} 17:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Rip Ya a New One[edit]

I'm guessing this was the name of a level, but it's not mentioned in the target article. Dominicmgm (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Apparently itโ€™s a weapon is the series known as the RYNO (Abbreviation of the term in question) but since the term RYNO is only mentioned once without the full name being used. thereโ€™s no need for this. -- (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Ratchet and Clank planet list[edit]

No planet list exists in the target article. WP:GAMECRUFT #7 (levels). Dominicmgm (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


While the series is on a Japanese console, the game series itself was developed by American developers. Dominicmgm (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree and donโ€™t see a the fact that a game can be played on a console made in Japan is a strong enough association with the country per WP:RFOREIGN.-- (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and maybe Refine target to Ratchet & Clank#Manga. There was a Japanese language manga published about the video game series, so I think it is appropriate to have a Japanese language redirect. (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep and refine per IP. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

List of weapons and gadgets from the Ratchet & Clank series[edit]

No such list exists in the target article. WP:GAMECRUFT #7 (lists of weapons and items). Dominicmgm (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Extraordinarity bias[edit]

Not mentioned at target or any other Wikipedia article. (t · c) buidhe 01:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - The two things I could find across the web regarding this are copies of our page when it was an article. Otherwise, I cannot find a mention of it anywhere. My search methods were not extensive enough, this is obscure, or this is a hoax. โ€” Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing about "Extraordinarity bias". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per Godsy's findings. AngusW๐Ÿถ๐ŸถF (bark โ€ข sniff) 18:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete This was created by a user called Utrechton, who's only other contributions have been to add references to a seemingly self published book about how humans perceive value, which was written by Bil Ton from the Netherlands. This seems to be an article on a bias that the author made up and that has seen no other usage. (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete Many people probably don't know about this "Extraordinary Bias" thing, so I would just say delete per nom and the previous sentence I said. --StaleGuy22 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Closing logos of Columbia Pictures Television[edit]

Yet again, not mentioned in the target article. Dominicmgm (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

January 19[edit]

Closing logos of Screen Gems[edit]

Again, not mentioned in the target article. Dominicmgm (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Closing logos of Hanna-Barbera[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Dominicmgm (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


Delete. Implausible search term, and ambiguous (it's the number of inches in a mile, but it's also, for instance, the postal code for an area in Puy-de-Dรดme, France). YorkshireLad  โœฟ  (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Coach biography[edit]

Ambiguous, as all sports have coaches, nothing special about tennis coaches Joseph2302 (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trum[edit]

While not an implausible typo, it clutters the search box. Other than a huge spike of views on the day it was created, it doesn't see much continuous use and thus can probably be safely deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 17:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete as per above. --Bangalamania (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The search function will find the missing "p" at the end for searchers and this redirect just serves no purpose, and imo therefore shouldn't exist. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - Typos are one thing, but putting it in a specific topic (conspiracy theories) is nonsense. Yoshiman6464 โ™ซ๐Ÿฅš 18:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mdewman6 AngusW๐Ÿถ๐ŸถF (bark โ€ข sniff) 03:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


Not a plausible misspelling. Onel5969 TT me 15:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Similar RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 21#Mouf. This was likely created to make fun of certain groups of English speakers in England because their pronunciation of th sounds like f to other English speakers, but none of those speakers would ever spell this with an f. So, I say delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as, frankly, classist accent mockery. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. I fully agree with both of the above comments. --Bangalamania (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlikely search term, and not mentioned at target article. The only site on the internet that seems to recognise this as a word is urban dictionary, I can't find any other reference to this spelling. For the same reasons the creator's other redirects Monph and Norph should also be deleted (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. One of a series of dubious-to-useless redirects created by this user, including COME, Yoming, Atsf, norph, monph, sowth, ST&P, UWUU, ฤŒhรบล‹kaลกke, and others already deleted. โ€”JasonAQuest (talk โ€ข contribs) 01:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Off topic
    • @JasonAQuest: Less than a minute's research shows ST&P and ฤŒhรบล‹kaลกke are very clearly appropriate redirects and that COME and Atsf plausibly might be. Monph, Norph and Sowth very likely aren't but need a more detailed look to be certain (e.g. I would not be surprised if there is some other use for the latter). The single minute I've spent looking at UWU and Yoming gives me no gut feeling in any direction. Based on this it is clearly inappropriate to base opinions about these redirects solely on who created them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Additional research suggests that those quick assessments are incorrect. "ST&P" is not a common term for the country to which it redirects, it appears nowhere in the article, the country appears nowhere in the first several pages of Google results for it, and it is not linked anywhere in Wikipedia. ("If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful.") "ฤŒhรบล‹kaลกke" is not found anywhere else (even without diacriticals) in the English Wikipedia, and it's incredibly unlikely to be typed into the search field on the English Wikipedia. I don't see how capslock-malfunction redirects such as "COME" or "atsf" are "plausibly" appropriate; that seems like a bad precedent to set. Redirects should address a need; "monf" and these others do not. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
        • "ฤŒhรบล‹kaลกke" is not found anywhere else (even without diacriticals) in the English Wikipedia from the very first sentence of the target: "Pierre (/pษชษ™r/;[6] Lakota: ฤhรบล‹kaลกke, lit. 'fort'". I don't know what search you were doing but it clearly wasn't working. I don't understand how you can say "ST&P" is an implausible search term for "Sao Tome & Principe" with a straight face? It appears on page 2 of my google search (page 1 is almost entirely related to a non-notable law firm). {{R from other capitalisation}} redirects are standard and harmless - many people search using the wrong case and redirects take them to the content they are looking for (the point of redirects). Thryduulf (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yeah I donโ€™t think that this redirect is worthy to keep anymore. It isnโ€™t that good and I already had 3 redirects deleted. โ€”Bbaaeeeeโ€Ž (talk โ€ข contribs) 03:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Tempate:2012 in artistic gymnastics[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: 'speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 "page unambiguously created in error".

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.[edit]

Extraordinarily long redirect. While I can understand the valid purpose of the redirect, it shouldn't be this long. Interstellarity (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is not useful. Shorter redirects encompassing likely search terms from the typical script of the warning could be made if they don't exist already, such as "Right to remain silent". Mdewman6 (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Right to remain silent redirects to Right to silence, an article about the concept which is much broader than the set phrase used by one country's law enforcement. Thryduulf (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
      I see your point, and thank you for starting the discussion above on the other redirects. But in this case, I still don't see this as useful and could possibly be harmful, as the Miranda script varies subtly between jurisdictions and could make it harder for those seeking the other topics that seem to require disambiguation in the discussion above. Even though this is a redirect page, let's remember this is the title of a page and is far too long to not be cumbersome. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep as correct, harmless and potentially useful (e.g. if someone copies and pastes it or follows a link to it). Simply being long is not a reason to delete a redirect, nor is being longer than other redirects to the same target. Thryduulf (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. I strongly doubt anyone will ever create a link to this redirect when they can simply link directly to Miranda warning. A lot less keystrokes, easier to remember, and easier to copy and paste. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wiki search doesn't even support the necessary width to fully render this title as a search suggest title match. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete We don't need every length combination of massive text on the off chance someone (bored?) might enter it and be otherwise lost. Are song lyrics next?โ€”Bagumba (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. No harm is caused by having this redirect around and it's useful. Being from outside the US I have heard of the sequence of words before but I didn't know it was called the Miranda warning โ€“ so it's a plausible synonym to search up. Most importantly, this redirect gets many, many views. I don't think it's in the best interest of the encyclopedia to inconvienience all those readers. โ€”J947 โ€ก message โ“ edits 01:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep in a similar vein to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9#Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioยญleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenoยญkichlepikossyphophattopeยญristeralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleioยญlagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon. As long as something is a valid correct synonym or reasonable alternative, which I'll take Thryduulf's word on, length is generally irrelevant to a point. The pageview numbers also speak volumes per J947. I suppose iconicity as opposed to being mundane also plays a role; I would admittedly feel differently about song lyrics (listen to pandora much?). To counter two of the arguments above -- we must remember that everyone searches in different ways (i.e. not just through the provided search box) and that linking is not the only purpose of redirection. โ€” Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


I would have assumed that the primary topic for this term would be Samson Agonistes, and it seems that we have a few other partial title matches that seem to be inspired by Milton's work. I think that deletion to allow for uninhibited search results may be the best option here. signed, Rosguill talk 17:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Neutral as creator of redirect. I created this redirect as similar to redirects for other Tortured Souls characters, but if there are other topics, then deletion is fine with me. Natg 19 (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Rosguill's reasoning makes sense.โ˜…Trekker (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The only other article with "Agonistes" in the title is Sweeney Agonistes, and both it and Samson are WP:PTMs; therefore, no DAB page is possible. Narky Blert (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment it could be a {{R from typo}} to agonist; where it is mentioned as the root word for the term -- (talk) 02:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Samson Agonistes, as Sweeny Agonistes and most other uses are allusions to Milton's titleโ€”including Nixon Agonistes, which nobody has mentioned yet. P Aculeius (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, as this isn't really suitable for disambiguation as it's a load of partial matches, but the search results are actually pretty good. ~ mazca talk 22:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Samson Agonistes. I agree this is the primary topic, and usage suggests to me that it would not be a WP:PTM. For example, the work is referred to as simply Agonistes a couple times at Samson Agonistes#Blindness. -- Tavix (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Norway women's national under-20 football team[edit]

Per WP:REDLINK and previous discussions, delete to encourage article creation Seany91 (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: Delete to encourage article creation. We have done these deletes for many U-17, U-19 and U-20 teams recently. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 12:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete to encourage article creation. GiantSnowman 12:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete redirect. Hmlarson (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


Term not mentioned at target article. A Google search indicates that this seems to be a part of a popular internet meme, but it still needs to be mentioned somewhere as to avoid any confusion that may arise from this. CycloneYoris talk! 20:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair I can add a section. Des Vallee (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Done. Des Vallee (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget? As far as I am aware "Reeee" is a term commonly attributed to autistic people as part of a slur, caricature and/or stereotype of their behaviour. There does seem to be some connection to the toxic culture that has accumulated around Pepe the Frog but I'm not sure that this where it originated and whether this is the best target. Maybe there is a case for covering it in an existing article about slurs or discrimination and redirecting there? โ€” Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielRigal (talk โ€ข contribs) 17:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
My experience here is that it would be hard to call this a slur per se -- I see far more mildly self-deprecating use by autistic people than use as an insult by allistic people. It's much more of a subcultural expression of frustration than it is an insult, and putting it as a redirect to articles regarding slurs or ableism would, I suspect, not be particularly useful. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Neutral As the creator of the re-direct it really doesn't matter. My rationale is I remembered a frog and forgot what it's name was I typed in "reee" because that's all I could remember I later found it was Pepe. If it is an offensive slur I did not know that should be deleted. Des Vallee (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep or retarget to Ree. The Pepe the Frog article mentions A common saying in comics of Pepe is enraged reee, often used for comedic effect of Pepe becoming or being enraged. I have added Pepe the Frog as an entry on the Ree disambiguation page. feminist (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep now that it's mentioned. I don't see anything else at Ree that can be spelled with more than two E's, so I don't think retargeting there is feasible. -- Tavix (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus for deletion here but opinions are so far about evenly split between keeping adn retargetting to the dab page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Ree This is far more likely to be a typo of Ree than a reference to Pepe. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep: Per the creator, it certainly sees use! This is related to the meme, and nothing at Ree is a plausible typo. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


Either retarget to pejorative, where derogative targets, or delete as too many errors. 7 views in the whole of 2020 suggest this isn't a common error. Hog Farm Talk 05:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Pejorative. The low hit count made me pause, but an all-time analysis shows 2020 to be on the low end of its hit range; this is definitely an uncommon search, but not a worthless one. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Pejorative per Vaticidalprophet BlackholeWA (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Misspelling is way too uncommon for it to be worth keeping. CycloneYoris talk! 10:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


We have no content about this slur anywhere on enwiki, doesn't seem useful. Hog Farm Talk 05:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Soundings A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies[edit]

Presumably these are publications of the council, but there is no mention of either in the article at this time. I didn't see them in article history, either, but may have missed them. Cnilep (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Dick Dawkins[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete


Cross-space redirect to project space. There is a lot of vague evidence that maybe this once was necessary to Transwiki pages properly, but there is also a talk page comment that says this was obsolete in 2010. The target page is listed as inactive. The Meta page on Transwiki describes it as an outdated practice. Documentation on this redirect is nearly non-existent, but as far as I can tell, this redirect outlived its usefulness a very long time ago. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  • This was RfDs way back in 2006 with a speedy keep, discussion is here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, I'm gonna ping everyone who edited this or its talk page - @Zoz:@OlEnglish:@Splash:@Wbm1058:@Tom.Reding:@KH-1:@Glades12: Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I checked a few other language editions and see that they have deleted this redirect so perhaps it is no longer needed. Angela (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Pinging Graham87 and Xoasflux, our local importers, who may have some insight into some of Oiyarbepsy's questions and otherwise. โ€” Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Barring Graham87 presenting a reason for this, no current processes depend on this title existing so it would be safe to remove/reuse. โ€” xaosflux Talk 14:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete โ€“ not useful anymore. I actually used a transwiki log on Wikibooks back in the day ... even their manual log of items transwikied there stops in November 2008. Graham87 14:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC) 

January 18[edit]

Anarchism in Somalia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 25#Anarchism in Somalia


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 25#รƒushkรซ


Not mentioned at target. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 13:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that's a problem, but surely the right action to take is to define "bimeasurable" on Measureable function, not to delete the redirects. It should take one sentence. โ€”Kodiologist (t) 13:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@Kodiologist: Go on, then... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep the redirect. Conceptually, 'bimeasurable function' has more similarity to 'measurable function' than to any other existing WP article. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't tell the searcher anything about the term though? By the way, the term is explained at Schrรถderโ€“Bernstein theorem for measurable spaces#Comments. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿค๐Ÿฏ๐Ÿบ๐ช๐‘ค๐’†๐“‡๐Ÿท๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฅ๐Ÿœ๐“บ๐”ด๐•–๐–—๐Ÿฐ (๐—๐—ฎ๐˜ญ๐™ ) 09:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. These redirects both seem misleading, and shouldn't be kept unless someone adds a definition of both of these terms at target article. CycloneYoris talk! 21:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete without a mention at the target, these redirects are not at all helpful. I considered soft redirecting "bimeasurable" to Wiktionary, but there is no entry there so that's not helpful either. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It's Only TV[edit]

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

Buenaventura language[edit]

Neither the article nor the first cited reference indicate this language is known as "Buenaventura". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Same for San Buenaventura language. Both are (were?) used on MultiTree, local ISO code [qmc]. That's not worth mentioning in the article, but I created a rd for it for x-ref with MultiTree. Whether it's worth keeping an rd for that I don't know. โ€” kwami (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I added San Buenaventura language to this nomination. Thanks. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The point of the redirects is that all language names in various references, including Ethnologue, ISO, Glottolog, Voegelin & Voegelin and LinguistList/MultiTree should take the reader to the appropriate article in WP. The name might not appear in the article if it isn't notable enough, or if the article is just a stub and per WEIGHT you wouldn't want 20 alt names of the language, but at least it will get people where they need to be. โ€” kwami (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Kwamikagami: But it's confusing to land on a page without knowing why you're there (is that an alternative name? Or is it a mistake? Who says it's an alternative name?...). If these are legitimate alternative names there's no harm in listing them, in the infobox, for example. I'd go as far as saying it's important to list them if there's a redirect (if there's a WP:WEIGHT issue then why is there a redirect?). That is the case in other classes of articles, such as for species. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem I have is that we'd end up with articles that would be stubs apart from a long list of alt names. And we'd need a long list of sources for those alt names. Not RS's for the language, its grammar, ethnography or literature, but just alt or often mistaken names or spellings in old sources. But that's not what people would come to the article for.

I often get redirected to a biography from an alt spelling with no explanation in the article as to why. I've never found that confusing, and it would be weird to have a section on attested misspellings of the name. Would any reader care that Chosun Ilbo misspelled a tennis-player's name back in 1990? Would we want to clutter up the ref section with stuff like that? โ€” kwami (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
But these aren't hypotheticals or misspellings. If Ventureรฑo language is/was known as Buenaventura language then let's say so. Otherwise, delete the redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Lady Gaga's third studio album[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 25#Lady Gaga's third studio album

Redirects to SIE Worldwide Studios[edit]

Not mentioned at the target article. IceWelder [] 01:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Revert Sky Blue (PlayStation 3) to the article without prejudice to AfD per WP:BLAR. It didn't have much content but with the infobox and especially after a 1 minute update with things like the release date) there is enough that it does not meet any speedy deletion criteria. No opinion about the other redirects at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete all due to the lack of mention, and I especially oppose restoration of Sky Blue (PlayStation 3), it would be inappropriate to restore an article of so little content and that out of date. -- Tavix (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete.

Shabee Ahmad[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete.

Ben McMillan[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete to encourage article creation.

Bang Bang Romeo[edit]

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: nomination withdrawn - redirect converted to an article.

Maroon 5's sixth studio album[edit]

Honestly, whoever wants to know this band's sixth studio album would go straight to either Maroon 5 or Maroon 5 discography. Who would search this? I'd consider deleting this nonsense redirect. Hฤ (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

For the same rationale, I would like to propose the following redirects for deletion:
  • Delete. @Hฤ: You can clearly see that Red Pill Blues was originally created at Maroon 5's sixth studio album by another editor before I moved it. I did not create this redirect (it was left behind as a result of a page move), so it's not as if this redirect was made by somebody as a potential search term for someone wanting to find Maroon 5's sixth album. When an album does not have a title yet, editors often create them at titles such as this. I believe I moved this article before I had the ability to not leave a redirect behind when I move pages. Ss112 06:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep in addition to being a {{R from move}} it's correct, unambiguous, harmless and a plausible search term. @Se112: you should not be supressing redirects like this when moving pages. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • But who would search for "[an artist]'s [nth album]" when you can go directly to their discography page. Oftentimes this kind of titles are created as a response to a newly announced project, so it is of temporal effect that ceased to exist after it was released. If this kind of redirects is allowed, I am pretty sure we can have "Queen's 1st--2nd--3rd albums" or "Beatles' 1st-2nd-3rd albums" and so on, and it is unnecessary to have such redirects. Hฤ (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Thryduulf: Your ping didn't work, because I have pings turned off, and because my user name is Ss112, not "Se112". I would think an admin would make sure of these kinds of things. I haven't suppressed any such redirects, and I didn't even say I would. I implied that I would because I agree that I don't think it's a particularly likely search term. There's absolutely no need to be sternly telling me I shouldn't be doing things I haven't even done. We have no such statistics on how many readers would know to type in or even be typing in "Maroon 5's sixth studio album" to find the topic Never mind, remembered Pageviews Analysis is a thing, and the only time either of the pages got views was when the articles were located at these names. Since then there's been no visits aside from I assume Hฤ's visits to nominate the pages for deletion. It's far more likely readers already know the title of the album, or would navigate to Maroon 5 or Maroon 5 discography, or heck, use Google to find out the title if they don't. I have rarely come across people in the general public, i.e. not Wikipedia users or people with a vested interest in music, who know how many albums a musical act has released, or would be counting that this is/was Maroon 5's sixth, so there's that against it as well. Ss112 12:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete not a plausible search term. The original article should never have been created per WP:HAMMER and WP:TOOSOON. Two wrongs don't make a redirect. Walter Gรถrlitz (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Thryduulf. I could understand (and support) deletion if there weren't individual articles for all of these albums, but someone searching for these (which even though it's not many, so apparently do) will be taken to what they are looking for. There's no reason to delete. A7V2 (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @A7V2: No reason to have created these redirects in the first place, either. They are the results of TOOSOON, and keeping them would just make it cumbersome to navigate through the artists' discography, especially when there are already lists of discography of these artists. Inconsistent format (capitalization, possession etc.) also doesn't help. Hฤ (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't follow... how does keeping them make it cumbersome to navigate through their discography? These redirects do nothing to stop a user looking at those list articles. I agree these redirects will no see an enormous amount of use, but what benefit comes from denying someone searching these terms the article they were unambiguously looking for? None of the reasons in WP:RFD#DELETE apply so I can't see why you would want to delete. A7V2 (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Potentially meet criterion 8--obscure synonyms for article names. Hฤ (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If someone did not know the name of an album, how likely are they to know the album chronology or the year of release? Implausible. โ€“ DarkGlow (โœ‰) 15:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Maroon 5's Third Studio album[edit]

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

ยฝ VW engine[edit]

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


Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Green Nigger[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Zog lover[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Human Genetic Branching[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 25#Human Genetic Branching


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

January 16[edit]

Realme X2[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Realme X50[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Alta Vista, California[edit]

No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

Most liked video[edit]

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

Thunderbird locomotive[edit]

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


No consensus Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: no consensus

ML11 0FS[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Marianne Schifferer[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 23#Marianne Schifferer


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


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24#Digg,Skye

Anomalous cognition[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

William Cather[edit]

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


I have almost never heard this shortcut used except to refer to Talk page access. This should no doubt be re-targeted. –MJLโ€Talkโ€โ˜– 19:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

For the record, a hatnote would definitely be warranted for its historical use. –MJLโ€Talkโ€โ˜– 19:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, looks at "what links here" for WP:TPA and WP:BP#TPA shows "talk page access" gets linked much more often. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 19:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguate I have seen quite a lot of links to WP:TPA, so I would weakly oppose a straightforward retarget, but TPA is very commonly used to refer to talk page access, so either hatnotify it, or dabify it. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 19:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget and add a hatnote per nom and JackFromReedsburg. Thryduulf (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 14:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per JJP, with talk page access given as the primary target. While talk page access is the most popular use, the current one can't really be subsumed by a better WP: so far as I can tell, at least not one that isn't unwieldy in its own right. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget and add hatnote per nom et al. signed, Rosguill talk 22:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. WP:TWODABS applies in spirit, at least. --BDD (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

NXT India[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete

Mordecai Blue jay[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 23#Mordecai Blue jay

Double Dog Dare[edit]

Disambiguate Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: disambiguate


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